These numbers are written in stone: 43"/century and 1.75", not because Einstein and his GR.

[Richard Hertz]

Just as an historical curiosity. This is an excerpt of a paper presented by Charles Lane Poor, an US astronomer of high caliber.
Poor (1866 - 1951) was an astronomer and professor of celestial mechanics at Columbia University from 1903 to 1944, when he was named Professor Emeritus. He published several works disputing the evidence for Einstein's theory of relativity during the 1920s,
reflecting objections to the theory.

He was a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and an associate fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. At Columbia
University, Poor was a teacher of the astronomer Samuel A. Mitchell, who went on to become director of the Leander McCormick Observatory at the University of Virginia.

EXCERPT OF THE 1927 PAPER
*******************************************************************************************************************
THE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF CANADA
Vol. XXI, No. 6 , JULY-AUGUST, 1927 , Whole No. 1 6

THE RELATIVITY DEFLECTION OF LIGHT?
By CHARLES LANE POOR

Presented at the Philadelphia Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American
Astronomical Society. December 29, 1926.

The claim of the relativists, which has attracted the greatest popular interest, is that of "bent light”; the claim that light has weight and
falls towards the earth in a manner entirely similar to that of the famed apple of Newton. And this interest has been intensified by the
widely heralded eclipse expeditions to Africa, to South America, and to Australia to test and to verify the predictions of Einstein, and by
the repeated assertions that these expeditions have fully confirmed all the wonders of the relativity theory by obtaining results which
"are in exact accord with the requirements of the Einstein Theory".

But just what these requirements of the theory really are, and how they result from the theory, neither Einstein, nor any of his followers,
has explained in simple, understandable language. Einstein, himself, has given two very definite predictions as to the amount by which
the light of a star should be bent, or deflected in its passage by the sun. In 1911 he fixed this amount as 0".83; in 1916 he doubled this
and made the deflection, according to his theories, 1".70. But the way in which Einstein derived these two different values is not given in
any general works on relativity. Such works of the relativists are replete with philosophical contemplations, with vague speculations and
generalizations as to the structure of the universe, with references to the principle of equivalence, to warps and twists in space; but they
one and all fail to give a direct explanation of the basis of Einstein's claim as to the deflection of light rays, and of the ways in which he
arrived at the two different and conflicting values. The statement of Einstein, contained in his general work on relativity, is probably as
clear and definite as any that can be found, and that statenient is :

"According to the theory half of this deflection is produced by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun, and the other
half by the geometrical modification ('curvature') of space caused by the sun."

If this be taken literally then it would appear that Einstein, in 1911, evolved the theory that light has weight and is acted upon by gravitation
in exactly the same way as is a particle of matter; that he afterwards and prior to 1916 found that the sun warps and twists space in its
neighborhood, and that light is further deflected by its passage through such warps and twists. Thus it would seem that his 1911
prediction of a deflection of only 0".83 was based upon some direct effect of Newtonian gravitation upon light; that his revised prediction
of 1".70 in 1916 was based upon some additional and newly discovered effect of gravitation upon space. The summation of these two
supposed effects of gravitation, the one directly upon a body, the other indirectly through an intermediary action upon space, has been
termed a “new”, or the "Einstein" law of gravitation. And the deflections of light, observed at solar eclipses, have been cited as tests
between these two theories, or laws of gravitation :the Newtonian and the Einsteinian.
*******************************************************************************************************************

The paper became more interesting, while deepening into the consequences of GR light deflection.

It's worth to read the rest of a publication of a serious man of science, who belonged to the "high society". His son was co-founder of
Grumman, so he was connected.

When he wrote this paper, he was 60 y.o. and, obviously, after some years he said "fuck relativists", and give up. So, the force of the
retarded from the new generation of physicists and astronomers was quite strong by then. Brainwashing at the highest.

[Richard Hertz]

<snip>
Here is another Lane's quote, where he document the historical comment of Einstein defending the changes
in his fundamental assertion about the constancy of the speed of the light.
Notice HOW Einstein twisted and retorted wording, in his usual manner to practice sophism. BUT HE FAILED, BECAUSE
HE WAS A CHEATER LIAR AND DECEIVER!
Either speed of light is VIOLATED or the sacred momentum conservation is VIOLATED. Your choice, forum members.
Also notice that it's IRRELEVANT if the phenomenon of light HAVING MASS (massive photons) applies to HALF the deflection
(Newtonian part) or 100% of the 1.75 arcseconds.
The explanation about conservation of speed of light or of angular momentum will HIT any explanation. How embarrassing!
1) To conserve speed of light: r.c = r_min . ω_max , so r = (r_min . ω_max)/c.
Momentum B = m.r².ω = m . r_min . c_max = CONSTANT1 . dɸ/dt NOT CONSERVED (Violation A)
2) To conserve momentum: B = m.r².ω = m . r_min . c_max = CONSTANT2 ; c' = c . r_min/r (Violation B)
Lane Poor understand things differently, so he introduces a third choice: DECREASE of c due to gravitational field,
c = c₀ (1 + Φ/c₀²) = c (1 - GM/rc₀²)
c_min = c₀ (1 + Φ_max/c₀²) = c (1 - GM/RS.c₀²)
Difficult choices, aren't they?
The fact is that ANY EXPLANATION violates something.
Unless it's conceded that Einstein was WRONG THROUGH AND THROUGH with his GR equations, and he didn't know how
to amend the HUGE MISTAKE he made popular: That light IS deflected due to BIG gravitational fields.
1) LIGHT HAS NO MASS.
2) E = mc² is an STUPID ENERGY, and should be prohibited to use it beyond quantum physics, where everything is weird, as this energy.
3) RETURN to classic physics and TALK ONLY ABOUT DIFFRACTION.
Problem solved, gravitational lensing changes to COSMIC lensing by diffraction, and nothing happened in the last 100 years.
It's like an UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDERING: Accept or else....

Post by Richard Hertz
EXCERPT OF THE 1927 PAPER
*******************************************************************************************************************
THE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF CANADA
Vol. XXI, No. 6 , JULY-AUGUST, 1927 , Whole No. 1 6
THE RELATIVITY DEFLECTION OF LIGHT?
By CHARLES LANE POOR
Presented at the Philadelphia Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American
Astronomical Society. December 29, 1926.

******************************************************************************************
Thus Einstein's new principle of equivalence, combined with the cardinal precept of relativity, necessitates the abandonment of the
hitherto accepted principle that the actual velocity of light in space is constant, and forces the adoption of the assumption that the
actual velocity of the ray through space decreases as it approaches the sun, or other gravitational body. Einstein alludes to this
"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good according to this theory in a different form from that
which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity."
In accordance with this assumption, or new tenet of relativity, all rays of light, which pass through a given point in space, and
regardless of the direction of propagation, will have the same velocity, and that velocity will become less and less as the point
nears the sun, or other gravitational body. Thus a ray, proceeding directly towards the sun, will be retarded, not accelerated, as
would be a falling body; and Einstein's new assumption, therefore, is that light is repulsed, or repelled by the sun.
The amount of this retardation must be exactly proportional to the slowing down of the ideal clock, as given by the principle of
equivalence. At any point in space the square of the "velocity from infinity", under the Newtonian law of gravitation, is 2GM/r,
where M is the gravitational mass of the sun.
******************************************************************************************

And, by the way, I enjoy very much the silence of fanatic relativists at this forum.

Either because they didn't care about the OP and my thread (I'm the only one writing) or because they don't know
what the fuck to write in reply.

You, fanatic imbeciles, are cornered and took offense. Ask for consolation at your nearest relativistic church.

After all, what are relativistic friends for?

And I even DIDN'T STARTED WITH THIS SHIT. I'M JUST WARMING UP.

So, Paul, have your list at hand, so I can give "non-insulting" answers, as you requested.

[Dono.]

And I even STARTED EATING MORE SHIT. I'M JUST WARMING UP.

You sure are. Bon apetit.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Richard Hertz

<snip>
Here is another Lane's quote, where he document the historical comment
of Einstein defending the changes
in his fundamental assertion about the constancy of the speed of the light.
Notice HOW Einstein twisted and retorted wording, in his usual manner to
practice sophism. BUT HE FAILED, BECAUSE
HE WAS A CHEATER LIAR AND DECEIVER!
Either speed of light is VIOLATED or the sacred momentum conservation is
VIOLATED. Your choice, forum members.
Also notice that it's IRRELEVANT if the phenomenon of light HAVING MASS
(massive photons) applies to HALF the deflection
(Newtonian part) or 100% of the 1.75 arcseconds.
The explanation about conservation of speed of light or of angular
momentum will HIT any explanation. How embarrassing!
1) To conserve speed of light: r.c = r_min . ω_max , so r = (r_min . ω_max)/c.
Momentum B = m.r².ω = m . r_min . c_max = CONSTANT1 . dɸ/dt NOT CONSERVED (Violation A)
2) To conserve momentum: B = m.r².ω = m . r_min . c_max = CONSTANT2 ; c'
= c . r_min/r (Violation B)
Lane Poor understand things differently, so he introduces a third
choice: DECREASE of c due to gravitational field,
c = c₀ (1 + Φ/c₀²) = c (1 - GM/rc₀²)
c_min = c₀ (1 + Φ_max/c₀²) = c (1 - GM/RS.c₀²)
Difficult choices, aren't they?
The fact is that ANY EXPLANATION violates something.
Unless it's conceded that Einstein was WRONG THROUGH AND THROUGH with
his GR equations, and he didn't know how
to amend the HUGE MISTAKE he made popular: That light IS deflected due
to BIG gravitational fields.
Still, there is a solution at hand: FORGET all this crap, from Newton
1) LIGHT HAS NO MASS.
2) E = mc² is an STUPID ENERGY, and should be prohibited to use it
beyond quantum physics, where everything is weird, as this energy.
3) RETURN to classic physics and TALK ONLY ABOUT DIFFRACTION.
Problem solved, gravitational lensing changes to COSMIC lensing by
diffraction, and nothing happened in the last 100 years.
It's like an UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDERING: Accept or else....

Post by Richard Hertz
EXCERPT OF THE 1927 PAPER
*******************************************************************************************************************
THE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF CANADA
Vol. XXI, No. 6 , JULY-AUGUST, 1927 , Whole No. 1 6
THE RELATIVITY DEFLECTION OF LIGHT?
By CHARLES LANE POOR
Presented at the Philadelphia Meeting of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science and the American
Astronomical Society. December 29, 1926.

******************************************************************************************
Thus Einstein's new principle of equivalence, combined with the
cardinal precept of relativity, necessitates the abandonment of the
hitherto accepted principle that the actual velocity of light in space
is constant, and forces the adoption of the assumption that the
actual velocity of the ray through space decreases as it approaches the
sun, or other gravitational body. Einstein alludes to this
complete change in the fundamental concept regarding the propagation of
"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good
according to this theory in a different form from that
which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity."
In accordance with this assumption, or new tenet of relativity, all rays
of light, which pass through a given point in space, and
regardless of the direction of propagation, will have the same velocity,
and that velocity will become less and less as the point
nears the sun, or other gravitational body. Thus a ray, proceeding
directly towards the sun, will be retarded, not accelerated, as
would be a falling body; and Einstein's new assumption, therefore, is
that light is repulsed, or repelled by the sun.
The amount of this retardation must be exactly proportional to the
slowing down of the ideal clock, as given by the principle of
equivalence. At any point in space the square of the "velocity from
infinity", under the Newtonian law of gravitation, is 2GM/r,
where M is the gravitational mass of the sun.
******************************************************************************************

And, by the way, I enjoy very much the silence of fanatic relativists at this forum.
Either because they didn't care about the OP and my thread (I'm the only
one writing) or because they don't know
what the fuck to write in reply.
You, fanatic imbeciles, are cornered and took offense. Ask for
consolation at your nearest relativistic church.
After all, what are relativistic friends for?
And I even DIDN'T STARTED WITH THIS SHIT. I'M JUST WARMING UP.
So, Paul, have your list at hand, so I can give "non-insulting" answers, as you requested.

Whore for attention much?

[Richard Hertz]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Richard Hertz

<snip>
Here is another Lane's quote, where he document the historical comment
of Einstein defending the changes
in his fundamental assertion about the constancy of the speed of the light.
Notice HOW Einstein twisted and retorted wording, in his usual manner to
practice sophism. BUT HE FAILED, BECAUSE
HE WAS A CHEATER LIAR AND DECEIVER!
Either speed of light is VIOLATED or the sacred momentum conservation is
VIOLATED. Your choice, forum members.
Also notice that it's IRRELEVANT if the phenomenon of light HAVING MASS
(massive photons) applies to HALF the deflection
(Newtonian part) or 100% of the 1.75 arcseconds.
The explanation about conservation of speed of light or of angular
momentum will HIT any explanation. How embarrassing!
1) To conserve speed of light: r.c = r_min . ω_max , so r = (r_min . ω_max)/c.
Momentum B = m.r².ω = m . r_min . c_max = CONSTANT1 . dɸ/dt NOT CONSERVED (Violation A)
2) To conserve momentum: B = m.r².ω = m . r_min . c_max = CONSTANT2 ; c'
= c . r_min/r (Violation B)
Lane Poor understand things differently, so he introduces a third
choice: DECREASE of c due to gravitational field,
c = c₀ (1 + Φ/c₀²) = c (1 - GM/rc₀²)
c_min = c₀ (1 + Φ_max/c₀²) = c (1 - GM/RS.c₀²)
Difficult choices, aren't they?
The fact is that ANY EXPLANATION violates something.
Unless it's conceded that Einstein was WRONG THROUGH AND THROUGH with
his GR equations, and he didn't know how
to amend the HUGE MISTAKE he made popular: That light IS deflected due
to BIG gravitational fields.
Still, there is a solution at hand: FORGET all this crap, from Newton
1) LIGHT HAS NO MASS.
2) E = mc² is an STUPID ENERGY, and should be prohibited to use it
beyond quantum physics, where everything is weird, as this energy.
3) RETURN to classic physics and TALK ONLY ABOUT DIFFRACTION.
Problem solved, gravitational lensing changes to COSMIC lensing by
diffraction, and nothing happened in the last 100 years.
It's like an UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDERING: Accept or else....

Post by Richard Hertz
EXCERPT OF THE 1927 PAPER
*******************************************************************************************************************
THE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF CANADA
Vol. XXI, No. 6 , JULY-AUGUST, 1927 , Whole No. 1 6
THE RELATIVITY DEFLECTION OF LIGHT?
By CHARLES LANE POOR
Presented at the Philadelphia Meeting of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science and the American
Astronomical Society. December 29, 1926.

******************************************************************************************
Thus Einstein's new principle of equivalence, combined with the
cardinal precept of relativity, necessitates the abandonment of the
hitherto accepted principle that the actual velocity of light in space
is constant, and forces the adoption of the assumption that the
actual velocity of the ray through space decreases as it approaches the
sun, or other gravitational body. Einstein alludes to this
complete change in the fundamental concept regarding the propagation of
"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good
according to this theory in a different form from that
which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity."
In accordance with this assumption, or new tenet of relativity, all rays
of light, which pass through a given point in space, and
regardless of the direction of propagation, will have the same velocity,
and that velocity will become less and less as the point
nears the sun, or other gravitational body. Thus a ray, proceeding
directly towards the sun, will be retarded, not accelerated, as
would be a falling body; and Einstein's new assumption, therefore, is
that light is repulsed, or repelled by the sun.
The amount of this retardation must be exactly proportional to the
slowing down of the ideal clock, as given by the principle of
equivalence. At any point in space the square of the "velocity from
infinity", under the Newtonian law of gravitation, is 2GM/r,
where M is the gravitational mass of the sun.
******************************************************************************************

And, by the way, I enjoy very much the silence of fanatic relativists at this forum.
Either because they didn't care about the OP and my thread (I'm the only
one writing) or because they don't know
what the fuck to write in reply.
You, fanatic imbeciles, are cornered and took offense. Ask for
consolation at your nearest relativistic church.
After all, what are relativistic friends for?
And I even DIDN'T STARTED WITH THIS SHIT. I'M JUST WARMING UP.
So, Paul, have your list at hand, so I can give "non-insulting" answers, as you requested.

Whore for attention much?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Butthurt much?

I worked on this topic for many hours, increasing my learning base to other topics in astronomy and critic points of GR.
And I do it just for myself. If what I find, it it offends you, discuss or go to therapy.

I'm doing this for myself, and it feels great.

[Odd Bodkin]

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Richard Hertz

<snip>
Here is another Lane's quote, where he document the historical comment
of Einstein defending the changes
in his fundamental assertion about the constancy of the speed of the light.
Notice HOW Einstein twisted and retorted wording, in his usual manner to
practice sophism. BUT HE FAILED, BECAUSE
HE WAS A CHEATER LIAR AND DECEIVER!
Either speed of light is VIOLATED or the sacred momentum conservation is
VIOLATED. Your choice, forum members.
Also notice that it's IRRELEVANT if the phenomenon of light HAVING MASS
(massive photons) applies to HALF the deflection
(Newtonian part) or 100% of the 1.75 arcseconds.
The explanation about conservation of speed of light or of angular
momentum will HIT any explanation. How embarrassing!
1) To conserve speed of light: r.c = r_min . ω_max , so r = (r_min . ω_max)/c.
Momentum B = m.r².ω = m . r_min . c_max = CONSTANT1 . dɸ/dt NOT CONSERVED (Violation A)
2) To conserve momentum: B = m.r².ω = m . r_min . c_max = CONSTANT2 ; c'
= c . r_min/r (Violation B)
Lane Poor understand things differently, so he introduces a third
choice: DECREASE of c due to gravitational field,
c = c₀ (1 + Φ/c₀²) = c (1 - GM/rc₀²)
c_min = c₀ (1 + Φ_max/c₀²) = c (1 - GM/RS.c₀²)
Difficult choices, aren't they?
The fact is that ANY EXPLANATION violates something.
Unless it's conceded that Einstein was WRONG THROUGH AND THROUGH with
his GR equations, and he didn't know how
to amend the HUGE MISTAKE he made popular: That light IS deflected due
to BIG gravitational fields.
Still, there is a solution at hand: FORGET all this crap, from Newton
1) LIGHT HAS NO MASS.
2) E = mc² is an STUPID ENERGY, and should be prohibited to use it
beyond quantum physics, where everything is weird, as this energy.
3) RETURN to classic physics and TALK ONLY ABOUT DIFFRACTION.
Problem solved, gravitational lensing changes to COSMIC lensing by
diffraction, and nothing happened in the last 100 years.
It's like an UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDERING: Accept or else....

Post by Richard Hertz
EXCERPT OF THE 1927 PAPER
*******************************************************************************************************************
THE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF CANADA
Vol. XXI, No. 6 , JULY-AUGUST, 1927 , Whole No. 1 6
THE RELATIVITY DEFLECTION OF LIGHT?
By CHARLES LANE POOR
Presented at the Philadelphia Meeting of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science and the American
Astronomical Society. December 29, 1926.

******************************************************************************************
Thus Einstein's new principle of equivalence, combined with the
cardinal precept of relativity, necessitates the abandonment of the
hitherto accepted principle that the actual velocity of light in space
is constant, and forces the adoption of the assumption that the
actual velocity of the ray through space decreases as it approaches the
sun, or other gravitational body. Einstein alludes to this
complete change in the fundamental concept regarding the propagation of
"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good
according to this theory in a different form from that
which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity."
In accordance with this assumption, or new tenet of relativity, all rays
of light, which pass through a given point in space, and
regardless of the direction of propagation, will have the same velocity,
and that velocity will become less and less as the point
nears the sun, or other gravitational body. Thus a ray, proceeding
directly towards the sun, will be retarded, not accelerated, as
would be a falling body; and Einstein's new assumption, therefore, is
that light is repulsed, or repelled by the sun.
The amount of this retardation must be exactly proportional to the
slowing down of the ideal clock, as given by the principle of
equivalence. At any point in space the square of the "velocity from
infinity", under the Newtonian law of gravitation, is 2GM/r,
where M is the gravitational mass of the sun.
******************************************************************************************

And, by the way, I enjoy very much the silence of fanatic relativists at this forum.
Either because they didn't care about the OP and my thread (I'm the only
one writing) or because they don't know
what the fuck to write in reply.
You, fanatic imbeciles, are cornered and took offense. Ask for
consolation at your nearest relativistic church.
After all, what are relativistic friends for?
And I even DIDN'T STARTED WITH THIS SHIT. I'M JUST WARMING UP.
So, Paul, have your list at hand, so I can give "non-insulting"
answers, as you requested.

Whore for attention much?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Butthurt much?
I worked on this topic for many hours, increasing my learning base to
other topics in astronomy and critic points of GR.
And I do it just for myself. If what I find, it it offends you, discuss or go to therapy.
I'm doing this for myself, and it feels great.

Ah, ok, you’re using Usenet as a personal logbook. And you do that out in
the open because you’re an attention whore, and anything you do FOR
YOURSELF you still need an audience for.

[JanPB]

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Odd Bodkin

Post by Richard Hertz

<snip>
Here is another Lane's quote, where he document the historical comment
of Einstein defending the changes
in his fundamental assertion about the constancy of the speed of the light.
Notice HOW Einstein twisted and retorted wording, in his usual manner to
practice sophism. BUT HE FAILED, BECAUSE
HE WAS A CHEATER LIAR AND DECEIVER!
Either speed of light is VIOLATED or the sacred momentum conservation is
VIOLATED. Your choice, forum members.
Also notice that it's IRRELEVANT if the phenomenon of light HAVING MASS
(massive photons) applies to HALF the deflection
(Newtonian part) or 100% of the 1.75 arcseconds.
The explanation about conservation of speed of light or of angular
momentum will HIT any explanation. How embarrassing!
1) To conserve speed of light: r.c = r_min . ω_max , so r = (r_min . ω_max)/c.
Momentum B = m.r².ω = m . r_min . c_max = CONSTANT1 . dɸ/dt NOT CONSERVED (Violation A)
2) To conserve momentum: B = m.r².ω = m . r_min . c_max = CONSTANT2 ; c'
= c . r_min/r (Violation B)
Lane Poor understand things differently, so he introduces a third
choice: DECREASE of c due to gravitational field,
c = c₀ (1 + Φ/c₀²) = c (1 - GM/rc₀²)
c_min = c₀ (1 + Φ_max/c₀²) = c (1 - GM/RS.c₀²)
Difficult choices, aren't they?
The fact is that ANY EXPLANATION violates something.
Unless it's conceded that Einstein was WRONG THROUGH AND THROUGH with
his GR equations, and he didn't know how
to amend the HUGE MISTAKE he made popular: That light IS deflected due
to BIG gravitational fields.
Still, there is a solution at hand: FORGET all this crap, from Newton
1) LIGHT HAS NO MASS.
2) E = mc² is an STUPID ENERGY, and should be prohibited to use it
beyond quantum physics, where everything is weird, as this energy.
3) RETURN to classic physics and TALK ONLY ABOUT DIFFRACTION.
Problem solved, gravitational lensing changes to COSMIC lensing by
diffraction, and nothing happened in the last 100 years.
It's like an UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDERING: Accept or else....

