Under Newton, a photon has gravitational mass m, for which it's affected
by gravity.
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 17:25:42 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.01.2025 o 18:16, rhertz pisze:
Under Newton, a photon has gravitational mass m, for which it's affected >>> by gravity.
Under which Newton? Do you mean Newton's
optics? It was abandoned in XVIIIth century.
Von Soldner's Newton (since 1801)
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 18:43:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.01.2025 o 19:10, rhertz pisze:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 17:25:42 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.01.2025 o 18:16, rhertz pisze:
Under Newton, a photon has gravitational mass m, for which it's
affected
by gravity.
Under which Newton? Do you mean Newton's
optics? It was abandoned in XVIIIth century.
Von Soldner's Newton (since 1801)
Newton's optics was abandoned, if not in XVIIIth
century than not very long after 1801.
And recovered by Einstein in 1911, with a paper WHERE HE MAKE
AFFIRMATIONS about gravitational mass of energy.
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 18:43:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.01.2025 o 19:10, rhertz pisze:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 17:25:42 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.01.2025 o 18:16, rhertz pisze:
Under Newton, a photon has gravitational mass m, for which it's affected >>>> by gravity.
Under which Newton? Do you mean Newton's
optics? It was abandoned in XVIIIth century.
Von Soldner's Newton (since 1801)
Newton's optics was abandoned, if not in XVIIIth
century than not very long after 1801.
And recovered by Einstein in 1911, with a paper WHERE HE MAKE
AFFIRMATIONS about gravitational mass of energy.
Ask yourself WHY 1960 Pound-Rebka paper had the title "Apparent weight
of photons" and later, before his death, Pound wrote his memoirs
"Weighting photons".
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 20:45:08 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 18:43:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.01.2025 o 19:10, rhertz pisze:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 17:25:42 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.01.2025 o 18:16, rhertz pisze:
Under Newton, a photon has gravitational mass m, for which it's
affected
by gravity.
Under which Newton? Do you mean Newton's
optics? It was abandoned in XVIIIth century.
Von Soldner's Newton (since 1801)
Newton's optics was abandoned, if not in XVIIIth
century than not very long after 1801.
And recovered by Einstein in 1911, with a paper WHERE HE MAKE
AFFIRMATIONS about gravitational mass of energy.
Ask yourself WHY 1960 Pound-Rebka paper had the title "Apparent weight
of photons" and later, before his death, Pound wrote his memoirs
"Weighting photons".
All entirely correct,
-in the Newtonian approximation to general relativity-.
As yet we have not yet encountered circumstances in which
the Newtonian approximation is not good enough
to calculate the relativistic red shift,
Jan
Then you accept what Einstein affirmed in his 1911 paper: "Energy has gravitational mass".
So much gobbledygook in such old paper just to conceal that he was using Planck to calculate a shift of gh/c^2 and also m=E/c^2.
And 50 years later you had Pound embarrassing himself by using an
eye-catcher title on his paper "Does photons have mass?", just to forget
to expand that title within his 1960 paper! Rebka was only his slave, a graduate student who depended on Pound to get his PhD in 1961.
Shame, scam, crooks, hoax, fraud, etc. This is what relativism is full
of.
Den 12.01.2025 02:31, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 20:45:08 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 18:43:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.01.2025 o 19:10, rhertz pisze:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 17:25:42 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.01.2025 o 18:16, rhertz pisze:
Under Newton, a photon has gravitational mass m, for which it's >>>>>>>> affected
by gravity.
Under which Newton? Do you mean Newton's
optics? It was abandoned in XVIIIth century.
Von Soldner's Newton (since 1801)
Newton's optics was abandoned, if not in XVIIIth
century than not very long after 1801.
And recovered by Einstein in 1911, with a paper WHERE HE MAKE
AFFIRMATIONS about gravitational mass of energy.
Ask yourself WHY 1960 Pound-Rebka paper had the title "Apparent weight >>>> of photons" and later, before his death, Pound wrote his memoirs
"Weighting photons".
All entirely correct,
-in the Newtonian approximation to general relativity-.
As yet we have not yet encountered circumstances in which
the Newtonian approximation is not good enough
to calculate the relativistic red shift,
Jan
Then you accept what Einstein affirmed in his 1911 paper: "Energy has
gravitational mass".
So much gobbledygook in such old paper just to conceal that he was using
Planck to calculate a shift of gh/c^2 and also m=E/c^2.
And 50 years later you had Pound embarrassing himself by using an
eye-catcher title on his paper "Does photons have mass?", just to forget
to expand that title within his 1960 paper! Rebka was only his slave, a
graduate student who depended on Pound to get his PhD in 1961.
Shame, scam, crooks, hoax, fraud, etc. This is what relativism is full
of.
Photons have no rest mass.
According to Newton, the acceleration of a particle with mass m is:
Den 12.01.2025 02:31, skrev rhertz:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 20:45:08 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 18:43:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.01.2025 o 19:10, rhertz pisze:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 17:25:42 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.01.2025 o 18:16, rhertz pisze:
Under Newton, a photon has gravitational mass m, for which it's >>>>>>> affected
by gravity.
Under which Newton? Do you mean Newton's
optics? It was abandoned in XVIIIth century.
Von Soldner's Newton (since 1801)
Newton's optics was abandoned, if not in XVIIIth
century than not very long after 1801.
And recovered by Einstein in 1911, with a paper WHERE HE MAKE
AFFIRMATIONS about gravitational mass of energy.
Ask yourself WHY 1960 Pound-Rebka paper had the title "Apparent weight >>> of photons" and later, before his death, Pound wrote his memoirs
"Weighting photons".
All entirely correct,
-in the Newtonian approximation to general relativity-.
As yet we have not yet encountered circumstances in which
the Newtonian approximation is not good enough
to calculate the relativistic red shift,
Jan
Then you accept what Einstein affirmed in his 1911 paper: "Energy has gravitational mass".
So much gobbledygook in such old paper just to conceal that he was using Planck to calculate a shift of gh/c^2 and also m=E/c^2.
And 50 years later you had Pound embarrassing himself by using an eye-catcher title on his paper "Does photons have mass?", just to forget
to expand that title within his 1960 paper! Rebka was only his slave, a graduate student who depended on Pound to get his PhD in 1961.
W dniu 12.01.2025 o 19:42, Paul B. Andersen pisze:
And as photons have no mass - according to Newton
you can't say anything about them. Your "falsification"
is a sorry lie, as usual.
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 20:45:08 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
rhertz <[email protected]> wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 18:43:41 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.01.2025 o 19:10, rhertz pisze:
On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 17:25:42 +0000, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 11.01.2025 o 18:16, rhertz pisze:
Under Newton, a photon has gravitational mass m, for which it's affected
by gravity.
Under which Newton? Do you mean Newton's
optics? It was abandoned in XVIIIth century.
Von Soldner's Newton (since 1801)
Newton's optics was abandoned, if not in XVIIIth
century than not very long after 1801.
And recovered by Einstein in 1911, with a paper WHERE HE MAKE
AFFIRMATIONS about gravitational mass of energy.
Ask yourself WHY 1960 Pound-Rebka paper had the title "Apparent weight
of photons" and later, before his death, Pound wrote his memoirs
"Weighting photons".
All entirely correct,
-in the Newtonian approximation to general relativity-.
As yet we have not yet encountered circumstances in which
the Newtonian approximation is not good enough
to calculate the relativistic red shift,
Jan
Then you accept what Einstein affirmed in his 1911 paper: "Energy has gravitational mass"."Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two"
So much gobbledygook in such old paper just to conceal that he was using Planck to calculate a shift of gh/c^2 and also m=E/c^2.
And 50 years later you had Pound embarrassing himself by using an
eye-catcher title on his paper "Does photons have mass?", just to forget
to expand that title within his 1960 paper! Rebka was only his slave, a graduate student who depended on Pound to get his PhD in 1961.
Shame, scam, crooks, hoax, fraud, etc. This is what relativism is full
of.
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 1:31:59 +0000, rhertz wrote:
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection= "photographic plates? Poor did, and he completely repudiated the
findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical
scientist.
Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical
formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75
seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known
and simple formula of physical optics"; "Not a single one of the
fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space,
of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved
in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light";
"The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore,
been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove
nor disprove the relativity theory" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930)." -
saved pdf = "Albert Einsetin, Plagiarist of the Century" p.9
Le 13/01/2025 à 06:07, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 1:31:59 +0000, rhertz wrote:
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection=
"photographic plates? Poor did, and he completely repudiated the
findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical
scientist.
Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical
formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75
seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known
and simple formula of physical optics"; "Not a single one of the
fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space,
of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved
in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light";
"The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore,
been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove
nor disprove the relativity theory" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930)." -
saved pdf = "Albert Einsetin, Plagiarist of the Century" p.9
Einstein is an artificial media creation. Like Emmanuel Macron or Greta Thunberg. No more.
Le 13/01/2025 � 16:06, Richard Hachel a �crit :
Le 13/01/2025 � 06:07, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a �crit : >>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 1:31:59 +0000, rhertz wrote:
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection=
"photographic plates? Poor did, and he completely repudiated the
findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical
scientist.
Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical
formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75
seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known
and simple formula of physical optics"; "Not a single one of the
fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space,
of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved
in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light";
"The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore,
been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove
nor disprove the relativity theory" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930)." -
saved pdf = "Albert Einsetin, Plagiarist of the Century" p.9
Einstein is an artificial media creation. Like Emmanuel Macron or Greta
Thunberg. No more.
This is a idiotic statement that only shows your own stupidity.
"Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two"This paper is written by Tilman Sauer in 2021.
This paper gives an interesting discussion of Soldner's calculation.
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection= "photographic plates?
Poor did, and he completely repudiated the
findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical
scientist.
Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical
formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75
seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known
and simple formula of physical optics";
"Not a single one of the
fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space,
of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved
in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light";
"The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore,
been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove
nor disprove the relativity theory" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930)." -
On 2025-01-13 17:08:03 +0000, Python said:
Le 13/01/2025 à 16:06, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 06:07, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 1:31:59 +0000, rhertz wrote:
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection=
"photographic plates? Poor did, and he completely repudiated the
findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical
scientist.
Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical
formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75
seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known
and simple formula of physical optics"; "Not a single one of the
fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space,
of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved >>>> in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light"; >>>> "The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore,
been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove
nor disprove the relativity theory" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930)." -
saved pdf = "Albert Einsetin, Plagiarist of the Century" p.9
Einstein is an artificial media creation. Like Emmanuel Macron or Greta
Thunberg. No more.
This is a idiotic statement that only shows your own stupidity.
You took the words out of my mouth. Albert Einstein certainly existed,
and Emmanuel Macron and Greta Thunberg also exist, whether "Dr" Hachel
likes them or not.
If you're looking for an artificial creation (not by the media: who
would bother?) look no further than "Dr" Richard Hachel. No relevant qualifications, not even his real name: entirely artificial.
Le 13/01/2025 à 16:06, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 06:07, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit : >>> On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 1:31:59 +0000, rhertz wrote:
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection=
"photographic plates? Poor did, and he completely repudiated the
findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical
scientist.
Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical
formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75
seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known
and simple formula of physical optics"; "Not a single one of the
fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space,
of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved
in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light";
"The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore,
been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove
nor disprove the relativity theory" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930)." -
saved pdf = "Albert Einsetin, Plagiarist of the Century" p.9
Einstein is an artificial media creation. Like Emmanuel Macron or Greta
Thunberg. No more.
This is a idiotic statement that only shows your own stupidity.
...
Rien à voir avec des Leibniz, des Poincaré, des De Gaulle, des Gauss...
Le 13/01/2025 à 18:08, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 16:06, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 06:07, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 1:31:59 +0000, rhertz wrote:
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection=
"photographic plates? Poor did, and he completely repudiated the
findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical
scientist.
Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical
formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75
seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known
and simple formula of physical optics"; "Not a single one of the
fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space,
of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved >>>> in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light"; >>>> "The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore,
been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove
nor disprove the relativity theory" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930)." -
saved pdf = "Albert Einsetin, Plagiarist of the Century" p.9
Einstein is an artificial media creation. Like Emmanuel Macron or Greta
Thunberg. No more.
This is a idiotic statement that only shows your own stupidity.
Python, you are a hypocrite..
You are not going to make me believe that you do not know these things.
You have read a lot about Einstein in relativist forums for decades. So you must
know what his beginnings are, where and how they were made, how he was awarded a
Nobel Prize and then how he was photographed everywhere in the world press. It was
obviously a voluntary creation. It is a shame that we can "doubt" it.
[snip more nonsense, off-topic btw]
Le 13/01/2025 à 06:07, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écritIndeed, Einstein is always entirely beside the point. The point is that
:
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 1:31:59 +0000, rhertz wrote:
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection=
"photographic plates? Poor did, and he completely repudiated the
findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical
scientist.
Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical
formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75
seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known
and simple formula of physical optics"; "Not a single one of the
fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space,
of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved
in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light";
"The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore,
been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove
nor disprove the relativity theory" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930)." -
saved pdf = "Albert Einsetin, Plagiarist of the Century" p.9
Einstein is an artificial media creation. Like Emmanuel Macron or Greta Thunberg. No more.
R.H.
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:31, Python pisze:..
Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize for *numerous* reasons:
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read
poor stinker.
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:20, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 18:08, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 16:06, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 06:07, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a
écrit :
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 1:31:59 +0000, rhertz wrote:
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection=
"photographic plates? Poor did, and he completely repudiated the
findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical
scientist.
Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical
formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75
seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known
and simple formula of physical optics"; "Not a single one of the
fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space,
of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved >>>>> in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of
light";
"The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore,
been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove
nor disprove the relativity theory" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930)." - >>>>> saved pdf = "Albert Einsetin, Plagiarist of the Century" p.9
Einstein is an artificial media creation. Like Emmanuel Macron or
Greta Thunberg. No more.
This is a idiotic statement that only shows your own stupidity.
Python, you are a hypocrite..
You are not going to make me believe that you do not know these things.
You have read a lot about Einstein in relativist forums for decades.
So you must know what his beginnings are, where and how they were
made, how he was awarded a Nobel Prize and then how he was
photographed everywhere in the world press. It was obviously a
voluntary creation. It is a shame that we can "doubt" it.
Everything you claimed about Einstein's Nobel Prize are lies. Plain
lies. Shameful disgusting lies.
Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize for *numerous* reasons:
You are a fraud.
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:28, Richard Hachel a écrit :
...
Rien à voir avec des Leibniz, des Poincaré, des De Gaulle, des Gauss...
You are a joke, a bad disgusting, stinking joke
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:35, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:28, Richard Hachel a écrit :
...You are a joke, a bad disgusting, stinking joke
Rien à voir avec des Leibniz, des Poincaré, des De Gaulle, des Gauss... >>
C'est faux, j'ai demandé à Maciej si quelqu'un était "stinking" ici, il a dit oui, mais que c'était pas moi.
