Re: The Schwarzschild Metric has been refuted.

On 04/28/2025 11:27 AM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:

On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 9:29:52 +0000, Mikko wrote:
>

On 2025-04-25 16:10:42 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:
>

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

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

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

One does not say "proved" in science, neither "predicted" in statistics,
rather "not falsified" or "not invalidated", then with regards to
"widely confirmed" or "with confidence".
The study of nature and random variables is not a closed category.
It's an open system.