Post by Richard Hertz
EXCERPT OF THE 1927 PAPER
*******************************************************************************************************************
THE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF CANADA
Vol. XXI, No. 6 , JULY-AUGUST, 1927 , Whole No. 1 6
THE RELATIVITY DEFLECTION OF LIGHT?
By CHARLES LANE POOR
Presented at the Philadelphia Meeting of the American Association for
the Advancement of Science and the American
Astronomical Society. December 29, 1926.

******************************************************************************************
Thus Einstein's new principle of equivalence, combined with the
cardinal precept of relativity, necessitates the abandonment of the
hitherto accepted principle that the actual velocity of light in space
is constant, and forces the adoption of the assumption that the
actual velocity of the ray through space decreases as it approaches the
sun, or other gravitational body. Einstein alludes to this
complete change in the fundamental concept regarding the propagation of
"The principle of the constancy of the velocity of light holds good
according to this theory in a different form from that
which usually underlies the ordinary theory of relativity."
In accordance with this assumption, or new tenet of relativity, all rays
of light, which pass through a given point in space, and
regardless of the direction of propagation, will have the same velocity,
and that velocity will become less and less as the point
nears the sun, or other gravitational body. Thus a ray, proceeding
directly towards the sun, will be retarded, not accelerated, as
would be a falling body; and Einstein's new assumption, therefore, is
that light is repulsed, or repelled by the sun.
The amount of this retardation must be exactly proportional to the
slowing down of the ideal clock, as given by the principle of
equivalence. At any point in space the square of the "velocity from
infinity", under the Newtonian law of gravitation, is 2GM/r,
where M is the gravitational mass of the sun.
******************************************************************************************

And, by the way, I enjoy very much the silence of fanatic relativists at this forum.
Either because they didn't care about the OP and my thread (I'm the only
one writing) or because they don't know
what the fuck to write in reply.
You, fanatic imbeciles, are cornered and took offense. Ask for
consolation at your nearest relativistic church.
After all, what are relativistic friends for?
And I even DIDN'T STARTED WITH THIS SHIT. I'M JUST WARMING UP.
So, Paul, have your list at hand, so I can give "non-insulting"
answers, as you requested.

Whore for attention much?
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

Butthurt much?
I worked on this topic for many hours, increasing my learning base to
other topics in astronomy and critic points of GR.
And I do it just for myself. If what I find, it it offends you, discuss or go to therapy.
I'm doing this for myself, and it feels great.

Ah, ok, you’re using Usenet as a personal logbook. And you do that out in
the open because you’re an attention whore, and anything you do FOR
YOURSELF you still need an audience for.

It's just gobbledygook. Not worth any attention.

--
Jan

[Dono.]

<snip>

Post by JanPB
It's just gobbledygook. Not worth any attention.

Do you call gobbledygook what Newton, Laplace and other bright minds provided to science,

No, he calls what you post, old fart imbecile.

[Richard Hertz]

Post by Dono.

<snip>

Post by JanPB
It's just gobbledygook. Not worth any attention.

Do you call gobbledygook what Newton, Laplace and other bright minds provided to science,

No, he calls what you post, old fart imbecile.

Gono, are you the spokesperson of the other cretin now? Sharing the same closet, fucking reptilian lifeform?

I'm glad that you are questioning Einstein now, and you don't realize it, imbecile! I use PURE Einstein's GR, unaltered (7c).

But it seems that you don't like that I play with your stupid, absurd theory and show its sheer imbecility. Good, good!

And wait that I post the same fucking expression derived from pure, crystal clear Newton's theory giving the same formula, giant lizard!

You, as Jan and other pathetic beings here, wasted your life for nothing, scumbag.
And this happens when you follow the herd and the hype on trends.

By the way, did you choose your gender by now? It's also trendy.

1.751 arcsec straight from Newton to you through your new orifice! Just wait!

[Dono.]

But it seems that you don't like that I play the stupid,

Quite the opposite, I like the fact that you entertain us with your natural stupidity

[Richard Hertz]

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Dono.

<snip>

Post by JanPB
It's just gobbledygook. Not worth any attention.

Do you call gobbledygook what Newton, Laplace and other bright minds provided to science,

No, he calls what you post, old fart imbecile.

Gono, are you the spokesperson of the other cretin now? Sharing the same closet, fucking reptilian lifeform?
I'm glad that you are questioning Einstein now, and you don't realize it, imbecile! I use PURE Einstein's GR, unaltered (7c).
But it seems that you don't like that I play with your stupid, absurd theory and show its sheer imbecility. Good, good!
And wait that I post the same fucking expression derived from pure, crystal clear Newton's theory giving the same formula, giant lizard!
You, as Jan and other pathetic beings here, wasted your life for nothing, scumbag.
And this happens when you follow the herd and the hype on trends.
By the way, did you choose your gender by now? It's also trendy.
1.751 arcsec straight from Newton to you through your new orifice! Just wait!

I wasn't clear enough. This formula:

Φ(r) = - GMm/r [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)]

is EXACTLY Einstein's eq. 7c for HIS new gravitational potential, in physical units instead of geometrical.

There is your fucking Shapiro's gamma with his fucking PPN formula.

Now, choke on it. Scream, spit, cry foul. It doesn't matter. You CAN'T ALTER THIS SIMPLE FACT, cretin.

Now, go to hibernate.

[Michael Moroney]

<snip>

Post by JanPB
It's just gobbledygook. Not worth any attention.

Do you call gobbledygook what Newton, Laplace and other bright minds provided to science,

No, Jan called what you wrote to be gobbledygook.

but says that a product of an imbecile fraudster and charlatan is not?, fucking retarded?

No, Jan said what you wrote is gobbledygook.

And that Newton explains better and without 200+ non linear equations that bend space and are more weird than a Moebius ring,
that light deflects 1.75 arcsec when passing by Sun's limb?

Except Newton says light gets deflected 0.85 arc seconds. Oops.

[Richard Hertz]

<snip>

And that Newton explains better and without 200+ non linear equations that bend space and are more weird than a Moebius ring,
that light deflects 1.75 arcsec when passing by Sun's limb?

Except Newton says light gets deflected 0.85 arc seconds. Oops.

Newton didn't said that. It was an incomplete and genial work developed by von Soldner and applied to starlight deflection as
PERCEIVED FROM EARTH, looking for distant stars. It's work only contains HALF the trajectory of an hyperbolic "photon", even
when he didn't know about such aspects by 1802.

In the same paper, he laughed himself by the fact of applying his ETERNAL DEVELOPMENT, when he said that he didn't see possible
to apply it to the Sun.

I'm readapting such masterpiece to modern notation and knowledge. TO MY SURPRISE, his Laplace's based work was SO ADVANCED
by 1802 that it's difficult for me how he developed, step by step, formulae for conic trajectories in the solar system.

It's really incredible that formulae used 220 years ago only requires little changes in NOTATION ONLY!

Once you use correctly his theory, on a full pass by, you get 1.75 arcsecond.

DEAL WITH IT AND SUFFER, FUCKING RETARDED.

And I'm not alone on this. Hundred of documents manage this particular topic, with variations.

It was MY CHOICE to use ONLY von Soldner's paper and work since it to make it compatible with our current notation, without any
external influence from dozen of papers.

Newton, Laplace, Lagrange, Euler, etc. KNEW IT ALL. Not a fucking ambitious fraudster who seek fame, glory, money and prestige to
compensate his pathetic life as a fucking slug, who needed to be also a thought's vampire.

[Dono.]

It was MY CHOICE to use ONLY von Soldner's paper and suck up to nazi propaganda, as a dutiful kapo I am .

[Michael Moroney]

<snip>

And that Newton explains better and without 200+ non linear equations that bend space and are more weird than a Moebius ring,
that light deflects 1.75 arcsec when passing by Sun's limb?

Except Newton says light gets deflected 0.85 arc seconds. Oops.

Newton didn't said that.

Nor did Newton say light deflects 1.75 arc sec like you said.

It was an incomplete and genial work developed by von Soldner and
applied to starlight deflection as

PERCEIVED FROM EARTH, looking for distant stars. It's work only contains HALF the trajectory of an hyperbolic "photon", even
when he didn't know about such aspects by 1802.

So he got it wrong.
Since the measurements are consistent with 1.75 arcsec, guess whose
theory is wrong and whose is validated? Whose was used in the very
successful Kepler mission?

[Richard Hertz]

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 9:12:29 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

So he got it wrong. Since the measurements are consistent with 1.75 arcsec, guess whose
theory is wrong and whose is validated? Whose was used in the very successful Kepler mission?

That's why a sad fat, bold midget cretin, physically and mentally deformed. Nothing of this world will help to relieve
your suffering for being as such.

The poor von Soldner just wanted to know which kind of conic shape would have the starlight path reaching Earth if light
suffered gravitational attraction by it. And he, modestly and having a copy of Laplace's "Traité de mécanique céleste
par Laplace, Tome I", developed a theory that went ahead of Laplace and Lagrange, and is used since then, not light deflection,
which theory nobody (except Einstein, the plagiarist) gave a flying fuck.

And the imbecile that you worship was SO RETARDED that didn't use von Soldner CORRECTLY. Just plagiarized and disguised
formulae in a hurry,109 years after.

This is the kind of genetic garbage to which you surrendered, in body and soul. And his rotten, malefic spirit, has been handed to you
also, as it comes along with relativity.

You, as a liar, cheater, deceiver and imbecile, deserve EXACTLY what you are going through in your pathetic life of a perennial LOSER.

Go and join Gono and Poudkin, inside the closet. Just for pity, I recommend you to choose Paudkin.

1.75" is just an example of your gay proud.

Why don't you mention how it's used for gravitational lensing by applying it to distant galaxies, with a trillion stars? FUCKING RETARDED.

[Michael Moroney]

On 1/7/2022 11:04 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
[snip foaming of Richard's mouth]

Post by Richard Hertz
1.75" is just an example of your gay proud.

It doesn't matter if you're gay, the 1.75" deflection is what is
observed and used by real scientists. Too bad for you.

[Richard Hertz]

Post by Michael Moroney
[snip foaming of Richard's mouth]

Post by Richard Hertz
1.75" is just an example of your gay proud.

It doesn't matter if you're gay, the 1.75" deflection is what is
observed and used by real scientists. Too bad for you.

See WHY I insult you so heavily? Because you are A FUCKING RETARDED, a shame for IEEE and a shadow of an EE (allegedly).

I'M NOT QUESTIONING THE 1.75" VALUE, ASSHOLE. Read my OP here, to start with!

I'm saying that such value ALWAYS COULD BE ACHIEVED UNDER NEWTON'S LAWS, for a complete hyperbolic trajectory, not half of it.

You really are a piece of work, Moroney. I feel sorry for your family and friends, who have to deal with you!

Your lies to them are, 99% probability, so LAME as yours here. Your wife should be rolling theirs eyes every single day but, as you work
and also do all the home work (cleaning, cooking, etc.) she tolerates you. Still, poor human!

Again: I'M NOT QUESTIONING THE 1.75" VALUE, ASSHOLE. Read my OP here!

[Richard Hertz]

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Michael Moroney
[snip foaming of Richard's mouth]

Post by Richard Hertz
1.75" is just an example of your gay proud.

It doesn't matter if you're gay, the 1.75" deflection is what is
observed and used by real scientists. Too bad for you.

See WHY I insult you so heavily? Because you are A FUCKING RETARDED, a shame for IEEE and a shadow of an EE (allegedly).
I'M NOT QUESTIONING THE 1.75" VALUE, ASSHOLE. Read my OP here, to start with!
I'm saying that such value ALWAYS COULD BE ACHIEVED UNDER NEWTON'S LAWS, for a complete hyperbolic trajectory, not half of it.
You really are a piece of work, Moroney. I feel sorry for your family and friends, who have to deal with you!
Your lies to them are, 99% probability, so LAME as yours here. Your wife should be rolling theirs eyes every single day but, as you work
and also do all the home work (cleaning, cooking, etc.) she tolerates you. Still, poor human!
Again: I'M NOT QUESTIONING THE 1.75" VALUE, ASSHOLE. Read my OP here!

I meant woman, not human!
Sorry!

[Richard Hertz]

Obviously, Paul Andersen doesn't like that his beloved PPN factor γ = B²/(m²c²Rsun²) is equal to the 2nd. term in the brackets of
equation (7c) on Einstein's Nov. 18 , 1915 paper (in physical units, or γ = B²/Rsun² in geometrical units).

And he and his relativistic pals don't like (even less) that all of his list of papers involving Shapiro, Hipparcos, Cassini, Fomalont, etc.,
are experiments involving hundred of persons, billions of USD and 100,000,000+ digitally filtered data collected in decades just to
prove that PPN_ γ = 1.0000 +/- 0.001. And, all of these not to prove GR, but 50% of it.

What a waste of time and money for something known for 100+ years: γ = 1, and contributes only with 50% on light deflection passing
by the limb of the Sun. He's mad and considered this subject (written in stone) as settled forever.

HIS PROBLEM, as the one for anyone, is to explain HOW is that the other 50% is newtonian, and HOW does it affects the speed of
incoming and outgoing starlight after peaking at the perigee of the trajectory.

Well, this is sad. He prefers to not answer and bury his head on the sand. Typical behavior of those who only have ONE explanation
(borrowed from books). Relativism doctrine FORBIDS additional thinking. Just OBEY.

No problem, Paul. I won't bother you again with this.

Keep playing with rockets at 0.8c and twins aging differently or other game with little equations.

Curiously, 99% of posts are on the easy SR little equations from Fairyland. But when things become heavy, like GR and applications
in cosmology (like galaxy's gravitational lensing) everyone that should deal with this matter RUN FOR THEIR LIVES, like small rodents
or rabbits. I say: pay the price for playing on the edges of the cult of relativism, instead of discussing serious matters.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Richard Hertz
Obviously, Paul Andersen doesn't like that his beloved PPN factor γ = B²/(m²c²Rsun²) is equal to the 2nd. term in the brackets of
equation (7c) on Einstein's Nov. 18 , 1915 paper (in physical units, or γ = B²/Rsun² in geometrical units).
And he and his relativistic pals don't like (even less) that all of his list of papers involving Shapiro, Hipparcos, Cassini, Fomalont, etc.,
are experiments involving hundred of persons, billions of USD and 100,000,000+ digitally filtered data collected in decades just to
prove that PPN_ γ = 1.0000 +/- 0.001. And, all of these not to prove GR, but 50% of it.
What a waste of time and money for something known for 100+ years: γ = 1, and contributes only with 50% on light deflection passing
by the limb of the Sun. He's mad and considered this subject (written in stone) as settled forever.

Those who know what the PPN parameter γ is will understand why I ROFL.

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

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Michael Moroney
[snip foaming of Richard's mouth]

Post by Richard Hertz
1.75" is just an example of your gay proud.

It doesn't matter if you're gay, the 1.75" deflection is what is
observed and used by real scientists. Too bad for you.

See WHY I insult you so heavily? Because you are A FUCKING RETARDED, a shame for IEEE and a shadow of an EE (allegedly).
I'M NOT QUESTIONING THE 1.75" VALUE, ASSHOLE. Read my OP here, to start with!
I'm saying that such value ALWAYS COULD BE ACHIEVED UNDER NEWTON'S LAWS, for a complete hyperbolic trajectory, not half of it.

Nope. For a hyperbolic trajectory, Newton's Laws predict half the GR
value. That was the whole point of the eclipse observations. Will
starlight be deflected by 1.75" (GR) or 0.87" (Newton)? And guess what?
The GR value was correct.

Post by Richard Hertz
Again: I'M NOT QUESTIONING THE 1.75" VALUE, ASSHOLE. Read my OP here!

So you finally admit Einstein was correct. NEXT!

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Michael Moroney
[snip foaming of Richard's mouth]

Post by Richard Hertz
1.75" is just an example of your gay proud.

It doesn't matter if you're gay, the 1.75" deflection is what is
observed and used by real scientists. Too bad for you.

See WHY I insult you so heavily? Because you are A FUCKING RETARDED, a shame for IEEE and a shadow of an EE (allegedly).
I'M NOT QUESTIONING THE 1.75" VALUE, ASSHOLE. Read my OP here, to start with!
I'm saying that such value ALWAYS COULD BE ACHIEVED UNDER NEWTON'S LAWS, for a complete hyperbolic trajectory, not half of it.

Nope. For a hyperbolic trajectory, Newton's Laws predict half the GR
value.

Only such an idiot can believe such an impudent lie. Which
Newton's laws, stupid Mike?

[Richard Hertz]

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 4:43:07 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

Post by Richard Hertz
I'M NOT QUESTIONING THE 1.75" VALUE, ASSHOLE. Read my OP here, to start with!
I'm saying that such value ALWAYS COULD BE ACHIEVED UNDER NEWTON'S LAWS, for a complete hyperbolic trajectory, not half of it.

Nope. For a hyperbolic trajectory, Newton's Laws predict half the GR value. That was the whole point of the eclipse observations. Will
starlight be deflected by 1.75" (GR) or 0.87" (Newton)? And guess what? The GR value was correct.

Post by Richard Hertz
Again: I'M NOT QUESTIONING THE 1.75" VALUE, ASSHOLE. Read my OP here!

So you finally admit Einstein was correct. NEXT!

No, fucking hopeless imbecile! I'm saying that 1.75" of arc was PERFECTLY AND MARVELOUSLY PREDICTED by the genial von Soldner
114 years BEFORE the retarded cretin fraudster that you worship.

He wrote about 0.875" of arc deflection IF HE COULD STAND AT THE SURFACE OF THE SUN, AND OBSERVE DISTANT STARS! And he
laughed, as written on his paper, by such impossible task. The genial von Soldner even had SENSE OF HUMOR, which why lack.

I don't know why I lose my time with a PROVEN ASSHOLE, ASYMPTOTICALLY CONVERGENT to being 100% totally retarded.

The man was making advances in Newton's Law of Gravitation almost at the same time than Laplace, who transformed Newton's
geometry into Newton's celestial mechanics with integro-differential equations, publishing his first Treative (volume I) just by 1799.

And to prove what I affirm about his work being based on the deflection of starlight on Earth BY ASTRONOMERS (half an hyperbole),
I quote here LITERALLY an excerpt almost at the end of his MASTERPIECE:

***********
"If we want to investigate by the given formula, to what extend a light ray is deflected by the moon when it passes the moon and travels
to earth, then we must (after the relevant magnitudes are substituted and the radius of the moon is taken as unity) double the value that
was found by the formula; because the light ray that passes the moon and falls upon earth, describes two arms of the hyperbola."
*********

Do you get it, CRETIN? And it goes for the other two assholes: Gono and Paul.

He, in the darkness of knowledge on this topic by 1800, EVEN FORECASTED THE REAL VALUE for a full trajectory of starlight passing
by the Sun's LIMB. Only that he used the MOON! Two arms of an hyperbola, used in the Sun (instead of the moon) gives 2X the value
he calculated IF HE COULD STAND ON SUN'S SURFACE.

He saw it all! Learn and repent, fucking assholes. All of you that DARE TO SPIT ON Newton greatness!

He WROTE THE 1.75" OF ARC IMPLICITLY (just by using the fucking Moon!). If you replace the Moon for the Sun, HIS CALCULATIONS
(by the year 1801) would had gave: 2 x ω = 2 x 0".84 = 1".68 (do you grasp this GREATNESS, starting with almost NOTHING?).

He wrote, and I quote EXACTLY (from the English translation):

"If we substitute into the formula for tang ω the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the sun, and assume the radius of this body
as unity, then we find ω = 0".84. If it were possible to observe the fixed stars very nearly at the sun, then we would have to take this
into consideration. However, as it is well known that this doesn’t happen, then also the perturbation of the sun shall be neglected."

This is something worth of being perennial, not the TWISTED, ROTTEN GR (and SR).+

No relativity, no 20 scientists staff. Just the brightness of the power of ONE SINGLE MIND!

I don't even need to modernize the notation of his paper. It's all there, IN TWO FUCKING PARAGRAPHS.

Now, if neither of you finally concede, I'll tell with a righteous reason: FUCK YOU, FUCK YOU TWICE and keep doing it, CRETINS!

The world is a SHITTY PLACE due to people like you, NOT LIKE ME.

I don't feel pity for you. Just contempt, despicable mental midgets.

[Michael Moroney]

<snip>

Post by Richard Hertz
I'M NOT QUESTIONING THE 1.75" VALUE, ASSHOLE. Read my OP here, to start with!
I'm saying that such value ALWAYS COULD BE ACHIEVED UNDER NEWTON'S LAWS, for a complete hyperbolic trajectory, not half of it.

Nope. For a hyperbolic trajectory, Newton's Laws predict half the GR value. That was the whole point of the eclipse observations. Will
starlight be deflected by 1.75" (GR) or 0.87" (Newton)? And guess what? The GR value was correct.

Post by Richard Hertz
Again: I'M NOT QUESTIONING THE 1.75" VALUE, ASSHOLE. Read my OP here!

So you finally admit Einstein was correct. NEXT!

No, fucking hopeless imbecile! I'm saying that 1.75" of arc was PERFECTLY AND MARVELOUSLY PREDICTED by the genial von Soldner
114 years BEFORE the retarded cretin fraudster that you worship.

[brushing away mouth foam with a VERY long broom]

Where did von Soldner get this magic doubling from? Did he do actual
math/physics to derive it, or did he pull it from some body orifice?
Did he calculate the amount of the full deflection, thought what he
calculated was for only one arm of the hyperbola and doubled it to
account for both arms, accidentally coming up with the correct answer?
You yourself were mighty suspicious that Einstein's figure just
'happened' to be double Newton's. (but along comes someone else who
also came up with that same magic doubling and you worship him as a
hero. I'm sure the German name didn't hurt)

What if it's the right answer for the wrong reason? Do you continue to
worship him as a hero? Like how Lorentz came up with the LET, which does
the SR stuff correctly but says a form of the aether explains it.