Den 13.01.2025 06:07, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
"Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two"This paper is written by Tilman Sauer in 2021.
This paper gives an interesting discussion of Soldner's calculation.
In 1801 Johann Georg von Soldner calculated the Newtonian prediction
for the deflection of light grazing the Sun to be 0.84",
which is quite close to the correct value 0.875".
Sauer speculates if there are misprints in Soldner's calculation
so that his result should be a factor of two higher, that is 1.68"
which is quite close to Einstein's 1916 calculation 1.7".
(With somewhat better precision GR predicts 1.75")
If Soldner had calculated 1.68", he would be wrong.
The Newtonian prediction is 0.875".
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection= "photographic plates?
How ridiculous! :-D
Einstein calculated the GR prediction 1.7" in 1916,
before any measurements of the deflection was made.
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
At the top of page 69:
"We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing
by a mass M at the distance ?."
The calculation is shown on page 69 and the result is given
at the bottom of the page:
"According to this, a ray of light going past the sun undergoes
a deflexion of 1.7"."
So in 1916 nobody, including Einstein, knew what the correct
value was, because no measurements were ever made.
Poor did, and he completely repudiated the
findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical scientist.
Poor did what? Use a refraction formula to repudiate
Eddington's measurements? If Poor had done so,
wouldn't that have been to explain Eddington's measurements?
But of course Poor did no such thing. See below.
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:31, Python a écrit :
You are a fraud.
I can't be an imposter since my entire theory of relativity is a personal and coherent creation that holds together as a single block.
Secondly, let's say I copied from someone: I copied from WHOM?
You promised to tackle my pdf as soon as it's finished.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 15:06:47 +0000, Richard Hachel wrote:
Le 13/01/2025 à 06:07, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit >> :Indeed, Einstein is always entirely beside the point. The point is that
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 1:31:59 +0000, rhertz wrote:
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection=
"photographic plates? Poor did, and he completely repudiated the
findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical
scientist.
Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical
formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75
seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known
and simple formula of physical optics"; "Not a single one of the
fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space,
of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved
in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light";
"The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore,
been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove
nor disprove the relativity theory" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930)." -
saved pdf = "Albert Einsetin, Plagiarist of the Century" p.9
Einstein is an artificial media creation. Like Emmanuel Macron or Greta
Thunberg. No more.
R.H.
the formula is an optics formula, not a gravitation formula.
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:55, Richard Hachel a écrit :
And a bunch of Usenet posts, for your more recent claims on accelerated travelers.
[snip nonsense]
When we look at the sun with special instruments, we observe immense arcs of matter and energy ejected over colossal distances. I will not be made to believe
that there is no gas or matter in this heliosphere, and that optical phenomena of
diffraction are impossible there.
But when I see how we were able to sabotage the SR from its foundations, and how
much human beings were able to sabotage Poincaré's special relativity.
[snip idiotic babbling]
If a theory is not beautiful, it is because it is not true.
Je le répète, tu confonds "théorie fausse" et "théorie dissidente".
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:34, Richard Hachel a écrit :
[snip idiotic babbling]
If a theory is not beautiful, it is because it is not true.
The bunch of nonsense you call your "theory" is not only WRONG (experimentally
AND logically) is is, also, utterly UGLY.
Je le répète, tu confonds "théorie fausse" et "théorie dissidente".
You can repeat it, it is still wrong. It is not about "dissidence" but about "contradictions" and "nonsense".
You an egomaniac and a crank, Richard. Face it.
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:39, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:34, Richard Hachel a écrit :[snip more idiotic babbling
[snip idiotic babbling]
Il faut arrêter avec ce fantasme d'arrogance qui veut que l'homme est intelligent, et qu'il a tout compris.
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:50, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:39, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:34, Richard Hachel a écrit :[snip more idiotic babbling
[snip idiotic babbling]
Il faut arrêter avec ce fantasme d'arrogance qui veut que l'homme est
intelligent, et qu'il a tout compris.
Exactly. So stop doing that! Especially when your fallacies, your contradictions
and your misconceptions have been pointed out precisely.
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:54, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:50, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:39, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:34, Richard Hachel a écrit :[snip more idiotic babbling
[snip idiotic babbling]
Il faut arrêter avec ce fantasme d'arrogance qui veut que l'homme est
intelligent, et qu'il a tout compris.
Exactly. So stop doing that! Especially when your fallacies, your contradictions
and your misconceptions have been pointed out precisely.
:))
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:12, Richard Hachel a écrit :
[snip nonsense]
When we look at the sun with special instruments, we observe immense
arcs of matter and energy ejected over colossal distances. I will not
be made to believe that there is no gas or matter in this heliosphere,
and that optical phenomena of diffraction are impossible there.
You cannot "be made to believe" what is experimentally observed.
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:47, Idiotic kook Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:31, Python pisze:..
Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize for *numerous* reasons:
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read
Even you admitted that Poincaré would likely have kicked you in the a**
Wozniak.
Moreover nobody is rejecting Euclidan Geometry.
anything on math, physics or physics.
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 21:20, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:12, Richard Hachel a écrit :
[snip nonsense]
When we look at the sun with special instruments, we observe immense
arcs of matter and energy ejected over colossal distances. I will not
be made to believe that there is no gas or matter in this heliosphere,
and that optical phenomena of diffraction are impossible there.
You cannot "be made to believe" what is experimentally observed.
For sure you can be made to believe those
idiocies of your mumbling guru are
experimentally observed; you're soooo
stupid. If you couldn't you wouldn't
believe they are.
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:33, Demented maniac, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:50, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:47, Idiotic kook Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:31, Python pisze:..
Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize for *numerous* reasons:
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read
Even you admitted that Poincaré would likely have kicked you in the a**
Wozniak.
No, I didn't. A lie as usual.
You did. Amnesia now?
See, - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
There is nothing to do as you've never done anything like.
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:40, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:33, Demented maniac, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:50, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:47, Idiotic kook Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:31, Python pisze:..
Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize for *numerous* reasons:
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read
Even you admitted that Poincaré would likely have kicked you in the a** >>>
Wozniak.
No, I didn't. A lie as usual.
You did. Amnesia now?
No, I didn't As you insist - maybe it's
rather a delusion than a lie. Woll, both
very possible.
See, - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
There is nothing to do as you've never done anything like.
Yes, I did, I've pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions of his, physics.
screaming "NOOOOO!!!", is changing nothing,
sorry.
A fanatic piece of moronic shit, spitting and slandering.
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:40, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:33, Demented maniac, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:50, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:47, Idiotic kook Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:31, Python pisze:..
Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize for *numerous* reasons:
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read
Even you admitted that Poincaré would likely have kicked you in the >>>>> a**
Wozniak.
No, I didn't. A lie as usual.
You did. Amnesia now?
No, I didn't As you insist - maybe it's
rather a delusion than a lie. Woll, both
very possible.
Anyway you did.
See, - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
There is nothing to do as you've never done anything like.
Yes, I did, I've pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions of his, physics.
You didn't, they're laughable nonsense.
Only you were screaming. You got precise refutations of you silly
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:58, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:40, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:33, Demented maniac, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:50, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:47, Idiotic kook Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:31, Python pisze:..
Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize for *numerous* reasons:
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read
Even you admitted that Poincaré would likely have kicked you in the >>>>>> a**
Wozniak.
No, I didn't. A lie as usual.
You did. Amnesia now?
No, I didn't As you insist - maybe it's
rather a delusion than a lie. Woll, both
very possible.
Anyway you did.
Nope. As said - either a lie or a delusion.
Both typical for a relativistic idiot in general
and for you especially.
See, - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
There is nothing to do as you've never done anything like.
Yes, I did, I've pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions of his, physics.
You didn't, they're laughable nonsense.
Of course they are, they're consequences
of the physics of your idiot guru.
Only you were screaming. You got precise refutations of you silly
Nope, I've got some utterly ridiculous
assertions, extremly stupid even considering
the usual level of the Shit's worshippers.
Well, nothing more was ever expected, of
course. It's changing nothing, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
it's been proven and a fanatic piece of shit
screaming "NOOOOO!!!" spitting and slandering is
changing nothing. Sorry.
Le 13/01/2025 à 23:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:58, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:40, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:33, Demented maniac, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:50, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:47, Idiotic kook Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:31, Python pisze:..
Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize for *numerous* reasons:
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read
Even you admitted that Poincaré would likely have kicked you in >>>>>>> the a**
Wozniak.
No, I didn't. A lie as usual.
You did. Amnesia now?
No, I didn't As you insist - maybe it's
rather a delusion than a lie. Woll, both
very possible.
Anyway you did.
Nope. As said - either a lie or a delusion.
Both typical for a relativistic idiot in general
and for you especially.
See, - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
There is nothing to do as you've never done anything like.
Yes, I did, I've pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions of his, physics.
You didn't, they're laughable nonsense.
Of course they are, they're consequences
of the physics of your idiot guru.
Only you were screaming. You got precise refutations of you silly
Nope, I've got some utterly ridiculous
assertions, extremly stupid even considering
the usual level of the Shit's worshippers.
Well, nothing more was ever expected, of
course. It's changing nothing, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
it's been proven and a fanatic piece of shit
screaming "NOOOOO!!!" spitting and slandering is
changing nothing. Sorry.
If it were a proof how come nobody but you recognizes it as such?
Den 13.01.2025 06:07, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
"Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two"This paper is written by Tilman Sauer in 2021.
This paper gives an interesting discussion of Soldner's calculation.
In 1801 Johann Georg von Soldner calculated the Newtonian prediction
for the deflection of light grazing the Sun to be 0.84",
which is quite close to the correct value 0.875".
Sauer speculates if there are misprints in Soldner's calculation
so that his result should be a factor of two higher, that is 1.68"
which is quite close to Einstein's 1916 calculation 1.7".
(With somewhat better precision GR predicts 1.75")
If Soldner had calculated 1.68", he would be wrong.
The Newtonian prediction is 0.875".
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection=
"photographic plates?
How ridiculous! :-D
Einstein calculated the GR prediction 1.7" in 1916,
before any measurements of the deflection was made.
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
At the top of page 69:
"We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing
by a mass M at the distance Δ."
The calculation is shown on page 69 and the result is given
at the bottom of the page:
"According to this, a ray of light going past the sun undergoes
a deflexion of 1.7"."
So in 1916 nobody, including Einstein, knew what the correct
value was, because no measurements were ever made.
Poor did, and he completely repudiated the
findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical
scientist.
Poor did what? Use a refraction formula to repudiate
Eddington's measurements? If Poor had done so,
wouldn't that have been to explain Eddington's measurements?
But of course Poor did no such thing. See below.
Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical
formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75
seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known
and simple formula of physical optics";
Ah! So that's where you found the "refraction formula"! :-D
In 1930 Poor obviously knew 'The mathematical formula,
by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75".'
This is the equation: Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² @
where:
Δ = the impact parameter, closest approach to Sun
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = gravitational constant
M = solar mass
In this case Δ = R, the radius of the Sun.
This is indeed "a well known and simple formula" and
since it is about physics and optics (light)
Poor called it a "formula of physical optics".
It has nothing to do with refraction, obviously.
Why did you think that Poor claimed it was about refraction? :-D
"Not a single one of the
fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space,
of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved
in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light";
Quite right.
Einstein's formula Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is a well known and simple formula
of physical optics which contains nothing about time dilation
or relativity of simultaneity.
"The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore,
been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove
nor disprove the relativity theory" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930)." -
This was right(ish) in 1930.
The eclipse measurements are notorious imprecise,
and are now of historical interest only.
Many measurement (of EM-radiation NOT grazing the Sun) are performed:
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.
Den 13.01.2025 06:07, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
"Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two"This paper is written by Tilman Sauer in 2021.
This paper gives an interesting discussion of Soldner's calculation.
In 1801 Johann Georg von Soldner calculated the Newtonian prediction
for the deflection of light grazing the Sun to be 0.84",
which is quite close to the correct value 0.875".
Sauer speculates if there are misprints in Soldner's calculation
so that his result should be a factor of two higher, that is 1.68"
which is quite close to Einstein's 1916 calculation 1.7".
(With somewhat better precision GR predicts 1.75")
If Soldner had calculated 1.68", he would be wrong.
The Newtonian prediction is 0.875".
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection=
"photographic plates?
How ridiculous! :-D
Einstein calculated the GR prediction 1.7" in 1916,
before any measurements of the deflection was made.
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
At the top of page 69:
"We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing
by a mass M at the distance Δ."
The calculation is shown on page 69 and the result is given
at the bottom of the page:
"According to this, a ray of light going past the sun undergoes
a deflexion of 1.7"."
So in 1916 nobody, including Einstein, knew what the correct
value was, because no measurements were ever made.
Poor did, and he completely repudiated the
findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical
scientist.
Poor did what? Use a refraction formula to repudiate
Eddington's measurements? If Poor had done so,
wouldn't that have been to explain Eddington's measurements?
But of course Poor did no such thing. See below.
Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical
formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75
seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known
and simple formula of physical optics";
Ah! So that's where you found the "refraction formula"! :-D
In 1930 Poor obviously knew 'The mathematical formula,
by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75".'
This is the equation: Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² @
where:
Δ = the impact parameter, closest approach to Sun
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = gravitational constant
M = solar mass
In this case Δ = R, the radius of the Sun.
This is indeed "a well known and simple formula" and
since it is about physics and optics (light)
Poor called it a "formula of physical optics".
It has nothing to do with refraction, obviously.
Why did you think that Poor claimed it was about refraction? :-D
"Not a single one of the
fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space,
of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved
in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light";
Quite right.
Einstein's formula Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is a well known and simple formula
of physical optics which contains nothing about time dilation
or relativity of simultaneity.
"The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore,
been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove
nor disprove the relativity theory" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930)." -
This was right(ish) in 1930.
The eclipse measurements are notorious imprecise,
and are now of historical interest only.
Many measurement (of EM-radiation NOT grazing the Sun) are performed:
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.
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:05, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:54, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:50, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:39, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:34, Richard Hachel a écrit :[snip more idiotic babbling
[snip idiotic babbling]
Il faut arrêter avec ce fantasme d'arrogance qui veut que l'homme est >>>> intelligent, et qu'il a tout compris.
Exactly. So stop doing that! Especially when your fallacies, your contradictions
and your misconceptions have been pointed out precisely.
:))
It makes you smile to be an arrogant, an imbecile, an ignorant in addition to be
a liar and a fraud?
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 0:36:33 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
<snip>
"This is exactly double the value given in 1911, and this doubling
of values has given rise to many speculations, and to many and
varied explanations, on the part of the relativists.
An inspection of the formulas, which Einstein used, shows
exactly what he did and how he derived this result. The essential
factor in the formula is that for the rate of change of velocity
along the wave-front 6c, 6x ; and this is the only factor in which
any change can be made. All the other terms and factors of the
formula are always identically the same." - Poor = "THE RELATIVITY
DEFLECTION OF LIGHT!"
Years ago, I posted that when Einstein published his 1915 paper on
Mercury, he included a couple of paragraphs announcing that he doubled
his 1911 value due to his work with GR.
