Discussion:
Newton: Photon falling from h meters increase its energy.
(too old to reply)
rhertz
2025-01-11 17:16:51 UTC
Permalink
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.

Von Soldner worked around this by 1801, with the deflection of light by
gravity. It took Planck to appear 100 years later to relate energy and
frequency, plus Poincaré's equivalence mass-energy that appeared on the
recoil of his "light cannon" around 1898.


Where is relativity left after this?
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-11 17:25:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
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.
rhertz
2025-01-11 18:10:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
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), plagiarized by Einstein in his 1911
paper.
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-11 18:43:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
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.
rhertz
2025-01-11 19:40:25 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
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".
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-11 20:34:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
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.
No, recovered by his idiot minions urgently
needing to beat some Newton's physics.
J. J. Lodder
2025-01-11 20:45:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
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
rhertz
2025-01-12 01:31:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
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.
Paul B. Andersen
2025-01-12 18:42:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
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:
F = GM⋅m/r²
a = F/m = GM/r²
where G is the gravitational constant, M is the mass of the Earth
and r i the distance from the centre of the Earth.
and a = dr/dt

a = GM/r² is independent of m, so this equation is valid even if m = 0.

So according to Newton the photon doesn't have to have a rest mass
to be blue shifted or be gravitational deflected.

Newton predict the same blue shift as GR,
but Newton's prediction for the gravitational deflection
is only half of the experimentally verified GR-prediction.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-12 19:39:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul B. Andersen
Post by rhertz
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
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.
And as photons have no mass - according to Newton
you can't say anything about them. Your "falsification"
is a sorry lie, as usual.
Richard Hachel
2025-01-12 21:54:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
And as photons have no mass - according to Newton
you can't say anything about them. Your "falsification"
is a sorry lie, as usual.
Le photon ne peut pas avoir de masse propre, puisqu'il n'existe pas.

"Il n'y a rien entre là et là".
Docteur Richard Hachel

R.H.
J. J. Lodder
2025-01-12 21:50:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
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".
Certainly. That survives into the general theory.
The gravitational binding energy contributes to the stress-energy
tensor, which is the source term in general relativity.
This is what makes the theory non-linear, and hence difficult.
Post by rhertz
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.
Why conceal it? It is correct, in the Newtonian limit.
And it was good heuristics, on the way to the general theory.
Post by rhertz
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.
??You??

And nothing wrong with it.
The energy of all those photons inside the sun for example
does contribute to its gravitational mass.

Jan
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-13 05:07:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by rhertz
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.
"Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two"
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)." -
saved pdf = "Albert Einsetin, Plagiarist of the Century" p.9
Richard Hachel
2025-01-13 15:06:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
Python
2025-01-13 17:08:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2025-01-13 17:43:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
Richard Hachel
2025-01-13 19:28:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
No, no, it is a media creation; like Superman is a novelist creation.
He does not exist and never existed, they are only pixels on a screen,
like Snow White.

Same for Macron, and for Greta Thunberg.

They do not exist.

C'est des créatures inventées par l'intelligence artificielle des
médias, épicétou.

Rien à voir avec des Leibniz, des Poincaré, des De Gaulle, des Gauss...

R.H.



R.H.
Python
2025-01-13 19:35:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
...
Rien à voir avec des Leibniz, des Poincaré, des De Gaulle, des Gauss...
As if *you*, the worse kind of idiotic egomaniac crank and liar and well
known for that could understand what Leibniz, Poincaré or Gauss actually
did. You are a joke, a bad disgusting, stinking
joke, (hopefully former M.D.) Richard "Hachel" Lengrand.
Richard Hachel
2025-01-13 19:58:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
...
Rien à voir avec des Leibniz, des Poincaré, des De Gaulle, des Gauss...
You are a joke, a bad disgusting, stinking joke
C'est faux, j'ai demandé à Maciej si quelqu'un était "stinking" ici,
il a dit oui, mais que c'était pas moi.

R.H.
Python
2025-01-13 20:06:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
...
Rien à voir avec des Leibniz, des Poincaré, des De Gaulle, des Gauss...
You are a joke, a bad disgusting, stinking joke
C'est faux, j'ai demandé à Maciej si quelqu'un était "stinking" ici, il a
dit oui, mais que c'était pas moi.
The same Maciej that considers you as "stinking" as most posters down
here?
Athel Cornish-Bowden
2025-01-14 08:10:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Richard Hachel
...
Rien à voir avec des Leibniz, des Poincaré, des De Gaulle, des Gauss...
You are a joke, a bad disgusting, stinking joke
C'est faux, j'ai demandé à Maciej si quelqu'un était "stinking" ici,
il a dit oui, mais que c'était pas moi.
Are you so far gone in your craziness that you regard Wozzie as an
authority (on anything)?
--
Athel -- French and British, living in Marseilles for 37 years; mainly
in England until 1987.
Richard Hachel
2025-01-13 19:20:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.

