Den 17.10.2024 23:29, skrev rhertz:
On Thu, 17 Oct 2024 20:45:23 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 17.10.2024 17:43, skrev rhertz:
>
MY POST WITH THE ALTERNATE NEWTONIAN VERSION WAS TO PROVE THAT
RELATIVITY IS AN ABSOLUTE PILE OF CRAP!
>
The following is still valid:
>
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!!
This is your post I responded to:
| Richard Hertz wrote:
|> SURPRISE!!
|>
|> Remember 1801 von Soldner's formula, which gave half 1915 Einstein's
|> formula?.
|>
|> The missing considerations, ignored in von Soldner times, have been
|> corrected using newtonian physics, and gives AN EXACT MATCH with the
|> corrected 1971 formula that Cassini derives. By the way, the new
|> formula HAS CHANGED CONSIDERABLY since his 1968 crappy paper.
|>
|> No space curved is necessary. Newton cover all the basis and
|> RELATIVITYAND SPACETIME CURVATURES have no place here.
|>
|> Observe the details of the measurements with Venus in 1970.
|>
|> General relativity IS A PILE OF CRAP.
|>
|> I FORGOT TO INCLUDE THE LINK:
|> Shapiro Time Delay Using Newtonian Gravitation
|>
https://www.qeios.com/read/IVCVBM|>
|> Attachment:
|>
https://paulba.no/temp/1971_Shapiro_Newronian_formula.pdf I ALREADY KNEW THAT THE PAPER WAS FAKE AS HELL. I DID SOME RESEARCH ON
IT AND THE WRITER.
You were proud because you believed that Newton could predict
the Shapiro delay and gives AN EXACT MATCH with the formula
derived by Stephan Gift.
So General relativity IS A PILE OF CRAP, Newton rules.
PLUS, I REMARKED THAT THE GUY USED BLACK HOLE'S HYPOTHESIS, WHICH IS
DERIVED FROM MISINTERPRETATION OF SCHWARZSCHILD'S EQUATION IN GR.
Your post is quoted above. No mention of black holes.
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.
I am a Norwegian and have a morbid sense of humour.
I love to prove you wrong!
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!!
Cassini?
The article where you found the formula and the figure 2
was written by Stephan Gift.
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.
Which always prove your math wrong.
You are not laughing, you are furious.
I am the one laughing at your ability to misinterpret a text.
It is hilarious.
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.
Quite.
I can't resist proving you wrong, which I have done over and over.
Just see how many threads are terminated by my posts because
you have realised that I am right and can't answer.
----------
A couple of examples of your hilarious misinterpretations and
failure to understand what you read:
| Den 28.09.2024 04:34, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> This link illustrates a bit:
|>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift|>
|> Δf/f = Δλ/λ = z = GM/c² (1/R - 1/r) = Φ(R)/c² - Φ(r)/c²
|>
|>
https://www.space.com/41290-biggest-star.html|>
|> G = 6.6743E−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2
|> M = 5E+09 x 1.989E+30 Kg = 9.945E+39 Kg
|> R = 1,700 x 634,000 Km = 1,077,800,000,000 m
|>
|> Φ(R)/c² = 6,842,736.59
|>
|> In comparison, Φ(RSun)/c² = 0.000002327
|>
Your blunder is the idiotic idea that if the volume
of a star is 5 billion solar volumes, then the mass
of the star must be 5 billion solar masses.
