Path: ...!news.roellig-ltd.de!news.mb-net.net!open-news-network.org!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: The Shapiro's experiment HOAX. A 1968 TIME article.
Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:31:26 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 353
Message-ID: <vetk9v$3a66q$1@dont-email.me>
References: <db18709b6ba689b9c07245000ff1b094@www.novabbs.com>
 <EgMPO.1766243$4J12.285784@fx12.ams4>
 <670ffed7$1$32085$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
 <2fcf10d29b40e102861392bbb5f1cb0c@www.novabbs.com>
 <fa839e787a3c885ed2bb98c380919bbb@www.novabbs.com>
 <41430c0c0b42eba6ebdbfe7bc21f5784@www.novabbs.com>
 <veql6l$2msc0$1@dont-email.me>
 <99b5f48788d8be645d8449bed3e0df05@www.novabbs.com>
 <verss4$2t3lp$1@dont-email.me>
 <089e7bba46c44dc12951685ee37bbb24@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 18 Oct 2024 14:28:47 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="c9906dc07fca5d611a684dc56bd27ff2";
	logging-data="3479770"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Ug/VCJWJsxyzeQV+ZMqXK"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:zHQRwx/cDnjnGdVfqerf93uVrLY=
In-Reply-To: <089e7bba46c44dc12951685ee37bbb24@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 14589

Den 17.10.2024 23:29, skrev rhertz:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:45:23 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> 
>> Den 17.10.2024 17:43, skrev rhertz:
>>>
>>> MY POST WITH THE ALTERNATE NEWTONIAN VERSION WAS TO PROVE THAT
>>> RELATIVITY IS AN ABSOLUTE PILE OF CRAP!
>>>

The following is still valid:

>>
>> Quite.
>> You thought this was a Newtonian derivation of the prediction
>> for the Shapiro delay:
>> https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
>>
>> You wrote:
>> "No space curved is necessary. Newton cover all the basis and
>>   RELATIVITY AND SPACETIME CURVATURES have no place here."
>>
>> You believed that Newton could predict what you called
>> "1971 Shapiro's formula".  See attachment.
>>
>> You wrote:
>> "Observe the details of the measurements with Venus in 1970."
>> See fig.2 in the attachment.
>>
>> You believed that the Newtonian prediction was an exact
>> fit to Shapiro's measurements. So GR is crap and isn't needed.
>>
>> Which means that you now have accepted that Shapiro's
>> measurements of the delay were correct, and no HOAX.
>>
>> What you were not aware of is that the equation in
>> the attachment is the GR prediction, and _not_ the Newtonian
>> prediction. So the figure in the attachment shows a perfect
>> fit between the GR prediction and Shapiro's measurements.
>>
>> The point is that Stephan Gift's paper
>> https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
>> is nonsense.
>>
>> Gift has "stolen" the equation and figure from Pössel
>> and has done some mathemagic to make it seem that
>> the equation is the Newtonian prediction, which it is not.
>>
>> This is the paper with the correct Newtonian prediction:
>> https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.00229
>> M Pössel: "The Shapiro time delay and the equivalence principle"
>>
>> Note that the equation you call "1971 Shapiro's formula"
>> is equation (27) in this paper.
>> Quote:
>>   "Formulas (17) and (19) for one-way travel, corrected by
>>   the multiplication of the delay term with an overall factor
>>   2 to go from the Newtonian to the general-relativistic result,
>>    Δt = (2GM/c³)⋅ln((r_E+x_E)/(rₚ-xₚ))            (27).
>>
>> So equation (27) is the GR prediction.
>>
>> Your figure (2) is FIG.6 in this paper.
>> It is Pössel who has drawn this figure with the GR prediction
>> equation (27) and measurements from: Irwin I. Shapiro et al.,
>> "Fourth Test of General Relativity: New Radar Result,"
>>
>> To go from the Newtonian prediction to the GR prediction
>> by multiplication by two is Pössel's idea:
>>
>> Quote:
>> "Begin by presenting the simplified derivation developed in this
>>   section. This will yield a result that has the correct functional
>>   dependence on the geometry, but is off by an overall factor 2.
>>   Give the students the additional information that a more thorough
>>   derivation, which includes the curvature of space, will yield a
>>   result that has an additional factor 2. After that statement, you
>>   can use the corrected formula, with the extra factor of 2, to
>>   consider applications  such as the ones presented in section V,
>>   where the Shapiro time delay formula is used to compare predictions
>>   with data."
>>
>> So sorry, Richard, you have yet again made a fool of yourself.
>>
>> But at least you have finally accepted that Shapiro's
>> measurements of the delay were correct, and no HOAX.
>>
>> 😂
>>
>> Attachment:
>> https://paulba.no/temp/1971_Shapiro_Newronian_formula.pdf

