Deutsch English Français Italiano |
<vmijak$23bj0$1@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
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: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 11:17:11 +0100 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 80 Message-ID: <vmijak$23bj0$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$2@dont-email.me> <e90bec1392317cfbacad0c2cd137b90e@www.novabbs.com> <vmg9db$rvu7$1@dont-email.me> <50ba7d8c9396e6902a27550b0813885e@www.novabbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2025 11:14:44 +0100 (CET) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="473b5ceaf7fd39c595a99823dc52af81"; logging-data="2207328"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19Cpl3BAn1ImXWYy+D0cbIB" User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird Cancel-Lock: sha1:+MIVAt11lA2XHVepSUmyXJ/8TLU= Content-Language: en-GB In-Reply-To: <50ba7d8c9396e6902a27550b0813885e@www.novabbs.com> Bytes: 4873 Den 18.01.2025 21:00, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen: > On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 13:15:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > >> Den 17.01.2025 22:17, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen: >> >> 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. > The "4" in the equation comes from non-Euclidean geometry, "curved > space." This derivation is incorrect because space is not a surface, so > it does not curve. You keep deflecting from the derivation to the > experiments. All I've been talking about is the derivation. Didn't you > listen? If the experiments obtained correct results, that does not make > the derivation correct. Don't be stupid. It doesn't make space curved. > That is an elementary logical fallacy. I deduce from your statement: "If the experiments obtained correct results, that does not make the derivation correct." that you accept the fact that it is experimentally confirmed that the equation Θₜ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is correct. Do you really believe that the derivation from GR is wrong, but the result of the wrong derivation is correct? :-D Nobody, not even you, can be that stupid. The fact that Einstein and a number of other physicists have calculated that GR predicts the experimentally verified equation Θₜ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² for the gravitational bending of light, prove that the derivation is correct. And since Poor claimed that the equation Θₜ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² was wrong, Poor is proven wrong. Or does your logic say otherwise? -- Paul https://paulba.no/