Re: Wave particle duality has been disproven for photons also.

Den 01.06.2025 23:22, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

On Sun, 1 Jun 2025 10:02:16 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
 

------------------------------------------
>
Note that it doesn't matter how you arrive at your hypothesis (theory).
Its validity depend on the experimental data collected in 4.
If they are in accordance with the predictions of your theory,
your theory is confirmed, if not, your theory is falsified.
>

It does matter if you don't actually arrive at any real theory.
 Paul is ignorant that an invalid derivation is not testable and does not
predict.

It doesn't matter how the theory is derived.
You could have guessed it.
But the theory has to be mathematically consistent
(not self contradictory) and falsifiable.

GR does not predict a doubling.

A meaningless statement.
GR is a consistent, falsifiable theory.
For the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation it predicts:
Total deflection (angle between asymptotes):
  θ = 4GM/(c²b)
  were
   θ is the angle between the asymptotes of the hyperbola
   G is the gravitational constant
   M is the mass of the Sun
   c is the speed of light in vacuum
   b is the impact parameter (the ray's closest approach to the Sun)
But it is obviously impossible to observe this deflection from
the Earth, so the deflection observed from the Earth is:
  θ = (2GM/(AU⋅c²))⋅((1+cosφ)/sinφ)
  where:
   θ  is the deflection of the star as observed fron the Earth
   G  is the gravitational constant
   M  is the mass of the Sun
   AU an astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
   c  is the speed of light in vacuum
   φ  is the angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
Since GR is a consistent theory it is impossible
to make GR predict anything else than the above.

 Astrology is not a valid theory, and neither is GR.
Because they don't predict anything.

Astrology is nether consistent nor falsifiable,
and is no theory of physics.

 GR and SR do not make valid predictions, so they cannot be tested.

Your claim that GR and SR don't predict anything say a lot about you
and nothing about GR and SR. :-D
Here you can see the experimental evidence that make
SR and GR valid theories:
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

Paul has not explained how GR validly predicts a doubling of the
Newtonian.
Is it by Huygens' principle, which concerns refraction and not
gravitation?
Is it by curved space that is a reification fallacy?

You are babbling nonsense. Huygens' principle ??!!!
Newtonian gravitation and GR are two different consistent theories
with two different predictions for gravitational deflection of
EM-radiation.
 From whence have you got the idiotic idea that GR's prediction
is derived by doubling the Newtonian prediction?
Since GR predictions are consistent with what is measured,
while Newton predicts only half of what is measured,
GR is confirmed while Newton is falsified.

 So, because physicists mistakenly accept the prediction is valid, they
are mistaken about their tests.

Are you aware that the predictions you claim are invalid
are proved to be correct and never have been wrong? :-D
Innumerable invalid correct and never wrong predictions, right? :-D

 The question is, does Huygens principle of refraction have anything to
do with gravitation?
No it does not.

Why do you state the bleeding obvious?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/