It's all on his 1915 paper, in a single line: Equation 7c.
Einstein had it easy. He modified Newton's potential Φ = - GM/r for
Φ = - GM/r (1 + B^2/r^2), in his equation (7c). This was in geometrical units.
In physical units, Eq 7c is Φ(r) = - GMm/r [1 + B^2/(mcr)^2]
Long story short: In the same paper, and using this change, he managed
to obtain Gerber's formula and 43" and, as a bonus, DOUBLED the
gravitational potential on the formula for deflection of starlight, used
in 1911.
ψ(1911) = 1/c2 2GM/RS = 0.85 arcsec
ψ(1915) = 2 x ψ(1911) = 1/c2 4GM/RS = 1.75 arcsec
The key for this "magic prediction" is simple. The extra (1 + B^2/r^2)
factor in Φ(r), in physical units, is [1 + B^2/(mcr)^2]
B = mr2ω is the constant angular momentum, under Newton's Law of Gravitation,
so
Φ(r) = - GMm/r (1 + r^2ω^2/c^2)
He made Rs.ω = c at the perigee of the trajectory, at which the test particle has maximum speed.
But it implies a variable speed of light, besides that "photons" have
mass and suffer gravitational attraction.
This is the Newtonian equation that Einstein seek, using 80% of the
paper, before changing for a new Φ:
m [r^2 (dɸ/dt)^2 + (dr/dt)^2] - GMm/r = 2E (E < 0, the total energy of
the system, is CONSTANT).
The above equations describe any elliptic, parabolic or hyperbolic
orbit, and was used by Einstein TWICE:
1) To get the final expression of the advance of Mercury's perihelion in
an orbit with e = 0.2025 and E < 0.
2) For the deflection of light, at the perigee of an hyperbolic
trajectory of a photon, with r = Rs, e >> 1, E > 0.
Einstein REFUSED to show his calculations for 2) and only presented the
new value for deflection of light plus a lot of gobbledygook using GR. Astronomers and physicists from ALL OVER the world asked Einstein to
present his calculations. Einstein NEVER delivered them.
Why did Einstein refused to show his derivation? Because he had to
explain:
1) The use of light as "quanta of energy" (A.K.A. photons) having mass m
= hf/c^2.
2) The change of the bounded elliptic orbit of Mercury, with e = 0.2025
into a highly eccentric hyperbolic orbit (e > 200,000), which passed by
the Sun at its perigee (r = RS).
3) The angular momentum at the perigee, B(RS) = m.RS.c. In this way, the quotient between brackets of ψ(RS) became equal to 1, DOUBLING the gravitational potential.
4) Making the angular velocity of the photon at the orbit's perigee: c =
RS. ωMAX, implied a VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT in the trajectory of the
photon:
c' = rω (only reaching c at r = RS).
He had a LOT OF THINGS to explain. And because of the above points, his ETERNAL SILENCE.
So, his announcement in 1915 came to the fact that in the modified gravitational potential
Φ(r) = - GMm/r (1 + r^2ω^2/c^2)
he made r.ω = c, for which Φ(r_sun) = - GMm/r_sun (1 + 1).
Doubling the potential when starlight graze the Sun's surface DOUBLED
the 1911 Newtonian value, AT THE COST OF A VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN
THAT POINT.
He NEVER, EVER showed his calculations. That's why, in 1930, Poor wasYou find the same thing with Mercury as Poor found with the eclipse.
calling him (LITERALLY) a fraudulent crock.
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 0:36:33 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
<snip>
"This is exactly double the value given in 1911, and this doubling
of values has given rise to many speculations, and to many and
varied explanations, on the part of the relativists.
An inspection of the formulas, which Einstein used, shows
exactly what he did and how he derived this result. The essential
factor in the formula is that for the rate of change of velocity
along the wave-front 6c, 6x ; and this is the only factor in which
any change can be made. All the other terms and factors of the
formula are always identically the same." - Poor = "THE RELATIVITY
DEFLECTION OF LIGHT!"
Years ago, I posted that when Einstein published his 1915 paper on
Mercury, he included a couple of paragraphs announcing that he doubled
his 1911 value due to his work with GR.
It's all on his 1915 paper, in a single line: Equation 7c.
Einstein had it easy. He modified Newton's potential Φ = - GM/r for
Φ = - GM/r (1 + B^2/r^2), in his equation (7c). This was in geometrical units.
In physical units, Eq 7c is Φ(r) = - GMm/r [1 + B^2/(mcr)^2]
Long story short: In the same paper, and using this change, he managed
to obtain Gerber's formula and 43" and, as a bonus, DOUBLED the
gravitational potential on the formula for deflection of starlight, used
in 1911.
ψ(1911) = 1/c2 2GM/RS = 0.85 arcsec
ψ(1915) = 2 x ψ(1911) = 1/c2 4GM/RS = 1.75 arcsec
The key for this "magic prediction" is simple. The extra (1 + B^2/r^2)
factor in Φ(r), in physical units, is [1 + B^2/(mcr)^2]
B = mr2ω is the constant angular momentum, under Newton's Law of Gravitation,
so
Φ(r) = - GMm/r (1 + r^2ω^2/c^2)
He made Rs.ω = c at the perigee of the trajectory, at which the test particle has maximum speed.
But it implies a variable speed of light, besides that "photons" have
mass and suffer gravitational attraction.
This is the Newtonian equation that Einstein seek, using 80% of the
paper, before changing for a new Φ:
m [r^2 (dɸ/dt)^2 + (dr/dt)^2] - GMm/r = 2E (E < 0, the total energy of
the system, is CONSTANT).
The above equations describe any elliptic, parabolic or hyperbolic
orbit, and was used by Einstein TWICE:
1) To get the final expression of the advance of Mercury's perihelion in
an orbit with e = 0.2025 and E < 0.
2) For the deflection of light, at the perigee of an hyperbolic
trajectory of a photon, with r = Rs, e >> 1, E > 0.
Einstein REFUSED to show his calculations for 2) and only presented the
new value for deflection of light plus a lot of gobbledygook using GR. Astronomers and physicists from ALL OVER the world asked Einstein to
present his calculations. Einstein NEVER delivered them.
Why did Einstein refused to show his derivation? Because he had to
explain:
1) The use of light as "quanta of energy" (A.K.A. photons) having mass m
= hf/c^2.
2) The change of the bounded elliptic orbit of Mercury, with e = 0.2025
into a highly eccentric hyperbolic orbit (e > 200,000), which passed by
the Sun at its perigee (r = RS).
3) The angular momentum at the perigee, B(RS) = m.RS.c. In this way, the quotient between brackets of ψ(RS) became equal to 1, DOUBLING the gravitational potential.
4) Making the angular velocity of the photon at the orbit's perigee: c =
RS. ωMAX, implied a VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT in the trajectory of the
photon:
c' = rω (only reaching c at r = RS).
He had a LOT OF THINGS to explain. And because of the above points, his ETERNAL SILENCE.
So, his announcement in 1915 came to the fact that in the modified gravitational potential
Φ(r) = - GMm/r (1 + r^2ω^2/c^2)
he made r.ω = c, for which Φ(r_sun) = - GMm/r_sun (1 + 1).
Doubling the potential when starlight graze the Sun's surface DOUBLED
the 1911 Newtonian value, AT THE COST OF A VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN
THAT POINT.
He NEVER, EVER showed his calculations. That's why, in 1930, Poor wasHere is a response to Poor's 1926 article in 1929: THE RELATIVITY
calling him (LITERALLY) a fraudulent crock.
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 0:36:33 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
<snip>
"This is exactly double the value given in 1911, and this doubling
of values has given rise to many speculations, and to many and
varied explanations, on the part of the relativists.
An inspection of the formulas, which Einstein used, shows
exactly what he did and how he derived this result. The essential
factor in the formula is that for the rate of change of velocity
along the wave-front 6c, 6x ; and this is the only factor in which
any change can be made. All the other terms and factors of the
formula are always identically the same." - Poor = "THE RELATIVITY
DEFLECTION OF LIGHT!"
Years ago, I posted that when Einstein published his 1915 paper on
Mercury, he included a couple of paragraphs announcing that he doubled
his 1911 value due to his work with GR.
It's all on his 1915 paper, in a single line: Equation 7c.
Einstein had it easy. He modified Newton's potential Φ = - GM/r for
Φ = - GM/r (1 + B^2/r^2), in his equation (7c). This was in geometrical units.
In physical units, Eq 7c is Φ(r) = - GMm/r [1 + B^2/(mcr)^2]
Long story short: In the same paper, and using this change, he managed
to obtain Gerber's formula and 43" and, as a bonus, DOUBLED the
gravitational potential on the formula for deflection of starlight, used
in 1911.
ψ(1911) = 1/c2 2GM/RS = 0.85 arcsec
ψ(1915) = 2 x ψ(1911) = 1/c2 4GM/RS = 1.75 arcsec
The key for this "magic prediction" is simple. The extra (1 + B^2/r^2)
factor in Φ(r), in physical units, is [1 + B^2/(mcr)^2]
B = mr2ω is the constant angular momentum, under Newton's Law of Gravitation,
so
Φ(r) = - GMm/r (1 + r^2ω^2/c^2)
He made Rs.ω = c at the perigee of the trajectory, at which the test particle has maximum speed.
But it implies a variable speed of light, besides that "photons" have
mass and suffer gravitational attraction.
This is the Newtonian equation that Einstein seek, using 80% of the
paper, before changing for a new Φ:
m [r^2 (dɸ/dt)^2 + (dr/dt)^2] - GMm/r = 2E (E < 0, the total energy of
the system, is CONSTANT).
The above equations describe any elliptic, parabolic or hyperbolic
orbit, and was used by Einstein TWICE:
1) To get the final expression of the advance of Mercury's perihelion in
an orbit with e = 0.2025 and E < 0.
2) For the deflection of light, at the perigee of an hyperbolic
trajectory of a photon, with r = Rs, e >> 1, E > 0.
Einstein REFUSED to show his calculations for 2) and only presented the
new value for deflection of light plus a lot of gobbledygook using GR. Astronomers and physicists from ALL OVER the world asked Einstein to
present his calculations. Einstein NEVER delivered them.
Why did Einstein refused to show his derivation? Because he had to
explain:
1) The use of light as "quanta of energy" (A.K.A. photons) having mass m
= hf/c^2.
2) The change of the bounded elliptic orbit of Mercury, with e = 0.2025
into a highly eccentric hyperbolic orbit (e > 200,000), which passed by
the Sun at its perigee (r = RS).
3) The angular momentum at the perigee, B(RS) = m.RS.c. In this way, the quotient between brackets of ψ(RS) became equal to 1, DOUBLING the gravitational potential.
4) Making the angular velocity of the photon at the orbit's perigee: c =
RS. ωMAX, implied a VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT in the trajectory of the
photon:
c' = rω (only reaching c at r = RS).
He had a LOT OF THINGS to explain. And because of the above points, his ETERNAL SILENCE.
So, his announcement in 1915 came to the fact that in the modified gravitational potential
Φ(r) = - GMm/r (1 + r^2ω^2/c^2)
he made r.ω = c, for which Φ(r_sun) = - GMm/r_sun (1 + 1).
Doubling the potential when starlight graze the Sun's surface DOUBLED
the 1911 Newtonian value, AT THE COST OF A VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN
THAT POINT.
He NEVER, EVER showed his calculations. That's why, in 1930, Poor wasThen there is "Albert Einstein and the Doubling of the Deflection of
calling him (LITERALLY) a fraudulent crock.
Le 13/01/2025 � 20:35, Python a �crit :
Le 13/01/2025 � 20:28, Richard Hachel a �crit :
...
Rien � voir avec des Leibniz, des Poincar�, des De Gaulle, des Gauss...
You are a joke, a bad disgusting, stinking joke
C'est faux, j'ai demand� � Maciej si quelqu'un �tait "stinking" ici,
il a dit oui, mais que c'�tait pas moi.
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:09, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:05, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:54, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:50, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:39, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:34, Richard Hachel a écrit :[snip more idiotic babbling
[snip idiotic babbling]
Il faut arrêter avec ce fantasme d'arrogance qui veut que l'homme est >>>>> intelligent, et qu'il a tout compris.
Exactly. So stop doing that! Especially when your fallacies, your contradictions
and your misconceptions have been pointed out precisely.
:))
It makes you smile to be an arrogant, an imbecile, an ignorant in addition to be
a liar and a fraud?
Fraud and arrogance are on your side. When you can't hold a line of reasoning for more than two minutes in basic special relativity, you don't bring it up.
R.H.
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 23:14, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 23:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:58, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:40, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:33, Demented maniac, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>>>>> W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:50, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:47, Idiotic kook Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>> W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:31, Python pisze:
..
Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize for *numerous* reasons:
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read
Even you admitted that Poincaré would likely have kicked you in >>>>>>>> the a**
Wozniak.
No, I didn't. A lie as usual.
You did. Amnesia now?
No, I didn't As you insist - maybe it's
rather a delusion than a lie. Woll, both
very possible.
Anyway you did.
Nope. As said - either a lie or a delusion.
Both typical for a relativistic idiot in general
and for you especially.
See, - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
There is nothing to do as you've never done anything like.
Yes, I did, I've pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions of his, physics.
You didn't, they're laughable nonsense.
Of course they are, they're consequences
of the physics of your idiot guru.
Only you were screaming. You got precise refutations of you silly
Nope, I've got some utterly ridiculous
assertions, extremly stupid even considering
the usual level of the Shit's worshippers.
Well, nothing more was ever expected, of
course. It's changing nothing, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
it's been proven and a fanatic piece of shit
screaming "NOOOOO!!!" spitting and slandering is
changing nothing. Sorry.
If it were a proof how come nobody but you recognizes it as such?
Nobody is expecting a bunch of
fanatic idiots to recognize and accept
a proof that their divine guru was just
a mumbling crazie.
Expecting something like that from
a bunch of brainwashed fanatics wouldn't
be wise, would it?
Le 14/01/2025 à 04:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:09, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:05, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:54, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:50, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:39, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:34, Richard Hachel a écrit :[snip more idiotic babbling
[snip idiotic babbling]
Il faut arrêter avec ce fantasme d'arrogance qui veut que l'homme est >>>>>> intelligent, et qu'il a tout compris.
Exactly. So stop doing that! Especially when your fallacies, your contradictions
and your misconceptions have been pointed out precisely.
:))
It makes you smile to be an arrogant, an imbecile, an ignorant in addition to be
a liar and a fraud?
Fraud and arrogance are on your side. When you can't hold a line of reasoning
for more than two minutes in basic special relativity, you don't bring it up.
R.H.
Again, you are describing yourself. For decades you've shown that you do not understand at all what synchronization is about, for instance. And you still don't. This is a fact.
Even in face of a program demonstrating that you are wrong (https://noedge.net/e) you persist. This is adding dishonesty to stupidity.
Le 14/01/2025 à 00:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 23:14, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 23:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:58, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:40, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:33, Demented maniac, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>>>>>> W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:50, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:47, Idiotic kook Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:31, Python pisze:
..
Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize for *numerous* reasons: >>>>>>>>>>
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read
Even you admitted that Poincaré would likely have kicked you in >>>>>>>>> the a**
Wozniak.
No, I didn't. A lie as usual.
You did. Amnesia now?
No, I didn't As you insist - maybe it's
rather a delusion than a lie. Woll, both
very possible.
Anyway you did.
Nope. As said - either a lie or a delusion.
Both typical for a relativistic idiot in general
and for you especially.
See, - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
There is nothing to do as you've never done anything like.
Yes, I did, I've pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions of his, physics.
You didn't, they're laughable nonsense.
Of course they are, they're consequences
of the physics of your idiot guru.
Only you were screaming. You got precise refutations of you silly
Nope, I've got some utterly ridiculous
assertions, extremly stupid even considering
the usual level of the Shit's worshippers.
Well, nothing more was ever expected, of
course. It's changing nothing, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
it's been proven and a fanatic piece of shit
screaming "NOOOOO!!!" spitting and slandering is
changing nothing. Sorry.
If it were a proof how come nobody but you recognizes it as such?
Nobody is expecting a bunch of
fanatic idiots to recognize and accept
a proof that their divine guru was just
a mumbling crazie.
Expecting something like that from
a bunch of brainwashed fanatics wouldn't
be wise, would it?
A proof is a human production, right? As long as an alleged one is not considered valid by a significant community outside of its author it is
not a proof.
You can insult people, it doesn't change the fact that what you have
nothing like a proof.
Le 14/01/2025 à 11:25, Python a écrit :
Le 14/01/2025 à 04:13, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:09, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:05, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:54, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:50, Richard Hachel a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:39, Python a écrit :
Le 13/01/2025 à 21:34, Richard Hachel a écrit :[snip more idiotic babbling
[snip idiotic babbling]
Il faut arrêter avec ce fantasme d'arrogance qui veut que l'homme est >>>>>>> intelligent, et qu'il a tout compris.
Exactly. So stop doing that! Especially when your fallacies, your contradictions
and your misconceptions have been pointed out precisely.
:))
It makes you smile to be an arrogant, an imbecile, an ignorant in addition to be
a liar and a fraud?
Fraud and arrogance are on your side. When you can't hold a line of reasoning
for more than two minutes in basic special relativity, you don't bring it up.
R.H.
Again, you are describing yourself. For decades you've shown that you do not >> understand at all what synchronization is about, for instance. And you still don't.
This is a fact.
Even in face of a program demonstrating that you are wrong
(https://noedge.net/e) you persist. This is adding dishonesty to stupidity.
But you are unable to understand what a synchronization procedure is, nor why,
in the universe, the only coherent practice consists in finding a virtual, abstract synchronization of type M as I explained in my pdf.
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Den 13.01.2025 06:07, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection=
"photographic plates?
How ridiculous! :-D
Einstein calculated the GR prediction 1.7" in 1916,
before any measurements of the deflection was made.
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
At the top of page 69:
"We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing
by a mass M at the distance ?."
The calculation is shown on page 69 and the result is given
at the bottom of the page:
"According to this, a ray of light going past the sun undergoes
a deflexion of 1.7"."
So in 1916 nobody, including Einstein, knew what the correct
value was, because no measurements were ever made.
But it is a matter of record that Hilbert complimented Einstein
on the rapidity and cleverness with which he had derived
the correct value for the deflection of starlight
from the equations of general relativity.
(if only I could calculate like you...)
Hilbert certainly did not see any error in it or he would have said so.
Not surprising of course, because there isnt any.
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 11:23, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 00:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 23:14, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 23:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:58, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:40, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:33, Demented maniac, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>> W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:50, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:47, Idiotic kook Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:31, Python pisze:
..
Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize for *numerous* reasons: >>>>>>>>>>>
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read
Even you admitted that Poincaré would likely have kicked you in >>>>>>>>>> the a**
Wozniak.
No, I didn't. A lie as usual.
You did. Amnesia now?
No, I didn't As you insist - maybe it's
rather a delusion than a lie. Woll, both
very possible.
Anyway you did.
Nope. As said - either a lie or a delusion.
Both typical for a relativistic idiot in general
and for you especially.
See, - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
There is nothing to do as you've never done anything like.
Yes, I did, I've pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions of his, physics.
You didn't, they're laughable nonsense.
Of course they are, they're consequences
of the physics of your idiot guru.
Only you were screaming. You got precise refutations of you silly
Nope, I've got some utterly ridiculous
assertions, extremly stupid even considering
the usual level of the Shit's worshippers.
Well, nothing more was ever expected, of
course. It's changing nothing, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
it's been proven and a fanatic piece of shit
screaming "NOOOOO!!!" spitting and slandering is
changing nothing. Sorry.
If it were a proof how come nobody but you recognizes it as such?
Nobody is expecting a bunch of
fanatic idiots to recognize and accept
a proof that their divine guru was just
a mumbling crazie.
Expecting something like that from
a bunch of brainwashed fanatics wouldn't
be wise, would it?
A proof is a human production, right? As long as an alleged one is not
considered valid by a significant community outside of its author it is
not a proof.
Sorry, poor stinker - pointing 2 denying
themself predictions of the physics of
your idiot guru is a proof of its inconsistency.
No matter whether you and your fellow trash
are accepting it or not.
You can insult people, it doesn't change the fact that what you have
nothing like a proof.
You can insult people, it doesn't change the
fact that I've pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions of the physics of your
idiot guru. I.e - I've demonstrated a proof
of its inconsistency.
Now - go fuck yourself with your pseudophilosophy.
It's as worthless as The Shit of your idiot guru.
I interpreted this as that Einstein somehow had "fixed"
the predictions of GR to be in accordance with measurements
shown on some photographic plates.
In other words, LaurenceClarkCrossen claim that Einstein
knew what the GR prediction should be to be in accordance
with measurements.
Le 14/01/2025 à 11:52, Richard Hachel a écrit :
I demonstrated that you are wrong.
Le 14/01/2025 à 12:11, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 11:23, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 00:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 23:14, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 23:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:58, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:40, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:33, Demented maniac, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>> W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:50, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:47, Idiotic kook Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:31, Python pisze:
..
Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize for *numerous* reasons: >>>>>>>>>>>>
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read
Even you admitted that Poincaré would likely have kicked you >>>>>>>>>>> in the a**
Wozniak.
No, I didn't. A lie as usual.
You did. Amnesia now?
No, I didn't As you insist - maybe it's
rather a delusion than a lie. Woll, both
very possible.
Anyway you did.
Nope. As said - either a lie or a delusion.
Both typical for a relativistic idiot in general
and for you especially.
See, - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
There is nothing to do as you've never done anything like.
Yes, I did, I've pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions of his, physics.
You didn't, they're laughable nonsense.
Of course they are, they're consequences
of the physics of your idiot guru.
Only you were screaming. You got precise refutations of you silly >>>>>>Nope, I've got some utterly ridiculous
assertions, extremly stupid even considering
the usual level of the Shit's worshippers.
Well, nothing more was ever expected, of
course. It's changing nothing, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
it's been proven and a fanatic piece of shit
screaming "NOOOOO!!!" spitting and slandering is
changing nothing. Sorry.
If it were a proof how come nobody but you recognizes it as such?
Nobody is expecting a bunch of
fanatic idiots to recognize and accept
a proof that their divine guru was just
a mumbling crazie.
Expecting something like that from
a bunch of brainwashed fanatics wouldn't
be wise, would it?
A proof is a human production, right? As long as an alleged one is
not considered valid by a significant community outside of its author
it is not a proof.
Sorry, poor stinker - pointing 2 denying
themself predictions of the physics of
your idiot guru is a proof of its inconsistency.
No matter whether you and your fellow trash
are accepting it or not.
You can insult people, it doesn't change the fact that what you have
nothing like a proof.
You can insult people, it doesn't change the
fact that I've pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions of the physics of your
idiot guru. I.e - I've demonstrated a proof
of its inconsistency.
Now - go fuck yourself with your pseudophilosophy.
It's as worthless as The Shit of your idiot guru.
Just because *you* say so? Come on!
You have demonstrated nothing.
And are just a demented ranting kook lost in the middle of nowhere.
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 13:16, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 12:11, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 11:23, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 00:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 23:14, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 23:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:58, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:40, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:33, Demented maniac, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:50, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:47, Idiotic kook Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:31, Python pisze:
..
Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize for *numerous* reasons: >>>>>>>>>>>>>
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read
Even you admitted that Poincaré would likely have kicked you >>>>>>>>>>>> in the a**
Wozniak.
No, I didn't. A lie as usual.
You did. Amnesia now?
No, I didn't As you insist - maybe it's
rather a delusion than a lie. Woll, both
very possible.
Anyway you did.
Nope. As said - either a lie or a delusion.
Both typical for a relativistic idiot in general
and for you especially.
See, - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
There is nothing to do as you've never done anything like.
Yes, I did, I've pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions of his, physics.
You didn't, they're laughable nonsense.
Of course they are, they're consequences
of the physics of your idiot guru.
Only you were screaming. You got precise refutations of you silly >>>>>>>Nope, I've got some utterly ridiculous
assertions, extremly stupid even considering
the usual level of the Shit's worshippers.
Well, nothing more was ever expected, of
course. It's changing nothing, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
it's been proven and a fanatic piece of shit
screaming "NOOOOO!!!" spitting and slandering is
changing nothing. Sorry.
If it were a proof how come nobody but you recognizes it as such?
Nobody is expecting a bunch of
fanatic idiots to recognize and accept
a proof that their divine guru was just
a mumbling crazie.
Expecting something like that from
a bunch of brainwashed fanatics wouldn't
be wise, would it?
A proof is a human production, right? As long as an alleged one is
not considered valid by a significant community outside of its author
it is not a proof.
Sorry, poor stinker - pointing 2 denying
themself predictions of the physics of
your idiot guru is a proof of its inconsistency.
No matter whether you and your fellow trash
are accepting it or not.
You can insult people, it doesn't change the fact that what you have
nothing like a proof.
You can insult people, it doesn't change the
fact that I've pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions of the physics of your
idiot guru. I.e - I've demonstrated a proof
of its inconsistency.
Now - go fuck yourself with your pseudophilosophy.
It's as worthless as The Shit of your idiot guru.
Just because *you* say so? Come on!
Because I've pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions of the physics of
your idiot guru - and the ONLY answer
from you and your fellow idiots is
just some mad ravings.
Not that it's any surprise considering
who you are and what your church is.
You have demonstrated nothing.
Just because *you* say so? Come on, poor
stinker.
And are just a demented ranting kook lost in the middle of nowhere.
See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
Shit and your beloved church.
Again, how come you are incapable of convincing ANYONE neither here nor
elsewhere that your rant is a proper proof of anything?
Again - a fanatic idiot can never be convinced
that he is a fanatic idiot, no surprise in
that.
And as for rants - they are all yours. I've
pointed directly 2 denying themself predictions of
the physics of your idiot guru, i.e. provided
a proof of its inconsistency.
Le 14/01/2025 à 16:09, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 13:16, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 12:11, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 11:23, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 00:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 23:14, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 23:13, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :Nobody is expecting a bunch of
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:58, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 13.01.2025 o 22:40, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 22:33, Demented maniac, Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:50, Python pisze:
Le 13/01/2025 à 20:47, Idiotic kook Maciej Wozniak a écrit : >>>>>>>>>>>>>> W dniu 13.01.2025 o 20:31, Python pisze:
..
Einstein deserved the Nobel Prize for *numerous* reasons: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Whatever you say - Poincare had enough wit
to understand how idiotic rejecting Euclid
would be, and he has written it clearly
enough for anyone able to read
Even you admitted that Poincaré would likely have kicked >>>>>>>>>>>>> you in the a**
Wozniak.
No, I didn't. A lie as usual.
You did. Amnesia now?
No, I didn't As you insist - maybe it's
rather a delusion than a lie. Woll, both
very possible.
Anyway you did.
Nope. As said - either a lie or a delusion.
Both typical for a relativistic idiot in general
and for you especially.
See, - I've proven the mumble of your idiotThere is nothing to do as you've never done anything like. >>>>>>>>>>
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it >>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, I did, I've pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions of his, physics.
You didn't, they're laughable nonsense.
Of course they are, they're consequences
of the physics of your idiot guru.
Only you were screaming. You got precise refutations of you silly >>>>>>>>Nope, I've got some utterly ridiculous
assertions, extremly stupid even considering
the usual level of the Shit's worshippers.
Well, nothing more was ever expected, of
course. It's changing nothing, the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent,
it's been proven and a fanatic piece of shit
screaming "NOOOOO!!!" spitting and slandering is
changing nothing. Sorry.
If it were a proof how come nobody but you recognizes it as such? >>>>>>
fanatic idiots to recognize and accept
a proof that their divine guru was just
a mumbling crazie.
Expecting something like that from
a bunch of brainwashed fanatics wouldn't
be wise, would it?
A proof is a human production, right? As long as an alleged one is
not considered valid by a significant community outside of its
author it is not a proof.
Sorry, poor stinker - pointing 2 denying
themself predictions of the physics of
your idiot guru is a proof of its inconsistency.
No matter whether you and your fellow trash
are accepting it or not.
You can insult people, it doesn't change the fact that what you
have nothing like a proof.
You can insult people, it doesn't change the
fact that I've pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions of the physics of your
idiot guru. I.e - I've demonstrated a proof
of its inconsistency.
Now - go fuck yourself with your pseudophilosophy.
It's as worthless as The Shit of your idiot guru.
Just because *you* say so? Come on!
Because I've pointed directly 2 denying
themself predictions of the physics of
your idiot guru - and the ONLY answer
from you and your fellow idiots is
just some mad ravings.
Not that it's any surprise considering
who you are and what your church is.
You have demonstrated nothing.
Just because *you* say so? Come on, poor
stinker.
And are just a demented ranting kook lost in the middle of nowhere.
See, poor stinker - I've proven the mumble of your idiot
guru to be inconsistent, and you can do nothing about it
apart of spitting, insulting and slandering.
And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
Shit and your beloved church.
Again, how come you are incapable of convincing ANYONE neither here nor elsewhere that your rant is a proper proof of anything?
Le 14/01/2025 à 16:42, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
..
Again, how come you are incapable of convincing ANYONE neither here
nor elsewhere that your rant is a proper proof of anything?
Again - a fanatic idiot can never be convinced
that he is a fanatic idiot, no surprise in
that.
All of Humanity but Maciej Wozniak are "fanatic idiots"? You need > medical help, Maciej.
And as for rants - they are all yours. I've
pointed directly 2 denying themself predictions of
the physics of your idiot guru, i.e. provided
a proof of its inconsistency.
Again, your alleged "proofs" have been refuted with meaningful
arguments
Le 14/01/2025 à 17:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 16:49, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 16:42, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
..
Again, how come you are incapable of convincing ANYONE neither here
nor elsewhere that your rant is a proper proof of anything?