For Greta Thunberg, explain to me how an uneducated kid can make the front
pages of the world's newspapers because she likes baby seals and is afraid
that the ice cap is melting.

As for Macron, you who are French, explain to me how a stranger to the
public can, in a few years, become the ideal man for France, while some
who knew him said he was a complete idiot, that we know he was never
elected anywhere, and that he probably didn't know how to name the capital
of Ukraine or Lithuania. I'm not even talking about finding the derivative
of a simple plynomial.

But out of a taste for provocation, you're going to tell me that I'm
wrong, and that I'm stupid.

But no one will believe you, and those who say it will pretend.

R.H.
Python
2025-01-13 19:31:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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:

- Study of the brownian motion, confirming atomic theory
- Explanation of the photoelectric effect [this was picked by the Nobel
committee because the prize is supposed to focus on applied physics and
Relativity didn't get much experimental confirmations *yet*]
- Determination of molecules sizes
- And of course : Special Relativity and General Relatity

All of this in a single year, while it took you decades to claim that 2 +
2 can be 5 for some observers... You are a disgrace for Humanity, M.D.
Richard "Hachel" Lengrand.

The shame is on your side, Lengrand. You are a fraud.

I have read a lot, right, far more than you did. And contrarily to you I
did understand what I've read.

So I know that your claims are nonsense and illustrate your stupidity. You
are the damned hypocrite here.
Post by Richard Hachel
[snip more nonsense, off-topic btw]
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-13 19:47:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by Python
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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 if not
clearly enough for you, poor stinker).
Python
2025-01-13 19:50:36 UTC
Permalink
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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. You'll never understand
anything on math, physics or physics. Find another hobby!
Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor stinker.
Nice signature! Very adequate!
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-13 21:33:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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, poor stinker, I didn't. A lie as usual.
Post by Python
Moreover nobody is rejecting Euclidan Geometry.
And, of course, another lie. As usual.

You'll never understand
Post by Python
anything on math, physics or physics.
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.
Python
2025-01-13 21:40:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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?
Post by Python
Moreover nobody is rejecting Euclidean Geometry.
And, of course, another lie. As usual.
On your part, sure.
You'll never understand
Post by Python
anything on math, physics or physics.
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. You couldn't
recognize a proof if it kicked you in the face.
And you're just doing what you can for your beloved
Shit and your beloved church.
This is "spitting, insulting and slandering", isn't it?
poor stinker, poor stinker
Nice signature though. No need to repeat it twice.
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-13 21:45:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Python
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Post by Python
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 moronic physics.
A fanatic piece of shit screaming "NOOOOO!!!",
spitting and slandering is changing nothing,
sorry.
Python
2025-01-13 21:58:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
screaming "NOOOOO!!!", is changing nothing,
Only you were screaming. You got precise refutations of you silly
"proofs". This is was not difficult anyway, given your level of stupidity.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
sorry.
To be an idiot, and a demented ranting old crank? You can.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
 A fanatic piece of moronic shit, spitting and slandering.
Very nice signature though.
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-13 22:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
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.
Python
2025-01-13 22:14:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
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?
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-13 23:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
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?
Python
2025-01-14 10:23:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
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.

There are not a single person on Earth, so far, that has publicly
considered your "work" as a valid proof, right? As far as I can say ALL
people who have expressed a judgement on your "work" consider it as
completely asinine.

You can insult people, it doesn't change the fact that what you have
nothing like a proof. Not even remotely. You don't even try seriously to
convince people.
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-14 11:11:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
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.
Python
2025-01-14 12:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
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.
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-14 15:09:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
You have demonstrated nothing.
Just because *you* say so? Come on, poor
stinker.
Post by Python
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.
Python
2025-01-14 15:14:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
You have demonstrated nothing.
Just because *you* say so? Come on, poor
stinker.
Post by Python
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?
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-14 15:42:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Python
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
You have demonstrated nothing.
Just because *you* say so? Come on, poor
stinker.
Post by Python
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.
Python
2025-01-14 15:49:09 UTC
Permalink
Le 14/01/2025 à 16:42, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
As most cranks you too stupid and too stubborn to admit it.
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-14 16:51:42 UTC
Permalink
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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".
Python
2025-01-14 17:23:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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? If so
where? To what people?

Did ever even ONCE a human being has considered any of your "proofs" as
valid?

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?
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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".
Did you ever consider that, maybe, maybe you are too stupid and/or too
stubborn to seriously consider these arguments?

