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: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 14:15:41 +0100
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <vmg9db$rvu7$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>
 <vm8bd2$2v29k$1@dont-email.me>
 <735acd1678938a0da82e207ed024d0fc@www.novabbs.com>
 <vmbmj0$3kl6v$2@dont-email.me>
 <e90bec1392317cfbacad0c2cd137b90e@www.novabbs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2025 14:13:16 +0100 (CET)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="8742eafee21cc7422a5551f627a37e5b";
	logging-data="917447"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/AP0QJO54YBi4K1xLe/Z30"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:XVWBdJQkPcMbiSmZR1nrWmjES1o=
Content-Language: en-GB
In-Reply-To: <e90bec1392317cfbacad0c2cd137b90e@www.novabbs.com>
Bytes: 3682

Den 17.01.2025 22:17, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
> On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 19:29:51 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
> 
>> Den 15.01.2025 18:46, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
>>>
>>> You fail to address Poor's refutation of the derivation. If
>>> you want to do that, you would need to bring up Trumpler, as I have done
>>> by mentioning his paper.
>>
>> How is it possible to fail to understand that experimental
>> evidence has proven Poor wrong?

The equation for the total deflection is:
   Θₜ = 4GM/Δ⋅c²
where:
  Δ = the impact parameter, closest approach to Sun
  c = speed of light in vacuum
  G = gravitational constant
  M = solar mass
     
The equation for the deflection observed from the Earth is:
  Θ = (2GM/Δ⋅c²)⋅(1 + cosφ)
where:
 φ  = angle Star-Sun as observed from the Earth

This equation is derived from the equation for total deflection
with a bit of geometry.

These equations are thoroughly confirmed to be correct because
experiments have shown that their predictions are correct within
the precision of the measurements, which are in the order of ±0.005%.

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 must be extremely ignorant to think an experiment can prove a false
> derivation.

The experiments say nothing about the correctness
of any derivations, they only show that the equations
Θₜ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² and Θ = (2GM/Δ⋅c²)⋅(1 + cosφ)  are correct.

Since Poor claims that the equation Θₜ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is wrong,
Poor is proven wrong.

Do you really believe that the derivation was wrong but
the result of the derivation was right?
Possible, but not probable.

-- 
Paul

https://paulba.no/