The Schwarzschild Metric has been refuted.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

This metric doubles the Newtonian deflection, so the relativity
derivation is invalid.

"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
Mei Xiaochun

[Ernestor Babushkin Seow]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
This metric doubles the Newtonian deflection, so the relativity
derivation is invalid.
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the Deflection of
Light in the Solar System and the Orbital Poles of Light’s Motion of
General Relativity"
Mei Xiaochun

firstly the gay newtone had NOT a theory of gravity. The fool imagined a
force acting on a body. An imbecile, since there are no such forces. But
newtone was a gay, bigger than the gay Einstine. Still gay, but a lesser
gay. Who left his wive and kids to whore in gay america with his cousin,
who was a man. What a fucking shame. To be gay was 'normal' in that period
of time.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

"5. Conclusions
Johann von Soldner of Munich Observatory proved in 1801 that the gravity
field of the sun39 would deflect the light from distant stars and the
deflection angel was 0.875 ". But Soldner’ proof was to simple to
understand.

In this paper, a standard calculation method is given according to the
hyperbolic orbit
equation of the Newton's theory of gravity, and the same result is
obtained. Then the motion equation of light in general relativity is
compared with that in the Newton's theory of gravity. The result shows
that a constant term is missing in the motion equation of general
relativity. The loss of this term would cause serious problems, so that
the motion equation of light in general relativity can not be the
modification of the Newton's equation of motion and can not
be correct.

Einstein assumed that the light passed across the sun's surface when he
calculated the deflection of light in the solar gravitational field. It
indicated that the orbital pole of light was on the solar surface. Based
on the theory of cubic equation of one variable, it is proved in this
paper that the solar radius can not be the root of the motion equation
of light in general
relativity, and all poles of the motion equation of light are located
inside the sun. The lights coming from stars in outer space would go
into the sun and disappear in it. It is impossible for the observers on
the earth to see them, but this is not the case.

The reason is just that comparing with the motion equation of the
Newtonian gravity theory, the motion equation of light of general
relativity lost a constant term. It is proved once again that the
prediction value 175’’ of general relativity for the deflection of light
is impossible. General relativity can not correctly describe the motion
of light in the gravitational field of the sun, indicates that the
Einstein's gravity theory of curved space-time can not hold." ibid.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

SCIREA Journal of Physics
ISSN: 2706-8862
http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
March 24, 2022
Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
SCIREA Journal of Physics
ISSN: 2706-8862
http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
March 24, 2022
Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"

https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf

I quote from the Introduction:
"The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
interior not far from the solar center, so the light from stars in
outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
observed by the observers on the earth. The night sky on the earth
would be starless."

Mei Xiaochun actually claims that according to GR, the light from
all the stars in outer space should be sucked into the Sun so
no stars would be visible from the Earth!

Laurence Clark Crossen, how did you manage to fail to see
that Mei Xiaochun's paper is meaningless drivel?

Well done! :-D


https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
https://paulba.no/Deflection.html
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

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
SCIREA Journal of Physics
ISSN: 2706-8862
http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
March 24, 2022
Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"

https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf
"The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
interior not far from the solar center, so the light from stars in
outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
observed by the observers on the earth. The night sky on the earth
would be starless."
Mei Xiaochun actually claims that according to GR, the light from
all the stars in outer space should be sucked into the Sun so
no stars would be visible from the Earth!
Laurence Clark Crossen, how did you manage to fail to see
that Mei Xiaochun's paper is meaningless drivel?
Well done! :-D
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
https://paulba.no/Deflection.html
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

As usual, you misconstrue willfully and stupidly.
That is why your take on it is meaningless drivel.
He has clearly stated that the GR assumptions in the Schwarzschild
metric involve starlight passing through the center of the Sun.
You have not disproved his case for that.
It won't suffice for you to thumb your nose at criticisms of relativity.
Are you a Sinophobe?
Your reply sucks.
You are incompetent at defending relativity as usual.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
SCIREA Journal of Physics
ISSN: 2706-8862
http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
March 24, 2022
Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"

https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf
"The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
  passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
  that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
  proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
  poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
  interior not far from the solar center, so the light from stars in
  outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
  observed by the observers on the earth. The night sky on the earth
  would be starless."
  Mei Xiaochun actually claims that according to GR, the light from
  all the stars in outer space should be sucked into the Sun so
  no stars would be visible from the Earth!
Laurence Clark Crossen, how did you manage to fail to see
that Mei Xiaochun's paper is meaningless drivel?
Well done! :-D

As usual, you misconstrue willfully and stupidly.
That is why your take on it is meaningless drivel.
He has clearly stated that the GR assumptions in the Schwarzschild
metric involve starlight passing through the center of the Sun.