Again - a fanatic idiot can never be convinced
that he is a fanatic idiot, no surprise in
that.
All of Humanity but Maciej Wozniak are "fanatic idiots"? You need >
medical help, Maciej.
Al of humanity comes for discussing on a
physics newsgroup? You need medical help,
Python.
Did you ever confront your "proofs" to anyone outside of here?
Did you ever asked yourself, given how short and simple are your
"proofs", why NOBODY has proposed your arguments as "proofs" that SR was inconsitent?
Both refutation an meaningful arguments are,
unfortunately, just some delusion of yours.
Samely as being "all of humanity".
Did you ever consider that, maybe, maybe you are too stupid and/or too stubborn to seriously consider these arguments?
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 16:49, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 16:42, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
..
Again, how come you are incapable of convincing ANYONE neither here
nor elsewhere that your rant is a proper proof of anything?
Again - a fanatic idiot can never be convinced
that he is a fanatic idiot, no surprise in
that.
All of Humanity but Maciej Wozniak are "fanatic idiots"? You need > medical >> help, Maciej.
Al of humanity comes for discussing on a
physics newsgroup? You need medical help,
Python.
And as for rants - they are all yours. I've
pointed directly 2 denying themself predictions of
the physics of your idiot guru, i.e. provided
a proof of its inconsistency.
Again, your alleged "proofs" have been refuted with meaningful
arguments
Both refutation an meaningful arguments are,
unfortunately, just some delusion of yours.
Samely as being "all of humanity".
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 18:23, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 17:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 16:49, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 16:42, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
..
Again, how come you are incapable of convincing ANYONE neither here >>>>>> nor elsewhere that your rant is a proper proof of anything?
Again - a fanatic idiot can never be convinced
that he is a fanatic idiot, no surprise in
that.
All of Humanity but Maciej Wozniak are "fanatic idiots"? You need >
medical help, Maciej.
Al of humanity comes for discussing on a
physics newsgroup? You need medical help,
Python.
Did you ever confront your "proofs" to anyone outside of here?
I confront it with people here and
I can see that apart of spitting,
slandering and desperately dodging
questions they can do exactly nothing
to it. So, sorry, it is good.
Did you ever asked yourself, given how short and simple are your
"proofs", why NOBODY has proposed your arguments as "proofs" that SR was
inconsistent?
That is a simple one. You're selling your
idiocies as a voice of Nature Herself,
somehow magically independent on mere
human made definitions. Don't you?
Somehow, people buy this mystical crap
- they trust you. Happens.
Both refutation an meaningful arguments are,
unfortunately, just some delusion of yours.
Samely as being "all of humanity".
Did you ever consider that, maybe, maybe you are too stupid and/or too
stubborn to seriously consider these arguments?
No. Do you?
Le 14/01/2025 à 18:52, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 18:23, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 17:51, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 16:49, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 16:42, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
..
Again, how come you are incapable of convincing ANYONE neither
here nor elsewhere that your rant is a proper proof of anything?
Again - a fanatic idiot can never be convinced
that he is a fanatic idiot, no surprise in
that.
All of Humanity but Maciej Wozniak are "fanatic idiots"? You need >
medical help, Maciej.
Al of humanity comes for discussing on a
physics newsgroup? You need medical help,
Python.
Did you ever confront your "proofs" to anyone outside of here?
I confront it with people here and
I can see that apart of spitting,
slandering and desperately dodging
questions they can do exactly nothing
to it. So, sorry, it is good.
No answer?
Did you ever asked yourself, given how short and simple are your
"proofs", why NOBODY has proposed your arguments as "proofs" that SR
was inconsistent?
Still no answer.
That is a simple one. You're selling your
idiocies as a voice of Nature Herself,
Nope.
Still no answer again. And still you consider all of Humanity since
Einstein (and since Newton/Galileo too) as idiots compared to you, a
random wannabee engineer whining and ranting from an asylum in Poland.
Come on!
Both refutation an meaningful arguments are,
unfortunately, just some delusion of yours.
Samely as being "all of humanity".
Did you ever consider that, maybe, maybe you are too stupid and/or
too stubborn to seriously consider these arguments?
No. Do you?
I did
As an engineer (a real one, not a wannabee as you)
that your argument are utterly asinine and tried to explain you how and
why. Again definitely not "screaming NOOO!" which is what YOU are doing.
No answer to this either:
Have you heard about Andrew Wiles proof of Fermat theorem in the 90x? Do
you have the expertise to evaluate the validity of this alleged proof?
Do you think that this alleged proof is valid (considering that it has
been reviewed and revised afterward)?
Did you ever confront your "proofs" to anyone outside of here?
I confront it with people here and
I can see that apart of spitting,
slandering and desperately dodging
questions they can do exactly nothing
to it. So, sorry, it is good.
No answer?
Answer. No. Why to explain inconsistency of
your Shit to someone who neither knows it
nor is interested in it?
That is a simple one. You're selling your
idiocies as a voice of Nature Herself,
Nope.
Buhahahahahahahahaha.
The impudence of your lies is amazing.
Still no answer again. And still you consider all of Humanity since
Einstein (and since Newton/Galileo too) as idiots compared to you, a
random wannabee engineer whining and ranting from an asylum in Poland.
Come on!
Still mistakig yourseflf together with some
brainwashed fellow idiots with Humanity.
Don't you feel how unrealistic this is?
This is the reason I suggest that you
seek for medical help. You suffer from
delusion or grandeur.
Both refutation an meaningful arguments are,
unfortunately, just some delusion of yours.
Samely as being "all of humanity".
Did you ever consider that, maybe, maybe you are too stupid and/or
too stubborn to seriously consider these arguments?
No. Do you?
I did
No you didn't. An impudent lie, as usual.
As an engineer (a real one, not a wannabee as you)
slander
I concluded
that your argument are utterly asinine and tried to explain you how and
why. Again definitely not "screaming NOOO!" which is what YOU are doing.
Definitely, screaming "NOOOOO!!!", spitting
and slandering. You're unable for anything
else, sorry, poor stinker. And your fellow
idiots are no better.
No answer to this either:
Have you heard about Andrew Wiles proof of Fermat theorem in the 90x? Do
you have the expertise to evaluate the validity of this alleged proof?
Do you think that this alleged proof is valid (considering that it has
been reviewed and revised afterward)?
I've heard a bit, very little, I'm not
especially interested in and I have no
opinion whether it is valid or not.
Le 14/01/2025 à 19:39, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
..
Did you ever confront your "proofs" to anyone outside of here?
I confront it with people here and
I can see that apart of spitting,
slandering and desperately dodging
questions they can do exactly nothing
to it. So, sorry, it is good.
No answer?
Answer. No. Why to explain inconsistency of
your Shit to someone who neither knows it
nor is interested in it?
You are claiming that nobody outside of here knows or is interested in Relativity? Really?
That is a simple one. You're selling your
idiocies as a voice of Nature Herself,
Nope.
Buhahahahahahahahaha.
The impudence of your lies is amazing.
You'll never find a single quote from me claiming that Relativity is a
"voice of Nature Herself".
Still mistakig yourseflf together with some
brainwashed fellow idiots with Humanity.
Don't you feel how unrealistic this is?
This is the reason I suggest that you
seek for medical help. You suffer from
delusion or grandeur.
I'm not talking about myself.
your silly mind that such short and simple alleged "proof" have never
been identified by anyone except you.
This is a sign of mental illness, and delusion of grandeur.
Both refutation an meaningful arguments are,
unfortunately, just some delusion of yours.
Samely as being "all of humanity".
Did you ever consider that, maybe, maybe you are too stupid and/or
too stubborn to seriously consider these arguments?
No. Do you?
I did
No you didn't. An impudent lie, as usual.
As an engineer (a real one, not a wannabee as you)
slander
There is 0% chance that you really are an engineer. Absolutely no doubt
I can prove that I am an engineer,
Definitely, screaming "NOOOOO!!!", spitting
and slandering. You're unable for anything
else, sorry, poor stinker. And your fellow
idiots are no better.
Definitely not screaming "NOOO!!!" which is exactly what *you* do in > most of your posts.
Any kind of interest for Relativity implies to instantly being
brainwashed? Really?
There is 0% chance that you really are an engineer. Absolutely no doubt
Put your chances and your doubts
together straight into your dumb,
fanatic, slandering ass where they
belong,
Still a undeniable fact anyway.
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 20:15, Python pisze:
Any kind of interest for Relativity implies to instantly being
brainwashed? Really?
Really. Sorry, physics is practically only atracting
seekers of mystical "Laws of Nature" - whether
they become followers or deniers of The Shit of
Einstein doesn't really matter, in both cases
Nature Herself is speaking through their mouths.
Le 14/01/2025 à 20:44, Demented ranting fart Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 20:15, Python pisze:
Any kind of interest for Relativity implies to instantly being
brainwashed? Really?
Really. Sorry, physics is practically only atracting
seekers of mystical "Laws of Nature" - whether
they become followers or deniers of The Shit of
Einstein doesn't really matter, in both cases
Nature Herself is speaking through their mouths.
Again, fantasies on your part. *facepalm*.
And you pretend to be an engineer!
Again, what's your point in posting idiotic rants every single day here
if the place is full of "brainwashed fanatics"?
while nurses in Poland are
waiting to clean your sheets.
Answer. No. Why to explain inconsistency of
your Shit to someone who neither knows it
nor is interested in it?
You are claiming that nobody outside of here knows or is interested in
Relativity? Really?
No, but
1)I don't have anyone in range
2)if he is he is most likely as brainwashed
as any idiot here.
There is 0% chance that you really are an engineer. Absolutely no doubt
Put your chances and your doubts
together straight into your dumb,
fanatic, slandering ass where they
belong,
poor stinker.
[snip nonsense]
And you pretend to be an engineer!
No, I don't.
[snip more nonsense]
Le 14/01/2025 à 20:58, Demented ranting fart, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
[snip nonsense]
And you pretend to be an engineer!
No, I don't.
You have pretended numerous times, here, to be an "information
engineer".
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:54:29 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 13.01.2025 06:07, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical
formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75
seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known
and simple formula of physical optics";
Ah! So that's where you found the "refraction formula"! :-D
In 1930 Poor obviously knew 'The mathematical formula,
by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75".'
This is the equation: Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² @
where:
Δ = the impact parameter, closest approach to Sun
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = gravitational constant
M = solar mass
In this case Δ = R, the radius of the Sun.
This is indeed "a well known and simple formula" and
since it is about physics and optics (light)
Poor called it a "formula of physical optics".
It has nothing to do with refraction, obviously.
Why did you think that Poor claimed it was about refraction? :-D
Paul says Poor's statement that Einstein used an optics formula is ridiculous. Then he misconstrues, claiming this would have happened
after the actual measurements, which is nonsense. He used the optics
formula for his prediction.
Yes, Poor shows he used a refraction formula.
It is very ignorant to think that contradictory experiments that show Newtonian and twice Newtonian prove relativity. The experiments have
proved nothing. Relativity is an ignorant pseudoscience comprised of
nothing but illogical and self-contradictory baseless claims.
Mercury's
perihelion of relativity is based on the assumption that gravity can be treated as electromagnetism.
According to Britannica, this is now known
to be false because the unified field theory "failed."
Galileo and
Eotvos showed everything, regardless of the mass or the substance, is affected the same by gravity. Relativity has not disproved that.
The
velocity of both waves and particles includes the relative velocity of
the observer, yet relativity irrationally denies this—pure lunacy.
Einstein has stated that if two different forces strike you with the
same force, the effect will be the same! Pure genius! Poor quotes
Einstein's explanation of his equivalence principle: "'The effect of gravitation upon ideal “clocks” and “measuring rods” at rest at a given
point in a gravitational field is identically the same as that caused by
a motion of the “clock” and “rod” through free space with a velocity equal to that which they would have acquired had they fallen, under the action of gravitation, from infinity to that point.'"
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 21:00, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 20:58, Demented ranting fart, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
[snip nonsense]
And you pretend to be an engineer!
No, I don't.
You have pretended numerous times, here, to be an "information
engineer".
I have pretended no more than you have
BTW. One could think that even a relativistic
idiot would stop slandering in a discussion about
his slandering. But - no - you're too stupid
even for that. Indeed, amazing.
slandering poor stinker.
Le 14/01/2025 à 21:47, Demented old fart Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 21:00, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 20:58, Demented ranting fart, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
[snip nonsense]
And you pretend to be an engineer!
No, I don't.
You have pretended numerous times, here, to be an "information
engineer".
I have pretended no more than you have
You did.
I am an engineer and that I can prove it.
What is good, anyway, is that you have, in this thread, implicitly but clearly admitted that you lied when you've pretended to be an
"information engineer"
It is a fact that experiments have shown that GR correctly
predicts how light is gravitational deflected.
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:54:29 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
"This is exactly double the value given in 1911, and this doubling
of values has given rise to many speculations, and to many and
varied explanations, on the part of the relativists.
An inspection of the formulas, which Einstein used, shows
exactly what he did and how he derived this result. The essential
factor in the formula is that for the rate of change of velocity
along the wave-front 6c, 6x ; and this is the only factor in which
any change can be made. All the other terms and factors of the
formula are always identically the same." - Poor = "THE RELATIVITY
DEFLECTION OF LIGHT!"
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 22:02, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 21:47, Demented old fart Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 21:00, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 20:58, Demented ranting fart, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
[snip nonsense]
And you pretend to be an engineer!
No, I don't.
You have pretended numerous times, here, to be an "information
engineer".
I have pretended no more than you have
You did.
No.
A shame for all the engineers of the world
What is good, anyway, is that you have, in this thread, implicitly but
clearly admitted that you lied when you've pretended to be an
"information engineer"
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 22:39, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
It is a fact that experiments have shown that GR correctly
predicts how light is gravitational deflected.
A lie, of course - according to [GR],
light [in vacuum] doesn't deflect
and take always straight/geodesic paths.
Under Newton, a photon has gravitational mass m, for which it's affected
by gravity.
1) A photon with energy E, falling under gravity effects from height h, increases its energy by an amount
ΔE = +mgh
Using the equivalence m = E/c^2, its energy when it reaches ground is E
+ ΔE:
E + ΔE = E (1 + gh/c^2)
Using Planck's equivalence E = hf, it gives
f + Δf = f (1 + gh/c^2)
Then, under Newton, the frequency change is
Δf/f = +gh/c^2
The frequency of the photon increase by falling, and is blue-shifted.
On the other way around, if a photon is escaping from ground, at an
height h its frequency has decreased by
Δf/f = -gh/c^2 (red-shifted)
******************************************************
No relativity here. Only requires to accept the existence of
gravitational mass and a given equivalence mass-energy.
Le 14/01/2025 à 22:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :The claim that a straight geodesic path actually keeps the light speed
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 22:39, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
It is a fact that experiments have shown that GR correctly
predicts how light is gravitational deflected.
A lie, of course - according to [GR],
light [in vacuum] doesn't deflect
and take always straight/geodesic paths.
