Path: ...!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Mikko Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: The Schwarzschild Metric has been refuted. Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 12:36:49 +0300 Organization: - Lines: 93 Message-ID: References: <8ea3ce221fabb79b4549bca9ff6d787e@www.novabbs.com> <0dacad67d4070ef5e1bbb117a61fc469@www.novabbs.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2025 11:36:49 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="d8d12c83be41d40122cd358aabad745d"; logging-data="3157288"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19F6l8gWiEjSXocaYWrCDFE" User-Agent: Unison/2.2 Cancel-Lock: sha1:lXnn21LgudWAD4yrybu9ZGr+OtI= Bytes: 3902 On 2025-04-27 19:40:04 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said: > On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 12:22:22 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: > >> Den 27.04.2025 01:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen: >>> On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 18:35:26 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf >> >>> Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by >>> the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the >>> Newtonian to get the GR deflection. >> >> It has been known for 110 years that GR predicts twice >> the gravitational deflection than does Newton. >> >> So why does it surprise you that you get the Newtonian prediction >> by dividing the GR prediction by 2? >> >> The Newtonian prediction for the deflection observed from the Earth is: >> >> θ = (GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ >> >> The GR prediction for the deflection observed from the Earth is: >> >> θ = (2GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ >> >> Where: >> AU = one 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 >> >> Examples: >> >> φ = 0.266⁰ (light grazing the sun) >> ----------------------------------- >> Newton: θ = 0.876078" >> GR: θ = 1.752156" >> >> φ = 15⁰ >> ----------------------------------- >> Newton: θ = 0.015468" >> GR: θ = 0.030938" >> >> φ = 30⁰ >> ----------------------------------- >> Newton: θ = 0.007600" >> GR: θ = 0.015201" >> >> φ = 45⁰ >> ----------------------------------- >> Newton: θ = 0.004917" >> GR: θ = 0.009833" >> >> φ = 60⁰ >> ----------------------------------- >> Newton: θ = 0.003527" >> GR: θ = 0.007055" >> >> φ = 75⁰ >> ----------------------------------- >> Newton: θ = 0.002654" >> GR: θ = 0.005308" >> >> φ = 90⁰ >> ----------------------------------- >> Newton: θ = 0.002037" >> GR: θ = 0.004073" >> >> Now you can compare these predictions with >> the measurements made in the following 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 >> >> What is your conclusion? >> Is any of the theories falsified? > Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight > going through the Sun. Actually Schwarzschild geometry predicts that light from most stars is not blocked by Sun. This is easiest to prove about a star that is exacly opposite to Sun. -- Mikko