So you agree with Mei Xiaochun that the Schwarzschild metric
predicts that the light from all the stars in outer space would be
passing through the interior of the Sun, so the light from stars
in outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
observed by the observers on the Earth. The night sky on the Earth
would be starless.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
You have not disproved his case for that.

Is it really possible to fail to understand that this is
meaningless drivel?

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
It won't suffice for you to thumb your nose at criticisms of relativity.
Are you a Sinophobe?
Your reply sucks.
You are incompetent at defending relativity as usual.

OK.
So we can conclude that according Laurence Clark Crossen
the Schwarzschild metric predicts that the night sky on
the Earth should be starless. So the fact that we can see
the stars falsifies the Schwarzschild metric.

Congratulation! :-D

[Darwin Balakshin]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
As usual, you misconstrue willfully and stupidly.
That is why your take on it is meaningless drivel.
He has clearly stated that the GR assumptions in the Schwarzschild
metric involve starlight passing through the center of the Sun.

So you agree with Mei Xiaochun that the Schwarzschild metric predicts
that the light from all the stars in outer space would be passing
through the interior of the Sun, so the light from stars

cacamerica and the /collective_khazar_west/ angry like shit, gay in gps
and glonass-k2 without relativity too. Amazing, gay Einstine proven gay
one more time.

Russia's Most Classified and Powerful EW Systems
Completely Disabled U.S. Missiles and Aerial Bombs
https://bi%74%63%68%75te.com/v%69%64%65o/zECTGGUyr3pC

[Maciej Woźniak]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
SCIREA Journal of Physics
ISSN: 2706-8862
http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
March 24, 2022
Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"

https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf
"The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
interior not far from the solar center, so the light from stars in
outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
observed by the observers on the earth. The night sky on the earth
would be starless."
Mei Xiaochun actually claims that according to GR, the light from
all the stars in outer space should be sucked into the Sun so
no stars would be visible from the Earth!
Laurence Clark Crossen, how did you manage to fail to see
that Mei Xiaochun's paper is meaningless drivel?
Well done! 😂

See, trash - your idiot guru has claimed
that a [mean] solar day compared to
1/86400 of itself will give any value.
And everyone of his idiot worshippers
failexd to see his Shit is meaningless
drivel.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
SCIREA Journal of Physics
ISSN: 2706-8862
http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
March 24, 2022
Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"

https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf
"The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
interior not far from the solar center, so the light from stars in
outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
observed by the observers on the earth. The night sky on the earth
would be starless."
Mei Xiaochun actually claims that according to GR, the light from
all the stars in outer space should be sucked into the Sun so
no stars would be visible from the Earth!
Laurence Clark Crossen, how did you manage to fail to see
that Mei Xiaochun's paper is meaningless drivel?
Well done! :-D
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
https://paulba.no/Deflection.html
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

Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the
Newtonian to get the GR deflection. You're begging the question
(allegedly) answered in the Schwarzschild metric.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
SCIREA Journal of Physics
ISSN: 2706-8862
http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
March 24, 2022
Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"

https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf
"The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
interior not far from the solar center, so the light from stars in
outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
observed by the observers on the earth. The night sky on the earth
would be starless."
Mei Xiaochun actually claims that according to GR, the light from
all the stars in outer space should be sucked into the Sun so
no stars would be visible from the Earth!
Laurence Clark Crossen, how did you manage to fail to see
that Mei Xiaochun's paper is meaningless drivel?
Well done! 😂
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
https://paulba.no/Deflection.html
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

Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the
Newtonian to get the GR deflection.