How could you know anything about what GR says or doesn't say as you
admit
to stay as far as physics as possible in order to not become a
"brainwashed fanatic" :-)
(for the record: a straight/geodesic path in space-time does not
necessarily corresponds to a straight path in space. Maciej is sooo
highly
confused on everything, especially geometry. It is quite delusional to
think that GR pretends so given that planets orbits [in space] are
clearly
not straight lines even if they correspond to geodesics in space-time).
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 22:39, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:Yes, non-Euclidean geometry is invoked to claim a straight path and a
It is a fact that experiments have shown that GR correctly
predicts how light is gravitational deflected.
A lie, of course - according to your moronic
religion light [in vacuum] doesn't deflect
and take always straight/geodesic paths.
Den 14.01.2025 01:36, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:54:29 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
"This is exactly double the value given in 1911, and this doubling
of values has given rise to many speculations, and to many and
varied explanations, on the part of the relativists.
Everybody knows that his 1911 prediction is wrong.
It is in fact the Newtonian prediction.
So what?
It is a fact that experiments have shown that GR correctly
predicts how light is gravitational deflected.
An inspection of the formulas, which Einstein used, shows
exactly what he did and how he derived this result. The essential
factor in the formula is that for the rate of change of velocity
along the wave-front 6c, 6x ; and this is the only factor in which
any change can be made. All the other terms and factors of the
formula are always identically the same." - Poor = "THE RELATIVITY
DEFLECTION OF LIGHT!"
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.pdfYou are such a waste of time as you never directly answer any of the
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.
On 12-Jan-25 1:16 am, rhertz wrote:It makes no difference whether it behaves as a wave or particle because
Under Newton, a photon has gravitational mass m, for which it's affected
by gravity.
1) A photon with energy E, falling under gravity effects from height h,
increases its energy by an amount
ΔE = +mgh
Using the equivalence m = E/c^2, its energy when it reaches ground is E
+ ΔE:
E + ΔE = E (1 + gh/c^2)
Using Planck's equivalence E = hf, it gives
f + Δf = f (1 + gh/c^2)
Then, under Newton, the frequency change is
Δf/f = +gh/c^2
The frequency of the photon increase by falling, and is blue-shifted.
On the other way around, if a photon is escaping from ground, at an
height h its frequency has decreased by
Δf/f = -gh/c^2 (red-shifted)
******************************************************
No relativity here. Only requires to accept the existence of
gravitational mass and a given equivalence mass-energy.
The problem is that this doesn't work. Two observers at different
heights would see differing numbers of waves passing their respective locations per unit time. The observers would conclude that waves were accumulating between their two locations, or somehow just vanishing.
Sylvia.
Le 14/01/2025 à 22:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :He asserts that the non-Euclidean is real and the Euclidean is not real
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 22:39, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
It is a fact that experiments have shown that GR correctly
predicts how light is gravitational deflected.
A lie, of course - according to [GR],
light [in vacuum] doesn't deflect
and take always straight/geodesic paths.
How could you know anything about what GR says or doesn't say as you
admit
to stay as far as physics as possible in order to not become a
"brainwashed fanatic" :-)
(for the record: a straight/geodesic path in space-time does not
necessarily corresponds to a straight path in space. Maciej is sooo
highly
confused on everything, especially geometry. It is quite delusional to
think that GR pretends so given that planets orbits [in space] are
clearly
not straight lines even if they correspond to geodesics in space-time).
Den 14.01.2025 01:36, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Mon, 13 Jan 2025 18:54:29 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
"This is exactly double the value given in 1911, and this doubling
of values has given rise to many speculations, and to many and
varied explanations, on the part of the relativists.
Everybody knows that his 1911 prediction is wrong.
It is in fact the Newtonian prediction.
So what?
It is a fact that experiments have shown that GR correctly
predicts how light is gravitational deflected.
An inspection of the formulas, which Einstein used, shows
exactly what he did and how he derived this result. The essential
factor in the formula is that for the rate of change of velocity
along the wave-front 6c, 6x ; and this is the only factor in which
any change can be made. All the other terms and factors of the
formula are always identically the same." - Poor = "THE RELATIVITY
DEFLECTION OF LIGHT!"
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.pdfEuclidean geometry is for planes, and non-Euclidean geometry is for
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.
On 12-Jan-25 1:16 am, rhertz wrote:This is a problem for you only because you want to pretend that light
Under Newton, a photon has gravitational mass m, for which it's affected
by gravity.
1) A photon with energy E, falling under gravity effects from height h,
increases its energy by an amount
ΔE = +mgh
Using the equivalence m = E/c^2, its energy when it reaches ground is E
+ ΔE:
E + ΔE = E (1 + gh/c^2)
Using Planck's equivalence E = hf, it gives
f + Δf = f (1 + gh/c^2)
Then, under Newton, the frequency change is
Δf/f = +gh/c^2
The frequency of the photon increase by falling, and is blue-shifted.
On the other way around, if a photon is escaping from ground, at an
height h its frequency has decreased by
Δf/f = -gh/c^2 (red-shifted)
******************************************************
No relativity here. Only requires to accept the existence of
gravitational mass and a given equivalence mass-energy.
The problem is that this doesn't work. Two observers at different
heights would see differing numbers of waves passing their respective locations per unit time. The observers would conclude that waves were accumulating between their two locations, or somehow just vanishing.
Sylvia.
Le 14/01/2025 à 22:48, Convicted liar, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 22:02, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 21:47, Demented old fart Maciej Wozniak wrote:
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 21:00, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 20:58, Demented ranting fart, Maciej Wozniak wrote: >>>>>> [snip nonsense]
And you pretend to be an engineer!
No, I don't.
You have pretended numerous times, here, to be an "information
engineer".
I have pretended no more than you have
You did.
No.
The point is not that you would have pretended more or less than I. What
I pretend is true, sound and provable. What you pretended is false,
This is an unambiguous admittance that you lied then. Also that you are
in no way an engineer of any kind.
this claim was. You shot yourself in the foot (not the first time though).
A shame for all the engineers of the world
Fortunately you are not, so there is no shame for all of us. BTW, a lot
of my engineering work is public. If you have critics on it, feel free
to express it.
What is good, anyway, is that you have, in this thread, implicitly
but clearly admitted that you lied when you've pretended to be an
"information engineer"
You lied. You admitted it. EOS.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 3:02:16 +0000, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Jan-25 1:16 am, rhertz wrote:This is a problem for you only because you want to pretend that light
Under Newton, a photon has gravitational mass m, for which it's affected >>> by gravity.
1) A photon with energy E, falling under gravity effects from height h,
increases its energy by an amount
ΔE = +mgh
Using the equivalence m = E/c^2, its energy when it reaches ground is E
+ ΔE:
E + ΔE = E (1 + gh/c^2)
Using Planck's equivalence E = hf, it gives
f + Δf = f (1 + gh/c^2)
Then, under Newton, the frequency change is
Δf/f = +gh/c^2
The frequency of the photon increase by falling, and is blue-shifted.
On the other way around, if a photon is escaping from ground, at an
height h its frequency has decreased by
Δf/f = -gh/c^2 (red-shifted)
******************************************************
No relativity here. Only requires to accept the existence of
gravitational mass and a given equivalence mass-energy.
The problem is that this doesn't work. Two observers at different
heights would see differing numbers of waves passing their respective
locations per unit time. The observers would conclude that waves were
accumulating between their two locations, or somehow just vanishing.
Sylvia.
speed is constant while it is affected by gravity. For that, you invoke non-Euclidean geometry, which Python just pointed out can't accomplish.
Le 14/01/2025 à 22:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 22:39, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
It is a fact that experiments have shown that GR correctly
predicts how light is gravitational deflected.
A lie, of course - according to [GR],
light [in vacuum] doesn't deflect
and take always straight/geodesic paths.
How could you know anything about what GR says or doesn't say as you
admit to stay as far as physics as possible
(for the record: a straight/geodesic path in space-time does not
necessarily corresponds to a straight path in space.
highly confused on everything, especially geometry. It is quite
delusional to think that GR pretends so given that planets orbits [in
space] are clearly not straight lines even if they correspond to
geodesics in space-time).\
The problem is that this doesn't work. Two observers at different
heights would see differing numbers of waves passing their respective locations per unit time.
Den 13.01.2025 21:05, skrev J. J. Lodder:
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Den 13.01.2025 06:07, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection=
"photographic plates?
I interpreted this as that Einstein somehow had "fixed"
the predictions of GR to be in accordance with measurements
shown on some photographic plates.
In other words, LaurenceClarkCrossen claim that Einstein
knew what the GR prediction should be to be in accordance
with measurements.
How ridiculous! :-D
Einstein calculated the GR prediction 1.7" in 1916,
before any measurements of the deflection was made.
See:
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
At the top of page 69:
"We examine the curvature undergone by a ray of light passing
by a mass M at the distance ?."
The calculation is shown on page 69 and the result is given
at the bottom of the page:
"According to this, a ray of light going past the sun undergoes
a deflexion of 1.7"."
So in 1916 nobody, including Einstein, knew what the correct
value was, because no measurements were ever made.
Here I meant "correct" as "in accordance with measurements".
But it is a matter of record that Hilbert complimented Einstein
on the rapidity and cleverness with which he had derived
the correct value for the deflection of starlight
from the equations of general relativity.
(if only I could calculate like you...)
Hilbert certainly did not see any error in it or he would have said so.
Not surprising of course, because there isnt any.
I expressed myself a bit clumsy.
Of course Einstein gave the correct GR prediction.
But nobody had at the time made any measurements,
so nobody knew if the predictions of GR would be in accordance
with measurements.
Point being that LaurenceClarkCrossen's claim that Einstein
had "cooked" the GR prediction is nonsense.
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 23:10, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 22:50, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 22:39, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
It is a fact that experiments have shown that GR correctly
predicts how light is gravitational deflected.
A lie, of course - according to [GR],
light [in vacuum] doesn't deflect
and take always straight/geodesic paths.
How could you know anything about what GR says or doesn't say as you
admit to stay as far as physics as possible
Somehow I do.
(for the record: a straight/geodesic path in space-time does not
necessarily corresponds to a straight path in space.
If we're taking the delusional spacetime of your
bunch of idiots and the real space - sure.
Anyway, according to [GR] of your idiot guru
Light paths [in vacuum] are straight/geodesic
in both.
Maciej is sooo
highly confused on everything, especially geometry. It is quite
delusional to think that GR pretends so given that planets orbits [in
space] are clearly not straight lines even if they correspond to
geodesics in space-time).\
It's quite delusional, indeed, but I knew some
relativistic [...] insisting on that.
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 23:01, Python pisze:..
Fortunately you are not, so there is no shame for all of us. BTW, a lot
of my engineering work is public. If you have critics on it, feel free
to express it.
What is good, anyway, is that you have, in this thread, implicitly
but clearly admitted that you lied when you've pretended to be an
"information engineer"
You lied. You admitted it. EOS.
Both lies. You won't admit it.
Anyway, according to [GR] of your idiot guru
Light paths [in vacuum] are straight/geodesic
in both.
No. Period.
Maciej is sooo
highly confused on everything, especially geometry. It is quite
delusional to think that GR pretends so given that planets orbits [in
space] are clearly not straight lines even if they correspond to
geodesics in space-time).\
It's quite delusional, indeed, but I knew some
relativistic [...] insisting on that.
In your silly dreams maybe, in reality certainly NOT.
Le 15/01/2025 à 07:34, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 23:01, Python pisze:..
Fortunately you are not, so there is no shame for all of us. BTW, a
lot of my engineering work is public. If you have critics on it, feel
free to express it.
What is good, anyway, is that you have, in this thread, implicitly
but clearly admitted that you lied when you've pretended to be an
"information engineer"
You lied. You admitted it. EOS.
Both lies. You won't admit it.
You admit being a liar
Moreover, anyway, I didn't lie.
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.
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.
"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.
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 ?
You know, experimental evidence _is_ the reality.
W dniu 15.01.2025 o 12:02, Python pisze:
Le 15/01/2025 à 07:34, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 23:01, Python pisze:..
Fortunately you are not, so there is no shame for all of us. BTW, a
lot of my engineering work is public. If you have critics on it, feel
free to express it.
What is good, anyway, is that you have, in this thread, implicitly >>>>>> but clearly admitted that you lied when you've pretended to be an
"information engineer"
You lied. You admitted it. EOS.
Both lies. You won't admit it.
You admit being a liar
If you take "slander" word as admitting...
Moreover, anyway, I didn't lie.
And those nurses waiting to change my
sheets are another of your "undeniable
facts", right, poor stinker?
Den 15.01.2025 05:49, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:If the derivation is wrong, it doesn't predict. You didn't understand
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.
Den 15.01.2025 05:49, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:Your opinion and that of the majority and the authorities are irrelevant fantasies. You fail to address Poor's refutation of the derivation. If
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.
.. I'am an engineer,
... I'am an engineer,
So I am not pretending [being] one.
Le 15/01/2025 à 12:14, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 15.01.2025 o 12:02, Python pisze:
Le 15/01/2025 à 07:34, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 23:01, Python pisze:..
Fortunately you are not, so there is no shame for all of us. BTW, a
lot of my engineering work is public. If you have critics on it,
feel free to express it.
What is good, anyway, is that you have, in this thread,
implicitly but clearly admitted that you lied when you've
pretended to be an "information engineer"
You lied. You admitted it. EOS.
Both lies. You won't admit it.
You admit being a liar
If you take "slander" word as admitting...
I'm talking about your claim that never you'd have pretended to be an engineer. Which is a lie.
record.
Also a lie is to have pretended to be an engineer. So when you've shown yourself a liar, you've shown it twice in one go!
Moreover, anyway, I didn't lie.
And those nurses waiting to change my
sheets are another of your "undeniable
facts", right, poor stinker?
It is not a lie, it is a plausible hypothesis.
Le 15/01/2025 à 19:45, Old demented fart Maciej Wozniak wrote:
.. I'am an engineer,
Come on. This has 0% plausibility
posting here every single day for years.
You are a demented old fart in the middle of nowhere.
Yesterday you made some progress by admitting you lied then.
Le 15/01/2025 à 19:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
... I'am an engineer,
So I am not pretending [being] one.
"One of the best logician Humanity ever had" (ah ah ah!) doesn't know
that there it is perfectly possible to pretend being something AND being
so as well as to pretend something AND no being so.
perihelion of relativity is based on the assumption that gravity can be treated as electromagnetism.
Eotvos showed everything, regardless of the mass or the substance, is affected the same by gravity. Relativity has not disproved that.
velocity of both waves and particles includes the relative velocity of
the observer, yet relativity irrationally denies this—pure lunacy.
same force, the effect will be the same! Pure genius! Poor quotes
Einstein's explanation of his equivalence principle: "'The effect of gravitation upon ideal “clocks” and “measuring rods” at rest at a given
point in a gravitational field is identically the same as that caused by
a motion of the “clock” and “rod” through free space with a velocity equal to that which they would have acquired had they fallen, under the action of gravitation, from infinity to that point.'"
[SR] will remain inconsistent,
I will remain an engineer.
piece of shit.
