Liste des Groupes | Revenir à sp relativity |
Den 17.01.2025 22:17, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:The "4" in the equation comes from non-Euclidean geometry, "curvedOn Thu, 16 Jan 2025 19:29:51 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:>
>Den 15.01.2025 18:46, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:>>
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?
The equation for the total deflection is:
Θₜ = 4GM/Δ⋅c²
where:
Δ = the impact parameter, closest approach to Sun
c = speed of light in vacuum
G = gravitational constant
M = solar mass
The equation for the deflection observed from the Earth is:
Θ = (2GM/Δ⋅c²)⋅(1 + cosφ)
where:
φ = angle Star-Sun as observed from the Earth
>
This equation is derived from the equation for total deflection
with a bit of geometry.
>
These equations are thoroughly confirmed to be correct because
experiments have shown that their predictions are correct within
the precision of the measurements, which are in the order of ±0.005%.
>
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 must be extremely ignorant to think an experiment can prove a false>
derivation.
The experiments say nothing about the correctness
of any derivations, they only show that the equations
Θₜ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² and Θ = (2GM/Δ⋅c²)⋅(1 + cosφ) are correct.
>
Since Poor claims that the equation Θₜ = 4GM/Δ⋅c² is wrong,
Poor is proven wrong.
>
Do you really believe that the derivation was wrong but
the result of the derivation was right?
Possible, but not probable.
Les messages affichés proviennent d'usenet.