Why do you repeat a relativistic lie?
Newtonian physics (meant as pre-relativistic
physics) says nothing about gravitational
light deflection.
Newtonian optics was abandoned in early XIXh
century. Relativistic religion reactivated
it - because something Newtonian was urgently
needed to beat.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Maciej Woźniak
Newtonian physics (meant as pre-relativistic
physics) says nothing about gravitational
light deflection.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/andp.202100203
"The Newtonian value of 0.84" for the gravitational deflection
of a ray of light from a distant star, grazing the rim of the Sun,
was derived already in 1801 by Johann Georg von Soldner."

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf

Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the
Newtonian to get the GR deflection.

It has been known for 110 years that GR predicts twice
the gravitational deflection than does Newton.

So why does it surprise you that you get the Newtonian prediction
by dividing the GR prediction by 2?

The Newtonian prediction for the deflection observed from the Earth is:

θ = (GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ

The GR prediction for the deflection observed from the Earth is:

θ = (2GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ

Where:
AU = one astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
 φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = Gravitational constant
M = solar mass

Examples:

φ = 0.266⁰ (light grazing the sun)
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.876078"
GR: θ = 1.752156"

φ = 15⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.015468"
GR: θ = 0.030938"

φ = 30⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.007600"
GR: θ = 0.015201"

φ = 45⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.004917"
GR: θ = 0.009833"

φ = 60⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.003527"
GR: θ = 0.007055"

φ = 75⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.002654"
GR: θ = 0.005308"

φ = 90⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.002037"
GR: θ = 0.004073"

Now you can compare these predictions with
the measurements made in the following experiments:

https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf

What is your conclusion?
Is any of the theories falsified?

[Maciej Woźniak]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf

Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the
Newtonian to get the GR deflection.

It has been known for 110 years that GR predicts twice
the gravitational deflection than does Newton.

Newtonian optics has been abandoned in very
early XIX, however. Relativistic idiots has
reactivated it because of their urgent need
to kick something Newtonian.

[Trinidad Dogadaev]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the
Newtonian to get the GR deflection.

It has been known for 110 years that GR predicts twice the gravitational
deflection than does Newton.

completely nonsense, the gay newtone is not predicting deflections at all.
Shame on you promoting lies. Want truth, *_NATO_is_Khazaria_in_Drag_*. You
know that. Your entire corrupt lying government is khazar

Is Chabad Lubavitch Behind the Russo-Ukraine War
https://bitchute.com/video/sYr9l8mxn30n

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf

Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the
Newtonian to get the GR deflection.

It has been known for 110 years that GR predicts twice
the gravitational deflection than does Newton.
So why does it surprise you that you get the Newtonian prediction
by dividing the GR prediction by 2?
θ = (GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
θ = (2GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
AU = one astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
 φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = Gravitational constant
M = solar mass
φ = 0.266⁰ (light grazing the sun)
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.876078"
GR: θ = 1.752156"
φ = 15⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.015468"
GR: θ = 0.030938"
φ = 30⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.007600"
GR: θ = 0.015201"
φ = 45⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.004917"
GR: θ = 0.009833"
φ = 60⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.003527"
GR: θ = 0.007055"
φ = 75⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.002654"
GR: θ = 0.005308"
φ = 90⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.002037"
GR: θ = 0.004073"
Now you can compare these predictions with
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
What is your conclusion?
Is any of the theories falsified?

Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight
going through the Sun. You have not demonstrated otherwise, As Einstein
is famous for, you have only engaged in straw man tactics and are
begging the question.

You haven't understood that Mei has shown the Schwarzschild metric does
not give twice Newtonian, so GR does not predict it.

You haven't understood that a false derivation cannot provide a
prediction, so no evidence can be adduced.

[Mikko]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf

Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the
Newtonian to get the GR deflection.

It has been known for 110 years that GR predicts twice
the gravitational deflection than does Newton.
So why does it surprise you that you get the Newtonian prediction
by dividing the GR prediction by 2?
θ = (GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
θ = (2GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
AU = one astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
 φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = Gravitational constant
M = solar mass
φ = 0.266⁰ (light grazing the sun)
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.876078"
GR: θ = 1.752156"
φ = 15⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.015468"
GR: θ = 0.030938"
φ = 30⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.007600"
GR: θ = 0.015201"
φ = 45⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.004917"
GR: θ = 0.009833"
φ = 60⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.003527"
GR: θ = 0.007055"
φ = 75⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.002654"
GR: θ = 0.005308"
φ = 90⁰
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.002037"
GR: θ = 0.004073"
Now you can compare these predictions with
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
What is your conclusion?
Is any of the theories falsified?

Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight
going through the Sun.

Actually Schwarzschild geometry predicts that light from most stars is
not blocked by Sun. This is easiest to prove about a star that is
exacly opposite to Sun.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight
going through the Sun. You have not demonstrated otherwise,

Let's analyse what Mei has shown:

https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf

I quote from the introduction:
"The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
interior not far from the solar center.

This is almost correct!

For a star to be blocked by the Sun the star must
be in the ecliptic plane. The Earth is orbiting
the Earth at 1 AU, so when the Earth is at
a straight line from the star through the centre of
the Sun, the star will be behind the Sun.
(The angle star-Sun observed from the Earth = 0⁰)

It is then easy to calculate that if the light should
be bent around the Sun and be visible from the Earth,
the deflection angle would have to be:
R/AU radians = 0.266696⁰.
But the deflection is only 1.75" = 0.000486⁰
So the star is blocked by the Sun.

This is what Mei correctly discovered.
--------------------------------------

 φ = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth

Mei's blunder is that he claims that GR predicts
that the deflection is 1.75" when φ = 0⁰.
That is obviously not the case.
It is easy to calculate that the star will be visible
when φ < -R/AU rad + 1.75" = -0.2662⁰
and when φ > R/AU rad - 1.75" = 0.2662⁰
It will blocked by the Sun when -0.2662⁰ < φ < 0.2662⁰
When φ = ±0.2662⁰ then the light from the star that reaches
the Earth will graze the Sun.

In the post you responded to, I wrote:

φ = 0.266⁰ (light grazing the sun)
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.876078"
GR: θ = 1.752156"


Mei's gigantic blunder is that when a star in the ecliptic
plane is blocked by the Sun, then:
"the light from stars in outer space would be lost in the solar
interior and could not be observed by the observers on the earth.
The night sky on the earth would be starless."

Mei's confusion is so gigantic that the whole paper
is meaningless drivel even if it may contain some correct math.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
It is then easy to calculate that if the light should
be bent around the Sun and be visible from the Earth,

Of course - The Shit of your idiot guru
is predicting no deflection, according to
it light [in vacuum] always takes a straight/
geodesic paths. Even relativistic idiots,
however, are not stupid enough to treat
it seriously.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight
going through the Sun. You have not demonstrated otherwise,

https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf
"The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
interior not far from the solar center.
This is almost correct!
For a star to be blocked by the Sun the star must
be in the ecliptic plane. The Earth is orbiting
the Earth at 1 AU, so when the Earth is at
a straight line from the star through the centre of
the Sun, the star will be behind the Sun.
(The angle star-Sun observed from the Earth = 0⁰)
It is then easy to calculate that if the light should
be bent around the Sun and be visible from the Earth,
R/AU radians = 0.266696⁰.
But the deflection is only 1.75" = 0.000486⁰
So the star is blocked by the Sun.
This is what Mei correctly discovered.
--------------------------------------
 φ = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
Mei's blunder is that he claims that GR predicts
that the deflection is 1.75" when φ = 0⁰.
That is obviously not the case.
It is easy to calculate that the star will be visible
when φ < -R/AU rad + 1.75" = -0.2662⁰
and when φ > R/AU rad - 1.75" = 0.2662⁰
It will blocked by the Sun when -0.2662⁰ < φ < 0.2662⁰
When φ = ±0.2662⁰ then the light from the star that reaches
the Earth will graze the Sun.
φ = 0.266⁰ (light grazing the sun)
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.876078"
GR: θ = 1.752156"
Mei's gigantic blunder is that when a star in the ecliptic
"the light from stars in outer space would be lost in the solar
interior and could not be observed by the observers on the earth.
The night sky on the earth would be starless."
Mei's confusion is so gigantic that the whole paper
is meaningless drivel even if it may contain some correct math.

Arago arrived at the Arago spot from carrying some equations
of Fresnel about and around the surface to show that an
occluding body's shadow has a spot of light in it.

So, light as simply following the geodesy doesn't say anything
about that, yet, it's definitely a thing.

