Path: ...!news.mixmin.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Steel Man of Einstein & Relativity.
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 22:05:39 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 314
Message-ID: <vbq8nm$34slo$1@dont-email.me>
References: <23387e561af5e3d769b94ab9ddc5f74b@www.novabbs.com>
 <7dfa7214e108991221d9b7115961ca87@www.novabbs.com>
 <00a9cb00ad7df66a0aaeefeac11278a7@www.novabbs.com>
 <-hc8RY2DvPYBVYYkPGqCAQ_LJH8@jntp> <vbnhuq$2h766$1@dont-email.me>
 <9ba099f1aecf32f46444cc68d1aaf541@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2024 22:04:06 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="b3af1afd66770654b48f6b4076df23e7";
	logging-data="3306168"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/dAkh+LqaCo5H8YeN6xZ7x"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Mdyujgpx2wkvxLCpyZaTJAmnePo=
In-Reply-To: <9ba099f1aecf32f46444cc68d1aaf541@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 12399

Den 10.09.2024 03:19, skrev rhertz:
> Paul Andersen posted, without a bit of shame, the following:
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>> GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of em-radiation
>> by the Sun, observed from the Earth, is:
>> 
>> 
>>     θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
>> 
>> 
>> Where:
>>   AU= an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
>>   φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
>>   c = speed of light in vacuum
>>   G = Gravitational constant
>>   M = solar mass
>> 
>> 
>> This equation predicts that when φ is 90⁰, θ = 0.0041".
>> The beam that hits the Earth will then be 1 AU from
>> the Sun at it's closest approach to the Sun.
>> (Like the Earth) Not much gas there, do you think?
>> 
>> 
>> These predictions of GR are thoroughly experimentally confirmed:
>> (even for angles Earth-Sun > 90⁰)
>> 
>> 
>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
>> 
>> 
>> You must understand that GR's predictions for gravitational
>> deflection of em-radiation are so thoroughly confirmed that
>> there is no room for doubt.
> ---------------------------------------------------

> ******************************************
> Title: The deflection of light by the gravitational field of the Sun
> (George Darwin Lecture)
> Authors: Mikhailov, A. A.
> Journal: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 119,
> p.593
> 
> 
> Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Mikhailov (April 26, 1888, Morshansk -
> September 29, 1983) was a Russian astronomer who was a member of the
> Soviet Academy of Science, and supported GR. He, personally,
> participated in more than 9 expeditions trying to remake Eddington's
> one. The article is FULL OF
> MATHEMATICS and statistics, trying to find averages in the results of
> expeditions from 1919 to 1952.
> 
> In the very first page, it's shown the real expression of your formula,
> which seems to be written by an ignorant lunatic, totally detached from
> the opinions of REAL ASTRONOMERS, not EE like you!

The 'formula' on the very first page is the Newtonian prediction:

    α = 2fM/c²r

Mikhailov writes:
"If Einstein's deduction is right this angle should be doubled."

So Mikhailov's  GR prediction is:

   α = 4fM/c²r

where:
   f is the gravitational constant,
   M is the mass,
   r is the impact parameter


Look at this paper:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf

On page 2 under "Predicted total deflection"
you will find the exact same equation as equation (3).

  θₜ = (1+γ)⋅2GM/bc²

where:
  γ = PPN parameter, γ = 1 means prediction is according to GR,
      γ = 0 means prediction is according to Newton
  b = the impact parameter, closest approach to Sun
  c = speed of light in vacuum
  G = gravitational constant
  M = solar mass

On page 3 under "Predicted deflection observed from the Earth"
You find "my" equation above as equation (5).

  θ = (1+γ)⋅GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ

  γ = PPN parameter, γ = 1 means prediction is according to GR,
      γ = 0 means prediction is according to Newton
  AU= an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
  φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
  c = speed of light in vacuum
  G = Gravitational constant
  M = solar mass


> ----------------------------------------------------
> 
> Your formula, that you wrote with sheer cockiness claiming that it's
> what GR predicts (false), contain an incredible amount of nonsense. Read
> the  Mikhailov´s paper, if you want to write meaningful statements

One can possibly not expect that ignoramuses like Rickard Hertz
will know the difference between "total deflection" and
"deflection observed from the Earth".

But Mikhailov's is excused:
In 1959 when Mikhailov´s paper was written, the only measurements
of the deflection ever done was by observing the stars close to
the sun at solar eclipses, a notoriously imprecise method.

For a sunbeam gracing the sun the predicted deflections are:
total deflection:                  1.752161"
deflection observed by from Earth: 1.752151"

The difference is so small that either equation would do
for these very imprecise measurements.

But all these observations of the deflections are from 2004 and later.

https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf

And all of them are made from the Earth with
angles up to more than 90⁰ between the Sun and the star.

When the angle is 90⁰, the impact parameter is 1 AU
and the "total" deflection is 0.00815" while the deflection
observed from the Earth is 0.00407", only half the total deflection.

So in this case the formula written by REAL ASTRONOMERS wouldn't
work, while the one written by an ignorant lunatic works perfectly.

(Of course both are written by astronomers.)

---------------

I should have snipped the rest, but what you write is so ridiculous
that I can't resist the temptation to ridicule you.
Sorry, I have a sick sense of humour!

> 
> Your pretentious formula couldn't be more wrong for the following:
> 
> 1) You are dismissing completely the effect of swapping the Sun's
> reference frame with that of the Earth.

????!!! :-D

What would the equation
   θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
be without this swapping?

> 
> 2) You are dismissing completely the FACT that Earth is a sphere, and
> that the observation of an eclipse at any given location depend on the
> position of the observer (latitude, longitude). Also, you FORGOT that
> the position of the Sun relative to Earth's coordinates DEPEND on the
> time of the year, as well the exact hour of the phenomenon.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========