Show us how von Soldner derived his doubled Newton figure with the
math/science he used to derive it. Then we can compare and contrast to
Einstein's derivation.

[Richard Hertz]

On Saturday, January 8, 2022 at 7:33:34 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

Show us how von Soldner derived his doubled Newton figure with the math/science he used to derive it. Then we can compare and
contrast to Einstein's derivation.

GET THE FIGURE ON THE WEB. MOST OF THE WORK IS TO FIND A FUNCTION THAT VERIFIES THE TRAJECTORY OF STARLIGHT
TOWARD THE EYES OF AN OBSERVER ON EARTH'S SURFACE. THEN HE GENERALIZES (ALWAYS HALF THE TRAJECTORY, DUE TO THIS).
Loading Image...


ORIGINAL PAPER TRANSLATED TO ENGLISH (MAYBE BY 1911):
On the deflection of a light ray from its rectilinear motion, by the attraction of a celestial body at which it nearly passes by.
By Johann Georg von Soldner. Berlin, March 1801.

At the current, so much perfected state of practical astronomy, it becomes more necessary to develop from the theory (that is from the
general properties and interactions of matter) all circumstances that can have an influence on a celestial body: to take advantage from
a good observation, as much as it can give.

Although it is true that we can become aware of considerable deviations from a taken rule by observation and by chance: as it was the
case with the aberration of light. Yet deviations can exist which are so small, so that it is hard to decide whether they are true deviations
or observational errors. Also deviations can exist, which are indeed considerable—but if they are combined with quantities whose
determination is not completely finished, they can escape the notice of an experienced observer.

Of the latter kind may also be the deflection of a light ray from the straight line, when it comes near to a celestial body, and therefore
considerably experiences its attraction. Since we can easily see that this deflection is greatest when (as seen at the surface of the
attracted body) the light ray arrives in horizontal direction, and becomes zero in perpendicular direction, then the magnitude of deflection
will be a function of height. However, since also the ray-refraction is a function of height, then these two quantities must be mutually
combined: therefore it might be possible, that the deflection would amount several seconds in its maximum, although it couldn't be
determined by observations so far.

These are nearly the considerations, which drove me to still think about the perturbation of light rays, which as far as I know was not
studied by anyone. Before I start the investigation, I still want to give some general remarks, by which the calculation will be simplified.

Since at the beginning I only want to specify the maximum of such a deflection, I horizontally let pass the light at the location of
observation (at the surface of the attracting body), or I assume that the star from which it comes, is apparently rising. For convenience
of the study we assume: the light ray doesn’t arrive at the place of observation, but emanates from it.

We can easily see, that this is completely irrelevant for the determination of the figure of the trajectory. Furthermore if a light ray arrives
at a point at the surface of the attracting body in horizontal direction, and then again continues its way (at the beginning horizontally
again): then we can easily see, that with this continuation it describes the same curved line, which it has followed until here. If we draw
through the place of observation and the center of the attracting body a straight line, then this line will be the major axis of the curved
one for the trajectory of light; by describing over and under this line two fully congruent sides of the curved line.

C (Figure 1) shall now be the center of the attracting body, A is the location at its surface. From A, a light ray goes into the direction AD or
in the horizontal direction, by a velocity with which it traverses the way v in a second. Yet the light ay, instead of traveling at the straight line
AD, will forced by the celestial body to describe a curved line AMQ, whose nature we will investigate. Upon this curved line after the time
(calculated from the instant of emanation from A), the light ray is located in M, at the distance CM = r from the center of the attracting body.

g be the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the body. Furthermore CP = x, MP = y and the angle MCP = h. The force, by which the
light in M will be attracted by the body into the direction MC, will be 2g/r². This force can be decomposed into two other forces,

2g/r² cos h and 2g/r² sin h , into the directions x and y; and for that we obtain the following two equations (s.Traité de mécanique céleste
par Laplace, Tome I, pag. 21)

d²x/dt² = − (2g cos h)/r² (I)
d²y/dt² = − (2g sin h)/r² (II)

If we multiply the first of these equations by −sin h, the second one by cos h, and sum them up, then we obtain:

(d²y cos h − d²x sin h)/dt² = 0 (III)

Now we multiply the first one by cos h, the second one by sin h and sum them together, then we obtain:

(d²y cos h + d²x sin h)/dt² = −2g/r² (IV)

To reduce in these equations the number of variable quantities, we express x and y by r and h. We easily see that

x = r cos h; y = r sin h

If we differentiate, then we will obtain:

dx = cos h dr − r sin h dh; dy = sin h dr + r cos h dh

And if we differentiate again,

d²x = cos h d dr − 2sin h dh dr − r sin h d²h − r cos h dh² and

d²y = sin h d²r + 2cos h dh dr + r cos h d²h − r sin h dh²

If we substitute these values for d²x and d²y in the previous equations, the we obtain from (III):

(d²y cos h − d²x sin h)/dt² = (2dhdr + rddh)/dt²

Thus we have:

(2dh dr + r d²h)/dt² = 0 (V). And furthermore by (IV),

(d²r − r dh²)/dt² = −2g/r² (VI)

To make Equation (V) a true differential quantity, we multiply it by r dt , thus:

(2r dh dr + r² d²h)/dt = 0

and if we again integrate, we will obtain:

r² dh = C dt, where C is an arbitrary constant magnitude.

To specify C, we note that r²dh (= rrdh) is equal to: the double area of the small triangle which described the radius vector r in the time dt.

The double area of the triangle that is described in the first second of time, is however: = AC v ; thus we have C = AC v.

And if we assume the radius AC of the attracting body as unity, what we will always do in the following, then C = v. If we substitute this
value for C into the previous equations, then: r² dh = v dt,

Thus we have

dh = v dt/r² (VII)

If this value for dh is substituted into Equations (VI), we obtain:

d²r/dt² − v²/r³ = −2g/r²

If we multiply this equations by 2dr , then:

(2dr d²r )/dt² − 2v²dr/r³ = 4gdr/r²

and if we integrate again,

dr²/dt² + v²/r³ = 4g/r + D

where D is a constant magnitude, that depends on the constant magnitudes which are contained in the equation. From this equation
that is found now, the time can be eliminated, hence:

dt = dr/√(D + 4g/r − v²/r²)

If we substitute this value for dt into Equation (VII), then we obtain:

dh = v dr/r² √[D + 4g/r − v²/r²]

To integrate this equations, we bring it into the form:

dh = v dr/r² √[D + 4g²/v² − (v/r − 2g/v)²]

Now we put

v/r − 2g/v = z

then we have vdr/r² = −dz

If this and z is substituted into the equation for dh, the we will have:

dh = −dz/√(D + 4g²/v² − z²)

From that the integral is now: h = arccos [z/√( D + 4g²/v²)] + α

where α is a constant magnitude. By well-known properties it is furthermore:

cos (h −α ) = z/√(D + 4g²/v²)

and if we also substitute instead of z its value:

cos (h −α) = (v² − 2g/r)/r √(v²D + 4g²)

h −α would be the angle that r forms with the major axis of the curved line that has to be specified. Since furthermore h is the angle
which r forms with the line AF (the axis of the coordinates x and y), then α must be the angle that forms the major axis with the line AF.

However, since AF goes through the observation place and the center of the attracting body, then by the preceding, AF must be the major
axis; also α 0, and thus:

cos h = (v² − 2gr)/r √(v²D + 4g²)

For h = 0 it must be r = AC = 1, and we obtain from this equation:

√(v²D + 4g²) = v² − 2g

If we substitute this in the previous equation, then the unknown D and also the square-root sign vanish; and we obtain:

cos h = (v² − 2gr )/r √(v² − 2g)

furthermore by that

r + [(v² − 2g )/2g]r cos h = v²/2g (VIII)

From this finite equation between r and h, the curved line can be specified. To achieve this more conveniently, we again want to
reduce the equation to coordinates. Let (Figure 1) AP = x and MP = y , then we have:

x =1− r cos h; y = r sin h , and

r = √[(1− x)² + y²]

If we substitute this into equation (VIII), then we find:

y² = [v² (v² − 4g )/4g²] (1− x)² − [v² (v² − 2g )/2g²] (1− x) + v²/4g²

and if we properly develop everything,

y² = v²x/g + [v² (v² − 4g )/4g²] x²/4g² (IX)

Since this equation is of second degree, then the curved line is a conic section, that can be studied more closely now.

If p is the parameter and a the semi-major axis, then (if we calculate the abscissa with its start at the vertex) the general equation
for all conic sections is:

y² = px + px²/2a

This equation contains the properties of the parabola, when the coefficient of x² is zero; that of the ellipse when it is negative; and that
of the hyperbola when it is positive. The latter is evidently the case in our equation (IX). Since for all our known celestial bodies 4g is
smaller than v², then the coefficient of x² must be positive.

If thus a light ray passes a celestial body, then it will be forced by the attraction of the body to describe a hyperbola whose concave side
is directed against the attracting body, instead of progressing in a straight direction.

The conditions, under which the light ray would describe another conic section, can now easily be specified. It would describe a parabola
when 4g = v², an ellipse when 4g were greater than v², and a circle when 2g = v². Since we don’t know any celestial body whose mass is
so great that it can generate such an acceleration at its surface, then the light ray always describes a hyperbola in our known world.

Now, it only remains to investigate, to what extend the light ray will be deflected from its straight line; or how great is the perturbation
angle (which is the way I want to call it).

Since the figure of the trajectory is now specified, we can consider the light ray again as arriving. And because I want to specify only the
maximum perturbation angle, I assume that the light ray comes from an infinitely great distance.

The maximum must take place in this case, because the attracting body longer acts on the light ray when it comes from a greater than
from a smaller distance.

If the light ray comes from an infinite distance, then its initial direction is that of the asymptote BR (Figure 1) of the hyperbola, because in
an infinitely great distant the asymptote falls into the tangent. Yet the light ray comes into the eye of the observer in the direction DA, thus
ADB will be the perturbation angle.

If we call this angle ω, then we have, since the triangle ABD at A is right-angled: tan ω = AB/AD

However, it is known from the nature of the hyperbola, that AB is the semi-major axis, and AD the semi-lateral axis. Thus this magnitudes
must also be specified. When a is the semi-major axis, and b the semi-lateral axis, the parameter is:

p = 2b²/a

If we substitute this value into the general equation of hyperbola

y² = px + px²/2a

then it transforms into:

y² = 2b²x/a + b²x²/a²

If we compare this coefficients of x and x2 with those in (IX), then we obtain the semi-major axis

a = 2g/(v² − 4g ) = AB

the semi-lateral axis

b = v/√(v² − 4g) = AD

If we substitute this values for AB and AD into the expression for tangω, then we have:

tangω = 2g/v √(v² − 4g)

We now want to give an application of this formula on earth, and investigate, to what extend a light ray is deflected from its straight line,
when it passes by at the surface of earth.

Under the presupposition, that light requires 564.8 seconds of time to come from the sun to earth, we find that it traverses 15.562085
earth radii in a second.

Thus v = 15.562085. If we take under the geographical latitude its square of the sine 1/3 (that corresponds to a latitude of 35˚16'), the
earth radius by 6,369,514 meters, and the acceleration of gravity by 3.66394 meters (s. Traité de mécanique céleste par Laplace, Tome I,
pag. 118): then, expressed in earth radii, g = 0.000000575231.

I use this arrangement, to take the most recent and most reliable specifications of the size of earth’s radius and the acceleration of
gravity, without specific reduction from the Traité de mécanique céleste . By that, nothing will be changed in the final result, because it is
only about the relation of the velocity of light to the velocity of a falling body on earth. The earth radius and the acceleration of gravity
must therefore taken under the mentioned degree of latitude, since the earth spheroid (regarding its physical content) is equal to a sphere
which has earth’s radius (or 6,369,514 meters) as its radius.

If we substitute these values for v and g into the equation of tang ω, then we obtain (in sexagesimal seconds) ω = 0".0009798, or in even
number, ω = 0".001.

Since this maximum is totally insignificant, it would be superfluous to go further; or to specify how this value decreases with the height
above the horizon; and by what value it decreases, when the distance of the star from which the light ray comes, is assumed as finite and
equal to a certain size. A specification that would bear no difficulty.



If we want to investigate by the given formula, to what extend a light ray is deflected by the moon when it passes the moon and travels to
earth, then we must (after the relevant magnitudes are substituted and the radius of the moon is taken as unity) double the value that was
found by the formula; because the light ray that passes the moon and falls upon earth, describes two arms of the hyperbola.



But nevertheless the maximum must still be much smaller than that of earth; because the mass of the moon, and thus g, is much smaller.
The inflexion must therefore only stem from cohesion, scattering of light, and the atmosphere of the moon; the general attraction doesn’t
contribute anything significant.



If we substitute into the formula for tang ω the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the sun, and assume the radius of this body as
unity, then we find ω = 0".84. If it were possible to observe the fixed stars very nearly at the sun, then we would have to take this into
consideration. However, as it is well known that this doesn’t happen, then also the perturbation of the sun shall be neglected.



For light rays that come from Venus (which was observed by Vidal only two minutes from the border of the sun, s. Hr. O. L. v. Zachs
monatliche Correspondenz etc. II. Band pag 87.) it amounts much less; because we cannot assume the distances of Venus and Earth
from the sun as infinitely great.

By combination of several bodies, that might be encountered by the light ray on its way, the results would be somewhat greater; but
certainly always imperceptible for our observations.

Thus it is proven: that it is not necessary, at least at the current state of practical astronomy, to consider the perturbation of light rays by
attracting celestial bodies.

Hopefully no one finds it problematic, that I treat a light ray almost as a ponderable body. That light rays possess all absolute properties
of matter, can be seen at the phenomenon of aberration, which is only possible when light rays are really material. And furthermore, we
cannot think of things that exist and act on our senses, without having the properties of matter.

nihil est quod possis dicere ab omni
corpore seiunctum secretumque esse ab inani,
quod quasi tertia sit numero natura reperta.

Lucretius de nat. rer. I, 431

[Richard Hertz]

I didn't want to add anything to von Soldner's paper. It's with notations and values used in astronomy 222 years ago, just when Laplace
was publishing his first volume (out of six in the next years), and everything was absolutely new on Newton's celestial mechanics using
integro-differential equations (Laplace was the greatest of all the contributors, which include Lagrange, Euler, etc.).

Von Soldner ventured on this matter for his concern on observational astronomy and also he was audacious enough to take a couple
of Laplace's equations (just fresh, out of the print) and use them just to start his own journey on such impressive development, given
the epoch and how little was known about analytical description of celestial mechanics (not geometrical).

His formula has to be updated to modern notation, but uses only gravity and the speed of light.

In tangω = 2g/v √(v² − 4g) , v = c >> 4g, so the formula reduces to:

tangω = 2g/v √(v² − 4g) ≈ 2g/v² = 2g/c² (radius of celestial body = 1)

Under modern terms, it has to be equated 2g/c² = 2GM/(Rsun² c²), which is his 1911 formula, half his 1915 one.

If the entire trajectory of light passing by the Sun is accounted (two arms of the hyperbola), then

ψ = 2 ω = 4g/c² = 4GM/(Rsun² c²) (Einstein's 1915 formula for starlight deflection by the Sun surface, as perceived from Earth).

And both formulae are EQUAL, without having to use 200+ non linear differential equations, twisted space, etc.

Just pure, simple and eternal Newton.

The myth, perversely reproduced is that von Soldner (the only one who took this job on his shoulders) only provided half that value.

Because THIS IS THE METHOD of cretins using FAKE NEWS over the herd's mind ALL THE TIME.

FAKE NEWS: Are you familiar with this term? Ask Trump or Vietnamese or WWII jam or.....

99.9999% of people was, is and will be FUCKING IDIOTS who just get the news by the title or from mouth to mouth (gossip).

Only a few are suspicious and do research (or just read the entire article and not the headlines).

That's the way the world works, and it's getting worse with these new generations since the '70s.

Actually, they were idiots all the time, no matter the century.

DOUBT, QUESTION, RESEARCH, DON'T BORROW KNOWLEDGE. DEVELOP KNOWLEDGE BY YOUR OWN, USING SOURCES WITH CARE.

[Richard Hertz]

Post by Richard Hertz
I didn't want to add anything to von Soldner's paper. It's with notations and values used in astronomy 222 years ago, just when Laplace
was publishing his first volume (out of six in the next years), and everything was absolutely new on Newton's celestial mechanics using
integro-differential equations (Laplace was the greatest of all the contributors, which include Lagrange, Euler, etc.).
Von Soldner ventured on this matter for his concern on observational astronomy and also he was audacious enough to take a couple
of Laplace's equations (just fresh, out of the print) and use them just to start his own journey on such impressive development, given
the epoch and how little was known about analytical description of celestial mechanics (not geometrical).
His formula has to be updated to modern notation, but uses only gravity and the speed of light.
tangω = 2g/v √(v² − 4g) ≈ 2g/v² = 2g/c² (radius of celestial body = 1)
Under modern terms, it has to be equated 2g/c² = 2GM/(Rsun² c²), which is his 1911 formula, half his 1915 one.
If the entire trajectory of light passing by the Sun is accounted (two arms of the hyperbola), then
ψ = 2 ω = 4g/c² = 4GM/(Rsun² c²) (Einstein's 1915 formula for starlight deflection by the Sun surface, as perceived from Earth).
And both formulae are EQUAL, without having to use 200+ non linear differential equations, twisted space, etc.
Just pure, simple and eternal Newton.
The myth, perversely reproduced is that von Soldner (the only one who took this job on his shoulders) only provided half that value.
Because THIS IS THE METHOD of cretins using FAKE NEWS over the herd's mind ALL THE TIME.
FAKE NEWS: Are you familiar with this term? Ask Trump or Vietnamese or WWII jam or.....
99.9999% of people was, is and will be FUCKING IDIOTS who just get the news by the title or from mouth to mouth (gossip).
Only a few are suspicious and do research (or just read the entire article and not the headlines).
That's the way the world works, and it's getting worse with these new generations since the '70s.
Actually, they were idiots all the time, no matter the century.
DOUBT, QUESTION, RESEARCH, DON'T BORROW KNOWLEDGE. DEVELOP KNOWLEDGE BY YOUR OWN, USING SOURCES WITH CARE.

i apologize for a mistake. I squared the Sun radius in the formula.

It has to be:

tan ω = sinω/cosω ≈ ω ≈ 2g/c² = 2GM/(Rsun c²) = rS/Rsun =1/471142 radians = 1.75/2 arcseconds

2 ω = 4GM/(Rsun c²) = 1.75 arcseconds (1915 value in GR and 1801 value for full hyperbolic trajectory).

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Richard Hertz
If we substitute into the formula for tang ω the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the sun, and assume the radius of this body as
unity, then we find ω = 0".84. If it were possible to observe the fixed stars very nearly at the sun, then we would have to take this into
consideration. However, as it is well known that this doesn’t happen, then also the perturbation of the sun shall be neglected.

Just as I thought. He doubled the figure for the sun and arrived at 0.84
seconds deviation. In fact, he is the _source_ of the "Newtonian"
prediction of 0.84" deviation. He was the first to calculate it.

He initially calculates it for a star near the horizon being observed on
earth (one incoming leg of the hyperbola) and decides it's not
observable. (<0.001" deviation). Then he repeats for a star grazing the
moon, mentions the figure must be doubled for both legs of the hyperbola
and states the figure is even more insignificant. Then he does the same
for the sun and doubling for both legs comes up with 0.84", comments
that this would need to be taken into account for observing stars at the
sun's limb, which, he states, is not possible.

But at least we got Richard to admit Einstein was correct!

[Richard Hertz]

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 1:42:53 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

Post by Michael Moroney
Just as I thought. He doubled the figure for the sun and arrived at 0.84
seconds deviation. In fact, he is the _source_ of the "Newtonian"
prediction of 0.84" deviation. He was the first to calculate it.
He initially calculates it for a star near the horizon being observed on
earth (one incoming leg of the hyperbola) and decides it's not
observable. (<0.001" deviation). Then he repeats for a star grazing the
moon, mentions the figure must be doubled for both legs of the hyperbola
and states the figure is even more insignificant.
Then he does the same for the sun and doubling for both legs comes up with 0.84", comments
that this would need to be taken into account for observing stars at the sun's limb, which, he states, is not possible.

NO, FUCKING RETARDED. HE DIDN'T WROTE THAT!

No wonder you are a relativist, and a VERY DYSLEXIC ONE, or an stupid who's TROLLING ME!

In von Soldner's mind, and IT IS WRITTEN THAT WAY, PATHETIC IMBECILE, he never EVER dreamed of observing starlight
deflection from Earth DUE TO THE SUN!

In that epoch, 1801, he clearly wrote about his concern over gravitational deflection of light of stars almost at the HORIZON!
And he only require half arm of an hyperbola, because that was the starlight path that HE DISCOVERED due to Earth's gravity:
From a DISTANT STAR right to the eye of the observer at Earth!

And having found that 0.001 arcsecond (1 mas) WAS FAR GREATER than the resolution in observational astronomy by then was
negligible, he DISCARDED the full theory and did other very interesting stuff for that time.

He plant the theory for observing starlight deflection due to the Sun 120 years in the future, but for being 1801, it was a color
anecdote on his paper.

He JOKED about the impossibility of observing stars standing on the trillion degrees Sun's surface, yet he did the calculation with
his GENERAL FORMULA, which gave ω = 0".84, but BEING THERE, ASSHOLE!

From Earth, the asymptote of the hyperbola and the hyperbolic path differs only 100 Km in 143 million Km, so it can be held for BOTH
THEORIES, that starlight path comes from infinity and goes to infinity (discarding such small difference, even Einstein).