Then, "Fresnel large-lensing", as it were, is a thing.
(And, obviously corpuscular theories of light are falsified.)

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight
going through the Sun. You have not demonstrated otherwise,

https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf
"The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
interior not far from the solar center.
This is almost correct!
For a star to be blocked by the Sun the star must
be in the ecliptic plane. The Earth is orbiting
the Earth at 1 AU, so when the Earth is at
a straight line from the star through the centre of
the Sun, the star will be behind the Sun.
(The angle star-Sun observed from the Earth = 0⁰)
It is then easy to calculate that if the light should
be bent around the Sun and be visible from the Earth,
R/AU radians = 0.266696⁰.
But the deflection is only 1.75" = 0.000486⁰
So the star is blocked by the Sun.
This is what Mei correctly discovered.
--------------------------------------
 φ = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
Mei's blunder is that he claims that GR predicts
that the deflection is 1.75" when φ = 0⁰.
That is obviously not the case.
It is easy to calculate that the star will be visible
when φ < -R/AU rad + 1.75" = -0.2662⁰
and when φ > R/AU rad - 1.75" = 0.2662⁰
It will blocked by the Sun when -0.2662⁰ < φ < 0.2662⁰
When φ = ±0.2662⁰ then the light from the star that reaches
the Earth will graze the Sun.
φ = 0.266⁰ (light grazing the sun)
-----------------------------------
Newton: θ = 0.876078"
GR: θ = 1.752156"
Mei's gigantic blunder is that when a star in the ecliptic
"the light from stars in outer space would be lost in the solar
interior and could not be observed by the observers on the earth.
The night sky on the earth would be starless."
Mei's confusion is so gigantic that the whole paper
is meaningless drivel even if it may contain some correct math.

Paul, your comprehension is feeble.

No, that is not what he discovered. He pointed out that the
Schwarzschild metric implicitly assumes this.

"Mei's blunder is that he claims that GR predicts
that the deflection is 1.75" when φ = 0⁰."

Mei points out that Schwarzschild makes this blunder.

You cannot defeat his criticism without addressing the Schwarzschild
metric.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight
going through the Sun. You have not demonstrated otherwise,

https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf
"The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
  passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
  that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
  proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
  poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
  interior not far from the solar center.
This is almost correct!
For a star to be blocked by the Sun the star must
be in the ecliptic plane. The Earth is orbiting
the Earth at 1 AU, so when the Earth is at
a straight line from the star through the centre of
the Sun, the star will be behind the Sun.
(The angle star-Sun observed from the Earth = 0⁰)
It is then easy to calculate that if the light should
be bent around the Sun and be visible from the Earth,
  R/AU radians = 0.266696⁰.
But the deflection is only 1.75" = 0.000486⁰
So the star is blocked by the Sun.
This is what Mei correctly discovered.
--------------------------------------
 φ  = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
Mei's blunder is that he claims that GR predicts
that the deflection is 1.75" when  φ = 0⁰.
That is obviously not the case.
It is easy to calculate that the star will be visible
when     φ < -R/AU rad + 1.75" = -0.2662⁰
and when φ >  R/AU rad - 1.75" =  0.2662⁰
It will blocked by the Sun when  -0.2662⁰ < φ < 0.2662⁰
When φ = ±0.2662⁰ then the light from the star that reaches
          the Earth will graze the Sun.
φ = 0.266⁰  (light grazing the sun)
-----------------------------------
Newton:  θ = 0.876078"
GR:      θ = 1.752156"
Mei's gigantic blunder is that when a star in the ecliptic
"the light from stars in outer space would be lost in the solar
  interior and could not be observed by the observers on the earth.
  The night sky on the earth  would be starless."
Mei's confusion is so gigantic that the whole paper
is meaningless drivel even if it may contain some correct math.

Paul, your comprehension is feeble.
No, that is not what he discovered. He pointed out that the
Schwarzschild metric implicitly assumes this.
"Mei's blunder is that he claims that GR predicts
that the deflection is 1.75" when  φ = 0⁰."
Mei points out that Schwarzschild makes this blunder.
You cannot defeat his criticism without addressing the Schwarzschild
metric.

I didn't expect you to understand anything, you never do.
I bet you didn't even read my post, probably because
you are mathematically illiterate and found it too difficult.

