Re: Steel Man of Einstein & Relativity.

Den 10.09.2024 03:19, skrev rhertz:

Paul Andersen posted, without a bit of shame, the following:
-----------------------------------------------------------------

GR predicts that the gravitational deflection of em-radiation
by the Sun, observed from the Earth, is:
      θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
  Where:
  AU= an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
  φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
  c = speed of light in vacuum
  G = Gravitational constant
  M = solar mass
  This equation predicts that when φ is 90⁰, θ = 0.0041".
The beam that hits the Earth will then be 1 AU from
the Sun at it's closest approach to the Sun.
(Like the Earth) Not much gas there, do you think?
  These predictions of GR are thoroughly experimentally confirmed:
(even for angles Earth-Sun > 90⁰)
  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/GravDeflection.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
  You must understand that GR's predictions for gravitational
deflection of em-radiation are so thoroughly confirmed that
there is no room for doubt.

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

******************************************
Title: The deflection of light by the gravitational field of the Sun
(George Darwin Lecture)
Authors: Mikhailov, A. A.
Journal: Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 119,
p.593
  Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Mikhailov (April 26, 1888, Morshansk -
September 29, 1983) was a Russian astronomer who was a member of the
Soviet Academy of Science, and supported GR. He, personally,
participated in more than 9 expeditions trying to remake Eddington's
one. The article is FULL OF
MATHEMATICS and statistics, trying to find averages in the results of
expeditions from 1919 to 1952.
 In the very first page, it's shown the real expression of your formula,
which seems to be written by an ignorant lunatic, totally detached from
the opinions of REAL ASTRONOMERS, not EE like you!

The 'formula' on the very first page is the Newtonian prediction:
    α = 2fM/c²r
Mikhailov writes:
"If Einstein's deduction is right this angle should be doubled."
So Mikhailov's  GR prediction is:
   α = 4fM/c²r
where:
   f is the gravitational constant,
   M is the mass,
   r is the impact parameter
Look at this paper:
https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
On page 2 under "Predicted total deflection"
you will find the exact same equation as equation (3).
  θₜ = (1+γ)⋅2GM/bc²
where:
  γ = PPN parameter, γ = 1 means prediction is according to GR,
      γ = 0 means prediction is according to Newton
  b = the impact parameter, closest approach to Sun
  c = speed of light in vacuum
  G = gravitational constant
  M = solar mass
On page 3 under "Predicted deflection observed from the Earth"
You find "my" equation above as equation (5).
  θ = (1+γ)⋅GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
  γ = PPN parameter, γ = 1 means prediction is according to GR,
      γ = 0 means prediction is according to Newton
  AU= an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
  φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
  c = speed of light in vacuum
  G = Gravitational constant
  M = solar mass

----------------------------------------------------
 Your formula, that you wrote with sheer cockiness claiming that it's
what GR predicts (false), contain an incredible amount of nonsense. Read
the  Mikhailov´s paper, if you want to write meaningful statements

One can possibly not expect that ignoramuses like Rickard Hertz
will know the difference between "total deflection" and
"deflection observed from the Earth".
But Mikhailov's is excused:
In 1959 when Mikhailov´s paper was written, the only measurements
of the deflection ever done was by observing the stars close to
the sun at solar eclipses, a notoriously imprecise method.
For a sunbeam gracing the sun the predicted deflections are:
total deflection:                  1.752161"
deflection observed by from Earth: 1.752151"
The difference is so small that either equation would do
for these very imprecise measurements.
But all these observations of the deflections are from 2004 and later.
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/GravDeflection.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
And all of them are made from the Earth with
angles up to more than 90⁰ between the Sun and the star.
When the angle is 90⁰, the impact parameter is 1 AU
and the "total" deflection is 0.00815" while the deflection
observed from the Earth is 0.00407", only half the total deflection.
So in this case the formula written by REAL ASTRONOMERS wouldn't
work, while the one written by an ignorant lunatic works perfectly.
(Of course both are written by astronomers.)
---------------
I should have snipped the rest, but what you write is so ridiculous
that I can't resist the temptation to ridicule you.
Sorry, I have a sick sense of humour!

 Your pretentious formula couldn't be more wrong for the following:
 1) You are dismissing completely the effect of swapping the Sun's
reference frame with that of the Earth.

????!!! :-D
What would the equation
   θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
be without this swapping?