Now, this is my last try with you, Moroney. I'll present the formula in MODERN NOTATION, as you didn't give a shit about HOW HE ARRIVED
TO IT. Then, right from the final part of the paper:

***************************************************************
In modern notation, g = GM ; v = c ; radius of the celestial body R (he used R = 1)

GMsun = 1,33E+20 m³/s² ; Rsun = 6.9634E+08 m ; c² = 8.9875517873682E+16 m²/s²

tangω = 2GMsun/{(Rsun c²) [√(1 − 4 GMsun/(c² Rsun)]}

As (4 GMsun/c² Rsun) = 8.482207E-06 << 1, then tangω ≈ 2GMsun/(Rsun c²)

AND, as ω << 1 radian (about 4.2E-06 radians), then tangω ≈ ω

Finally, in modern notation, von Soldner angle for ONE ARM of the hyperbola at Sun's surface is:

ω ≈ 2GMsun/(Rsun c²) ≈ rS/Rsun = 2951/696340000 = 4.23787E-06 radians = 0.86989 arcseconds

If such star, which light is passing by the limb of the Sun, is seen from Earth, the deviation would be:

ψ ≈ 2 ω ≈ 8.47574E-06 radians = 1.73977 arcseconds

Which is value given by Einstein in 1915, with ψ = 4 GMsun/(Rsun c²): EXACTLY what gives von Soldner's 1801 formula.
***************************************************************

Now, do whatever you want, from killing yourself to negate, twist, lie, distort, spit, scream, whine, kick the floor. YOU CAN'T BEAT THIS.

And, by the way, your POOR INTELLIGENCE IS SHOWN BY JUST JUMPING TO THE END AND CHANGE IT AS GONO DOES.

After all, you all are the same shitty thing: little minds in too big bodies.

If you want to disprove it, you'll HAVE TO WORK: Use the modern notations I wrote and start re-writing the paper from the END
to the BEGINNING. Then you'll see the light, asshole. Backing von Soldner are Laplace, Lagrange, Hamilton, Euler, Newton, Kepler.

Give it a try, I DARE YOU. I'll see how much resilience, patience and intelligence do you have, Mr. EE!

[Michael Moroney]

<snip>

Post by Michael Moroney
Just as I thought. He doubled the figure for the sun and arrived at 0.84
seconds deviation. In fact, he is the _source_ of the "Newtonian"
prediction of 0.84" deviation. He was the first to calculate it.
He initially calculates it for a star near the horizon being observed on
earth (one incoming leg of the hyperbola) and decides it's not
observable. (<0.001" deviation). Then he repeats for a star grazing the
moon, mentions the figure must be doubled for both legs of the hyperbola
and states the figure is even more insignificant.
Then he does the same for the sun and doubling for both legs comes up with 0.84", comments
that this would need to be taken into account for observing stars at the sun's limb, which, he states, is not possible.

NO, FUCKING RETARDED. HE DIDN'T WROTE THAT!

Well, whoever wrote that bit which you posted and I quoted sure did.

In von Soldner's mind, and IT IS WRITTEN THAT WAY, PATHETIC IMBECILE, he never EVER dreamed of observing starlight
deflection from Earth DUE TO THE SUN!
In that epoch, 1801, he clearly wrote about his concern over gravitational deflection of light of stars almost at the HORIZON!

Why yes. Then he wrote about gravitational deflection of light of stars
by the moon. He mentioned the need to double the calculation since both
arms of the hyperbola are traversed, not just one, as when observing
from earth a star on the horizon. He didn't give a figure for the moon
deviation, other than to state it was even smaller than earth's tiny
deviation.

Then he goes on to (theoretically) discuss a star whose light grazes the
sun's limb. He needs to double the calculation although he didn't spell
it out a second time. He arrived at the 0.84" figure. He mentioned that,
due to the sun's glare, he didn't expect anyone to ever detect that. The
best chance was with Venus, viewed at closest to the sun 2 minutes away,
but that wasn't close enough, so he concluded this deviation could be
ignored.

[snip an ENORMOUS amount of foam from Richard's mouth]

Naughty naughty, don't double for the two hyperbola arms twice!



Einstein triumphs over Dick Hurts again!!!!! :-)

[Richard Hertz]

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 6:55:12 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Michael Moroney
Then he does the same for the sun and doubling for both legs comes up with 0.84", comments
that this would need to be taken into account for observing stars at the sun's limb, which, he states, is not possible.

NO, FUCKING RETARDED. HE DIDN'T WROTE THAT!

Well, whoever wrote that bit which you posted and I quoted sure did.

Post by Richard Hertz
In von Soldner's mind, and IT IS WRITTEN THAT WAY, PATHETIC IMBECILE, he never EVER dreamed of observing starlight
deflection from Earth DUE TO THE SUN!
In that epoch, 1801, he clearly wrote about his concern over gravitational deflection of light of stars almost at the HORIZON!

Why yes. Then he wrote about gravitational deflection of light of stars
by the moon. He mentioned the need to double the calculation since both
arms of the hyperbola are traversed, not just one, as when observing
from earth a star on the horizon. He didn't give a figure for the moon
deviation, other than to state it was even smaller than earth's tiny deviation.

Moroney, the only explanation that I find for your behavior dealing with written words is that you are an idiot in the highest degree.
I'm now convinced that you are as imbecile dealing with relativity than dealing with classic physics.
I always had problems understanding why people, massively, is so imbecile. I never found an explanation, because I always firmly
believed that we are all created equals. I, maybe for pity, never could concede that some persons are much smarter than others.

This is MY PROBLEM, and I deal with it since I got awareness entering at college being 15, while the average age was 18.
And not only had this emotional conflict with fellow students. I had it with friends and family too
Even when I make a tirade of insults about intelligence (imbecile, retarded, asshole, idiot, etc.) I NEVER think that it's real. I just use
insults to play the game here, in this fucking forum.

And then, your attitude in understanding makes me face my classic dilemma: Are you really stupid? I don't know what stupidity is, when
it comes to understand things. In the case of hard sciences, where mathematics and logic rules, my best approach to stupidity was/is
that people is LAZY and don't work enough on the problems.

Friends and colleagues tried to convince me, ALL MY ADULT LIFE, that's not that way. That there are persons which are MORE intelligent
than others. I always fought this because I always think that God can't be so cruel.

And, even today, I prefer to talk about laziness, stubbornness and biasing of thought by other factors besides just being logically correct.

I swear by God that I don't understand your mechanism of thought. I don't claim any mental superiority but just more additional work
than others. I have SEVERE PROBLEMS accepting that some people (like you) is less gifted mentally. And, believe or not, it causes me
great distress to accept that. It's just too SAD!

Post by Michael Moroney
Then he goes on to (theoretically) discuss a star whose light grazes the
sun's limb. He needs to double the calculation although he didn't spell
it out a second time. He arrived at the 0.84" figure. He mentioned that,
due to the sun's glare, he didn't expect anyone to ever detect that. The
best chance was with Venus, viewed at closest to the sun 2 minutes away,
but that wasn't close enough, so he concluded this deviation could be ignored.

I'm going to let you with your way of understanding, as I can't deal with my conflict about mental differences on people.

It just causes me A LOT OF PAIN. And, if you are sincere, you'll recognize that my attitude has been the same all these years.

Here, visibly, and in my personal life dealing with others. At difference of some others, I never ever thought myself as
mentally superior to other members. I think that I know more, work more, don't cheat myself or onto others and that's it.
But I'm not going around showing off my intelligence, because it's (for me) the lowest behavior of a human being. Even
more than comparing beauty.

I prefer to think that you're locked into a line of thought, and that your pride prevents you to think differently.

Not that you are a fully fledged idiot.

So, enjoy your einstein. After all, life is too short to fight about this shit.

[Paul Alsing]

Post by Richard Hertz
So, enjoy your einstein. After all, life is too short to fight about this shit.

So, you will be going away?

[Paul Alsing]

Post by Richard Hertz
GET THE FIGURE ON THE WEB. MOST OF THE WORK IS TO FIND A FUNCTION THAT VERIFIES THE TRAJECTORY OF STARLIGHT
TOWARD THE EYES OF AN OBSERVER ON EARTH'S SURFACE. THEN HE GENERALIZES (ALWAYS HALF THE TRAJECTORY, DUE TO THIS).
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/File:Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung.jpg
On the deflection of a light ray from its rectilinear motion, by the attraction of a celestial body at which it nearly passes by.
By Johann Georg von Soldner. Berlin, March 1801.
At the current, so much perfected state of practical astronomy, it becomes more necessary to develop from the theory (that is from the
general properties and interactions of matter) all circumstances that can have an influence on a celestial body: to take advantage from
a good observation, as much as it can give.
Although it is true that we can become aware of considerable deviations from a taken rule by observation and by chance: as it was the
case with the aberration of light. Yet deviations can exist which are so small, so that it is hard to decide whether they are true deviations
or observational errors. Also deviations can exist, which are indeed considerable—but if they are combined with quantities whose
determination is not completely finished, they can escape the notice of an experienced observer.
Of the latter kind may also be the deflection of a light ray from the straight line, when it comes near to a celestial body, and therefore
considerably experiences its attraction. Since we can easily see that this deflection is greatest when (as seen at the surface of the
attracted body) the light ray arrives in horizontal direction, and becomes zero in perpendicular direction, then the magnitude of deflection
will be a function of height. However, since also the ray-refraction is a function of height, then these two quantities must be mutually
combined: therefore it might be possible, that the deflection would amount several seconds in its maximum, although it couldn't be
determined by observations so far.
These are nearly the considerations, which drove me to still think about the perturbation of light rays, which as far as I know was not
studied by anyone. Before I start the investigation, I still want to give some general remarks, by which the calculation will be simplified.
Since at the beginning I only want to specify the maximum of such a deflection, I horizontally let pass the light at the location of
observation (at the surface of the attracting body), or I assume that the star from which it comes, is apparently rising. For convenience
of the study we assume: the light ray doesn’t arrive at the place of observation, but emanates from it.
We can easily see, that this is completely irrelevant for the determination of the figure of the trajectory. Furthermore if a light ray arrives
at a point at the surface of the attracting body in horizontal direction, and then again continues its way (at the beginning horizontally
again): then we can easily see, that with this continuation it describes the same curved line, which it has followed until here. If we draw
through the place of observation and the center of the attracting body a straight line, then this line will be the major axis of the curved
one for the trajectory of light; by describing over and under this line two fully congruent sides of the curved line.
C (Figure 1) shall now be the center of the attracting body, A is the location at its surface. From A, a light ray goes into the direction AD or
in the horizontal direction, by a velocity with which it traverses the way v in a second. Yet the light ay, instead of traveling at the straight line
AD, will forced by the celestial body to describe a curved line AMQ, whose nature we will investigate. Upon this curved line after the time
(calculated from the instant of emanation from A), the light ray is located in M, at the distance CM = r from the center of the attracting body.
g be the gravitational acceleration at the surface of the body. Furthermore CP = x, MP = y and the angle MCP = h. The force, by which the
light in M will be attracted by the body into the direction MC, will be 2g/r². This force can be decomposed into two other forces,
2g/r² cos h and 2g/r² sin h , into the directions x and y; and for that we obtain the following two equations (s.Traité de mécanique céleste
par Laplace, Tome I, pag. 21)
d²x/dt² = − (2g cos h)/r² (I)
d²y/dt² = − (2g sin h)/r² (II)
(d²y cos h − d²x sin h)/dt² = 0 (III)
(d²y cos h + d²x sin h)/dt² = −2g/r² (IV)
To reduce in these equations the number of variable quantities, we express x and y by r and h. We easily see that
x = r cos h; y = r sin h
dx = cos h dr − r sin h dh; dy = sin h dr + r cos h dh
And if we differentiate again,
d²x = cos h d dr − 2sin h dh dr − r sin h d²h − r cos h dh² and
d²y = sin h d²r + 2cos h dh dr + r cos h d²h − r sin h dh²
(d²y cos h − d²x sin h)/dt² = (2dhdr + rddh)/dt²
(2dh dr + r d²h)/dt² = 0 (V). And furthermore by (IV),
(d²r − r dh²)/dt² = −2g/r² (VI)
(2r dh dr + r² d²h)/dt = 0
r² dh = C dt, where C is an arbitrary constant magnitude.
To specify C, we note that r²dh (= rrdh) is equal to: the double area of the small triangle which described the radius vector r in the time dt.
The double area of the triangle that is described in the first second of time, is however: = AC v ; thus we have C = AC v.
And if we assume the radius AC of the attracting body as unity, what we will always do in the following, then C = v. If we substitute this
value for C into the previous equations, then: r² dh = v dt,
Thus we have
dh = v dt/r² (VII)
d²r/dt² − v²/r³ = −2g/r²
(2dr d²r )/dt² − 2v²dr/r³ = 4gdr/r²
and if we integrate again,
dr²/dt² + v²/r³ = 4g/r + D
where D is a constant magnitude, that depends on the constant magnitudes which are contained in the equation. From this equation
dt = dr/√(D + 4g/r − v²/r²)
dh = v dr/r² √[D + 4g/r − v²/r²]
dh = v dr/r² √[D + 4g²/v² − (v/r − 2g/v)²]
Now we put
v/r − 2g/v = z
then we have vdr/r² = −dz
dh = −dz/√(D + 4g²/v² − z²)
From that the integral is now: h = arccos [z/√( D + 4g²/v²)] + α
cos (h −α ) = z/√(D + 4g²/v²)
cos (h −α) = (v² − 2g/r)/r √(v²D + 4g²)
h −α would be the angle that r forms with the major axis of the curved line that has to be specified. Since furthermore h is the angle
which r forms with the line AF (the axis of the coordinates x and y), then α must be the angle that forms the major axis with the line AF.
However, since AF goes through the observation place and the center of the attracting body, then by the preceding, AF must be the major
cos h = (v² − 2gr)/r √(v²D + 4g²)
√(v²D + 4g²) = v² − 2g
cos h = (v² − 2gr )/r √(v² − 2g)
furthermore by that
r + [(v² − 2g )/2g]r cos h = v²/2g (VIII)
From this finite equation between r and h, the curved line can be specified. To achieve this more conveniently, we again want to
x =1− r cos h; y = r sin h , and
r = √[(1− x)² + y²]
y² = [v² (v² − 4g )/4g²] (1− x)² − [v² (v² − 2g )/2g²] (1− x) + v²/4g²
and if we properly develop everything,
y² = v²x/g + [v² (v² − 4g )/4g²] x²/4g² (IX)
Since this equation is of second degree, then the curved line is a conic section, that can be studied more closely now.
If p is the parameter and a the semi-major axis, then (if we calculate the abscissa with its start at the vertex) the general equation
y² = px + px²/2a
This equation contains the properties of the parabola, when the coefficient of x² is zero; that of the ellipse when it is negative; and that
of the hyperbola when it is positive. The latter is evidently the case in our equation (IX). Since for all our known celestial bodies 4g is
smaller than v², then the coefficient of x² must be positive.
If thus a light ray passes a celestial body, then it will be forced by the attraction of the body to describe a hyperbola whose concave side
is directed against the attracting body, instead of progressing in a straight direction.
The conditions, under which the light ray would describe another conic section, can now easily be specified. It would describe a parabola
when 4g = v², an ellipse when 4g were greater than v², and a circle when 2g = v². Since we don’t know any celestial body whose mass is
so great that it can generate such an acceleration at its surface, then the light ray always describes a hyperbola in our known world.
Now, it only remains to investigate, to what extend the light ray will be deflected from its straight line; or how great is the perturbation
angle (which is the way I want to call it).
Since the figure of the trajectory is now specified, we can consider the light ray again as arriving. And because I want to specify only the
maximum perturbation angle, I assume that the light ray comes from an infinitely great distance.
The maximum must take place in this case, because the attracting body longer acts on the light ray when it comes from a greater than
from a smaller distance.
If the light ray comes from an infinite distance, then its initial direction is that of the asymptote BR (Figure 1) of the hyperbola, because in
an infinitely great distant the asymptote falls into the tangent. Yet the light ray comes into the eye of the observer in the direction DA, thus
ADB will be the perturbation angle.
If we call this angle ω, then we have, since the triangle ABD at A is right-angled: tan ω = AB/AD
However, it is known from the nature of the hyperbola, that AB is the semi-major axis, and AD the semi-lateral axis. Thus this magnitudes
p = 2b²/a
If we substitute this value into the general equation of hyperbola
y² = px + px²/2a
y² = 2b²x/a + b²x²/a²
If we compare this coefficients of x and x2 with those in (IX), then we obtain the semi-major axis
a = 2g/(v² − 4g ) = AB
the semi-lateral axis
b = v/√(v² − 4g) = AD
tangω = 2g/v √(v² − 4g)
We now want to give an application of this formula on earth, and investigate, to what extend a light ray is deflected from its straight line,
when it passes by at the surface of earth.
Under the presupposition, that light requires 564.8 seconds of time to come from the sun to earth, we find that it traverses 15.562085
earth radii in a second.
Thus v = 15.562085. If we take under the geographical latitude its square of the sine 1/3 (that corresponds to a latitude of 35˚16'), the
earth radius by 6,369,514 meters, and the acceleration of gravity by 3.66394 meters (s. Traité de mécanique céleste par Laplace, Tome I,
pag. 118): then, expressed in earth radii, g = 0.000000575231.
I use this arrangement, to take the most recent and most reliable specifications of the size of earth’s radius and the acceleration of
gravity, without specific reduction from the Traité de mécanique céleste . By that, nothing will be changed in the final result, because it is
only about the relation of the velocity of light to the velocity of a falling body on earth. The earth radius and the acceleration of gravity
must therefore taken under the mentioned degree of latitude, since the earth spheroid (regarding its physical content) is equal to a sphere
which has earth’s radius (or 6,369,514 meters) as its radius.
If we substitute these values for v and g into the equation of tang ω, then we obtain (in sexagesimal seconds) ω = 0".0009798, or in even
number, ω = 0".001.
Since this maximum is totally insignificant, it would be superfluous to go further; or to specify how this value decreases with the height
above the horizon; and by what value it decreases, when the distance of the star from which the light ray comes, is assumed as finite and
equal to a certain size. A specification that would bear no difficulty.
If we want to investigate by the given formula, to what extend a light ray is deflected by the moon when it passes the moon and travels to
earth, then we must (after the relevant magnitudes are substituted and the radius of the moon is taken as unity) double the value that was
found by the formula; because the light ray that passes the moon and falls upon earth, describes two arms of the hyperbola.
But nevertheless the maximum must still be much smaller than that of earth; because the mass of the moon, and thus g, is much smaller.
The inflexion must therefore only stem from cohesion, scattering of light, and the atmosphere of the moon; the general attraction doesn’t
contribute anything significant.
If we substitute into the formula for tang ω the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the sun, and assume the radius of this body as
unity, then we find ω = 0".84. If it were possible to observe the fixed stars very nearly at the sun, then we would have to take this into
consideration. However, as it is well known that this doesn’t happen, then also the perturbation of the sun shall be neglected.
For light rays that come from Venus (which was observed by Vidal only two minutes from the border of the sun, s. Hr. O. L. v. Zachs
monatliche Correspondenz etc. II. Band pag 87.) it amounts much less; because we cannot assume the distances of Venus and Earth
from the sun as infinitely great.
By combination of several bodies, that might be encountered by the light ray on its way, the results would be somewhat greater; but
certainly always imperceptible for our observations.
Thus it is proven: that it is not necessary, at least at the current state of practical astronomy, to consider the perturbation of light rays by
attracting celestial bodies.
Hopefully no one finds it problematic, that I treat a light ray almost as a ponderable body. That light rays possess all absolute properties
of matter, can be seen at the phenomenon of aberration, which is only possible when light rays are really material. And furthermore, we
cannot think of things that exist and act on our senses, without having the properties of matter.
nihil est quod possis dicere ab omni
corpore seiunctum secretumque esse ab inani,
quod quasi tertia sit numero natura reperta.
Lucretius de nat. rer. I, 431

"This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read."

- Winston Churchill

[Richard Hertz]

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 1:52:02 AM UTC-3, Paul Alsing wrote:

<snip>

Post by Paul Alsing
"This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read."
- Winston Churchill

Well, you managed to pass from a fraudster cretin to a mass murderer sociopath. Good for you and your synapses at work.

It tell me volumes about who you really are in real life: a lazy headline's reader, but fully opinionated without substance. Excellent.

[Paul Alsing]

<snip>

Post by Paul Alsing
"This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read."
- Winston Churchill

Well, you managed to pass from a fraudster cretin to a mass murderer sociopath. Good for you and your synapses at work.
It tell me volumes about who you really are in real life: a lazy headline's reader, but fully opinionated without substance. Excellent.

Nah, I'm none of those things... I just like to poke cranks and crackpots, especially those who are long-winded...

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Paul Alsing

<snip>

Post by Paul Alsing
"This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read."
- Winston Churchill

Well, you managed to pass from a fraudster cretin to a mass murderer sociopath. Good for you and your synapses at work.
It tell me volumes about who you really are in real life: a lazy headline's reader, but fully opinionated without substance. Excellent.

Nah, I'm none of those things... I just like to poke cranks and crackpots, especially those who are long-winded...

Me too. With the sharp pointy stick of science.

[Richard Hertz]

<snip>

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Paul Alsing

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Paul Alsing
"This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read."
- Winston Churchill

Well, you managed to pass from a fraudster cretin to a mass murderer sociopath. Good for you and your synapses at work.
It tell me volumes about who you really are in real life: a lazy headline's reader, but fully opinionated without substance. Excellent.

Nah, I'm none of those things... I just like to poke cranks and crackpots, especially those who are long-winded...

Me too. With the sharp pointy stick of science.

Moroney, you enjoy sitting on your sharp pointy stick twice a day, and yet you don't see the light (only little stars dancing on your
head due to the pain). Well, your choice to be a sadomasochist at science. Pay the price for dealing with relativity for decades.

Who am I to judge deviations (of thought)? Except to remark for one million time: you are a fucking retarded!

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Paul Alsing

<snip>

Post by Paul Alsing
"This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read."
- Winston Churchill

Well, you managed to pass from a fraudster cretin to a mass murderer sociopath. Good for you and your synapses at work.
It tell me volumes about who you really are in real life: a lazy headline's reader, but fully opinionated without substance. Excellent.

Nah, I'm none of those things... I just like to poke cranks and crackpots, especially those who are long-winded...

Me too. With the sharp pointy stick of science.

Sharp pointy sticks of science, like calling the opponent
a drunk janitor.

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Paul Alsing

<snip>

Post by Paul Alsing
"This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read."
- Winston Churchill

Well, you managed to pass from a fraudster cretin to a mass murderer sociopath. Good for you and your synapses at work.
It tell me volumes about who you really are in real life: a lazy headline's reader, but fully opinionated without substance. Excellent.

Nah, I'm none of those things... I just like to poke cranks and crackpots, especially those who are long-winded...

Me too. With the sharp pointy stick of science.

Sharp pointy sticks of science, like calling the opponent
a drunk janitor.