So we can conclude that Laurence Clark Crossen still
agrees with Mei Xiaochun that the Schwarzschild metric
predicts that the light from all the stars in outer space would be
passing through the interior of the Sun, so the light from stars
in outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
observed by the observers on the Earth. The night sky on the Earth
would be starless.

You are competing with Maciej Woźniak about being the most
ignorant and stupid contributor in this NG.

I thing you are in the lead.
Congratulations!

[Maciej Woźniak]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
You are competing with Maciej Woźniak about being the most
ignorant and stupid contributor in this NG.

See, poor trash: I've proven the mumble of
the idiot you're worshipping to be not even
consistent - and except spitting, insulting
or slandering you can do nothing about it.

But you will do what you can. The Shit expects
that every doggie will do his duty.

[Charlton Bajinov]

You are competing with Maciej Woźniak about being the most ignorant
and stupid contributor in this NG.

See, poor trash: I've proven the mumble of the idiot you're worshipping
to be not even consistent - and except spitting, insulting or slandering
you can do nothing about it.
But you will do what you can. The Shit expects that every doggie will do
his duty.

I beg to differ, until you show me a model simulation and related, you are
zero. The fucking shit polakia is shit anyway, traitors. I have no words
for the fuckin polakia. A disgrace. I hope mother Russia will give you
what you deserve. You stupid fake Christians, you dont undrestant
relativity at all.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Maciej Woźniak

Post by Paul.B.Andersen
You are competing with Maciej Woźniak about being the most
ignorant and stupid contributor in this NG.

See, poor trash: I've proven the mumble of
the idiot you're worshipping to be not even
consistent - and except spitting, insulting
or slandering you can do nothing about it.
But you will do what you can. The Shit expects
that every doggie will do his duty.

Sorry, you have to do better to catch up with
Laurence Clark Crossen.

Try varying your mantra a bit. Repeating the same over and
over won't do, so Laurence Clark Crossen is still in the lead.

Try again?

[Maciej Woźniak]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

 > You are competing with Maciej Woźniak about being the most
 > ignorant and stupid contributor in this NG.
See, poor trash: I've proven the mumble of
the idiot you're worshipping to be not even
consistent - and except spitting, insulting
or slandering you can do nothing about it.
But you will do what you can. The Shit expects
that every doggie will do his duty.

Sorry, you have to do better to catch up with
Laurence Clark Crossen.
Try varying your mantra a bit. Repeating the same over and
over won't do, so Laurence Clark Crossen is still in the lead.
Try again?

See, poor trash: I've proven the mumble of
the idiot you're worshipping to be not even
consistent - and except spitting, insulting
or slandering you can do nothing about it.

But you will do what you can. The Shit expects
that every doggie will do his duty.

[Mikko]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
This metric doubles the Newtonian deflection, so the relativity
derivation is invalid.
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
Mei Xiaochun

Actual measurements of the deflection support General Relativity.
So do the measurements of light travel times. Newtonian gravity
does not say anything about light. With the additional hypthesis
that light is a stream of particles with small but non-zero mass,
which hypothesis is compatible with Newtonian optics, the deflection
can be computed. The result is refuted by observations but Newtonian
gravity without the additional hypthesis is not refuted.

[Maciej Woźniak]

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
This metric doubles the Newtonian deflection, so the relativity
derivation is invalid.
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
Mei Xiaochun

Actual measurements of the deflection support General Relativity.
So do the measurements of light travel times. Newtonian gravity
does not say anything about light.

In the meantime in the real world, however -
forbidden by your insane church "improper"
clocks keep measuring "improper" t'=t in
"improper" seconds.


With the additional hypthesis

Post by Mikko
that light is a stream of particles with small but non-zero mass,
which hypothesis is compatible with Newtonian optics, the deflection
can be computed. The result is refuted by observations

In early XIXth century.

[LaurenceClarkCrossen]

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
This metric doubles the Newtonian deflection, so the relativity
derivation is invalid.
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
Mei Xiaochun

Actual measurements of the deflection support General Relativity.
So do the measurements of light travel times. Newtonian gravity
does not say anything about light. With the additional hypthesis
that light is a stream of particles with small but non-zero mass,
which hypothesis is compatible with Newtonian optics, the deflection
can be computed. The result is refuted by observations but Newtonian
gravity without the additional hypthesis is not refuted.

