Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Paul.B.Andersen" <relativity@paulba.no>
Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Re: Newton: Photon falling from h meters increase its energy.
Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 14:00:31 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 82
Message-ID: <vm8bd2$2v29k$1@dont-email.me>
References: <4af374770bb67b6951ef19c75b35fbad@www.novabbs.com>
 <1819b35cb5854fb7$83258$1308629$c2565adb@news.newsdemon.com>
 <17a125a3e75f42ff91ef08afdab4e0a9@www.novabbs.com>
 <1819b79e1aa58c97$89507$1329657$c2065a8b@news.newsdemon.com>
 <9e55d347a16ad439d5b2e75440ae1a6d@www.novabbs.com>
 <6782d853$0$28064$426a74cc@news.free.fr>
 <c2fdc44dd6b77812b78bd871c9bde8f3@www.novabbs.com>
 <4404fd8d88a2eacd658d92efeef4d6c2@www.novabbs.com>
 <vm3ncs$20493$1@dont-email.me>
 <7db98cab57f6050f8daf2f88b9bfdcdb@www.novabbs.com>
 <vm6lel$2jd9o$1@dont-email.me>
 <4568ec448c26221aea0c57a6bfc7b29b@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:58:11 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="239eeac639bf1246aab766595f145ec5";
	logging-data="3115316"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18zIQepip4VoJiNbV96/+z1"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:qdzYruR5bhqXQr/hWpnGTvYMh+4=
In-Reply-To: <4568ec448c26221aea0c57a6bfc7b29b@www.novabbs.com>
Content-Language: en-GB
Bytes: 4577

Den 15.01.2025 05:49, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
> On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 21:39:43 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> 
>>
>> Why don't you understand that it is hopeless to claim that
>> the GR equation  Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is wrong?
>>
>> During the 100+ years since Einstein wrote the GR paper,
>> the calculation is repeated _many_ times by different physicists.
>>
>> It is a _fact_ that GR predicts that the gravitational deflection
>> of light is  Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c².
>>
>> See:
>>
>>
>> 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/Fomalont.pdf
>> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
>>
>> GR's prediction for the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
>> is so thoroughly experimentally confirmed that you have to be
>> extremely ignorant not to accept it.

> You are such a waste of time as you never directly answer any of the
> points made. Relativity does not predict how much light is deflected, so
> experiments cannot prove relativity.

Why do you still not understand that it is a _fact_ that GR
predicts that the gravitational deflection of light is  Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² ?

Even Poor knew that GR predicts Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c².
He insisted that that the equation (and GR) was wrong.

All the precise measurements of gravitational deflection
are made after 2000, so he didn't know what we now know:

GR's prediction for the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
is so thoroughly experimentally confirmed that you have to be
extremely ignorant not to accept it.

> It provides no good reason for the
> doubling because it resorts to the reification fallacy of non-Euclidean
> geometry. Space is not curved because it is an abstraction.

GR predicts Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c². It is not doubling of anything.

That the Newtonian prediction is Θ = 2GM/Δ⋅c² only
means that the Newtonian prediction is wrong.

> "Many
> physicists" is yet another appeal to authority, which is another logical
> fallacy you are so stupid as to defend. It is extraordinary that so many
> eminent scientists accept so many foolish and ignorant ideas, including
> the velocity-distance relationship and the doubling.

You are babbling nonsense.

I ask you again:
Why do you not understand that Einstein and many other physicists
have shown that it is a fact that GR predicts Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² ?

Your opinion of GR is irrelevant.

GR's prediction for the gravitational deflection
is confirmed by a number of experiments:

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/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf

You know, experimental evidence _is_ the reality.
Your opinion is fantasy.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/