Yes, drunk janitor, I poke you with the sharp pointy stick of science
too. I know you're allergic to science so I try not to poke you too hard.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Paul Alsing

<snip>

Post by Paul Alsing
"This report, by its very length, defends itself against the risk of being read."
- Winston Churchill

Well, you managed to pass from a fraudster cretin to a mass murderer sociopath. Good for you and your synapses at work.
It tell me volumes about who you really are in real life: a lazy headline's reader, but fully opinionated without substance. Excellent.

Nah, I'm none of those things... I just like to poke cranks and crackpots, especially those who are long-winded...

Me too. With the sharp pointy stick of science.

Sharp pointy sticks of science, like calling the opponent
a drunk janitor.

Yes, drunk janitor, I poke you with the sharp pointy stick of science

In your dreams you surely do; in the real world you're only able
to bark and spit, just like your fellow idiots.

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Richard Hertz
On the deflection of a light ray from its rectilinear motion, by the attraction of a celestial body at which it nearly passes by.
By Johann Georg von Soldner. Berlin, March 1801.
<snip>
tangω = 2g/v √(v² − 4g)
We now want to give an application of this formula on earth, and investigate, to what extend a light ray is deflected from its straight line,
when it passes by at the surface of earth.
Under the presupposition, that light requires 564.8 seconds of time to come from the sun to earth, we find that it traverses 15.562085
earth radii in a second.
Thus v = 15.562085. If we take under the geographical latitude its square of the sine 1/3 (that corresponds to a latitude of 35˚16'), the
earth radius by 6,369,514 meters, and the acceleration of gravity by 3.66394 meters (s. Traité de mécanique céleste par Laplace, Tome I,
pag. 118): then, expressed in earth radii, g = 0.000000575231.
I use this arrangement, to take the most recent and most reliable specifications of the size of earth’s radius and the acceleration of
gravity, without specific reduction from the Traité de mécanique céleste . By that, nothing will be changed in the final result, because it is
only about the relation of the velocity of light to the velocity of a falling body on earth. The earth radius and the acceleration of gravity
must therefore taken under the mentioned degree of latitude, since the earth spheroid (regarding its physical content) is equal to a sphere
which has earth’s radius (or 6,369,514 meters) as its radius.
If we substitute these values for v and g into the equation of tang ω, then we obtain (in sexagesimal seconds) ω = 0".0009798, or in even
number, ω = 0".001.

Verifying Soldner's calculation:

ω = arctan(2g/(v⋅√(v² − 4g)))
g = 0.000000575231
v = 15.562085
w = 4.75047e-09 rad = 0".000979855

OK! (the wrong result is correctly calculated from the wrong formula)

Let's compare this to the GR-prediction.

If a star is observed at the horizon, then GR predicts
that the star's real angle below the horizon is:

ω = 2GM/rc² where r = radius of Earth and M = mass of Earth
ω = 1.39258e-9 rad = 0".0002872

Soldner's result is 3.4 times greater than GR's.

ω = 2GM/rc² ≠ arctan(2g/(v⋅√(v² − 4g)))

I think we both know which equation is correct.

[Richard Hertz]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Richard Hertz
On the deflection of a light ray from its rectilinear motion, by the attraction of a celestial body at which it nearly passes by.
By Johann Georg von Soldner. Berlin, March 1801.
<snip>
tangω = 2g/v √(v² − 4g)
We now want to give an application of this formula on earth, and investigate, to what extend a light ray is deflected from its straight line,
when it passes by at the surface of earth.
Under the presupposition, that light requires 564.8 seconds of time to come from the sun to earth, we find that it traverses 15.562085
earth radii in a second.
Thus v = 15.562085. If we take under the geographical latitude its square of the sine 1/3 (that corresponds to a latitude of 35˚16'), the
earth radius by 6,369,514 meters, and the acceleration of gravity by 3.66394 meters (s. Traité de mécanique céleste par Laplace, Tome I,
pag. 118): then, expressed in earth radii, g = 0.000000575231.
I use this arrangement, to take the most recent and most reliable specifications of the size of earth’s radius and the acceleration of
gravity, without specific reduction from the Traité de mécanique céleste . By that, nothing will be changed in the final result, because it is
only about the relation of the velocity of light to the velocity of a falling body on earth. The earth radius and the acceleration of gravity
must therefore taken under the mentioned degree of latitude, since the earth spheroid (regarding its physical content) is equal to a sphere
which has earth’s radius (or 6,369,514 meters) as its radius.
If we substitute these values for v and g into the equation of tang ω, then we obtain (in sexagesimal seconds) ω = 0".0009798, or in even
number, ω = 0".001.

ω = arctan(2g/(v⋅√(v² − 4g)))
g = 0.000000575231
v = 15.562085
w = 4.75047e-09 rad = 0".000979855
OK! (the wrong result is correctly calculated from the wrong formula)
Let's compare this to the GR-prediction.
If a star is observed at the horizon, then GR predicts
ω = 2GM/rc² where r = radius of Earth and M = mass of Earth
ω = 1.39258e-9 rad = 0".0002872
Soldner's result is 3.4 times greater than GR's.
ω = 2GM/rc² ≠ arctan(2g/(v⋅√(v² − 4g)))
I think we both know which equation is correct.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/

I'm not going to correct you, Paul. Read my answer to Moroney just one minute ago. It applies to you also.

But, in your case, there are some differences with Moroney. You are more trained in technical thinking using knowledge, logic
and mathematical physics.

Your answer causes me a greater distress than Moroney's, because you LIE, you BLATANTLY LIE, and using math.

And I find it the peak of cretinism, because you ABUSE of your knowledge to lie and distort truth.

I'm not going to engage in a discussion a la Bodkin, endlessly. You HAVE TO know that you lied, that what you wrote is FALSE
but it seems that you don't have any problem being that way.

I wrote my points here, in the most clear and detailed way that I'm able to.

It's your problem what to do with my position and yours. I'm not recruiting for my "school of thought". I didn't created it.

Such "school of thought" is based on knowledge, understanding and HONESTY (above all).

But you prefer to be DISHONEST. OK, live with that, but far from me.

Somebody may find the honest truth embedded in this thread.

Lucky is that we are discussing about mathematical physics, which makes discussions shorter.

Can't imagine you discussing about politics or religion. I don't embark in such venues, for sure.

[Richard Hertz]

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 11:17:54 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

<snip>

Post by Paul B. Andersen
ω = arctan(2g/(v⋅√(v² − 4g)))
g = 0.000000575231
v = 15.562085
w = 4.75047e-09 rad = 0".000979855
OK! (the wrong result is correctly calculated from the wrong formula)
Let's compare this to the GR-prediction.
If a star is observed at the horizon, then GR predicts
ω = 2GM/rc² where r = radius of Earth and M = mass of Earth
ω = 1.39258e-9 rad = 0".0002872
Soldner's result is 3.4 times greater than GR's.
ω = 2GM/rc² ≠ arctan(2g/(v⋅√(v² − 4g)))
I think we both know which equation is correct.

Paul, we both know that 1801 ω = arctan(2g/(v⋅√(v² − 4g))) ≈ 2g/v² = 2GM/rc² (last one in modern, physical notation).

Had you READ von Soldner's paper translation, you would have found that he made a mistake of almost 3 in this strange paragraph.
I detected it two days ago, when checking his OLD NOTATION ABOUT EARTH'S VALUES:

"Under the presupposition, that light requires 564.8 seconds of time to come from the sun to earth, we find that it traverses 15.562085 earth radii in a second."

MY NOTE (Jan 7) : IT GIVES 5,59846E+07 Km and c = 99122,92 Km/s (1/3 real values!).

He, knowingly or not (I don't know what values used Laplace for Earth, which he adopt) calculated Earth's value as 1/3 of the correct
value. You can tell that he used 1/3 of the speed of light for Earth's calculation by just a simple comparison on the same paper:

He got 0".84 for ω(Sun) and he got 0".001 for ω(Earth).

With modern formulae, ω(Sun)/ω(Earth) = 3050.53.

It means that ω(Earth) = 0.00032781 ω(Sun) = 0.00032781x 0".84 arcsec = 0.00027536 arcsec.

But he wrote ω(Earth) = 0".0009798 arcsec ≈ 0".001 arcsec, a value ALMOST THREE TIMES LOWER than the true values, as is EVIDENT
when you translate such old values for Earth that he borrowed from Laplace: three times lower distance from the Sun and three times
lower speed of light (both values were fairly well known by 1801). And the proof is the value ω(Sun) = 0".84.

As it's proven that 1801 ω ≈ 2g/v² and 1911 ω = 2GM/rc² ARE EQUALS (in the order of 10E-06), it's also proven the validity of
von Soldner calculations, except the unfortunate error on ω(Earth), which I think is due to his use of the "fresh" Laplace's Teatrise (vol I),
which I've read this weekend, using "Traite de mecanique celeste, tome 1. Perturbations des planetes.djvu" (the only weird format in which
I got a copy in old French).

For me, this is settled and written in stone: von Soldner preceded Einstein for almost exactly 110 years (1801 - 1911).

Be intellectually honest, Paul, and verify that wrong paragraph. Data for recalculation is simple and available everywhere.

[Dono.]

snip crap<

It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".


Cretinoid,

It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

[Richard Hertz]

On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 11:39:08 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

Post by Dono.
It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

These jews disagree with you, fucking reptilian lifeform. Nazism appeared 100 years after von Soldner death (1833).
You hate me, but I don't hate you, Gono.
I just despise you, genetic garbage.


Why don't you complain about Gauss , Ohm , Weber , von Helmholtz , Clausius , Kirchhoff , Röntgen , Michelson , Hertz ,
Planck , Wien , Sommerfeld , Hahn , von Laue , Franck , Born, etc.?

Despicable slug, resented with a couple of historic scientists just because they were better than the cretin fraudster that you worship?

ENJOY THIS, FROM SOME NORMAL JEWS TO YOU:

The author claims not having conflict of interest, but slips a little.

He wrote: "IF WE CORRECT THE TYPO DISPLAYED IN FIGURE 3". Now it comes that von Soldner published deleted
the 2 factor in 2ω and, time after, another editor restaured (by hand at the printed copy) such factor 2X.
NO SHAME IN RE-WRITING HISTORY. Because as days passes, von Soldner concepts are gaining momentum and is
causing buthurt, but-itching, but-bloating, etc.


***********************************************************************
Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two
Tilman Sauer

First published: 10 June 2021

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/andp.202100203


Abstract

The Newtonian value of 0.′′84
for the gravitational deflection of a ray of light from a distant star, grazing the rim of the Sun, was derived already in 1801 by
Johann Georg von Soldner. The same value was obtained by Albert Einstein in 1911 on the basis of the equivalence principle
alone. Four years later, Einstein predicted twice that value on the basis of the full theory of general relativity, a value that was
later confirmed by observation. A direct comparison of Soldner's and Einstein's works is obscured by a confluence of various
factors of 2, arising both from different conventions and from printing errors.
.........
In a recent paper, Jean-Marie Ginoux has done just that in a careful comparison of the two calculations.[9] It turns out that a direct comparison of Soldner's and Einstein's treatments is rather tricky, not the least because of a confusing conflation of various factors of 2. The following note is largely based on Ref. [9].
..........
Lenard had an interest in Soldner giving a value of 0.′′84 since he had made it clear before that in his understanding the British
eclipse results would favor a Newtonian value rather than the full relativistic one.

Concerning the mistake, Treder and Jackisch agreed with Lenard and emphasized that Soldner here “fell a victim to the printer's devil.”
They also found handwritten corrections (conjectured to have been made perhaps by the editor Bode himself) in the copy of the
Jahrbuch available to them. They wrote: “[…] Soldner's paper contains two misprints, to which Lenard rightly called attention. In the
present exemplar of “Astronomisches Jahrbuch” of the Berliner Sternwarte of 1804 those two misprints have for generations been
corrected by hand (it is unknown if by Bode himself). Both misprints consist in that now a factor 2 is missing although the deduction
and the context do require it.
.......
Indeed, Soldner's paper states very clearly that the relation does require that additional factor of 2. Immediately, in the passage before,
he wrote: “If one were to investigate by means of the given formula how much the moon would deviate a light ray when it goes by the
moon and comes to the earth, then one must, after substituting the corresponding magnitudes and taking the radius of the moon for
unity, double the value found through the formula, because a light ray, which goes by the moon and comes to the earth describes two
arms of a hyperbola.”[8]
.........
Nevertheless, plugging in the numbers for the radius and gravitational acceleration of the Sun, his equation does give a value of
2𝜔=0′′.84,
as was quoted by Soldner, IF WE CORRECT THE TYPO DISPLAYED IN FIGURE 3.
...........
7] J. G. v. Soldner, Astronomisches Jahrbuch für das Jahr 1804 nebst einer Sammlung der neuesten astronomischen
Wissenschaften, einschlagenden Abhandlungen, Beobachtungen und Nachrichten 1801, 29, 161.

[8] S. Jaki, Found. Phys. 1978, 8, 927

[9] J.-M. Ginoux, Found. Sci. 2021.

[10] H.-J. Treder, G. Jackisch, Astron. Nachr. 1981, 302, 275.

[11] See http://opacplus.bsb-muenchen.de/title/6266549/ft/bsb10538333?page=179

[12] C. Will, Am. J. Phys. 1988, 56, 413.

***********************************************************************

See how disgusting PIGS relativists are? IF WE CORRECT THE TYPO IN FIGURE 3, wrote the motherfucker!

Also, they can rewrite the entire paper IF IT WASN'T PUBLISHED 200 years ago and TREASURED by the
Leibniz-Institut für Astrophysik, Potsdam, which located and provided a copy of their version of Ref. [7]:

********************************************************************
In von Soldner's written words (original, photo at the link of this article):

Wenn wir nach der gegebenen Formel untersuchen wollen, inwieweit ein Lichtstrahl vom Mond abgelenkt wird, wenn er den Mond
passiert und zur Erde gelangt, dann müssen wir (nachdem die entsprechenden Größen eingesetzt und der Mondradius angenommen
wird als Eins) verdoppeln den Wert, der von der Formel gefunden wurde; denn der Lichtstrahl, der den Mond passiert und auf die Erde
fällt, beschreibt zwei Arme der Hyperbel.

Wenn man in der Formel für tang w die Beſchleunigung der Schwere auf der Oberfläche der Sonne ſubſituirt, und den Halbmeſſer dieſes
Körpers für die Einheit annimmt, ſo findet man w=0,84. Wenn man Fixſterne ſehr nahe an der Sonne beobachten könnte, ſo würde man
wohl darauf Rücksicht nehmen inüſlen. Da dies aber bekanntlich nicht geſchieht.
********************************************************************

[Richard Hertz]

And von Soldner NEVER MEANT to find the formula for the trajectory of starlight passing by massive celestial bodies.

His ONLY DRAWING says it all: from distant stars, light coming directly to the eye of an observer on the surface of Earth.
He even gave latitude and longitude coordinates!

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/File:Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung.jpg

Who tries to affirm that the drawing contain a FULL HYPERBOLA is a demented liar, worse than Goebbels and his entire staff!

What the poor von Soldner did was to solve his concern about accuracy of observational astronomy 220 years ago, and compare
the magnitude of such effect (if he succeeded) with others like aberration, diffraction, etc.

Nothing more, nothing less.

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Richard Hertz
And von Soldner NEVER MEANT to find the formula for the trajectory of starlight passing by massive celestial bodies.
His ONLY DRAWING says it all: from distant stars, light coming directly to the eye of an observer on the surface of Earth.
He even gave latitude and longitude coordinates!
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/File:Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung.jpg
Who tries to affirm that the drawing contain a FULL HYPERBOLA is a demented liar, worse than Goebbels and his entire staff!

Moron, have another jab from my sharp, pointy stick of physics!

Dumbfuck, did you even read the associated text? He writes "From A, a
light ray goes into the direction AD or in the horizontal direction, by
a velocity with which it traverses the way v in a second. Yet the light
ray, instead of traveling at the straight line AD, will forced by the
celestial body to describe a curved line AMQ, whose nature we will
investigate." That's FROM A, dumbfuck. FROM A. Meaning either it's half
of the complete deflection, starting when the light grazes the limb of
the sun/whatever, or he was plotting what happens if a light is aimed to
the horizon. Whatever he intended, it CANNOT be an earth observer
observing a star below the horizon, the light is going THE WRONG WAY!
Or did he believe in ancient beliefs where the eyes sent out feelers?

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 3:22:36 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:

<snip>

Post by Michael Moroney
Dumbfuck, did you even read the associated text? He writes "From A, a
light ray goes into the direction AD or in the horizontal direction, by
a velocity with which it traverses the way v in a second. Yet the light
ray, instead of traveling at the straight line AD, will forced by the
celestial body to describe a curved line AMQ, whose nature we will
investigate." That's FROM A, dumbfuck. FROM A. Meaning either it's half
of the complete deflection, starting when the light grazes the limb of
the sun/whatever, or he was plotting what happens if a light is aimed to
the horizon. Whatever he intended, it CANNOT be an earth observer
observing a star below the horizon, the light is going THE WRONG WAY!
Or did he believe in ancient beliefs where the eyes sent out feelers?

I don't want to call you new names. I think that you should hide your access to this forum better than your paid subscription
to your gay porn sites, scumbag.

You don't have any possible cure. Even a fucking gay can come straight, but you'll never return from your rotten, deviated corner
where you live along with your cretinism, imbecility, lies and world of twisted stories.

You are not dyslexic. You are a half-functioning retarded person that shouldn't be allowed to be outdoors. You're dangerous, Moroney.
Posting changed realities and asserting them as true, because you are a perverted mentally deviated person. You're scarier than Gono.

THIS IS THE REAL TEXT, MOTHERFUCKER:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"For CONVENIENCE of the study WE ASSUME: the light ray DOESN'T ARRIVE at the place of observation, but EMANATES from it."

"WE CAN EASILY SEE, THAT THIS IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT FOR THE DETERMINATION OF THE FIGURE OF THE TRAJECTORY. Furthermore if a light ray arrives at a point at the surface of the attracting body in horizontal direction, and then again continues its way
(at the beginning horizontally again): then we can easily see, that with this continuation IT DESCRIBES THE SAME CURVED LINE, which
it has followed until here. If we draw through the place of observation and the center of the attracting body a straight line, then this line
will be the major axis of the curved one for the trajectory of light; by describing over and under this line two fully congruent sides of the
curved line."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

You, Moroney, have less morality than a faggot in a GLBTQ in a PRIDE PARADE! What a waste of oxygen and food you are.

Despicable LIAR, give your place on Earth to somebody deserving it. You are a horrible human being. I pray for your family and friends.
They will have a surprise with you any of these days, fucking psychopath!

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Michael Moroney

Post by Richard Hertz
And von Soldner NEVER MEANT to find the formula for the trajectory of starlight passing by massive celestial bodies.
His ONLY DRAWING says it all: from distant stars, light coming directly to the eye of an observer on the surface of Earth.
He even gave latitude and longitude coordinates!
https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/File:Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung.jpg
Who tries to affirm that the drawing contain a FULL HYPERBOLA is a demented liar, worse than Goebbels and his entire staff!

Moron, have another jab from my sharp, pointy stick of physics!
Dumbfuck, did you even read the associated text? He writes "From A, a
light ray goes into the direction AD or in the horizontal direction, by
a velocity with which it traverses the way v in a second. Yet the light
ray, instead of traveling at the straight line AD, will forced by the
celestial body to describe a curved line AMQ,

Your moronic Shit, however, says that light [in vacuum] is
always travelling a straight line. Your mind is simply
polluted with Euclidean prejudices, stupid Mike.

[Dono.]

<snip>

Post by Dono.
It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

Why don't you complain about Gauss , Ohm , Weber , von Helmholtz , Clausius , Kirchhoff , Röntgen , Michelson , Hertz ,
Planck , Wien , Sommerfeld , Hahn , von Laue , Franck , Born, etc.?

Because it is YOU who are THE despicable piece of shit kapo.

[Dono.]

Post by Richard Hertz
The Newtonian value of 0.′′84
for the gravitational deflection of a ray of light from a distant star, grazing the rim of the Sun, was derived already in 1801 by
Johann Georg von Soldner. The same value was obtained by Albert Einstein in 1911 on the basis of the equivalence principle
alone. Four years later, Einstein predicted twice that value on the basis of the full theory of general relativity, a value that was
later confirmed by observation. A direct comparison of Soldner's and Einstein's works is obscured by a confluence of various
factors of 2, arising both from different conventions and from printing errors.

Cretinoid,


Einstein's number in 1911 is as wrong as Soldner's 1801 number. Both are irrelevant since in 1915, Einstein got the correct answer. Keep eating shit.

[Paul B. Andersen]

<snip>

Post by Paul B. Andersen
ω = arctan(2g/(v⋅√(v² − 4g)))
g = 0.000000575231
v = 15.562085
w = 4.75047e-09 rad = 0".000979855
OK! (the wrong result is correctly calculated from the wrong formula)
Let's compare this to the GR-prediction.
If a star is observed at the horizon, then GR predicts
ω = 2GM/rc² where r = radius of Earth and M = mass of Earth
ω = 1.39258e-9 rad = 0".0002872
Soldner's result is 3.4 times greater than GR's.

Paul, we both know that 1801 ω = arctan(2g/(v⋅√(v² − 4g))) ≈ 2g/v² = 2GM/rc² (last one in modern, physical notation).

Yes. I will come back to this below.

Had you READ von Soldner's paper translation, you would have found that he made a mistake of almost 3 in this strange paragraph.
"Under the presupposition, that light requires 564.8 seconds of time to come from the sun to earth, we find that it traverses 15.562085 earth radii in a second."
MY NOTE (Jan 7) : IT GIVES 5,59846E+07 Km and c = 99122,92 Km/s (1/3 real values!).

Right. Let's forget this wrong calculation by Soldner.

--------------

What von Soldner was the first to do, was to use
Newton's law of gravitation to calculate the deflection
of the trajectory of a test particle when it passed the Sun,
while it was moving at the speed of light relative to the Sun.

von Soldner found the equation ω ≈ 2GM/rc²

This calculation is repeated innumerable times
by a lot of authors.

You will find it in a lot of books, and here are
three of the many calculations you can find on the net:
https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-03/6-03.htm
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0508030
https://vixra.org/pdf/1301.0004v1.pdf

It is consensus among astronomers and physicists
about what the result is.