Le 15/01/2025 à 20:38, Demented ranting kook Maciej Wozniak wrote:
[SR] will remain inconsistent,
I will remain an engineer.
Your "proofs" have been debunked for ages.
You've never been an engineer, and you'll never be.
On 12-Jan-25 1:16 am, rhertz wrote:If light were a wave, there would undoubtedly be compression waves.
Under Newton, a photon has gravitational mass m, for which it's affected
by gravity.
1) A photon with energy E, falling under gravity effects from height h,
increases its energy by an amount
ΔE = +mgh
Using the equivalence m = E/c^2, its energy when it reaches ground is E
+ ΔE:
E + ΔE = E (1 + gh/c^2)
Using Planck's equivalence E = hf, it gives
f + Δf = f (1 + gh/c^2)
Then, under Newton, the frequency change is
Δf/f = +gh/c^2
The frequency of the photon increase by falling, and is blue-shifted.
On the other way around, if a photon is escaping from ground, at an
height h its frequency has decreased by
Δf/f = -gh/c^2 (red-shifted)
******************************************************
No relativity here. Only requires to accept the existence of
gravitational mass and a given equivalence mass-energy.
The problem is that this doesn't work. Two observers at different
heights would see differing numbers of waves passing their respective locations per unit time. The observers would conclude that waves were accumulating between their two locations, or somehow just vanishing.
Sylvia.
On 15-Jan-25 1:41 pm, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:Waves accumulate, and that's called compression waves. That's not a
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 3:02:16 +0000, Sylvia Else wrote:
On 12-Jan-25 1:16 am, rhertz wrote:This is a problem for you only because you want to pretend that light
Under Newton, a photon has gravitational mass m, for which it's affected >>>> by gravity.
1) A photon with energy E, falling under gravity effects from height h, >>>> increases its energy by an amount
ΔE = +mgh
Using the equivalence m = E/c^2, its energy when it reaches ground is E >>>> + ΔE:
E + ΔE = E (1 + gh/c^2)
Using Planck's equivalence E = hf, it gives
f + Δf = f (1 + gh/c^2)
Then, under Newton, the frequency change is
Δf/f = +gh/c^2
The frequency of the photon increase by falling, and is blue-shifted.
On the other way around, if a photon is escaping from ground, at an
height h its frequency has decreased by
Δf/f = -gh/c^2 (red-shifted)
******************************************************
No relativity here. Only requires to accept the existence of
gravitational mass and a given equivalence mass-energy.
The problem is that this doesn't work. Two observers at different
heights would see differing numbers of waves passing their respective
locations per unit time. The observers would conclude that waves were
accumulating between their two locations, or somehow just vanishing.
Sylvia.
speed is constant while it is affected by gravity. For that, you invoke
non-Euclidean geometry, which Python just pointed out can't accomplish.
How does letting the speed of light vary solve the problem of
accumulating waves?
Even in situations where the speed of light does vary, such as when it
enters a medium, we don't see changes in the frequency, since that would again create the problem of accumulating waves.
Sylvia.
W dniu 15.01.2025 o 19:54, Python pisze:
Le 15/01/2025 à 19:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
... I'am an engineer,
So I am not pretending [being] one.
"One of the best logician Humanity ever had" (ah ah ah!) doesn't know
that there it is perfectly possible to pretend being something AND being
so as well as to pretend something AND no being so.
pretend
/prɪˈtɛnd/
verb
1.
behave so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact
it is not.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 23:47:26 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 15/01/2025 à 20:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :In 19th-century England, people spoke of having pretenses of being
W dniu 15.01.2025 o 19:54, Python pisze:
Le 15/01/2025 à 19:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
... I'am an engineer,
So I am not pretending [being] one.
"One of the best logician Humanity ever had" (ah ah ah!) doesn't know
that there it is perfectly possible to pretend being something AND being >>>> so as well as to pretend something AND no being so.
pretend
/prɪˈtɛnd/
verb
1.
behave so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact
it is not.
My mistake! (thank you, for once you are right, I learnt something).
It happens that the French verb "prétendre" (same latin roots) has a
slightly different meaning :
"Demander quelque chose, le revendiquer pour soi. prétendre (se) v.pr.
Dire, affirmer qu'on est tel, malgré les doutes possibles." (Larousse
dictionary)
"to affirm that one is such, *despite* being doubtful"
which is a little weaker than the English acception, which happens to
be:
"to affirm that one is such, *while* it is false".
Could any native English speakers here confirm this point? That in
English
"to pretend to be a dog" implies that you are NOT a dog, while in French
"prétendre être un chien" does not exclude the the subject *may be* a
dog, even if it is doubtful.
Thank you Maciej, anyway.
someone, such as Einstein, who claimed to be a physicist. Interestingly,
the idea of having pretenses could also imply making a real attempt
rather than faking it like Einstein.
Le 15/01/2025 à 20:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :In 19th-century England, people spoke of having pretenses of being
W dniu 15.01.2025 o 19:54, Python pisze:
Le 15/01/2025 à 19:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
... I'am an engineer,
So I am not pretending [being] one.
"One of the best logician Humanity ever had" (ah ah ah!) doesn't know
that there it is perfectly possible to pretend being something AND being >>> so as well as to pretend something AND no being so.
pretend
/prɪˈtɛnd/
verb
1.
behave so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact
it is not.
My mistake! (thank you, for once you are right, I learnt something).
It happens that the French verb "prétendre" (same latin roots) has a slightly different meaning :
"Demander quelque chose, le revendiquer pour soi. prétendre (se) v.pr.
Dire, affirmer qu'on est tel, malgré les doutes possibles." (Larousse dictionary)
"to affirm that one is such, *despite* being doubtful"
which is a little weaker than the English acception, which happens to
be:
"to affirm that one is such, *while* it is false".
Could any native English speakers here confirm this point? That in
English
"to pretend to be a dog" implies that you are NOT a dog, while in French "prétendre être un chien" does not exclude the the subject *may be* a
dog, even if it is doubtful.
Thank you Maciej, anyway.
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 0:36:33 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
<snip>
"This is exactly double the value given in 1911, and this doubling
of values has given rise to many speculations, and to many and
varied explanations, on the part of the relativists.
An inspection of the formulas, which Einstein used, shows
exactly what he did and how he derived this result. The essential
factor in the formula is that for the rate of change of velocity
along the wave-front 6c, 6x ; and this is the only factor in which
any change can be made. All the other terms and factors of the
formula are always identically the same." - Poor = "THE RELATIVITY
DEFLECTION OF LIGHT!"
Years ago, I posted that when Einstein published his 1915 paper on
Mercury, he included a couple of paragraphs announcing that he doubled
his 1911 value due to his work with GR.
It's all on his 1915 paper, in a single line: Equation 7c.
Einstein had it easy. He modified Newton's potential Φ = - GM/r for
Φ = - GM/r (1 + B^2/r^2), in his equation (7c). This was in geometrical units.
In physical units, Eq 7c is Φ(r) = - GMm/r [1 + B^2/(mcr)^2]
Long story short: In the same paper, and using this change, he managed
to obtain Gerber's formula and 43" and, as a bonus, DOUBLED the
gravitational potential on the formula for deflection of starlight, used
in 1911.
ψ(1911) = 1/c2 2GM/RS = 0.85 arcsec
ψ(1915) = 2 x ψ(1911) = 1/c2 4GM/RS = 1.75 arcsec
The key for this "magic prediction" is simple. The extra (1 + B^2/r^2)
factor in Φ(r), in physical units, is [1 + B^2/(mcr)^2]
B = mr2ω is the constant angular momentum, under Newton's Law of Gravitation,
so
Φ(r) = - GMm/r (1 + r^2ω^2/c^2)
He made Rs.ω = c at the perigee of the trajectory, at which the test particle has maximum speed.
But it implies a variable speed of light, besides that "photons" have
mass and suffer gravitational attraction.
This is the Newtonian equation that Einstein seek, using 80% of the
paper, before changing for a new Φ:
m [r^2 (dɸ/dt)^2 + (dr/dt)^2] - GMm/r = 2E (E < 0, the total energy of
the system, is CONSTANT).
The above equations describe any elliptic, parabolic or hyperbolic
orbit, and was used by Einstein TWICE:
1) To get the final expression of the advance of Mercury's perihelion in
an orbit with e = 0.2025 and E < 0.
2) For the deflection of light, at the perigee of an hyperbolic
trajectory of a photon, with r = Rs, e >> 1, E > 0.
Einstein REFUSED to show his calculations for 2) and only presented the
new value for deflection of light plus a lot of gobbledygook using GR. Astronomers and physicists from ALL OVER the world asked Einstein to
present his calculations. Einstein NEVER delivered them.
Why did Einstein refused to show his derivation? Because he had to
explain:
1) The use of light as "quanta of energy" (A.K.A. photons) having mass m
= hf/c^2.
2) The change of the bounded elliptic orbit of Mercury, with e = 0.2025
into a highly eccentric hyperbolic orbit (e > 200,000), which passed by
the Sun at its perigee (r = RS).
3) The angular momentum at the perigee, B(RS) = m.RS.c. In this way, the quotient between brackets of ψ(RS) became equal to 1, DOUBLING the gravitational potential.
4) Making the angular velocity of the photon at the orbit's perigee: c =
RS. ωMAX, implied a VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT in the trajectory of the
photon:
c' = rω (only reaching c at r = RS).
He had a LOT OF THINGS to explain. And because of the above points, his ETERNAL SILENCE.
So, his announcement in 1915 came to the fact that in the modified gravitational potential
Φ(r) = - GMm/r (1 + r^2ω^2/c^2)
he made r.ω = c, for which Φ(r_sun) = - GMm/r_sun (1 + 1).
Doubling the potential when starlight graze the Sun's surface DOUBLED
the 1911 Newtonian value, AT THE COST OF A VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT IN
THAT POINT.
He NEVER, EVER showed his calculations. That's why, in 1930, Poor wasSince Einstein employed Huygens' principle using Huygens' formula for refraction, he would have had to use a refractive index that doubled
calling him (LITERALLY) a fraudulent crock.
Le 16/01/2025 à 04:53, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écritReally, relativity is asinine, and those who seek to deplatform and
:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 23:47:26 +0000, Python wrote:
Le 15/01/2025 à 20:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :In 19th-century England, people spoke of having pretenses of being
W dniu 15.01.2025 o 19:54, Python pisze:
Le 15/01/2025 à 19:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
... I'am an engineer,
So I am not pretending [being] one.
"One of the best logician Humanity ever had" (ah ah ah!) doesn't know >>>>> that there it is perfectly possible to pretend being something AND being >>>>> so as well as to pretend something AND no being so.
pretend
/prɪˈtɛnd/
verb
1.
behave so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact >>>> it is not.
My mistake! (thank you, for once you are right, I learnt something).
It happens that the French verb "prétendre" (same latin roots) has a
slightly different meaning :
"Demander quelque chose, le revendiquer pour soi. prétendre (se) v.pr.
Dire, affirmer qu'on est tel, malgré les doutes possibles." (Larousse
dictionary)
"to affirm that one is such, *despite* being doubtful"
which is a little weaker than the English acception, which happens to
be:
"to affirm that one is such, *while* it is false".
Could any native English speakers here confirm this point? That in
English
"to pretend to be a dog" implies that you are NOT a dog, while in French >>> "prétendre être un chien" does not exclude the the subject *may be* a
dog, even if it is doubtful.
Thank you Maciej, anyway.
someone, such as Einstein, who claimed to be a physicist. Interestingly,
the idea of having pretenses could also imply making a real attempt
rather than faking it like Einstein.
LaurenceClarkCrossen, I know that you are not a sincere poster, you are
a
troll, a joke, a provocation, than you don't think a single word of your claims about Relativity or Einstein, that your name is certainly not
Laurence Clark Crossen, and that you seem to have fun. Anyway could you refrain to answer such asinine answers? Thanks.
Le 15/01/2025 à 20:40, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 15.01.2025 o 19:54, Python pisze:
Le 15/01/2025 à 19:45, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
... I'am an engineer,
So I am not pretending [being] one.
"One of the best logician Humanity ever had" (ah ah ah!) doesn't know
that there it is perfectly possible to pretend being something AND
being so as well as to pretend something AND no being so.
pretend
/prɪˈtɛnd/
verb
1.
behave so as to make it appear that something is the case when in fact
it is not.
My mistake! (thank you, for once you are right, I learnt something).
It happens that the French verb "prétendre" (same latin roots) has a slightly different meaning :
"Demander quelque chose, le revendiquer pour soi. prétendre (se) v.pr.
Dire, affirmer qu'on est tel, malgré les doutes possibles." (Larousse dictionary)
"to affirm that one is such, *despite* being doubtful"
which is a little weaker than the English acception, which happens to
be: "to affirm that one is such, *while* it is false".
Could any native English speakers here confirm this point? That in
English "to pretend to be a dog" implies that you are NOT a dog, while
in French "prétendre être un chien" does not exclude the the subject
*may be* a dog, even if it is doubtful.
Thank you Maciej, anyway.
Le 13/01/2025 à 06:07, [email protected] (LaurenceClarkCrossen) a écrit :
On Sun, 12 Jan 2025 1:31:59 +0000, rhertz wrote:
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection=
"photographic plates? Poor did, and he completely repudiated the
findings of Eddington. This should have given pause to any ethical
scientist.
Here are some quotes from Poor's summary: "The mathematical
formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75
seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known
and simple formula of physical optics"; "Not a single one of the
fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space,
of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved
in Einstein's prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light";
"The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore,
been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove
nor disprove the relativity theory" (emphasis added) (Poor, 1930)." -
saved pdf = "Albert Einsetin, Plagiarist of the Century" p.9
Einstein is an artificial media creation. Like Emmanuel Macron or Greta Thunberg. No more.
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 16:49, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 16:42, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
..
Again, how come you are incapable of convincing ANYONE neither here
nor elsewhere that your rant is a proper proof of anything?
Again - a fanatic idiot can never be convinced
that he is a fanatic idiot, no surprise in
that.
All of Humanity but Maciej Wozniak are "fanatic idiots"? You need >
medical help, Maciej.
Al of humanity comes for discussing on a
physics newsgroup? You need medical help,
Python.
Am Dienstag000014, 14.01.2025 um 17:51 schrieb Maciej Wozniak:
W dniu 14.01.2025 o 16:49, Python pisze:
Le 14/01/2025 à 16:42, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
..
Again, how come you are incapable of convincing ANYONE neither here
nor elsewhere that your rant is a proper proof of anything?
Again - a fanatic idiot can never be convinced
that he is a fanatic idiot, no surprise in
that.
All of Humanity but Maciej Wozniak are "fanatic idiots"? You need >
medical help, Maciej.
Al of humanity comes for discussing on a
physics newsgroup? You need medical help,
Python.
I would guess, that about a third of the 'regulars' here (and in other
UseNet groups) are actually AI and not human at all.
It is not always possibly to evade AI, so we have to live with that and respond, as if the computers were human.
TH
"I interpreted this as that Einstein somehow had "fixed"
the predictions of GR to be in accordance with measurements
shown on some photographic plates.
