Re: The Shapiro's experiment HOAX. A 1968 TIME article.

On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:45:23 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

Den 17.10.2024 17:43, skrev rhertz:

On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 9:28:19 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
>

Den 17.10.2024 03:05, skrev rhertz:

I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THE LINK:
>
Shapiro Time Delay Using Newtonian Gravitation
>
https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM

>
YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND SARCASM, OBVIOUSLY!

>
>
Don't pretend this was a sarcasm.
>

>
>
MY POST WITH THE ALTERNATE NEWTONIAN VERSION WAS TO PROVE THAT
RELATIVITY IS AN ABSOLUTE PILE OF CRAP!
>

>
Quite.
You thought this was a Newtonian derivation of the prediction
for the Shapiro delay:
https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
>
You wrote:
"No space curved is necessary. Newton cover all the basis and
  RELATIVITY AND SPACETIME CURVATURES have no place here."
>
You believed that Newton could predict what you called
"1971 Shapiro's formula".  See attachment.
>
You wrote:
"Observe the details of the measurements with Venus in 1970."
See fig.2 in the attachment.
>
You believed that the Newtonian prediction was an exact
fit to Shapiro's measurements. So GR is crap and isn't needed.
>
Which means that you now have accepted that Shapiro's
measurements of the delay were correct, and no HOAX.
>
What you were not aware of is that the equation in
the attachment is the GR prediction, and _not_ the Newtonian
prediction. So the figure in the attachment shows a perfect
fit between the GR prediction and Shapiro's measurements.
>
The point is that Stephan Gift's paper
https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM
is nonsense.
>
Gift has "stolen" the equation and figure from Pössel
and has done some mathemagic to make it seem that
the equation is the Newtonian prediction, which it is not.
>
This is the paper with the correct Newtonian prediction:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.00229
M Pössel: "The Shapiro time delay and the equivalence principle"
>
Note that the equation you call "1971 Shapiro's formula"
is equation (27) in this paper.
Quote:
  "Formulas (17) and (19) for one-way travel, corrected by
  the multiplication of the delay term with an overall factor
  2 to go from the Newtonian to the general-relativistic result,
   Δt = (2GM/c³)⋅ln((r_E+x_E)/(rₚ-xₚ))            (27).
>
So equation (27) is the GR prediction.
>
Your figure (2) is FIG.6 in this paper.
It is Pössel who has drawn this figure with the GR prediction
equation (27) and measurements from: Irwin I. Shapiro et al.,
"Fourth Test of General Relativity: New Radar Result,"
>
To go from the Newtonian prediction to the GR prediction
by multiplication by two is Pössel's idea:
>
Quote:
"Begin by presenting the simplified derivation developed in this
  section. This will yield a result that has the correct functional
  dependence on the geometry, but is off by an overall factor 2.
  Give the students the additional information that a more thorough
  derivation, which includes the curvature of space, will yield a
  result that has an additional factor 2. After that statement, you
  can use the corrected formula, with the extra factor of 2, to
  consider applications  such as the ones presented in section V,
  where the Shapiro time delay formula is used to compare predictions
  with data."
>
So sorry, Richard, you have yet again made a fool of yourself.
>
But at least you have finally accepted that Shapiro's
measurements of the delay were correct, and no HOAX.
>
😂
>
Attachment:
https://paulba.no/temp/1971_Shapiro_Newronian_formula.pdf

**************************************************************
PAUL, I FEEL SORRY FOR YOU, STUPID RELATIVIST VIKING!!
I ALREADY KNEW THAT THE PAPER WAS FAKE AS HELL. I DID SOME RESEARCH ON
IT AND THE WRITER.
PLUS, I REMARKED THAT THE GUY USED BLACK HOLE'S HYPOTHESIS, WHICH IS
DERIVED FROM MISINTERPRETATION OF SCHWARZSCHILD'S EQUATION IN GR.
AS SOON AS I READ THE PAPER, I NOTICED IT WAS ANOTHER PILE OF CRAP
WRITTEN BY AN UNKNOWN LOOKING FOR SOME FAME.
BUT YOU ARE TOO IDIOT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT IS A "CLICK BAIT". IF YOU HAD A
LITTLE BIT OF MEMORY, YOU SHOULD HAVE REMEMBERED THAT I LIKE TROLLING.
BUT YOU ARE TOO MUCH AN IMBECILE AND TOO MUCH A SWEDISH TO HAVE ANY
SENSE OF HUMOR.
YOU FAIL TO RECOGNIZE THAT, AS THE LAST POST ON A THREAD CALLING CASSINI
A FRAUDSTER, IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR SOMEONE LIKE ME TO POST SOMETHING
VALIDATING HIM. AND THIS IS BECAUSE YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!
ONE MORE THING: WHAT MAKES ME LAUGH IS THAT, WHEN I POST SOMETHING WITH
MATH WITHIN IT, I KNOW THAT YOU'LL RESPOND WITH AN ELABORATED ANALYSIS.
SO, I PUT YOU TO WORK, WHILE I EXPECT YOUR RESPONSE SMILING. BECAUSE IN
THE SAME WAY THAT YOU ARE A PATHOLOGICAL RELATIVIST, YOU ALSO HAVE SOME
SORT OF O.C.D. THAT FORCES YOU TO RESPOND. YOU CAN'T RESIST IT, ASSHOLE.
GOOD NIGHT.