 2) You are dismissing completely the FACT that Earth is a sphere, and
that the observation of an eclipse at any given location depend on the
position of the observer (latitude, longitude). Also, you FORGOT that
the position of the Sun relative to Earth's coordinates DEPEND on the
time of the year, as well the exact hour of the phenomenon.

I see.
The equation: θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
is wrong because it doesn't include that the Earth is a sphere,
the position on the Earth, the time of the year, and the exact time.
But the equation  α = 4fM/c²r
is correct despite the fact that it doesn't include that the Earth
is a sphere, the position on the Earth, the time of the year, and
the exact time.

Earth
rotates around the Sun, with reference to the ecliptic plane, with an
anual variation of +/- 11.5 degrees!!!

Do I have to point out your blunder? :-D
Hint:
What defines the ecliptic plane?
The angle between the ecliptic plane and the equatorial plane is 23.4⁰.

 3) Also, the position of the Sun with reference to the LOCAL equatorial
coordinate DEPENDS on the time of the day!! Because the Earth rotates
daily.

I see.
The equation: θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
is wrong because it doesn't include the position of the Sun with reference to the LOCAL equatorial coordinate.
But the equation  α = 4fM/c²r
is correct despite the fact that it doesn't include the position of
the Sun with reference to the LOCAL equatorial coordinate.
Do you really not realise how ridiculous this is? :-D

 4) You FORGOT that the path of incoming light DEPENDS ON the ELEVATION
of the Sun over the horizon. This causes that the light of the Sun (and
stars behind it) SUFFER A CONSIDERABLE NUMBER OF PERTURBATIONS. One of
the most important is the REFRACTION of the light passing through
atmosphere, being minimal at noon. Even so, the elevation angle at noon
CHANGES PERMANENTLY, while the Earth travels around the Sun. The
elevation is MINIMAL in winter and MAXIMAL in summer. Only in the
locations over the equatorial line, you can obtain 90 degrees of
elevation in summer time.

Good grief, is it no limit to your idiocy?
Do you really claim that the equation
  θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
is wrong because it doesn't include refraction?
It is obviously those who make the observations that must take
care of correction for refraction.
Of the references above, there is only one that has measured
the refraction of visible light, namely this one:
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
As you would know if you had read it, Hipparcos
is a satellite, so there is no refraction. Hipparcos is
capable of measuring angles as small as one mas, 0.001".
It isn't possible to measure so small angles from inside
the atmosphere.
The other observations refereed above are made with
arrays of radio telescopes, mostly in the microwave band.
They are less sensitive to refraction due to the size
of the arrays. See "Very Long Baseline Interferometry".

 5) You dismiss completely the fact that the position of the Sun, in the
moment of any eclipse, is almost arbitrary, and very far from being at
90 degrees respect to the Sun

"The position of the Sun is far from being at 90 degrees respect to the Sun" ? :-D
The statement is obviously meaningless, but you seem to be
talking about the measurement of deflection of light gracing
the Sun at eclipses.
I have told you before:
In those measurements, φ in the equation θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
is 0.266⁰, and  θ = 1.752151".
What have I 'dismissed'?

 ARE YOU CRAZY? I ASK THIS VERY SERIOUSLY.
 If you want to know HOW DIFFICULT the mathematics involved for starlight
deflection grazing the Sun, read CAREFULLY Mikhailov´s paper, fully
endorsed by the Royal Astronomical Society, where he lectured in 1951.

Have you still not got it?
Mikhailov's paper is hopelessly outdated.
In 1959, nobody new anything about the modern methods of measuring
the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation.
Since 1952 nobody will, and nobody has, tried to measure the deflection
of light gracing the Sun at an eclipse, because it is a hopelessly
imprecise method. The error bar is more than 10%.
In the Hipparcos measurements, the error bar is ~0.003  (0.3%)
In the radio-telescope measurements, the error bar is ~5e-5 (0.005%)

  Finally, I BEG YOU to stop with the crap of PPN, which is an aberrant
linearization of GR, and is ignored by serious astronomers, NASA, ESA,
ROSCOSMOS, China, etc.

Don't be ridiculous.
The equation θ = (1+γ)⋅GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
mean that the Newtonian prediction is  θ = GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
while the GR prediction is  θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
No astronomer will dispute that.

 Grow up or give up with your unsubstantiated credos, only celebrated by
a bunch of post-Cassini retarded.

Well, you have demonstrated what an idiot I am, haven't you? :-D
But keep it up, Richard. The sky is the limit.
I am sure you can make an even bigger fool of yourself!
--
Paul, having fun
https://paulba.no/