The reference says the mass is 30 solar masses.
|Den 27.09.2024 22:13, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> YOU CAN'T, UNDER ANY DECENT ASSUMPTION, DARE TO ESTIMATE WHAT WAS
|> THE ELAPSED TIME AT THE USNO CLOCKS IN WASHINGTON, IF YOU ARE
|> 15,000 MILES FAR AWAY AND HAVE NOT ANY MEANS (NOT EVEN AS OF TODAY)
|> TO ESTIMATE THE TIME VALUE OF SUCH REFERENCE CLOCK.
|>
Your blunder is not realising that the USNO clock is showing UTC,
and just about all clocks are synchronous with UTC (+ a known offset)
I can with my wristwatch estimate what the USNO clock is now within
a second. (UTC clocks are synchronous in the ECI-frame)
| Den 27.09.2024 00:27, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> Mudrak's 2017 formula for GNSS Galileo:
|>
|> Δf/f₀ = -GMₑ/c² (1/r - 1/a) - 1/2c² [(vˢᵃᵗ)² - (aΩₑ)²]
|>
|> If a (satellite height) is only "h" times higher than r
|> (i.e. 10 Km), then
|>
|> Δf/f₀ = gh/c² - [(vˢᵃᵗ)²+ (rΩₑ)²]/2c² ----- Mudrak 2017
|>
|> Δτ/τ₀ = gh/c² - (2RΩv + v²)/2c² ------------ Hafele 1971
|>
|> Does it rings any bell on the void of your skull, or should
|> I explain?
|> Who made a fraudulent approximation in GR using Schwarzschild?
|>
Your blunder is believing that Mudrak 2017 equation
and Hafele 1971 equation are different.
They are equal which is easy to show, which I did.
| Den 15.09.2024 03:26, skrev rhertz:
|>
|> As if the above IS NOT ENOUGH, exhaustive experiments done by France
|> since 2017 SHOWS (with error <10E-15) that THE EQUIVALENCE PRINCIPLE
|> BREAKS AT QUANTUM LEVEL.
|>
|> As they wrote here:
|>
|>
https://www.oca.eu/en/news-lagrange/1363-first-results-from-microscope-satellite-confirm-albert-einstein-s-theory-of-relativity-with-unprecedented-precision|>
|> QUOTE:
|> «The satellite’s performance is far exceeding expectations. Data
|> from more than 1,900 additional orbits are already available and
|> more are to come, which should enable us to further improve the
|> mission’s performance and approach its target of acquiring
|> measurements with a precision of 10-15. This first result is going
|> to shake the world of physics and will certainly lead to a revision
|> of alternative theories to general relativity,» said the mission’s
|> principal investigator Pierre Touboul.
|>
|> Enjoy slowly, relativists. Please don't choke on your stupidity,
|> as you are allowed to fail for being just humans.
|>
This is so hilarious that I am still laughing. :-D
Your blunder is so obvious that I won't explain it.
| 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
|>>
|>
|> Your formula, that you wrote with sheer cockiness claiming that it's
|> what GR predicts (false), contain an incredible amount of nonsense.
|>
|> 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.
|>
|> 2) You are dismissing completely the FACT that Earth is a sphere, and
|> thatthe 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. Earth
|> rotates around the Sun, with reference to the ecliptic plane, with an
|> anual variation of ± 11.5 degrees!!!
|>
|> 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.
|>
|> 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 ofthe most important is the REFRACTION of the
|> light passing through atmosphere, being minimal at noon. Even so,
|> 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.
|>
|> 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 at90 degrees respect to the Sun.
|>
|> ARE YOU CRAZY? I ASK THIS VERY SERIOUSLY.
|>
Your blunder is not realising that my formula, which I "wrote with
sheer cockiness" is the 'normal' equation used by astronomers,
and not my invention.
You didn't know that the equation for the total deflection,
and the equation for the deflection observed from the Earth
are different.
And all your points 1) to 5) have obviously nothing to do
in the equation θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
Some of them can affect the _measurements_ of φ
But claiming that the equation θ = 2GM/(AU⋅c²)⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
is wrong because I am "dismissing completely the FACT that Earth
is a sphere" is beyond hilarious! :-D
-------------
Did you smile when you wrote the above, and I took the bite, Richard?
-- Paul, having fun and loving to rub it inhttps://paulba.no/
The Shapiro's experiment HOAX. A 1968 TIME article.
Re: The Shapiro's experiment HOAX. A 1968 TIME article.