So this is settled, and written in stone:
==========================================
The Newtonian prediction for the gravitational bending
of light grazing the Sun is:
δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² = 0.87"

You claim that von Soldner's ω = δ/2, and that
von Soldner thus calculated that the Newtonian
prediction for the gravitational bending of light
grazing the Sun is: δ ≈ 4GM/Rc² = 1.75"
which is equal to the GR prediction.

But Richard, you must understand that you are making a giant
fool of yourself when you claim that one man got it right
in 1801, and that all the scientists who have repeated
the calculation during more than two centuries have got
it wrong by a factor of two.

-----------

I think that von Soldner got it right, but you are
misinterpreting him when you claim that his result
is δ ≈ 4GM/Rc² = 1.75"

See:
https://en.wikisource.org/?curid=755966

With reference to fig. 3 von Soldner says:
"The force, by which the light in M will be attracted by
the body into the direction MC, will be 2g/r²"

g/r² can only be the acceleration of a test particle in M,
not a force (see equations (I) and (II)), so g = GM.
But the acceleration of a test particle at M towards C
is GM/r² = g/r², it is NOT 2g/r².

von Soldner knew, an stated, that the full deflection
is twice the deflection in A (fig. 3).
He compensated for this by inserting the "2" which
will follow the calculation right to the end.
(The alternative is that it is a blunder, but I
don't think he would do such an elementary error.
But he could have explained why "2" was added.)

So his ω ≈ 2GM/rc² = 0.84" is the full deflection.

And he says:
"If we substitute into the formula for tang ω the acceleration
of gravity on the surface of the sun, and assume the radius of
this body as unity, then we find ω = 0".84. If it were possible
to observe the fixed stars very nearly at the sun, then we would
have to take this into consideration. However, as it is well
known that this doesn't happen, then also the perturbation of
the sun shall be neglected. "

(I think the translation could have been better.)

Richard, you said something about von Soldner having humour
and said that it was impossible to sit on the Sun, and that
it therefore was impossible to observe the deflection 0.84".
Was that a misinterpretation of von Soldner's statement above?

His statement is obviously that if we, from the Earth, could observe
a star very close to the Sun then we would have to take the ω = 0.84"
deflection into consideration. But since it is impossible from
the Earth to observe stars very close to the Sun we must ignore it.

von Soldner didn't think about that it would be possible to observe
stars close to the Sun at total eclipses. And to observe the ω = 0.84"
deflection one must compare the apparent position of star at the eclipse
to the position of the star when the Sun is elsewhere.
So he considered the observation impossible.

And as you have illustrated, it isn't easy.

Bottom line:
von Soldner got it right.
He calculated the Newtonian deflection of light
grazing the sun to be 0.84", which is very close
to the value 0.87" calculated by many other scientists.

Richard, doesn't that make you happy? :-D

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul B. Andersen
The Newtonian prediction for the gravitational bending
δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² = 0.87"

No, it is not. If you mean Newtonian gravity, of course;
it says nothing about gravity bending or not a massless
object trajectory. Your Shit, on the other hand, specify
very clearly that the trajectory of light in vacuum is
always a straight/geodesic line. And you're a fanatic,
lying scum.

[Richard Hertz]

On Monday, January 10, 2022 at 9:56:38 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
<snip>

von Soldner got it right.
He calculated the Newtonian deflection of light grazing the sun to be 0.84", which is very close
to the value 0.87" calculated by many other scientists.
Richard, doesn't that make you happy? :-D

Well, Paul, I appreciate your clean, well expressed explanation. It's done in the way I like it: uses a correct language
based on mathematics and your logic, trying to convince by the only force of pure reasoning through the cold language
of scientific analysis. I congratulate you for such effort and this, only this, makes me happy.

I've found, and posted yesterday, the recent analysis (June 2021) made by a Jewish writer (so, no nazi apologysm as Gono cry foul),
which is based not only on other Jewish authors but also uses (and praises) the efforts of von Lenard (a good physicist) around 1920,
who dissected the von Soldner's paper in a pure scientific analysis (no political or religious bias, which have to be UNRELATED to science).

This is the link, again, so you can read this little treasure:

Richard Hertz's profile photo
Richard Hertz
1:10 AM (14 hours ago)
to
On Sunday, January 9, 2022 at 11:39:08 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:

<snip>

It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

These jews disagree with you, fucking reptilian lifeform. Nazism appeared 100 years after von Soldner death (1833).
You hate me, but I don't hate you, Gono.
I just despise you, genetic garbage.


Why don't you complain about Gauss , Ohm , Weber , von Helmholtz , Clausius , Kirchhoff , Röntgen , Michelson , Hertz ,
Planck , Wien , Sommerfeld , Hahn , von Laue , Franck , Born, etc.?

Despicable slug, resented with a couple of historic scientists just because they were better than the cretin fraudster that you worship?

ENJOY THIS, FROM SOME NORMAL JEWS TO YOU:

The author claims not having conflict of interest, but slips a little.

He wrote: "IF WE CORRECT THE TYPO DISPLAYED IN FIGURE 3". Now it comes that von Soldner published deleted
the 2 factor in 2ω and, time after, another editor restaured (by hand at the printed copy) such factor 2X.
NO SHAME IN RE-WRITING HISTORY. Because as days passes, von Soldner concepts are gaining momentum and is
causing buthurt, but-itching, but-bloating, etc.

Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two
Tilman Sauer
First published: 10 June 2021
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/andp.202100203

Even when the author is trying to "sell" what von Soldner thought 200 years ago BIASING it with HIS understanding that
von Soldner MEANT to measure starlight deflection by Sun, as perceived from Earth, this IS NOT TRUE. However, he
admits that von Soldner ORIGINAL publication (even when a copy is in custody) HAS SUFFERED STRANGE HAND WRITTEN
modifications with the factor 2X appearing and dissapearing in some way (he believes starting at 1804), he poses doubts
about HOW DIFFICULT is for researches to analyze such paper under modern knowledge (Laplace DECIMAL SECONDS, use
of GALILEAN acceleration, instead of the modern use of 1/2 galilean acceleration, to match v = d/dt(1/2 at²), etc.).
So the end of the article poses a doubt: Was it ω = 0".84 or 2ω = 0".84 what was originally written? (a photo of the extract is used).

Trying to be THE MOST INTELLECTUALLY HONEST analyst, without ANY BIASING, is very hard. It takes integrity, value that is dissapearing.

I always considered myself as honest and with a lot of integrity: I measure it counting how many times I had to accept I was wrong, even
at the highest stress of a heated discussion, for two reasons: I always choose the truth, no matter how hard I fought to defend my points
AND that I never, ever, considered that conceding others made me less intelligent. Only that I didn't see the truth before and others
convinced me about my mistakes AFTER. Not a bit less intelligent than before. Even more knowledgeable after.

And this case is almost a PERFECT EXAMPLE: I (who have doubt about light having mass, but struggling to accept E =mc² as certain)
analyzing a 221 years old paper, created when modern physics was being created (exactly) and differences about TIME MEASUREMENT,
WEIGHT MEASUREMENT, Gravitational Constant k(G) was just measured by Cavendish and strongly rejected, have the STONEFACE to
meddling in the HEART of a paper which result was finally forgotten by von Soldner because he considered the result IRRELEVANT for
Earth based observational astronomy (as if they had any other chance by then). It's a CHALLENGE for me, but I define myself as a
CHALLENGE DRIVEN PERSON. I always have been in this way.

So, to your "cold analysis" I add a "BIAS FILTER", in order to remove the "cherry-picking" actions that humans are so prone to do.

And my position, now only based on LOGIC and SEMANTICS (mathematics already proven OK), is this:

1) von Soldner quest was to find what geometric curve fit the observation, at a surface of OUR PLANET, of stars visible at the horizon,
with a light path tangential to HIS POSITION and coming from infinity directly to the eyes of an observer. ALL OF HIS ANALYSIS
followed original thoughts of Newton, 100 years before, about corpuscles of light being affected by gravity.
Being smart enough about mentioning that, he avoid to write about nature of light, and only used (disguised) light having mass
(either waves or corpuscles) and he found that the answer was: HALF AN ARM OF AN HYPERBOLA, which causes the TRICK of a
deflection (from infinity to the eyes of the observer) given by A GENERAL FORMULA (and this is THE KEY!):

tangω = 2g/v√(v² − 4g) , which I correctly approximate as ω = 2g/Rv² (restauring the radius R, used as unity).

2) Adapting ω with values used 110 years later (by 1911) I have ω = 2g/Rv² = 2kM/Rc² (M and R are mass and radius of celestial body).

3) von Soldner analyzes possibilities, once he get his formula:

1. "Since the figure of the trajectory is now specified, we can consider the light ray again as arriving. And because I want to specify only
the maximum perturbation angle, I assume that the light ray comes from an infinitely great distance."
.........
2. "We now want to give an application of this formula on earth, and investigate, to what extend a light ray is deflected from its straight
line, when it passes by at the surface of earth."
.........
3. "Since this maximum is totally insignificant, it would be superfluous to go further; or to specify how this value decreases with the
height above the horizon; and by what value it decreases, when the distance of the star from which the light ray comes, is assumed
as finite and equal to a certain size. A specification that would bear no difficulty."
.........
4. "If we want to investigate by the given formula, to what extend a light ray is deflected by the moon when it passes the moon and travels
to earth, then we must (after the relevant magnitudes are substituted and the radius of the moon is taken as unity) DOUBLE THE VALUE
THAT WAS FOUND IN THE FORMULA; because the light ray that passes the moon and falls upon earth, describes two arms of the hyperbola."
..........
5. "If we SUBSTITUTE INTO THE FORMULA FOR TANGω the acceleration of gravity on the surface of the sun, and assume the radius of
this body as unity, then we find ω = 0".84. If it were possible to observe the fixed stars very nearly at the sun, then we would have to
take this into consideration. However, as it is well known that this doesn’t happen, then also the perturbation of the sun shall be neglected."
...........
6. "For light rays that come from Venus (which was observed by Vidal only two minutes from the border of the sun, s. Hr. O. L. v. Zachs
monatliche Correspondenz etc. II. Band pag 87.) it amounts much less; because we cannot assume the distances of Venus and Earth
from the sun as infinitely great."
....................................

4) In every text of his paper, von Soldner makes MORE THAN CLEAR that his objective is to analyze starlight trajectories from infinity to
the eye of an observer at the surface of Earth or any given celestial body, ONLY FOR RAY LIGHTS seen AT THE HORIZON (half arm
deviation).

In the point4., he PREDICTS that his formula HAS TO BE DOUBLED if the Moon is in such position at the horizon that STARLIGHT passes
by it's surface before hitting the observer's eye at Earth. INCREDIBLE PREDICTION done in that primitive epoch of analytical development
of theories for motion of celestial bodies, when Laplace and Lagrange works were still DISPUTED, fresh out of the oven of gifted minds.

He wrote 4. (my hypothesis) JUST TO USE THE TWO ARMS OF THE HYPERBOLE in an incredible vision, which he didn't gave
more attention than that simple paragraph.

In the point 5., he calculated the deflection AT THE SURFACE OF THE SUN (one arm of the hyperbola) IF somebody could be seated there,
dealing with millions of degrees. And THIS IS WHY HE CONSIDERED THIS FEAT IMPOSSIBLE!

But this simple calculation express the value of ω = 2kM/Rc² = 0.84 arcseconds. Just FOR SOMEONE SITTING AT SUN'S SURFACE AND
WATCHING AT STARS AT THE HORIZON LEFT AND RIGHT. Not, clearly expressed, for observations from Earth as in point 4. with Moon.

5) And, even 4. and 5. are clearly expressed (2ω = 4kM/Rc² = 1.68 arcseconds) if starlight passes by Sun's surface, from infinity to the
eyes of observers on Earth, is disputed by relativist as IT FITS THEIR OBJECTIVES.

6) The sincerity and clear objectives of von Soldner about using ONLY ONE ARM OF THE HYPERBOLA WITHIN THE SOLAR SYSTEM
is further clarified by the point 6., when he estimated that using an hyperbola (or its asymptote) within the inner solar system was
going to produce ERRORS, because the second arm wasn't large enough to consider that the asymptote:

y = - x/cos ω = - ex

was close enough to the lower arm of the hyperbola:

(x/a)² - y²/[a²(1 - e²)] = 1 , a = 2951m and e = 235967 , Sun at foci F1 and hyperbola centered at (x = 0, y = 0).

which represents the trajectory of starlight that passes by the Sun's surface, coming from - infinity and going toward + infinity.

In a way, he warned about making equals the values of the asymptote and lower arm of the hyperbola, 145 million Km. far away.



Well, that's all that I have to say about this matter. Properly used, von Soldner formula IS EQUAL TO Einstein's 1915 derivation (which
I explained in the OP of this thread about how naturally is doubled, without dirty tricks). Please READ IT, and compile everything on your
mind!

Two different theories, 114 years appart, explain the same phenomena. One is simple (newtonian) and other utterly complex (Riemann).

[Paul B. Andersen]

<snip>

von Soldner got it right.
He calculated the Newtonian deflection of light grazing the sun to be 0.84", which is very close
to the value 0.87" calculated by many other scientists.
Richard, doesn't that make you happy? :-D

Well, Paul, I appreciate your clean, well expressed explanation. It's done in the way I like it: uses a correct language
based on mathematics and your logic, trying to convince by the only force of pure reasoning through the cold language
of scientific analysis. I congratulate you for such effort and this, only this, makes me happy.
I've found, and posted yesterday, the recent analysis (June 2021) made by a Jewish writer (so, no nazi apologysm as Gono cry foul),
which is based not only on other Jewish authors but also uses (and praises) the efforts of von Lenard (a good physicist) around 1920,
who dissected the von Soldner's paper in a pure scientific analysis (no political or religious bias, which have to be UNRELATED to science).
Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two
Tilman Sauer
First published: 10 June 2021
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/andp.202100203

Quite.
The first statement in the abstract:
"The Newtonian value of 0.84" for the gravitational deflection
of a ray of light from a distant star, grazing the rim of the Sun,
was derived already in 1801 by Johann Georg von Soldner."

This confirms my statement which you quoted above:
"von Soldner got it right.
He calculated the Newtonian deflection of light
grazing the sun to be 0.84", which is very close
to the value 0.87" calculated by many other scientists."

So this is settled, and written in stone:
==========================================
The Newtonian prediction for the gravitational bending
of light grazing the Sun is: δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² = 0.87"

Even when the author is trying to "sell" what von Soldner thought 200 years ago BIASING it with HIS understanding that
von Soldner MEANT to measure starlight deflection by Sun, as perceived from Earth, this IS NOT TRUE. However, he
admits that von Soldner ORIGINAL publication (even when a copy is in custody) HAS SUFFERED STRANGE HAND WRITTEN
modifications with the factor 2X appearing and dissapearing in some way (he believes starting at 1804), he poses doubts
about HOW DIFFICULT is for researches to analyze such paper under modern knowledge (Laplace DECIMAL SECONDS, use
of GALILEAN acceleration, instead of the modern use of 1/2 galilean acceleration, to match v = d/dt(1/2 at²), etc.).
So the end of the article poses a doubt: Was it ω = 0".84 or 2ω = 0".84 what was originally written? (a photo of the extract is used).

The question is: did von Soldner say that the acceleration
was g/r² or did he say it was 2g/r²?

I think I gave a reasonable explanation for that "2"
in my previous post:

| See:
| https://en.wikisource.org/?curid=755966
|
| With reference to fig. 3 von Soldner says:
| "The force, by which the light in M will be attracted by
| the body into the direction MC, will be 2g/r²"
|
| g/r² can only be the acceleration of a test particle in M,
| not a force (see equations (I) and (II)), so g = GM.
| But the acceleration of a test particle at M towards C
| is GM/r² = g/r², it is NOT 2g/r².
|
| von Soldner knew, an stated, that the full deflection
| is twice the deflection in A (fig. 3).
| He compensated for this by inserting the "2" which
| will follow the calculation right to the end.
| (The alternative is that it is a blunder, but I
| don't think he would do such an elementary error.
| But he could have explained why "2" was added.)
|
| So his ω ≈ 2GM/rc² = 0.84" is the full deflection.

Which also is Sauer's conclusion.

It's settled now.

The Newtonian prediction for the gravitational bending
of light grazing the Sun is: δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² = 0.87"

If Soldner had got a value twice as big, he would be wrong.
But he didn't, so he got it right.

----------

You know of course that the measured value is
twice the Newtonian prediction, which falsifies
Newtons theory of gravitation.

So GR is the only non falsified theory of gravitation.
(But Newton's gravitation is a very good approximation.)

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

The PPN version of the equation for
the gravitational bending of light is:
θ = (1+γ)(GM/c²b)(1+cosφ)
where b is the shortest distance between light and Sun
and φ is the angle between the star and Sun.

The PPN parameter γ = 1 give the GR prediction.
The PPN parameter γ = 0 give the Newtonian prediction.

Remember you said:
| And he and his relativistic pals don't like (even less)
| that all of his list of papers involving Shapiro, Hipparcos,
| Cassini, Fomalont, etc.,
| are experiments involving hundred of persons, billions of USD
| and 100,000,000+ digitally filtered data collected in decades
| just to prove that PPN_ γ = 1.0000 ± 0.001.

I can reveal that I and my pals do like it very well
that the PPN parameter γ = 1.00000 ± 0.00005,
which falsifies Newton's law of gravitation and confirms GR.

And all the telescopes and satellites used in the experiments
were built for other primary purposes, so they weren't as expensive as
you think.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

<snip>

von Soldner got it right.
He calculated the Newtonian deflection of light grazing the sun to be 0.84", which is very close
to the value 0.87" calculated by many other scientists.
Richard, doesn't that make you happy? :-D

Well, Paul, I appreciate your clean, well expressed explanation. It's done in the way I like it: uses a correct language
based on mathematics and your logic, trying to convince by the only force of pure reasoning through the cold language
of scientific analysis. I congratulate you for such effort and this, only this, makes me happy.
I've found, and posted yesterday, the recent analysis (June 2021) made by a Jewish writer (so, no nazi apologysm as Gono cry foul),
which is based not only on other Jewish authors but also uses (and praises) the efforts of von Lenard (a good physicist) around 1920,
who dissected the von Soldner's paper in a pure scientific analysis (no political or religious bias, which have to be UNRELATED to science).
Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two
Tilman Sauer
First published: 10 June 2021
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/andp.202100203

Quite.
"The Newtonian value of 0.84" for the gravitational deflection
of a ray of light from a distant star, grazing the rim of the Sun,
was derived already in 1801 by Johann Georg von Soldner."
"von Soldner got it right.
He calculated the Newtonian deflection of light
grazing the sun to be 0.84", which is very close
to the value 0.87" calculated by many other scientists."
==========================================
The Newtonian prediction for the gravitational bending
of light grazing the Sun is: δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² = 0.87"

No, it is not, unless you're assuming light to be some
massive particles.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
It's settled now.
The Newtonian prediction for the gravitational bending
of light grazing the Sun is: δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² = 0.87"

No, it is not, unless you're assuming light to be some
massive particles.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
You know of course that the measured value is
twice the Newtonian prediction, which falsifies
Newtons theory of gravitation.

No it doesn't, unless light is some massive particles.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
So GR is the only non falsified theory of gravitation

And that's a VERY impudent lie, considering that
according to your Shit there is no deflection and the
light [in vacuum] is always following straight/geodesic
line. But, of course, a very impudent lie is exactly what
we're predicting from a relativisting stinker.

[Richard Hertz]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

<snip>

von Soldner got it right.
He calculated the Newtonian deflection of light grazing the sun to be 0.84", which is very close
to the value 0.87" calculated by many other scientists.
Richard, doesn't that make you happy? :-D

Well, Paul, I appreciate your clean, well expressed explanation. It's done in the way I like it: uses a correct language
based on mathematics and your logic, trying to convince by the only force of pure reasoning through the cold language
of scientific analysis. I congratulate you for such effort and this, only this, makes me happy.
I've found, and posted yesterday, the recent analysis (June 2021) made by a Jewish writer (so, no nazi apologysm as Gono cry foul),
which is based not only on other Jewish authors but also uses (and praises) the efforts of von Lenard (a good physicist) around 1920,
who dissected the von Soldner's paper in a pure scientific analysis (no political or religious bias, which have to be UNRELATED to science).
Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two
Tilman Sauer
First published: 10 June 2021
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/andp.202100203

Quite.
"The Newtonian value of 0.84" for the gravitational deflection
of a ray of light from a distant star, grazing the rim of the Sun,
was derived already in 1801 by Johann Georg von Soldner."
"von Soldner got it right.
He calculated the Newtonian deflection of light
grazing the sun to be 0.84", which is very close
to the value 0.87" calculated by many other scientists."
==========================================
The Newtonian prediction for the gravitational bending
of light grazing the Sun is: δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² = 0.87"

Even when the author is trying to "sell" what von Soldner thought 200 years ago BIASING it with HIS understanding that
von Soldner MEANT to measure starlight deflection by Sun, as perceived from Earth, this IS NOT TRUE. However, he
admits that von Soldner ORIGINAL publication (even when a copy is in custody) HAS SUFFERED STRANGE HAND WRITTEN
modifications with the factor 2X appearing and dissapearing in some way (he believes starting at 1804), he poses doubts
about HOW DIFFICULT is for researches to analyze such paper under modern knowledge (Laplace DECIMAL SECONDS, use
of GALILEAN acceleration, instead of the modern use of 1/2 galilean acceleration, to match v = d/dt(1/2 at²), etc.).
So the end of the article poses a doubt: Was it ω = 0".84 or 2ω = 0".84 what was originally written? (a photo of the extract is used).

