Re: Newton: Photon falling from h meters increase its energy.

LaurenceClarkCrossen <clzb93ynxj@att.net> wrote:

On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 19:29:51 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
 

Den 15.01.2025 18:46, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

On Wed, 15 Jan 2025 13:00:31 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

>
GR's prediction for the gravitational deflection
is confirmed by a number of experiments:
>
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/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
>
You know, experimental evidence _is_ the reality.
Your opinion is fantasy.

>

Your opinion and that of the majority and the authorities are irrelevant
fantasies.

>
Quite.
Anybody's fantasies are irrelevant.
>
But the experimental evidence is reality, not fantasy.
>
GR's predictions for the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation
are so thoroughly experimentally confirmed that you have to be
extremely ignorant not to accept it.
>

You fail to address Poor's refutation of the derivation. If
you want to do that, you would need to bring up Trumpler, as I have done
by mentioning his paper.

>
How is it possible to fail to understand that experimental
evidence has proven Poor wrong?

You must be extremely ignorant to think an experiment can prove a false
derivation.

Correct.
However, if a derivation leads to a result that is obviously at variance
with what is well known about the world it looses much of its interest.
It becomes a 'spot the error' puzzle.

You can't blame people for not having a taste for that,

Jan
(hasn't)