Re: The Schwarzschild Metric has been refuted.

Den 28.04.2025 20:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:

Experimental results cannot provide evidence for a fallacious derivation
because that derivation can not predict.

This equation:
     θ = (2GM/(AU⋅c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ   (1)
Where:
  AU = one astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
 φ  = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
  c  = speed of light in vacuum
  G  = Gravitational constant
  M  = solar mass
Is thoroughly experimentally confirmed.
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
It doesn't matter where equation (1) comes from,
experimental evidence shows that the equation is correct.
It doesn't matter if someone has arrived at the equation
with faulty math, experimental evidence still show that
the equation is correct.
But we know of course that the equation is GR's prediction,
and it would be rather stupid to claim that the derivation
is fallacious, but experimental evidence still show that
the equation happens to be correct.
Do you, Laurence Clark Crossen, still claim that experimental
evidence do not show that this equation is correct?
   θ = (2GM/(AU⋅c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/