The question is: did von Soldner say that the acceleration
was g/r² or did he say it was 2g/r²?
I think I gave a reasonable explanation for that "2"
| https://en.wikisource.org/?curid=755966
|
| "The force, by which the light in M will be attracted by
| the body into the direction MC, will be 2g/r²"
|
| g/r² can only be the acceleration of a test particle in M,
| not a force (see equations (I) and (II)), so g = GM.
| But the acceleration of a test particle at M towards C
| is GM/r² = g/r², it is NOT 2g/r².
|
| von Soldner knew, an stated, that the full deflection
| is twice the deflection in A (fig. 3).
| He compensated for this by inserting the "2" which
| will follow the calculation right to the end.
| (The alternative is that it is a blunder, but I
| don't think he would do such an elementary error.
| But he could have explained why "2" was added.)
|
| So his ω ≈ 2GM/rc² = 0.84" is the full deflection.
Which also is Sauer's conclusion.
It's settled now.
The Newtonian prediction for the gravitational bending
of light grazing the Sun is: δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² = 0.87"
If Soldner had got a value twice as big, he would be wrong.
But he didn't, so he got it right.
----------
You know of course that the measured value is
twice the Newtonian prediction, which falsifies
Newtons theory of gravitation.
So GR is the only non falsified theory of gravitation.
(But Newton's gravitation is a very good approximation.)
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
The PPN version of the equation for
θ = (1+γ)(GM/c²b)(1+cosφ)
where b is the shortest distance between light and Sun
and φ is the angle between the star and Sun.
The PPN parameter γ = 1 give the GR prediction.
The PPN parameter γ = 0 give the Newtonian prediction.
| And he and his relativistic pals don't like (even less)
| that all of his list of papers involving Shapiro, Hipparcos,
| Cassini, Fomalont, etc.,
| are experiments involving hundred of persons, billions of USD
| and 100,000,000+ digitally filtered data collected in decades
| just to prove that PPN_ γ = 1.0000 ± 0.001.
I can reveal that I and my pals do like it very well
that the PPN parameter γ = 1.00000 ± 0.00005,
which falsifies Newton's law of gravitation and confirms GR.
And all the telescopes and satellites used in the experiments
were built for other primary purposes, so they weren't as expensive as
you think.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/

Paul, I'll only address the first part, for brevity.

Paul, I understand your desire about that von Soldner's paper be wrong by 2X, so Einstein's GR can prevail. At any case, don't forget that both theories are based on analytical geometry, euclidean or not. It's just geometry.

I'll try to present to you, in the clearest possible way, why the dispute is intense and why it seems to be complicated to compare both
theories, regarding light deflection. For me, the major obstacle is the interest of einstenian historian of science or scientific writing in
a way to favor Einstein, weakening von Soldner with subtleties (which I don't found). It's important to remark that, until 1920 and Lenard's
reprint, von Soldner theory was dormant (buried) for more than 110 years. There are signs that Einstein and his network for data gathering,
which he well established since 1901 (and this is documented by his own biographers) had a peek to such paper. But, consider this: the ORIGINAL publication (1804) has dissapeared since that epoch, and that the only copy used by Lenard is a reprint, with handwriting on it
(2X factor). I want to present my opinion in the clearest possible way, by establishing a couple of points.

And please, don't use the material I pass to you against my position. I did it just in order for you to have a chance to read about how
hypocrisy works: Jewish historians concede some reasons to von Soldner, until they give the subtle (or not) stroke about the 2X factor.
I'm not an idiot to get you a loaded weapon just for you to use it against me. Please, concede me more intelligence than that. Here are
some links pro-Einstein too, but use them correctly, and have in mind that I'm not posting links from the OTHER part: pro-von Soldner,
which are fairly obvious.

Here we go:

1) Von Soldner was a genius of first rank (read the source below). A humble mathematician, geodesist, astronomer and physicist, whose
ideas were very advanced for the time he lived, not only in astronomy or geodesy.

https://slideheaven.com/johann-georg-von-soldner-and-the-gravitational-bending-of-light-with-an-english-.html

Von Soldner's introduction: "Of the latter kind may be the deviation of a light ray from straight line when it passes close by a celestial body
and is considerably exposed to its attraction. For then one can easily see that this deviation should be the greatest when, SEEN FROM THE
SURFACE OF THE ATTRACTING BODY, the light ray comes in the horizontal direction, and will be zero when the light ray comes down
vertically; thus the magnitude of deviation will be a function of altitude. But as the refration of light is also a function of altitude, these two
magnitudes must be combined together; and therefore it may be that the deviation in its maximum would amount to several seconds
[of an arc] without its being possible to identify it through observations. THESE ARE ROUGHLY THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MOVED
ME to reflect further on the perturbation of light rays, which according to my knowledge has so far been investigated by NOBODY.
Before undertaking the investigation itself, I will make a few more general remarks, through which the calculation will be facilitated.
As at first I will determine only the maximum of such bending, I will let the light ray pass horizontally to the surface of the attracting body
AT THE POINT OF OBSERVATION, or I assume that the star, from which the light ray comes, is apparently caught in its rising".

Astronomisehes Jahrbuchfiir das Jahr, 1804. Johann Georg von Soldner-english-.html.


2) By the time he wrote the paper (1801), published in 1804, different units of measurement were used as no standards for unit systems existed yet. H. J. Treder & G. Jackisch have pointed out that, in the terminology of the German physical literature in the 18th century, wrote the Galilean equations for free fall as: s = gt² , and v = 2gt.

Von Soldner, as a german scientist used s = gt2, and followed Laplace by using

s = at2 ; ds/dt = 2gt ; d2s/dt2 = 2g (Laplace g, which is g(current_value)/2)

And here is the GHOST 2X factor. As simple as that.

Von Soldner began the paper using Laplace's equations: "We obtain the following two equations (s.Traité de mécanique céleste par
Laplace, Tome I, pag. 21)", where Earth radius was NORMALIZED TO 1, as it can be seen:

d²x/dt² = − (2g cos h)/r² = − (9.81 cos h)/(r/r_E)² (I)

d²y/dt² = − (2g sin h)/r² = − (9.81 sin h)/(r/r_E)² (II)


3) Modern value of g was known by Laplace and former colleagues. It was 9.81 m/s2 on the surface of Earth. Laplace had presented HIS
g from the study of pendulum, in his first volume (1798) of his collected works: "A body will fall 3.66394 metres in one second on the
surface of the earth, where the square of the sine of the latitude is 1/3".

What von Soldner didn't explain is that Laplace used DECIMAL SECONDS, so a day had 100,000 ds = 86,400 s (1:0.864).

Laplace's g = 3.66394 meters/ds² = 3.66394/0.8642 m/s² = 4.908 m/s² ≈ 1/2 g(today)

Why Laplace used such value in his first volume, in 1798, is not clear. But seems to be related to his three body study with the Moon, Earth
and Sun. Anyway, von Soldner use the correct value 2g, to compensate Laplace difference.

Since 1920, researchers try to distort this simple fact (Stanley L. Jaki, 1978): "Soldner MUST HAVE, OF COURSE, KNOWN known (and the
same holds true of Bode, editor of the Jahrbuch) that the gravitational potential is proportional to g and not to 2g. Therefore ONE MUST
PERHAPS ASSUME THAT BEHIND Soldner's use of 2g WAS HIS REALIZATION that the bending of light around a celestial body would be
2ω, that is, ω of the diagram and its mirror image".

And most of biased researchers, like Jaki, play the SAME CARD: "von Soldner knew" or "von Soldner realized that...". He didn't have to
realize ANYTHING. Von Soldner was writing history for the next 220 years, and HE WAS THE ONLY ONE doing this research, without
having ANYTHING TO GAIN OR LOSE. These cretins were trying to read the mind of a dead person, without ANY EVIDENCE, only to favor
Einstein. And they are LEGION!. His work was pioneering, using state of the art 1801 data and even he dismissed the result for being
IRRELEVANT (for that epoch, in observational astronomy).


4) In 1901 the third General Conference on Weights and Measures defined a standard gravitational acceleration for the surface of the
Earth: g = 9.80665 m/s2.This was known, with +/- 3% error, for almost 200 years since 1700. Also, Newton had anticipated the order of
magnitude of G and, what is incredible, the ration of gravitational acceleration at Sun's surface versus Earth surface as being 28. This
number was incredibly accurate, about 2% different than modern values.

Now, and this is interesting, using the formula for light deflection (I'll analyze this more deeply):

tangω₁/tangω₂ ≈ g₁/g₂ . v₂²/v₁² = 0.84"/0.001" = 840 ≈ 28²

ω₁/ω₂ ≈ 28² ≈ (g_sun/g_earth)²


5) In 1901 the third General Conference on Weights and Measures defined a standard gravitational acceleration as almost the current one.

Von Soldner (for unknown reasons), reduces Laplace value of g, dividing it by Earth radius at latitude of 35˚16', giving Laplace g as
a dimensionless value g = 3.66394 meters/6369514 meters = 0.000000575231. Von Soldner doesn't use this strange value on his
calculation, and that group of paragraphs show signs of having been "mutilated" in the ENGLISH translations, which only occurred by
1920, after Lenard made the paper famous.

And, CURIOUSLY, every researcher (historian or scientist) claim that THEY COULDN'T ACCESS to the ORIGINAL 1804 publication, which
has vanished (burned?), and only A REPRINT survives. So, as with many other weird things that happened with documents NOT
FAVORABLE to Einstein (1905 Poincaré first two pages sent to Hilbert for the Summit or almost two pages of Hilbert presentation on
Nov.18, 1915 in Gottingen, both about relativity), this OBSCURITY will never be made clear.

But, the fundamentals are still there, as they COULDN'T ERASE AN ENTIRE THEORY. So, von Soldner's mathematics is perfectly correct,
precedes any attempt of Einstein to plagiarize or mimic it 110 years later, and DEFINITIVELY proves that von Soldner's solution, applied
to the Sun's deflection as Einstein intended, gave the famous 1.68" deflection ONE CENTURY BEFORE Einstein's work, even since 1911.

In June 1911, Einstein misunderstood the result and plagiarized, in disguise, the hyperbolic trajectory with a cubic term under an integral
between - π/2 and + π/2, which gave the extra angle as with Mercury, four years later. Einstein was a smart ass, but a first class idiot, at
the same time. He didn't perceive that the real value was 1.84" in 1911.

Anyways, he would still try to use Riemann and 200+ non-linear differential equations by 1915, just to arrive to von Soldner's value if he
had used it right in 1911.

Don't forget this, Paul: Einstein conceded (as everyone else since 1915) that half the deflection is newtonian and the other half due to the
"curvature" of the space. BUT NOBODY EXPLAINED the reasons of the newtonian part, OR have to explain why the speed of light changes
OR the angular momentum conservation IS VIOLATED. Silence over this.

CONCLUSION: von Soldner only calculated HALF the deflection by the Sun. Powerful interests are behind the failed attempts to
demonstrate that he calculated a FULL DEFLECTION, but are DEFEATED by historical contexts and the accuracy of von Soldner paper.

I'll answer the 2nd. part of your post later, depending on your reply.

Anyways, you know that we'll never agree, don't you?

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Paul B. Andersen

<snip>

von Soldner got it right.
He calculated the Newtonian deflection of light grazing the sun to be 0.84", which is very close
to the value 0.87" calculated by many other scientists.
Richard, doesn't that make you happy? :-D

Well, Paul, I appreciate your clean, well expressed explanation. It's done in the way I like it: uses a correct language
based on mathematics and your logic, trying to convince by the only force of pure reasoning through the cold language
of scientific analysis. I congratulate you for such effort and this, only this, makes me happy.
I've found, and posted yesterday, the recent analysis (June 2021) made by a Jewish writer (so, no nazi apologysm as Gono cry foul),
which is based not only on other Jewish authors but also uses (and praises) the efforts of von Lenard (a good physicist) around 1920,
who dissected the von Soldner's paper in a pure scientific analysis (no political or religious bias, which have to be UNRELATED to science).
Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two
Tilman Sauer
First published: 10 June 2021
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/andp.202100203

Quite.
"The Newtonian value of 0.84" for the gravitational deflection
of a ray of light from a distant star, grazing the rim of the Sun,
was derived already in 1801 by Johann Georg von Soldner."
"von Soldner got it right.
He calculated the Newtonian deflection of light
grazing the sun to be 0.84", which is very close
to the value 0.87" calculated by many other scientists."
==========================================
The Newtonian prediction for the gravitational bending
of light grazing the Sun is: δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² = 0.87"

Even when the author is trying to "sell" what von Soldner thought 200 years ago BIASING it with HIS understanding that
von Soldner MEANT to measure starlight deflection by Sun, as perceived from Earth, this IS NOT TRUE. However, he
admits that von Soldner ORIGINAL publication (even when a copy is in custody) HAS SUFFERED STRANGE HAND WRITTEN
modifications with the factor 2X appearing and dissapearing in some way (he believes starting at 1804), he poses doubts
about HOW DIFFICULT is for researches to analyze such paper under modern knowledge (Laplace DECIMAL SECONDS, use
of GALILEAN acceleration, instead of the modern use of 1/2 galilean acceleration, to match v = d/dt(1/2 at²), etc.).
So the end of the article poses a doubt: Was it ω = 0".84 or 2ω = 0".84 what was originally written? (a photo of the extract is used).

The question is: did von Soldner say that the acceleration
was g/r² or did he say it was 2g/r²?
I think I gave a reasonable explanation for that "2"
| https://en.wikisource.org/?curid=755966
|
| "The force, by which the light in M will be attracted by
| the body into the direction MC, will be 2g/r²"
|
| g/r² can only be the acceleration of a test particle in M,
| not a force (see equations (I) and (II)), so g = GM.
| But the acceleration of a test particle at M towards C
| is GM/r² = g/r², it is NOT 2g/r².
|
| von Soldner knew, an stated, that the full deflection
| is twice the deflection in A (fig. 3).
| He compensated for this by inserting the "2" which
| will follow the calculation right to the end.
| (The alternative is that it is a blunder, but I
| don't think he would do such an elementary error.
| But he could have explained why "2" was added.)
|
| So his ω ≈ 2GM/rc² = 0.84" is the full deflection.
Which also is Sauer's conclusion.
It's settled now.
The Newtonian prediction for the gravitational bending
of light grazing the Sun is: δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² = 0.87"
If Soldner had got a value twice as big, he would be wrong.
But he didn't, so he got it right.
----------
You know of course that the measured value is
twice the Newtonian prediction, which falsifies
Newtons theory of gravitation.
So GR is the only non falsified theory of gravitation.
(But Newton's gravitation is a very good approximation.)
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
The PPN version of the equation for
θ = (1+γ)(GM/c²b)(1+cosφ)
where b is the shortest distance between light and Sun
and φ is the angle between the star and Sun.
The PPN parameter γ = 1 give the GR prediction.
The PPN parameter γ = 0 give the Newtonian prediction.
| And he and his relativistic pals don't like (even less)
| that all of his list of papers involving Shapiro, Hipparcos,
| Cassini, Fomalont, etc.,
| are experiments involving hundred of persons, billions of USD
| and 100,000,000+ digitally filtered data collected in decades
| just to prove that PPN_ γ = 1.0000 ± 0.001.
I can reveal that I and my pals do like it very well
that the PPN parameter γ = 1.00000 ± 0.00005,
which falsifies Newton's law of gravitation and confirms GR.
And all the telescopes and satellites used in the experiments
were built for other primary purposes, so they weren't as expensive as
you think.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/

Paul, I'll only address the first part, for brevity.
Paul, I understand your desire about that von Soldner's paper be wrong by 2X, so Einstein's GR can prevail. At any case, don't forget that both theories are based on analytical geometry, euclidean or not. It's just geometry.

It's quite simple:

Fact:
Newton's theory of gravitation predicts that
the gravitational bending of light grazing
the Sun is: δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² = 0.87".

If Soldner claimed that Newton's theory of gravitation
predicts that the gravitational bending of light grazing
the Sun is: δ ≈ 4GM/Rc² ≈ 1.68" then he was wrong.

If Soldner claimed that Newton's theory of gravitation
predicts that the gravitational bending of light grazing
the Sun is: δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² ≈ 0.64" then he was close enough
to be right.

Fact:
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that
the gravitational bending of light grazing
the Sun is: δ ≈ 4GM/Rc² = 1.75".

Experimental evidence has shown that the predictions
of GR are correct within small margins.
So Newton's theory of gravitation is falsified
while GR is confirmed.

So what more is it to discuss?

Do you dispute anything I wrote above?

Post by Richard Hertz
I'll try to present to you, in the clearest possible way, why the dispute is intense and why it seems to be complicated to compare both
theories, regarding light deflection. For me, the major obstacle is the interest of einstenian historian of science or scientific writing in
a way to favor Einstein, weakening von Soldner with subtleties (which I don't found). It's important to remark that, until 1920 and Lenard's
reprint, von Soldner theory was dormant (buried) for more than 110 years. There are signs that Einstein and his network for data gathering,
which he well established since 1901 (and this is documented by his own biographers) had a peek to such paper. But, consider this: the ORIGINAL publication (1804) has dissapeared since that epoch, and that the only copy used by Lenard is a reprint, with handwriting on it
(2X factor). I want to present my opinion in the clearest possible way, by establishing a couple of points.
And please, don't use the material I pass to you against my position. I did it just in order for you to have a chance to read about how
hypocrisy works: Jewish historians concede some reasons to von Soldner, until they give the subtle (or not) stroke about the 2X factor.
I'm not an idiot to get you a loaded weapon just for you to use it against me. Please, concede me more intelligence than that. Here are
some links pro-Einstein too, but use them correctly, and have in mind that I'm not posting links from the OTHER part: pro-von Soldner,
which are fairly obvious.
1) Von Soldner was a genius of first rank (read the source below). A humble mathematician, geodesist, astronomer and physicist, whose
ideas were very advanced for the time he lived, not only in astronomy or geodesy.
https://slideheaven.com/johann-georg-von-soldner-and-the-gravitational-bending-of-light-with-an-english-.html
Von Soldner's introduction: "Of the latter kind may be the deviation of a light ray from straight line when it passes close by a celestial body
and is considerably exposed to its attraction. For then one can easily see that this deviation should be the greatest when, SEEN FROM THE
SURFACE OF THE ATTRACTING BODY, the light ray comes in the horizontal direction, and will be zero when the light ray comes down
vertically; thus the magnitude of deviation will be a function of altitude. But as the refration of light is also a function of altitude, these two
magnitudes must be combined together; and therefore it may be that the deviation in its maximum would amount to several seconds
[of an arc] without its being possible to identify it through observations. THESE ARE ROUGHLY THE CONSIDERATIONS WHICH MOVED
ME to reflect further on the perturbation of light rays, which according to my knowledge has so far been investigated by NOBODY.
Before undertaking the investigation itself, I will make a few more general remarks, through which the calculation will be facilitated.
As at first I will determine only the maximum of such bending, I will let the light ray pass horizontally to the surface of the attracting body
AT THE POINT OF OBSERVATION, or I assume that the star, from which the light ray comes, is apparently caught in its rising".
Astronomisehes Jahrbuchfiir das Jahr, 1804. Johann Georg von Soldner-english-.html.
2) By the time he wrote the paper (1801), published in 1804, different units of measurement were used as no standards for unit systems existed yet. H. J. Treder & G. Jackisch have pointed out that, in the terminology of the German physical literature in the 18th century, wrote the Galilean equations for free fall as: s = gt² , and v = 2gt.
Von Soldner, as a german scientist used s = gt2, and followed Laplace by using
s = at2 ; ds/dt = 2gt ; d2s/dt2 = 2g (Laplace g, which is g(current_value)/2)
And here is the GHOST 2X factor. As simple as that.
Von Soldner began the paper using Laplace's equations: "We obtain the following two equations (s.Traité de mécanique céleste par
d²x/dt² = − (2g cos h)/r² = − (9.81 cos h)/(r/r_E)² (I)
d²y/dt² = − (2g sin h)/r² = − (9.81 sin h)/(r/r_E)² (II)
3) Modern value of g was known by Laplace and former colleagues. It was 9.81 m/s2 on the surface of Earth. Laplace had presented HIS
g from the study of pendulum, in his first volume (1798) of his collected works: "A body will fall 3.66394 metres in one second on the
surface of the earth, where the square of the sine of the latitude is 1/3".
What von Soldner didn't explain is that Laplace used DECIMAL SECONDS, so a day had 100,000 ds = 86,400 s (1:0.864).
Laplace's g = 3.66394 meters/ds² = 3.66394/0.8642 m/s² = 4.908 m/s² ≈ 1/2 g(today)
Why Laplace used such value in his first volume, in 1798, is not clear. But seems to be related to his three body study with the Moon, Earth
and Sun. Anyway, von Soldner use the correct value 2g, to compensate Laplace difference.
Since 1920, researchers try to distort this simple fact (Stanley L. Jaki, 1978): "Soldner MUST HAVE, OF COURSE, KNOWN known (and the
same holds true of Bode, editor of the Jahrbuch) that the gravitational potential is proportional to g and not to 2g. Therefore ONE MUST
PERHAPS ASSUME THAT BEHIND Soldner's use of 2g WAS HIS REALIZATION that the bending of light around a celestial body would be
2ω, that is, ω of the diagram and its mirror image".
And most of biased researchers, like Jaki, play the SAME CARD: "von Soldner knew" or "von Soldner realized that...". He didn't have to
realize ANYTHING. Von Soldner was writing history for the next 220 years, and HE WAS THE ONLY ONE doing this research, without
having ANYTHING TO GAIN OR LOSE. These cretins were trying to read the mind of a dead person, without ANY EVIDENCE, only to favor
Einstein. And they are LEGION!. His work was pioneering, using state of the art 1801 data and even he dismissed the result for being
IRRELEVANT (for that epoch, in observational astronomy).
4) In 1901 the third General Conference on Weights and Measures defined a standard gravitational acceleration for the surface of the
Earth: g = 9.80665 m/s2.This was known, with +/- 3% error, for almost 200 years since 1700. Also, Newton had anticipated the order of
magnitude of G and, what is incredible, the ration of gravitational acceleration at Sun's surface versus Earth surface as being 28. This
number was incredibly accurate, about 2% different than modern values.
tangω₁/tangω₂ ≈ g₁/g₂ . v₂²/v₁² = 0.84"/0.001" = 840 ≈ 28²
ω₁/ω₂ ≈ 28² ≈ (g_sun/g_earth)²
5) In 1901 the third General Conference on Weights and Measures defined a standard gravitational acceleration as almost the current one.
Von Soldner (for unknown reasons), reduces Laplace value of g, dividing it by Earth radius at latitude of 35˚16', giving Laplace g as
a dimensionless value g = 3.66394 meters/6369514 meters = 0.000000575231. Von Soldner doesn't use this strange value on his
calculation, and that group of paragraphs show signs of having been "mutilated" in the ENGLISH translations, which only occurred by
1920, after Lenard made the paper famous.
And, CURIOUSLY, every researcher (historian or scientist) claim that THEY COULDN'T ACCESS to the ORIGINAL 1804 publication, which
has vanished (burned?), and only A REPRINT survives. So, as with many other weird things that happened with documents NOT
FAVORABLE to Einstein (1905 Poincaré first two pages sent to Hilbert for the Summit or almost two pages of Hilbert presentation on
Nov.18, 1915 in Gottingen, both about relativity), this OBSCURITY will never be made clear.
But, the fundamentals are still there, as they COULDN'T ERASE AN ENTIRE THEORY. So, von Soldner's mathematics is perfectly correct,
precedes any attempt of Einstein to plagiarize or mimic it 110 years later, and DEFINITIVELY proves that von Soldner's solution, applied
to the Sun's deflection as Einstein intended, gave the famous 1.68" deflection ONE CENTURY BEFORE Einstein's work, even since 1911.
In June 1911, Einstein misunderstood the result and plagiarized, in disguise, the hyperbolic trajectory with a cubic term under an integral
between - π/2 and + π/2, which gave the extra angle as with Mercury, four years later. Einstein was a smart ass, but a first class idiot, at
the same time. He didn't perceive that the real value was 1.84" in 1911.
Anyways, he would still try to use Riemann and 200+ non-linear differential equations by 1915, just to arrive to von Soldner's value if he
had used it right in 1911.
Don't forget this, Paul: Einstein conceded (as everyone else since 1915) that half the deflection is newtonian and the other half due to the
"curvature" of the space. BUT NOBODY EXPLAINED the reasons of the newtonian part, OR have to explain why the speed of light changes
OR the angular momentum conservation IS VIOLATED. Silence over this.
CONCLUSION: von Soldner only calculated HALF the deflection by the Sun. Powerful interests are behind the failed attempts to
demonstrate that he calculated a FULL DEFLECTION, but are DEFEATED by historical contexts and the accuracy of von Soldner paper.
I'll answer the 2nd. part of your post later, depending on your reply.
Anyways, you know that we'll never agree, don't you?