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)?
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-14 17:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
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?
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.
Post by Python
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?
Python
2025-01-14 18:02:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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 confront your "proofs" to anyone outside of here?
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
That is a simple one. You're selling your
idiocies as a voice of Nature Herself,
Nope.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
somehow magically independent on mere
human made definitions. Don't you?
I don't.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Somehow, people buy this mystical crap
Nothing mystical at all. You're fantasizing. As usual.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
- they trust you. Happens.
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!

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.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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) 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.

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)?

How come? Aren't you "one the best logician Humanity ever had"? (you still
owe me a keyboard btw)
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-14 18:39:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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?
Answer. No. Why to explain inconsistency of
your Shit to someone who neither knows it
nor is interested in it?
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
A lie. Of course
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
As an engineer (a real one, not a wannabee as you)
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or
the making of such a statement:

I concluded
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
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.
Python
2025-01-14 18:49:21 UTC
Permalink
Le 14/01/2025 à 19:39, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by 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?
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?
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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".

The impudence of your lies is amazing.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
I'm not talking about myself. I notice that it doesn't ring a bell in 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.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Post by Python
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
about that given how weak all your statement are. This is not a slander,
this is a fact.

I can prove that I am an engineer, I can produce actual engineering work
and did publicly publish what I've done.

This is something you've never done. We all know why.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
I concluded
Post by Python
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.
Definitely not screaming "NOOO!!!" which is exactly what *you* do in most
of your posts.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
How convenient. Is anything that you consider as a valid proof in the
History of mankind except an excerpt of your idiotic, ranting and silly
posts?
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-14 19:03:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by 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?
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.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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".
But it was plural "you".
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
You're talking about yourself together
with other Shit worshippers. "Humanity",
pfffff.

This is a sign of mental illness, and
delusion of grandeur.


I notice that it doesn't ring a bell in
Post by Python
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.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Post by Python
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
Put your chances and your doubts
together straight into your dumb,
fanatic, slandering ass where they
belong, poor stinker.
Post by Python
I can prove that I am an engineer,
Or at least you can scream "NOOOO!!!"and
wave your arms, like always.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Definitely screaming "NOOO!!!". As said, you
are unable for anything else.
Python
2025-01-14 19:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Le 14/01/2025 à 20:03, Maciej Wozniak a écrit :
..
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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
You don't have anyone here in range too. Hopefully for you!

There are a lot of far more populated places on the Internet where you
could post your claims. People there are no more, no less "in range" to
you than here.

What is the point of posting every single day your claims about Relativity
here if there is only "brainwashed fanatics" here? This does not make
sense.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
2)if he is he is most likely as brainwashed
as any idiot here.
Any kind of interest for Relativity implies to instantly being
brainwashed? Really?
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.

Again, this thread show that you can only scream "NO!!!", that you are a
liar, that you are demented and that, even according to you very low, low
standards, your behavior is the behavior of a demented illogical person.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
poor stinker.
Nice signature though!
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-14 19:44:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
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.
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Still amyway a fucking baseless slander sold
as a "undeniable fact" by a well known
piece of lying shit.

Changing nothing, the mumble of your idiot
guru is still inconsistent, the proof is
still valid and you still can't do anything about
it apart of mad ravings, spitting and - well,
slandering.
Python
2025-01-14 19:50:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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"?

'nuff said :-) I've engineering work to do, while nurses in Poland are
waiting to clean your sheets.
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-14 19:58:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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*.
Sad truth.
Post by Python
And you pretend to be an engineer!
No, I don't.
Post by Python
Again, what's your point in posting idiotic rants every single day here
if the place is full of "brainwashed fanatics"?
Idiotic rants are all yours, I'm posting -
for instance - a proof that the mumble
of your idiot guru was not even consistent.
Post by Python
while nurses in Poland are
waiting to clean your sheets.
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or
the making of such a statement:
Python
2025-01-14 20:00:28 UTC
Permalink
[snip nonsense]
Post by Python
And you pretend to be an engineer!
No, I don't.
You have pretended numerous times, here, to be an "information engineer".
Google keeps the record.
You are an impudent liar Maciej.
[snip more nonsense]
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-14 20:47:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
[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, poor stinker.


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.
Python
2025-01-14 21:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
[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. You can't. You are
certainly NOT one. You've (maybe by inadvertence) unambiguously admitted
it. :-)
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
The discussion is not about that. The discussion about how silly, idiotic
and a ranting demented stupid crank you are. I'm not slandering: I
suggested realistic hypothesis about your real mental and physical state.
It is very realist, given the contents of your posts, to conclude that you
are a mentally ill senile kook living in a asylum.

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" and also that you've explained that you kept yourself as far as
physics as possible (to escape a fantasizing "brain washing") while you
pretend of some kind of expertise on it. I will recall this to you, when
you'll post more idiotic rants, as you daily do, if I have spare time of
course.