> 
> **************************************************************
> 
> 
> PAUL, I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU, STUPID RELATIVIST VIKING!!

This is your post  I responded to:

| Richard Hertz wrote:
|> SURPRISE!!
|>
|> Remember 1801 von Soldner's formula, which gave half 1915 Einstein's
|> formula?.
|>
|> The missing considerations, ignored in von Soldner times, have been
|> corrected using newtonian physics, and gives AN EXACT MATCH with the
|> corrected 1971 formula that Cassini derives. By the way, the new
|> formula HAS CHANGED CONSIDERABLY since his 1968 crappy paper.
|>
|> No space curved is necessary. Newton cover all the basis and
|>  RELATIVITYAND SPACETIME CURVATURES have no place here.
|>
|> Observe the details of the measurements with Venus in 1970.
|>
|> General relativity IS A PILE OF CRAP.
|>
|> I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THE LINK:
|> Shapiro Time Delay Using Newtonian Gravitation
|> https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
|>
|> Attachment:
|> https://paulba.no/temp/1971_Shapiro_Newronian_formula.pdf


> 
> 
> I ALREADY KNEW THAT THE PAPER WAS FAKE AS HELL. I DID SOME RESEARCH ON
> IT AND THE WRITER.

You were proud because you believed that Newton could predict
the Shapiro delay and gives AN EXACT MATCH with the formula
derived by Stephan Gift.
So General relativity IS A PILE OF CRAP, Newton rules.

> 
> PLUS, I REMARKED THAT THE GUY USED BLACK HOLE'S HYPOTHESIS, WHICH IS
> DERIVED FROM MISINTERPRETATION OF SCHWARZSCHILD'S EQUATION IN GR.

Your post is quoted above. No mention of black holes.

> 
> 
> AS SOON AS I READ THE PAPER, I NOTICED IT WAS ANOTHER PILE OF CRAP
> WRITTEN BY AN UNKNOWN LOOKING FOR SOME FAME.
> 
> BUT YOU ARE TOO IDIOT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS A "CLICK BAIT". IF YOU HAD A
> LITTLE BIT OF MEMORY, YOU SHOULD HAVE REMEMBERED THAT I LIKE TROLLING.
> 
> BUT YOU ARE TOO MUCH AN IMBECILE AND TOO MUCH A SWEDISH TO HAVE ANY
> SENSE OF HUMOR.

I am a Norwegian and have a morbid sense of humour.
I love to prove you wrong!

> 
> YOU FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THAT, AS THE LAST POST ON A THREAD CALLING CASSINI
> A FRAUDSTER, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE LIKE ME TO POST SOMETHING
> VALIDATING HIM. AND THIS IS BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!

Cassini?
The article where you found the formula and the figure 2
was written by Stephan Gift.

> 
> ONE MORE THING: WHAT MAKES ME LAUGH IS THAT, WHEN I POST SOMETHING WITH
> MATH WITHIN IT, I KNOW THAT YOU'LL RESPOND WITH AN ELABORATED ANALYSIS.

Which always prove your math wrong.
You are not laughing, you are furious.
========== REMAINDER OF ARTICLE TRUNCATED ==========