In other words, LaurenceClarkCrossen claim that Einstein
knew what the GR prediction should be to be in accordance
with measurements."
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:00:31 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
If the derivation is wrong, it doesn't predict. You didn't understand
what Poor said. Poor has directly addressed the "4" in your equation.
After refusing to divulge his derivation for his doubling, Einstein
finally asserted he got it by employing Huygens' principle. That formula
is for calculating refraction. Then Einstein admits to adding
gravitational effect and refraction to get his doubling. You keep
appealing to the majority and authority instead of reason.
"Only experimental evidence can falsify a theory."
Den 15.01.2025 18:36, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:00:31 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
If the derivation is wrong, it doesn't predict. You didn't understand
what Poor said. Poor has directly addressed the "4" in your equation.
Understand this:
The equation Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is correct
W dniu 16.01.2025 o 20:11, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 15.01.2025 18:36, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:00:31 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
If the derivation is wrong, it doesn't predict. You didn't understand
what Poor said. Poor has directly addressed the "4" in your equation.
Understand this:
The equation Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is correct
A pity it's not [GR] equation for
light deflection.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:00:31 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
Your opinion and that of the majority and the authorities are irrelevant fantasies.
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.
Le 16/01/2025 à 20:23, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 16.01.2025 o 20:11, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 15.01.2025 18:36, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:00:31 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
If the derivation is wrong, it doesn't predict. You didn't understand
what Poor said. Poor has directly addressed the "4" in your equation.
Understand this:
The equation Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is correct
A pity it's not [GR] equation for
light deflection.
Really? So what is it?
Euclidean geometry is for planes, and non-Euclidean geometry is for
other surfaces, such as spheres. Space is not a curved surface.
GR's predictions for the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
Waves accumulate, and that's called compression waves. That's not a
problem. It is exactly when light enters the medium of air from the
vacuum of space that we see the change in frequency as compression waves form. Otherwise, we would not know that the relative speed of the Sun
and Sirius is 5.5 km/sec.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 6:16:51 +0000, Sylvia Else wrote:
Even in situations where the speed of light does vary, such as when it
enters a medium, we don't see changes in the frequency, since that would
again create the problem of accumulating waves.
Sylvia.
Waves accumulate, and that's called compression waves. That's not a
problem. It is exactly when light enters the medium of air from the
vacuum of space that we see the change in frequency as compression waves form. Otherwise, we would not know that the relative speed of the Sun
and Sirius is 5.5 km/sec.
W dniu 16.01.2025 o 20:29, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
GR's predictions for the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
According to your GR shit light [in
vacuum] doesn't deflect and takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
W dniu 16.01.2025 o 20:25, Python pisze:
Le 16/01/2025 à 20:23, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 16.01.2025 o 20:11, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 15.01.2025 18:36, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:00:31 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:Understand this:
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.
If the derivation is wrong, it doesn't predict. You didn't understand >>>>> what Poor said. Poor has directly addressed the "4" in your equation. >>>>
The equation Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is correct
A pity it's not [GR] equation for
light deflection.
Really? So what is it?
A formula valid in a model joining
good, old Euclidean geometry with
some minor schemas of The Shit.
Poincare has been explaining - you
can reject EG, but it's stupid and
will serve you ill. So with all
of those ideological screams of its
alleged incompability with the
reality - your bunch of idiots is
still applying it everywhere and
pretending it is not.
Le 16/01/2025 à 20:49, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 16.01.2025 o 20:29, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
GR's predictions for the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
According to your GR shit light [in
vacuum] doesn't deflect and takes always
straight/geodesic paths.
According to math the projection of a geodesic/straight line in a given
space onto a sup-space is not necessarily a geodesic/straight line in
this sub-space.
"Only experimental evidence can falsify a theory."
So you have finally learned.
Le 16/01/2025 à 19:15, "Paul.B.Andersen" a écrit :
"Only experimental evidence can falsify a theory."
So you have finally learned.
This is false.
A theoretical proof can do it too.
You take the theory of special relativity, and you study it as Dr.
Hachel did for forty years.
Le 16/01/2025 à 20:47, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 16.01.2025 o 20:25, Python pisze:
Le 16/01/2025 à 20:23, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
W dniu 16.01.2025 o 20:11, Paul.B.Andersen pisze:
Den 15.01.2025 18:36, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:00:31 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:Understand this:
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.
If the derivation is wrong, it doesn't predict. You didn't understand >>>>>> what Poor said. Poor has directly addressed the "4" in your equation. >>>>>
The equation Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is correct
A pity it's not [GR] equation for
light deflection.
Really? So what is it?
A formula valid in a model joining
good, old Euclidean geometry with
some minor schemas of The Shit.
Poincare has been explaining - you
can reject EG, but it's stupid and
will serve you ill. So with all
of those ideological screams of its
alleged incompability with the
reality - your bunch of idiots is
still applying it everywhere and
pretending it is not.
I didn't ask for incoherent babble. I asked for a formula.
Den 15.01.2025 22:45, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:Paul: Above you seem to have attributed to me words I did not write.
"I interpreted this as that Einstein somehow had "fixed"
the predictions of GR to be in accordance with measurements
shown on some photographic plates.
In other words, LaurenceClarkCrossen claim that Einstein
knew what the GR prediction should be to be in accordance
with measurements."
Agree.
Den 15.01.2025 22:45, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:I did not say that.
"I interpreted this as that Einstein somehow had "fixed"
the predictions of GR to be in accordance with measurements
shown on some photographic plates.
In other words, LaurenceClarkCrossen claim that Einstein
knew what the GR prediction should be to be in accordance
with measurements."
Agree.
Den 15.01.2025 20:39, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:I did not say that. Again, you are misquoting. If the derivation is
"Only experimental evidence can falsify a theory."
So you have finally learned.
Den 15.01.2025 18:46, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:You must be extremely ignorant to think an experiment can prove a false derivation.
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:00:31 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
Your opinion and that of the majority and the authorities are irrelevant
fantasies.
Quite.
Anybody's fantasies are irrelevant.
But the experimental evidence is reality, not fantasy.
GR's predictions for the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
are so thoroughly experimentally confirmed that you have to be
extremely ignorant not to accept it.
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?
Den 15.01.2025 06:31, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:It is sad that you can't recognize that non-Euclidean geometry applied
Euclidean geometry is for planes, and non-Euclidean geometry is for
other surfaces, such as spheres. Space is not a curved surface.
One can but admire your sharp observation that space is not a surface.
Den 15.01.2025 18:36, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:00:31 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
If the derivation is wrong, it doesn't predict. You didn't understand
what Poor said. Poor has directly addressed the "4" in your equation.
Understand this:
The equation Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is correct because experiments have
shown that its predictions are correct within the precision
of the measurements, which are in the order of ±0.005%.
The equation Θ = 2GM/Δ⋅c² is proven wrong by +100%.
Poor had the excuse that he didn't know this because all
the precise measurements are made more that 70 years after
he wrote his paper.
But you have no excuse. Is is indeed idiotic to claim
that the equation Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is wrong when it is so
thoroughly well confirmed to be correct.
How is it possible to fail to understand this?
After refusing to divulge his derivation for his doubling, Einstein
finally asserted he got it by employing Huygens' principle. That formula
is for calculating refraction. Then Einstein admits to adding
gravitational effect and refraction to get his doubling. You keep
appealing to the majority and authority instead of reason.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 21:17:00 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 19:29:51 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 15.01.2025 18:46, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:You must be extremely ignorant to think an experiment can prove a false
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:00:31 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
Your opinion and that of the majority and the authorities are irrelevant >>>> fantasies.
Quite.
Anybody's fantasies are irrelevant.
But the experimental evidence is reality, not fantasy.
GR's predictions for the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
are so thoroughly experimentally confirmed that you have to be
extremely ignorant not to accept it.
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?
derivation.
Paul is not extremely ignorant.Yes, he can't question the derivation!
Paul is EXTREMELY INDOCTRINATED. Such indoctrination, shown here FOR
ALMOST 30 YEARS, was originated on RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, not on scientific beliefs.
Paul has to obey, in order to belong. After all, he's nothing more than
a failed EE who needed to believe in something else besides TUTORING how
to program PICs in the '90s.
Poor soul. It must SUCK to be him.
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 19:29:51 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 15.01.2025 18:46, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:00:31 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
Your opinion and that of the majority and the authorities are irrelevant >> fantasies.
Quite.
Anybody's fantasies are irrelevant.
But the experimental evidence is reality, not fantasy.
GR's predictions for the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
are so thoroughly experimentally confirmed that you have to be
extremely ignorant not to accept it.
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 experimentalYou must be extremely ignorant to think an experiment can prove a false derivation.
evidence has proven Poor wrong?
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?
You must be extremely ignorant to think an experiment can prove a false derivation.
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
Den 15.01.2025 20:39, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
"Only experimental evidence can falsify a theory."
I did not say that.
Again, you are misquoting.
Den 17.01.2025 22:08, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:All your words were put into quotations by me so anyone can see who said
Den 15.01.2025 20:39, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
"Only experimental evidence can falsify a theory."
I did not say that.
Yes, you did.
Again, you are misquoting.
No, the quote above is correct.
You and I know that it was a quotation of me.
But nobody but you and I can know that, everybody else would
see that YOU wrote: "Only experimental evidence can falsify a theory."
You have a nasty habit of snipping the attributions!
Citing people in such a way that you appear to be the author
is a fallacy.
Learn elementary netiquette DON'T SNIP THE ATTRIBUTIONS!
Den 17.01.2025 22:17, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:The "4" in the equation comes from non-Euclidean geometry, "curved
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.
Den 17.01.2025 22:17, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:Paul you're doing astrology. I suppose you can tell my Sun sign!
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.
Den 17.01.2025 22:08, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:Your point is such silly, illogical nonsense because I used quotation
Den 15.01.2025 20:39, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
"Only experimental evidence can falsify a theory."
I did not say that.
Yes, you did.
Again, you are misquoting.
No, the quote above is correct.
You and I know that it was a quotation of me.
But nobody but you and I can know that, everybody else would
see that YOU wrote: "Only experimental evidence can falsify a theory."
You have a nasty habit of snipping the attributions!
Citing people in such a way that you appear to be the author
is a fallacy.
Learn elementary netiquette DON'T SNIP THE ATTRIBUTIONS!
Den 17.01.2025 22:08, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:You only engage in ad hominem to avoid defending the derivation from
Den 15.01.2025 20:39, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
"Only experimental evidence can falsify a theory."
I did not say that.
Yes, you did.
Again, you are misquoting.
No, the quote above is correct.
You and I know that it was a quotation of me.
But nobody but you and I can know that, everybody else would
see that YOU wrote: "Only experimental evidence can falsify a theory."
You have a nasty habit of snipping the attributions!
Citing people in such a way that you appear to be the author
is a fallacy.
Learn elementary netiquette DON'T SNIP THE ATTRIBUTIONS!
LaurenceClarkCrossen <[email protected]> wrote:When a derivation involves facile logical fallacies it has no value.
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 19:29:51 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 15.01.2025 18:46, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:You must be extremely ignorant to think an experiment can prove a false
On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:00:31 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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.
Your opinion and that of the majority and the authorities are irrelevant >>>> fantasies.
Quite.
Anybody's fantasies are irrelevant.
But the experimental evidence is reality, not fantasy.
GR's predictions for the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
are so thoroughly experimentally confirmed that you have to be
extremely ignorant not to accept it.
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?
derivation.
Correct.
However, if a derivation leads to a result that is obviously at variance
with what is well known about the world it looses much of its interest.
It becomes a 'spot the error' puzzle.
You can't blame people for not having a taste for that,
Jan
(hasn't)
You and I know that it was a quotation of me.
But nobody but you and I can know that, everybody else would
see that YOU wrote: "Only experimental evidence can falsify a theory."
Citing people in such a way that you appear to be the authoris a fallacy.
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.
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 13:15:41 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
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
Do you really believe that the derivation was wrong but
the result of the derivation was right?
Paul you're doing astrology. I suppose you can tell my Sun sign!
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,
Den 13.01.2025 21:05, skrev J. J. Lodder:
Paul.B.Andersen <[email protected]> wrote:
Den 13.01.2025 06:07, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
And Einstein used a refraction formula to double the deflection=
"photographic plates?
I interpreted this as that Einstein somehow had "fixed"
the predictions of GR to be in accordance with measurements
shown on some photographic plates.
In other words, LaurenceClarkCrossen claim that Einstein
knew what the GR prediction should be to be in accordance
with measurements.
How ridiculous! :-D
Point being that LaurenceClarkCrossen's claim that Einstein
had "cooked" the GR prediction is nonsense.
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 19:35:26 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 15.01.2025 06:31, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Euclidean geometry is for planes, and non-Euclidean geometry is for
other surfaces, such as spheres. Space is not a curved surface.
One can but admire your sharp observation that space is not a surface.
It is sad that you can't recognize that non-Euclidean geometry applied
to space is a reification fallacy because space is not a surface.
Den 17.01.2025 22:20, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 19:35:26 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 15.01.2025 06:31, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
Euclidean geometry is for planes, and non-Euclidean geometry is for
other surfaces, such as spheres. Space is not a curved surface.
One can but admire your sharp observation that space is not a surface.
It is sad that you can't recognize that non-Euclidean geometry applied
to space is a reification fallacy because space is not a surface.
This rather funny statement of yours reveals that the only
non-Euclidean geometry you know is Gaussian geometry.
Loosely explained, Gaussian geometry is about surfaces in 3-dimentinal Euclidean space. The shape of the surface is defined by a function
f(x,y,z) where x,y,z are Cartesian coordinates.
Note that we must use three coordinates to describe a 2-dimentional
surface.
----
Riemannian geometry is more general.
Loosely explained, Riemannian geometry is about manifolds (spaces)
of any dimensions. The "shape" of the manifold is described by
the metric.
The metric describes the length of a line element.
The metric describing a flat 2D surface is:
ds² = dx² + dy² (if Pythagoras is valid, the surface is flat)
The metric describing a 2D spherical surface is:
ds² = dθ² + sin²θ⋅dφ²
Note that only two coordinates are needed to describe the surface.
The coordinates are _in_ the surface, not in a 3D-space.
----------
The metric for a "flat 3D-space" (Euclidean space) is:
ds² = dx² + dy² + dy² (Pythagoras again!)
The metric for a 3D-sphere is:
ds² = dr² + r²dθ² + r²sin²θ⋅dφ²
Note that only three coordinates are needed to describe
the shape of a 3D space.
----------
In spacetime geometry there is a four dimensional manifold called
spacetime. The spacetime metric has four coordinates, one temporal
and four spatial.
The metric for a static flat spacetime is:
ds² = − (c⋅dt)² + dx² + dy² + dz²
If ds² is positive, the line element ds is space-like,
If ds² is negative, the line element ds is time-like.
In the latter case it is better to write the metric:
(c⋅dτ)² = (c⋅dt)² − dx² − dy² − dz²
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 145:19:45 |
| Calls: | 12,089 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 15,000 |
| Messages: | 6,517,497 |