Moreover you've evaded almost all questions I asked. Especially what is
your point when posting here and nowhere else. And the delusion of
grandeur you have.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
slandering poor stinker.
Nice signature!
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-14 21:48:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
[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.
Post by Python
I am an engineer and that I can prove it.
A shame for all the engineers of the world, but
I'm not going to deny baselessly like a reletivistic
idiot.
And still I'm not pretending more than you are.
Post by Python
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"
Your delusions have np limits, as expected
from delusions of a fanatic idiot.
Python
2025-01-14 22:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
[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, unsound
and you admit now that it was a plain lie.

Remember: Google keep the record of numerous posts where you pretended to
be an "information engineer". Your denials won't change anything.

This is an unambiguous admittance that you lied then. Also that you are in
no way an engineer of any kind. Even you realized how unrealistic this
claim was. You shot yourself in the foot (not the first time though).
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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. There were something to learn from this
thread :-)

You also admitted to have kept yourself as far as possible from physics.
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-15 06:34:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
[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,
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or
Post by Python
This is an unambiguous admittance that you lied then. Also that you are
in no way an engineer of any kind.
slander
noun [ C or U ]
uk /ˈslɑːn.dər/ us /ˈslæn.dɚ/
a false spoken statement about someone that damages their reputation, or
the making of such a statement:


One could think that even a relativistic
idiot would temporarily stop slandering in
a discussion about his slandering. But - no
- you're too stupid even for that. Indeed,
amazing.




\
Even you realized how unrealistic
Post by Python
this claim was. You shot yourself in the foot (not the first time though).
Post by Maciej Wozniak
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.
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
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.
Richard Hachel
2025-01-13 19:55:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
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?

Then you have to prove that everything I say is false.

Except that the system is coherent from A to Z.

You promised to tackle my pdf as soon as it's finished.

I advise you to buy good oars, the separatist.

R.H.
Python
2025-01-13 20:04:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
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.
It is definitely personal. But it is, nevertheless, a bunch of nonsense
and contradictions as it has been showed numerous time.
Secondly, let's say I copied from someone: I copied from WHOM?
I didn't pretend that you copied it. It may be original and wrong. None of
your fellow cranks has followed you. It is likely that you on the top 5 of
stupidity, even amongst cranks.
You promised to tackle my pdf as soon as it's finished.
It has already been done for almost all of your claims...

https://gitlab.com/python_431/cranks-and-physics/-/tree/main/Hachel?ref_type=heads

And a bunch of Usenet posts, for your more recent claims on accelerated
travelers.
Richard Hachel
2025-01-13 20:34:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
And a bunch of Usenet posts, for your more recent claims on accelerated
travelers.
That's very kind of you.
It's quite rare to see you so kind, did you put honey in your Cognac?

Oh no, you're drinking Rum.
It would please the Gods if a man glorified his enemy by admitting that at
least he doesn't cheat, and that what he says, he says of his own accord.

It remains to be demonstrated that everything I say is true.

So be it.

Now, you add: "I have already demonstrated to you, on numerous occasions,
that there were errors in everything you say, notably in the proper times
of accelerated objects, in the equality of certain proper times, in your
apparent speeds, etc...etc...etc...."

Except that an improper term has been inserted in your sentence. You use
the word "err". You say: "I have already demonstrated to you, on numerous
occasions, that there were errors in..."

You are making a confusion (voluntary or involuntary) with the term
"difference from what is taught".

I have often noticed that many people told me that I made mistakes, except
that they called "theoretical discrepancies" errors.

These are not errors in the proper sense, neither mathematical (2+2=4 for
everyone), nor theoretical (it is simply that the geometry used by Hachel
is infinitely less grotesque than that of Minkowski, but that a follower
of Minkowski reading Hachel will go crazy, and believe that it is Hachel
who makes "errors".

These are not errors, it is simply a geometry that is more beautiful, more
logical, less imprisoned in the straitjacket of the abstract and
ridiculous Minkowskian block.

A true theory is a beautiful theory.

If a theory is not beautiful, it is because it is not true.

Je le répète, tu confonds "théorie fausse" et "théorie dissidente".

R.H.
Python
2025-01-13 20:39:38 UTC
Permalink
[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.
Richard Hachel
2025-01-13 20:50:25 UTC
Permalink
[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.
C'est l'inverse qui est vrai.

C'est la théorie actuelle qui est pleine de paradoxes et de
contradictions (je te les ai expliquées de nombreuses fois).

A noter que les physiciens sont très ennuyés si on leur parle, sur le
plan expérimental, de transfert instantané d'information ; ou sur le
plan théorique, du fait que lorsqu'elle vient de virer, Stella qui est de
nouveau à sa vitesse de croisière de 0.8c, voit arriver sur elle la
terre avec une énorme vitesse apparente de Vapp=4c.