Experimental results cannot provide evidence for a fallacious derivation
because that derivation can not predict.

You have forgotten that Galileo proved all masses are affected the same
by gravity.

I take it you mean that adding curved space to Newtonian is not refuted.
It has not been proven because it hasn't been predicted when the
derivation is faulty.

[Ross Finlayson]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
This metric doubles the Newtonian deflection, so the relativity
derivation is invalid.
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
Mei Xiaochun

Actual measurements of the deflection support General Relativity.
So do the measurements of light travel times. Newtonian gravity
does not say anything about light. With the additional hypthesis
that light is a stream of particles with small but non-zero mass,
which hypothesis is compatible with Newtonian optics, the deflection
can be computed. The result is refuted by observations but Newtonian
gravity without the additional hypthesis is not refuted.

Experimental results cannot provide evidence for a fallacious derivation
because that derivation can not predict.
You have forgotten that Galileo proved all masses are affected the same
by gravity.
I take it you mean that adding curved space to Newtonian is not refuted.
It has not been proven because it hasn't been predicted when the
derivation is faulty.

One does not say "proved" in science, neither "predicted" in statistics,
rather "not falsified" or "not invalidated", then with regards to
"widely confirmed" or "with confidence".

The study of nature and random variables is not a closed category.
It's an open system.

[Mikko]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen

Post by Mikko

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
This metric doubles the Newtonian deflection, so the relativity
derivation is invalid.
"Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
Mei Xiaochun

Actual measurements of the deflection support General Relativity.
So do the measurements of light travel times. Newtonian gravity
does not say anything about light. With the additional hypthesis
that light is a stream of particles with small but non-zero mass,
which hypothesis is compatible with Newtonian optics, the deflection
can be computed. The result is refuted by observations but Newtonian
gravity without the additional hypthesis is not refuted.

Experimental results cannot provide evidence for a fallacious derivation
because that derivation can not predict.

That's right. Only a mathematical derivation can, and only if done correctly.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
You have forgotten that Galileo proved all masses are affected the same
by gravity.

Irrelevant. The important point is that GR says the same (as long as the
masses are small enough that they don't affect the sources of gravity).

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
I take it you mean that adding curved space to Newtonian is not refuted.

That does not make sense. A Galilean space, where the spatial gemotry
is Euclidean, is an essential part of Newton's theory. If a curved
space is allowed then all consequences of Galilean geometry must be
reconsidered, which Newton didn't do.

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
It has not been proven because it hasn't been predicted when the
derivation is faulty.

You haven't presented any derivation, faulty or otherwise.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Experimental results cannot provide evidence for a fallacious derivation
because that derivation can not predict.

This equation:
θ = (2GM/(AU⋅c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ (1)

Where:
AU = one astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
 φ = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = Gravitational constant
M = solar mass

Is thoroughly experimentally confirmed.

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

It doesn't matter where equation (1) comes from,
experimental evidence shows that the equation is correct.

It doesn't matter if someone has arrived at the equation
with faulty math, experimental evidence still show that
the equation is correct.

But we know of course that the equation is GR's prediction,
and it would be rather stupid to claim that the derivation
is fallacious, but experimental evidence still show that
the equation happens to be correct.

Do you, Laurence Clark Crossen, still claim that experimental
evidence do not show that this equation is correct?
θ = (2GM/(AU⋅c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ

[Maciej Woźniak]

Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Experimental results cannot provide evidence for a fallacious derivation
because that derivation can not predict.

    θ = (2GM/(AU⋅c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ   (1)
 AU = one astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
 φ  = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
 c  = speed of light in vacuum
 G  = Gravitational constant
 M  = solar mass
Is thoroughly experimentally confirmed.
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
It doesn't matter where equation (1) comes from,
experimental evidence shows that the equation is correct.

Too bad, however, that The Shit of your idiot
guru predicts no deflection. According to
it light [in vacuum] takes always a straight/
geodesic path.

It doesn't matter if someone has arrived at the equation
with faulty math, experimental evidence still show that
the equation is correct.
But we know of course that the equation is GR's prediction,

You know and you mistake.
Mistakes often happen to brainwashed idiots
like yourself.