Et que cela va forcément se produire pendant neuf ans.

Mais tu le sais tout ça.

Et que leur contraction des distances à la con explose et ne tient pas.

Leur fantasme ne tient pas une seconde, mais ils adorent leur fantasme,
préférant cracher à la gueule d'un mec plus "scientifique" qu'eux et
qui leur montre une géométrie d'une grande logique et d'une pure beauté
mathématique.

"Plus petit, même l'homme le plus grand que j'ai vu".
F. Nietzsche

Il faut arrêter avec ce fantasme d'arrogance qui veut que l'homme est
intelligent, et qu'il a tout compris.


R.H.
Python
2025-01-13 20:54:48 UTC
Permalink
[snip idiotic babbling]
[snip more 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.
Richard Hachel
2025-01-13 21:05:13 UTC
Permalink
[snip idiotic babbling]
[snip more 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.
:))


R.H.
Python
2025-01-13 21:09:12 UTC
Permalink
[snip idiotic babbling]
[snip more 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?
Richard Hachel
2025-01-14 03:13:02 UTC
Permalink
[snip idiotic babbling]
[snip more 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.
Python
2025-01-14 10:25:06 UTC
Permalink
[snip idiotic babbling]
[snip more 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.
Richard Hachel
2025-01-14 10:52:21 UTC
Permalink
[snip idiotic babbling]
[snip more 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.
As you are unable to understand what an apparent speed is, and even more,
because there, it will be necessary to inject you with a lot of neurons,
what the relativistic elasticity of distances, lengths and times is,
because you are in a pathetic dilation of times and an equally pathetic
contraction of lengths.
The Minkowskian static block, a sort of imbecile concrete block in four
dimensions, has really harmed the intelligence of things.

R.H.
Python
2025-01-14 12:17:44 UTC
Permalink
[snip idiotic babbling]
[snip more 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.
You don't "explain" anything, you only claim. And you are wrong, and I
demonstrated that you are wrong.
Richard Hachel
2025-01-14 13:24:16 UTC
Permalink
I demonstrated that you are wrong.
:))

Tu aurais du postuler au petit théâtre de Bouvard.

Rien de ce que je dis ne peut être pris en faute théorique, ni
expérimentale.

Les théoriciens sont une merde épouvantable quand je leur expose la
paradoxe de Langevin, le paradoxe d'Andromède et le paradoxe d'Ehrenfert,
il ne savent pas répondre là où je leur propose une théorie complète
d'une grande beauté conceptuelle et d'une logique claire.

Les expérimentateurs ne peuvent pas expliquer des transferts instantanés
d'informations.

Toi même n'a toujours pas compris comment je considérais la notion de
vitesse apparente en RR, et le fait que si l'angle est constant alors le
rapport temps propre/temps apparent est constant.

Comme tu n'as toujours pas compris pourquoi le fait de dire :
"Si deux mobiles, l'un en mouvement accéléré uniforme, l'autre en
mouvement galiléen uniforme départ arrêté, traversent des distances
égales en des temp observables égaux leurs temps propres seront égaux".

Tu penses incroyable que des physiciens puissent avoir bâti une
géométrie abstraite qui ne correspond pas réellement à la structure
relative de l'espace et du temps.

Il faudrait quand même que, de temps en temps, on sache écouter ce que
d'autres peuvent dire.

Je rappelle que je ne dis pas que la théorie de la relativité restreinte
est fausse, mais que la moitié des équations écrites à la va-vite
depuis Poincaré (dont la mathématique était ultra-correcte) sont
fausses et mal comprises.

R.H.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-13 19:50:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
Indeed, Einstein is always entirely beside the point. The point is that
the formula is an optics formula, not a gravitation formula.
Richard Hachel
2025-01-13 20:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Richard Hachel
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
Indeed, Einstein is always entirely beside the point. The point is that
the formula is an optics formula, not a gravitation formula.
I can't answer you because I have no knowledge of general relativity, and
I don't believe, moreover, in the effects of gravity on photons since they
don't exist.

In the receiver's frame of reference, the photon is an instantaneous
transfer of energy (a quantum) and I can't see how an instantaneous
transfer of energy could be deflected in an infinitely short (zero) time.

The same goes for the photon, which, if it had a frame of reference, would
see the receiver arrive at it infinitely quickly, from infinitely far
away, and in an infinitely short time.

I am therefore very surprised that we can think that gravitation curves
space (pure nothingness without ether) with its little muscular fingers.

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.

Afterwards, I do not know. I am not a specialist.

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. I think that everything is possible.

R.H.
Python
2025-01-13 20:20:32 UTC
Permalink
[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. Not only
the density of the corona is very well known, and optical refraction is
100% ruled out, but the deviation is also measured for light arriving at
an angle of 90° with the ecliptic plane on Earth. So any effect of the
Sun matter, magnetic field, etc. is definitely ruled out. And you should
know: it as it has been pointed out to you numerous time.

In that very sense, Richard, you are a FRAUD. You are in denial of
experiments in addition to be in denial of logic. Also you are a impudent
LIAR.
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.
another lie, as usual...
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-13 21:37:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
[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.
Python
2025-01-13 21:40:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Python
[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.
Your dementia is boooring, Wozniak.
Paul.B.Andersen
2025-01-13 18:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two"
This paper gives an interesting discussion of Soldner's calculation.
This paper is written by Tilman Sauer in 2021.

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".
Post by 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 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.
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
Post by 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
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"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.
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"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.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
J. J. Lodder
2025-01-13 20:05:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two"
This paper gives an interesting discussion of Soldner's calculation.
This paper is written by Tilman Sauer in 2021.
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".
Post by 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.
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
"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
"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.
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
OTOH, copies (contact prints) of Eddington's plates were made in 1919,
and some of these were sent to other observarories
for independent remeasurement. No one found a different result.

The modern remeasurement, which fully vindicated Eddington (again!)
was made on one of those copies.

Jan
Paul.B.Andersen
2025-01-14 12:22:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by 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.
Post by J. J. Lodder
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
How ridiculous! :-D
Einstein calculated the GR prediction 1.7" in 1916,
before any measurements of the deflection was made.
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
"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
"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".
Post by J. J. Lodder
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.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Richard Hachel
2025-01-14 13:34:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
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.
This is exactly what happened.
There were two eclipses in 1917, and very strangely, there was no
photograph of the first one "the weather was very nice, but it clouded
over just at the time of the eclipse". However, if the pictures had been
taken, we would have realized that Einstein was wrong because his
predictions of the deviation were half as much.
In the meantime (this is very strange) Einstein will correct his
calculations, and bingo!
During the second eclipse, we can take the photographs, and we fall right
on Einstein's predictions.
From there to thinking that the scientists warned Einstein that the
deviation was incorrect, and that he had to redo the calculations to find
a double deflection, there is only one step.
We cannot prove it, but it still smells like a very probable intellectual
scam.

R.H.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-14 00:21:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two"
This paper gives an interesting discussion of Soldner's calculation.
This paper is written by Tilman Sauer in 2021.
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".
Post by 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.
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
"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
"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.
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
Post by 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 
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
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"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.
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"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.
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.
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.

Source:
"THE DEFLECTION OF LIGHT AS OBSERVED AT TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSES" By CHARLES
LANE POOR

Poor gives an earlier paper by himself = "THE RELATIVITY DEFLECTION OF
LIGHT" Free pdf=
https://archive.org/download/sim_journal-of-the-royal-astronomical-society-of-canada_july-august-1927_21_6/sim_journal-of-the-royal-astronomical-society-of-canada_july-august-1927_21_6.pdf

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

What is ridiculous is that the curving of space (reification fallacy)
can be added to Newtonian when the curving was allegedly the explanation
for Newtonian, making this redundant.
Einstein: “According to the theory half of this deflection is produced
by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun, and the other half by
the geometrical modification (‘curvature’) of space caused by the sun.”
In this way Einstein doubled his money trumping Newton.

Maybe Einstein got the doubling from a mistaken reading of Soldner.

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.'"

"THE DEFLECTION OF LIGHT AS OBSERVED AT TOTAL SOLAR ECLIPSES" By CHARLES
LANE POOR
"SUMMARY
The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his predicted
deflection of 1".75
for light rays passing the edge of the SUD, is a well known and simple
formula of physical optics. In this formula he substituted an
hypothetical "retardation" of light in its passage
through a gravitational field; and this purely theoretical retardation
is the sole new concept
involved in the prediction. Not a single one of the fundamental concepts
of varying time, of
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: at
the best their results can prove that light is retarded by gravitational
action, and is retarded by a certain definite amount....The radial
components were then forced into a semblance of "exact accord with the
requirements of the Einstein theory" through an assumption written into
the methods and formulas of reduction: an assumption for which there is
not the slightest observational evidence. In fact the only evidence
available-the evidence furnished by independent check fields
photographed on the eclipse plates-would seem to show that this basic
assumption is utterly wrong.
The actual stellar displacements, if real, do not show the slightest
re~emblanceto the predicted Einstein deflections: they do not agree in
direction, in size 1 or in the rate of decrease with distance from the
sun. .. ..... "
Paul.B.Andersen
2025-01-14 21:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by 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 
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
Why don't you read what you are responding to ?
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
This is Poor's statement:
"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"

Poor is _obviously_ referring to Einstein's equation in his
1916 paper "The Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity"

This is the equation: Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c²

This is what Paul says about Poor's statement:

'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".'

Poor's statement isn't ridiculous at all.
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Yes, Poor shows he used a refraction formula.
But this statement of yours is indeed ridiculous.

From whence have you got the idiotic idea that the equation
Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is a "refraction formula"?

It is a gravitational deflection formula.

"refraction" is the phenomenon that light is bent when it passes
through a medium with varying density (air, water, glass).

"gravitational deflection" is the phenomenon that light is bent
when in passes a gravitating mass.

Since both are about bending of light beams, both
"refraction formulas" and "gravitational deflection formulas"
can be called "formulas of physical optics".


But it doesn't matter what you call the equation.

It is a _fact_ that GR predicts that the gravitational deflection
of EM-radiation is Θ = 4GM/Δ⋅c².

GR's prediction for the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
is now so thoroughly experimentally confirmed that you have to be
extremely ignorant not to accept it.
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
Your opinion of GR is irrelevant.

Only experimental evidence can falsify a theory.

Experiments have shown that GR correctly predicts how light
is gravitational deflected.

So gravitational deflection does not falsify GR,
and thus confirms GR.

It doesn't prove GR, though. Theories of physics can't be proved.
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Mercury's
perihelion of relativity is based on the assumption that gravity can be
treated as electromagnetism.
Nonsense!

GR predicts that if the Sun and Mercury were the only bodies in
the universe, then the perihelion advance of Mercury would be:
42.98"/century (at Epoch J2000)

"Electromagnetism" has nothing to do with it.
It is gravitation only.

See 3.2 in:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GRPerihelionAdvance.pdf
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
According to Britannica, this is now known
to be false because the unified field theory "failed."
Britannica does certainly not say that GR's prediction
for the perihelion advance of Mercury is false.
Quite the contrary!

That Einstein failed to make "the unified field theory"
is common knowledge. (Nobody has succeeded.)
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Galileo and
Eotvos showed everything, regardless of the mass or the substance, is
affected the same by gravity. Relativity has not disproved that.
Quite right.
According to SR/GR, gravitational mass is the same as inertial mass.

What was your point?
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
The
velocity of both waves and particles includes the relative velocity of
the observer, yet relativity irrationally denies this—pure lunacy.
What are you trying to say?
Do you mean that the velocity of a wave or particle relative to
the observer includes the velocity of the observer?

Please explain.
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.'"
How confused is it possible to be? :-D

So you claim that according to Einstein, the equivalence principle
is that a clock which is stationary in a gravitational field
is affected the same way as a free falling clock!

(None of the clocks are affected in any way, they tick at their
normal rate.)

--------------------

Please answer the following question:

You are in a room.
In the middle of the room an accelerometer is hanging in a string
from the ceiling.
You see the accelerometer shows 1 g acceleration towards the ceiling.

Is the room accelerating at 1 g far from the Earth and other
gravitating masses, or is it stationary on the ground?

You have ignored the question before.
Will you do it again?
Why?
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-14 00:36:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two"
This paper gives an interesting discussion of Soldner's calculation.
This paper is written by Tilman Sauer in 2021.
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".
Post by 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.
https://paulba.no/paper/Foundation_of_GR.pdf
"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
"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.
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
Post by 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 
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
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"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.
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"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.
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.
"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!"
rhertz
2025-01-14 01:41:44 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 14 Jan 2025 0:36:33 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

<snip>
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"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 was
calling him (LITERALLY) a fraudulent crock.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-14 04:19:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
<snip>
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"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
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
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
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
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 was
calling him (LITERALLY) a fraudulent crock.
You find the same thing with Mercury as Poor found with the eclipse.
They just cooked it up. The "theory" of relativity makes no such
prediction.
"But this result, so obtained, does not represent
the curvature of the actual path of the ray by the sun; it represents
a fictitious curvature as measured from a moving origin of
coordinates. Eddington’s result is neither mathematically correct, nor
in accord with the basic assumptions of relativity in regard to
the propagation of light. If Einstein’s assumptions be correct, that
the actual velocities of rays passing through a given point in space
are different, if it be true, as both Einstein and Eddington state, that
the actual velocity of a radial ray at any point is less than
that of a transverse ray, passing through that point, then by no
trick of changing origins of coordinates, by no possible mathematical
means, can these two different velocities be made the same.
From all this it would appear to be clear that Einstein made an
error in mathematical computation, when in his “Foundation of
the General Theory of Relativity” he gave the figure 1”.70 for the...."
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-14 04:48:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
<snip>
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"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
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
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
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
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 was
calling him (LITERALLY) a fraudulent crock.
Here is a response to Poor's 1926 article in 1929: THE RELATIVITY
DEFLECTION OF LIGHT By Robert J. Trumpler
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-14 05:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
<snip>
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
"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
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
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
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
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 was
calling him (LITERALLY) a fraudulent crock.
Then there is "Albert Einstein and the Doubling of the Deflection of
Light" by Jean‑Marc Ginoux. He says, "Thus, it appears that Einstein’s
computation of the value of deflection of a light ray performed in 1915
led him to twice the amount derived in his 1911 paper.
Where does this doubling come from? How did Einstein justify it?
In fact, contrary to what Arvid Reuterdahl (see Sect. 2) claimed,
Einstein has really
“taken the world into his confidence concerning the reason of this
change”. Indeed, as
early as 1915, Einstein wrote:
“By use of the Huygens principle, one finds through a simple
calculation, that a
light ray from the Sun at distance 훥 undergoes an angular deflection of
magnitude 2훼∕훥, while the earlier calculation had given the value 훼∕훥. A
corresponding light ray from the surface rim of the Sun should give a
deviation of 1.7”
(instead of 0.85”) (Einstein 1915a).”
In 1920, in the appendix 3 of the third edition of his book written in
1916, he
explained:
“As a result of this theory, we should expect that a ray of light which
is passing
close to a heavenly body would be deviated towards the latter. For a ray
of light
which passes the sun at a distance of 훥 sun-radii from its centre, the
angle of
deflection (훼) should amount to
It may be added that, according to the theory, half of this deflection
is produced by
the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun, and the other half by the
geometrical
modification (“curvature”) of space caused by the sun (Einstein 1920).”"
HOWEVER, POOR WAS ADDRESSING EXACTLY THIS: "The Huygens–Fresnel
principle states that every point on a wavefront is itself the source of
spherical wavelets, and the secondary wavelets emanating from different
points mutually interfere. The sum of these spherical wavelets forms a
new wavefront. Wikipedia"
The use of Huygens principle treats light as a wave so it deals with
refraction not gravity. Huygens cannot be used to multiply the
gravitational effect which relies on assuming light is a particle.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-14 05:17:30 UTC
Permalink
By using Huygens's principle, he combined the wave and particle models
to double the deflection.
Paul.B.Andersen
2025-01-14 21:39:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
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.
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.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.
--
Paul

https://paulba.no/
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-14 21:50:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
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.
Python
2025-01-14 22:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
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).
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-15 04:56:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
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).
The claim that a straight geodesic path actually keeps the light speed
constant is necessary to apply Huygens' principle for the alleged
doubling of the deflection, according to "THE RELATIVITY DEFLECTION OF
LIGHT" by Robert J. T., 1929.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-15 05:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
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).
He asserts that the non-Euclidean is real and the Euclidean is not real
by calling the Euclidean a "projection" of the non-Euclidean. Thus, he
says the Euclidean involves a "distortion." The non-Euclidean
reification fallacy is the distortion. Thank you for refuting the
relativist's defense of using the Huygens principle to keep the speed of
light constant.
Maciej Wozniak
2025-01-15 06:39:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Python
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
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.
Post by Python
(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 The Shit of your idiot guru
Light paths [in vacuum] are straight/geodesic
in both.



Maciej is sooo
Post by Python
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 idiots insisting on that.

LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-15 04:53:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maciej Wozniak
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
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.
Yes, non-Euclidean geometry is invoked to claim a straight path and a
constant velocity of light. According to basic physics, a curved path
would involve accelerations. The only problem is that space isn't
curved. That is an elementary logical error made by eminent imbeciles
who make money telling tall tales.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-15 04:49:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
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.
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-15 05:31:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Paul.B.Andersen
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.
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
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.
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.
Euclidean geometry is for planes, and non-Euclidean geometry is for
other surfaces, such as spheres. Space is not a curved surface. Eminent
people make stupid mistakes. Hubble and Zwicky didn't accept the
velocity-distance relationship.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-15 05:49:25 UTC
Permalink
"The many are ignorant, and the few are wise." - Socrates. You go with
the many. That is ad populum.
Sylvia Else
2025-01-15 03:02:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by rhertz
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
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.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-15 05:01:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by rhertz
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
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.
It makes no difference whether it behaves as a wave or particle because
the same change in frequency results. I thought you were a
mathematician. The frequency would vary with height in rational science.
LaurenceClarkCrossen
2025-01-15 05:41:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by rhertz
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
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.
This is a problem for you only because you want to pretend that light
speed is constant while it is affected by gravity. For that, you invoke
non-Euclidean geometry, which Python just pointed out can't accomplish.
Sylvia Else
2025-01-15 06:16:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by LaurenceClarkCrossen
Post by Sylvia Else
Post by rhertz
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
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.
This is a problem for you only because you want to pretend that light
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.
Loading...