Why do you insist that Soldner wrongly claimed
that the Newtonian prediction was twice of what it is?

I think Soldner was a genius and correctly calculated
that the Newtonian prediction for the gravitational
bending of light grazing the Sun is: δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² ≈ 0.64"

But I may be wrong when believing he was right,
and you may be right when believing he got it wrong.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Paul B. Andersen

<snip>

von Soldner got it right.
He calculated the Newtonian deflection of light grazing the sun to be 0.84", which is very close
to the value 0.87" calculated by many other scientists.
Richard, doesn't that make you happy? :-D

Well, Paul, I appreciate your clean, well expressed explanation. It's done in the way I like it: uses a correct language
based on mathematics and your logic, trying to convince by the only force of pure reasoning through the cold language
of scientific analysis. I congratulate you for such effort and this, only this, makes me happy.
I've found, and posted yesterday, the recent analysis (June 2021) made by a Jewish writer (so, no nazi apologysm as Gono cry foul),
which is based not only on other Jewish authors but also uses (and praises) the efforts of von Lenard (a good physicist) around 1920,
who dissected the von Soldner's paper in a pure scientific analysis (no political or religious bias, which have to be UNRELATED to science).
Soldner, Einstein, Gravitational Light Deflection and Factors of Two
Tilman Sauer
First published: 10 June 2021
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/andp.202100203

Quite.
"The Newtonian value of 0.84" for the gravitational deflection
of a ray of light from a distant star, grazing the rim of the Sun,
was derived already in 1801 by Johann Georg von Soldner."
"von Soldner got it right.
He calculated the Newtonian deflection of light
grazing the sun to be 0.84", which is very close
to the value 0.87" calculated by many other scientists."
==========================================
The Newtonian prediction for the gravitational bending
of light grazing the Sun is: δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² = 0.87"

Even when the author is trying to "sell" what von Soldner thought 200 years ago BIASING it with HIS understanding that
von Soldner MEANT to measure starlight deflection by Sun, as perceived from Earth, this IS NOT TRUE. However, he
admits that von Soldner ORIGINAL publication (even when a copy is in custody) HAS SUFFERED STRANGE HAND WRITTEN
modifications with the factor 2X appearing and dissapearing in some way (he believes starting at 1804), he poses doubts
about HOW DIFFICULT is for researches to analyze such paper under modern knowledge (Laplace DECIMAL SECONDS, use
of GALILEAN acceleration, instead of the modern use of 1/2 galilean acceleration, to match v = d/dt(1/2 at²), etc.).
So the end of the article poses a doubt: Was it ω = 0".84 or 2ω = 0".84 what was originally written? (a photo of the extract is used).

The question is: did von Soldner say that the acceleration
was g/r² or did he say it was 2g/r²?
I think I gave a reasonable explanation for that "2"
| https://en.wikisource.org/?curid=755966
|
| "The force, by which the light in M will be attracted by
| the body into the direction MC, will be 2g/r²"
|
| g/r² can only be the acceleration of a test particle in M,
| not a force (see equations (I) and (II)), so g = GM.
| But the acceleration of a test particle at M towards C
| is GM/r² = g/r², it is NOT 2g/r².
|
| von Soldner knew, an stated, that the full deflection
| is twice the deflection in A (fig. 3).
| He compensated for this by inserting the "2" which
| will follow the calculation right to the end.
| (The alternative is that it is a blunder, but I
| don't think he would do such an elementary error.
| But he could have explained why "2" was added.)
|
| So his ω ≈ 2GM/rc² = 0.84" is the full deflection.
Which also is Sauer's conclusion.
It's settled now.
The Newtonian prediction for the gravitational bending
of light grazing the Sun is: δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² = 0.87"
If Soldner had got a value twice as big, he would be wrong.
But he didn't, so he got it right.
----------
You know of course that the measured value is
twice the Newtonian prediction, which falsifies
Newtons theory of gravitation.
So GR is the only non falsified theory of gravitation.
(But Newton's gravitation is a very good approximation.)
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
The PPN version of the equation for
θ = (1+γ)(GM/c²b)(1+cosφ)
where b is the shortest distance between light and Sun
and φ is the angle between the star and Sun.
The PPN parameter γ = 1 give the GR prediction.
The PPN parameter γ = 0 give the Newtonian prediction.
| And he and his relativistic pals don't like (even less)
| that all of his list of papers involving Shapiro, Hipparcos,
| Cassini, Fomalont, etc.,
| are experiments involving hundred of persons, billions of USD
| and 100,000,000+ digitally filtered data collected in decades
| just to prove that PPN_ γ = 1.0000 ± 0.001.
I can reveal that I and my pals do like it very well
that the PPN parameter γ = 1.00000 ± 0.00005,
which falsifies Newton's law of gravitation and confirms GR.
And all the telescopes and satellites used in the experiments
were built for other primary purposes, so they weren't as expensive as
you think.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/

Paul, I'll only address the first part, for brevity.
Paul, I understand your desire about that von Soldner's paper be wrong by 2X, so Einstein's GR can prevail. At any case, don't forget that both theories are based on analytical geometry, euclidean or not. It's just geometry.

Newton's theory of gravitation predicts that
the gravitational bending of light grazing
the Sun is: δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² = 0.87".

No, it's not any fact, it's a lie, as predicted for a
relativistic stinker; Newton's theory of gravitation
predicts no such thing.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
The General Theory of Relativity predicts that
the gravitational bending of light grazing
the Sun is: δ ≈ 4GM/Rc² = 1.75".

And, of course, another lie. According to your Shit
light in vacuum is always travelling straight/geodesic
paths.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
Experimental evidence has shown that the predictions

of the theory that relativistic scum is a bunch of lying
morons - are correct within small margins.

[Richard Hertz]

On Wednesday, January 12, 2022 at 6:30:45 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:

<snip>

We'll never, ever, reach any kind of agreement.
You are too blind to recognize EVEN Einstein's formula 7c on his paper on Mercury:

Old Φ = - α/r , in the first 7 pages prior his equation 7c.

New Φ = - α/r (1 + B²/r²), in his equation (7c), which led to his equation (11) : (dx/dφ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x − x² + αx³

And using THIS NEW GR BASED potential, you MUST WRITE his 1911 equation:

ω(1911) = 2kM/c²R

AS

ω(1915) = 2kM/c²R . (1 + B²/R²) = 2kM/c²R . (1 +1) = 4kM/c²R

BECAUSE TRAJECTORY OF LIGHT PASSING BY THE SURFACE MAKES B = R (exact mathematical equality for a trajectory at its perigee).

Then, how can we discuss anything else? NOTE THAT I didn't even move ONE INCH from Einstein's theories. No trace of von Soldner here!

And your PPN_Gamma factor, whether YOU, SHAPIRO & Co. don't like IS B²/R² (in geometrical units).

Are you going to NEGATE YOUR OWN EINSTEIN? ARE YOU MAD OR JUST RESIGNED FROM BEING A RELATIVIST?

And even MORE: If you don't like the equations above, just TELL ME CLEARLY which is the geometric function that describes
the TRAJECTORY of distant starlight, coming to minus infinity DIRECTLY toward our eyes, here on Earth!

Just be PRECISE! Is it an hyperbola (one of three possible conic curves) or are you going to invent A FIFTH DEGREE polynomial (no less)?

But, just in case that you concede it's an hyperbola, be ready to THINK what happens with angular momentum OR the speed of light.

Paul: DON'T ANSWER IT TO ME. I DON'T NEED IT. ANALYZE IT JUST FOR YOURSELF.

Why do you insist that Soldner wrongly claimed that the Newtonian prediction was twice of what it is?

Don't mix Newton with von Soldner. He didn't even mentioned him.
He, obviously as it's written, surrendered under the genius of Laplace. So great it was that, still today, is adored by scientists
because he was the one who brought the light of integro-differential calculus to celestial mechanics, replacing Newton's geometric
approach. And Laplace adored Euler (as Lagrange did), and Euler adored Newton. So, von Soldner is the result of a third generation
of newtonians, who was 100 years past in time.

CLEAR, SIMPLE AND FINAL: von Soldner wrote, as it perspired on the WHOLE FUCKING PAPER, that IF he could be standing
on Sun's surface, he WOULD OBSERVE light of stars just above Sun's horizon, DEFLECTED BY 0.84". PERIOD!

I think Soldner was a genius and correctly calculated that the Newtonian prediction for the gravitational
bending of light grazing the Sun is: δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² ≈ 0.64"

This is a 1911 formula, 109 after von Soldner's DIFFERENT formula, and 233 years after Newton's final thoughts on the matter
of light corpuscles. But you like to mix things, because YOU NEED TO CONVINCE YOURSELF ABOUT THIS.

But I may be wrong when believing he was right,

He NEVER used the formulae for full deflection by distant massive celestial bodies. His SIMPLE PARAGRAPH about the Moon
just show HOW ADVANCED HIS INTELLECT WAS. And Einstein COLLECTED this simple yet revolutionary thought by 1909.

and you may be right when believing he got it wrong.

Your logic FAILS. There are two other possible combinations!

Come on, Paul, grow up! Oh! You can't!

[Dirk Van de moortel]

<snip>
We'll never, ever, reach any kind of agreement.

Of course you won't.
You are an idiot and Paul is not.

Dirk Vdm

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Dirk Van de moortel

Post by Richard Hertz
We'll never, ever, reach any kind of agreement.

Of course you won't.
You are an idiot and Paul is not.

Learn what words actually mean, poor idiot; be rejecting
common sense, like your idiot guru has told you, you're
declaring as idiots yourself.

[Richard Hertz]

Genesys, and was just A QUESTION for posterity:

In 1704 Isaac Newton wrote in his book "Optics": "... the body does not influence the light in the distance and deflects its rays through this influence; and the smaller the distance [between the body and the Light beam] is?

Isaac Newton, Opticks (1704) (Dover, New York, 1952).


By the way, the poisonous gay spiderman Dork vin Muuurtel has just left a comment about idiocy.
I believe that, for a law of nature, any human with a mental flaw is inhibited to detect such flaw in other humans.

It's to laugh for:

An asshole judging others and claiming they are assholes.
An imbecile deciding that others are imbeciles.
A retarded judging others as retarded people.

This is not possible, ever. On this world or the next.

Go to ear some pasture, Muuurtel. Beware, that some cows are allergic to gay muuus. Imbecile.

[Richard Hertz]

Most critics about newtonian deflection of light, in the last 100 years, claim that there is no connection
between the mechanicist newtonian theory of gravitation and electromagnetism, the second huge realm
brought to reality by Maxwell and Hertz, mainly.

The claim is that, even when von Soldner's work is using gravitational acceleration at the surface of celestial
bodies DON'T REQUIRE THE USE OF MASS (like measurement of g using pendulums in XVIII century), wave
theory of light overcame that of corpuscles during XIX century, making possible physics to advance even more.

But it came Planck, by 1900, to play a little with wave nature of light and a fucking photon was born in the next years.

Later, another idea about mass and energy that was going around for centuries, crystalized with THE CONVENTION that E = mc².

But, is that nobody see it coming the movement to couple both making mc²= hf?

Einstein did it in 1911 and came with gravitational effect on radiating EM waves, which relativists claim as essential to understand GPS.
De Broglie did it in 1925 with the electron, and won a Nobel.

But who forbids to use m = hf/c² in photonic theory of light?

More stupid is to use 200+ non linear differential equations that relates gravity with absurd curvature of space and distortion of time.

Apply m = hf/c² to an hyperbolic trajectory of photons and forget von Soldner.

Use Newton through laplacians, lagrangias, hamiltonians, etc. and problem solved.

After all, all of these theories were used in the years of quantum mechanics, isn't it?

[Paul B. Andersen]

<snip>
We'll never, ever, reach any kind of agreement.
Old Φ = - α/r , in the first 7 pages prior his equation 7c.
New Φ = - α/r (1 + B²/r²), in his equation (7c), which led to his equation (11) : (dx/dφ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x − x² + αx³
ω(1911) = 2kM/c²R
AS
ω(1915) = 2kM/c²R . (1 + B²/R²) = 2kM/c²R . (1 +1) = 4kM/c²R
BECAUSE TRAJECTORY OF LIGHT PASSING BY THE SURFACE MAKES B = R (exact mathematical equality for a trajectory at its perigee).
Then, how can we discuss anything else? NOTE THAT I didn't even move ONE INCH from Einstein's theories. No trace of von Soldner here!
And your PPN_Gamma factor, whether YOU, SHAPIRO & Co. don't like IS B²/R² (in geometrical units).

To stupid to comment.

Are you going to NEGATE YOUR OWN EINSTEIN? ARE YOU MAD OR JUST RESIGNED FROM BEING A RELATIVIST?
And even MORE: If you don't like the equations above, just TELL ME CLEARLY which is the geometric function that describes
the TRAJECTORY of distant starlight, coming to minus infinity DIRECTLY toward our eyes, here on Earth!
Just be PRECISE! Is it an hyperbola (one of three possible conic curves) or are you going to invent A FIFTH DEGREE polynomial (no less)?
But, just in case that you concede it's an hyperbola, be ready to THINK what happens with angular momentum OR the speed of light.
Paul: DON'T ANSWER IT TO ME. I DON'T NEED IT. ANALYZE IT JUST FOR YOURSELF.

I am not going to analyse your incoherent babble.
I can't see what your point is, because whatever
Einstein might have written in 1911 and 1915,
or at any other time:

it is a FACT that GR predicts that the gravitational
deflection of EM-radiation by a mass M is:
θ = (4GM/c²d)⋅(1+cosφ)/2 (1)

And it is a FACT that Newton's law of gravitation predicts that
the gravitational deflection of EM-radiation by a mass M is:
θ = (2GM/c²d)⋅(1+cosφ)/2 (2)

where d is the impact parameter (shortest distance from
light trajectory to the centre of M)
and φ is the angle between the star and centre of M.

Do you dispute the above?
----------------------------

These equations can be written in PPN formalism :
θ = (4GM/c²d)⋅((1+γ)/2)⋅(1+cosφ)/2 (3)

If you in (3) set the PPM parameter γ = 1
you get equation (1), the GR prediction.

If you in (3) set the PPM parameter γ = 0
you get equation (2), the Newtonian prediction.

This and nothing else (in this context) is the meaning
of the PPM parameter γ.

If you compare the prediction of equation (3) with
measurements of θ, you can calculate what γ must be
to make the prediction equal to the measurement.
If γ is zero or close to zero, GR is falsified and
Newtons law of gravitation is confirmed.
If γ is 1 or close to 1, Newtons law of gravitation
is falsified and GR is confirmed.

And we know what the results are, don't we?

Why do you insist that Soldner wrongly claimed that the Newtonian prediction was twice of what it is?

Don't mix Newton with von Soldner. He didn't even mentioned him.

Why should he?
Newtonian mechanics/gravitation was the only physics he knew AND USED.

He, obviously as it's written, surrendered under the genius of Laplace. So great it was that, still today, is adored by scientists
because he was the one who brought the light of integro-differential calculus to celestial mechanics, replacing Newton's geometric
approach. And Laplace adored Euler (as Lagrange did), and Euler adored Newton. So, von Soldner is the result of a third generation
of newtonians, who was 100 years past in time.
CLEAR, SIMPLE AND FINAL: von Soldner wrote, as it perspired on the WHOLE FUCKING PAPER, that IF he could be standing
on Sun's surface, he WOULD OBSERVE light of stars just above Sun's horizon, DEFLECTED BY 0.84". PERIOD!

I don't really ROLF, of course, but I am VERY amused. :-D

What Soldner wrote was:
"If we substitute into the formula for tang ω the acceleration
of gravity on the surface of the sun, and assume the radius of
this body as unity, then we find ω = 0".84. If it were possible
to observe the fixed stars very nearly at the sun, then we would
have to take this into consideration. However, as it is well
known that this doesn't happen, then also the perturbation of
the sun shall be neglected. "

The following interpretation of the above is _hilarious_:
IF he could be standing on Sun's surface, he WOULD OBSERVE
light of stars just above Sun's horizon, DEFLECTED BY 0.84".

His statement is obviously that if we, who are on Earth, could observe
a star very close to the Sun, then we would have to take the ω = 0.84"
deflection into consideration. But since it is impossible from
the Earth to observe stars very close to the Sun we must ignore it.
(He didn't think about eclipses.)

I think Soldner was a genius and correctly calculated that the Newtonian prediction for the gravitational
bending of light grazing the Sun is: δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² ≈ 0.64"

.. as Soldner himself said.

This is a 1911 formula, 109 after von Soldner's DIFFERENT formula, and 233 years after Newton's final thoughts on the matter
of light corpuscles. But you like to mix things, because YOU NEED TO CONVINCE YOURSELF ABOUT THIS.

Right.
Einstein's 1911 formula was indeed a = 2GM/c²R = .83 seconds of arc
which is equal to Soldner's correct calculation of the Newtonian prediction.

That wasn't what Einstein tried to calculate, though.
So Soldner was more successful in 1801 than Einstein was in 1911.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

<snip>
We'll never, ever, reach any kind of agreement.
Old Φ = - α/r , in the first 7 pages prior his equation 7c.
New Φ = - α/r (1 + B²/r²), in his equation (7c), which led to his equation (11) : (dx/dφ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x − x² + αx³
ω(1911) = 2kM/c²R
AS
ω(1915) = 2kM/c²R . (1 + B²/R²) = 2kM/c²R . (1 +1) = 4kM/c²R
BECAUSE TRAJECTORY OF LIGHT PASSING BY THE SURFACE MAKES B = R (exact mathematical equality for a trajectory at its perigee).
Then, how can we discuss anything else? NOTE THAT I didn't even move ONE INCH from Einstein's theories. No trace of von Soldner here!
And your PPN_Gamma factor, whether YOU, SHAPIRO & Co. don't like IS B²/R² (in geometrical units).

To stupid to comment.

Are you going to NEGATE YOUR OWN EINSTEIN? ARE YOU MAD OR JUST RESIGNED FROM BEING A RELATIVIST?
And even MORE: If you don't like the equations above, just TELL ME CLEARLY which is the geometric function that describes
the TRAJECTORY of distant starlight, coming to minus infinity DIRECTLY toward our eyes, here on Earth!
Just be PRECISE! Is it an hyperbola (one of three possible conic curves) or are you going to invent A FIFTH DEGREE polynomial (no less)?
But, just in case that you concede it's an hyperbola, be ready to THINK what happens with angular momentum OR the speed of light.
Paul: DON'T ANSWER IT TO ME. I DON'T NEED IT. ANALYZE IT JUST FOR YOURSELF.

I am not going to analyse your incoherent babble.
I can't see what your point is, because whatever
Einstein might have written in 1911 and 1915,
it is a FACT that GR predicts that the gravitational
θ = (4GM/c²d)⋅(1+cosφ)/2 (1)

No, it's not. According to your Shit light in vacuum
is always travelling a straight/geodesic line.

Post by Paul B. Andersen
And it is a FACT that Newton's law of gravitation predicts that
θ = (2GM/c²d)⋅(1+cosφ)/2 (2)

No, it's not. As EM-radiation has no mass, Newton's law of
gravitation predicts nothing about it.

[Richard Hertz]

Post by Paul B. Andersen

<snip>
We'll never, ever, reach any kind of agreement.
Old Φ = - α/r , in the first 7 pages prior his equation 7c.
New Φ = - α/r (1 + B²/r²), in his equation (7c), which led to his equation (11) : (dx/dφ)² = 2A/B² + α/B² x − x² + αx³
ω(1911) = 2kM/c²R
AS
ω(1915) = 2kM/c²R . (1 + B²/R²) = 2kM/c²R . (1 +1) = 4kM/c²R
BECAUSE TRAJECTORY OF LIGHT PASSING BY THE SURFACE MAKES B = R (exact mathematical equality for a trajectory at its perigee).
Then, how can we discuss anything else? NOTE THAT I didn't even move ONE INCH from Einstein's theories. No trace of von Soldner here!
And your PPN_Gamma factor, whether YOU, SHAPIRO & Co. don't like IS B²/R² (in geometrical units).

To stupid to comment.

Are you going to NEGATE YOUR OWN EINSTEIN? ARE YOU MAD OR JUST RESIGNED FROM BEING A RELATIVIST?
And even MORE: If you don't like the equations above, just TELL ME CLEARLY which is the geometric function that describes
the TRAJECTORY of distant starlight, coming to minus infinity DIRECTLY toward our eyes, here on Earth!
Just be PRECISE! Is it an hyperbola (one of three possible conic curves) or are you going to invent A FIFTH DEGREE polynomial (no less)?
But, just in case that you concede it's an hyperbola, be ready to THINK what happens with angular momentum OR the speed of light.
Paul: DON'T ANSWER IT TO ME. I DON'T NEED IT. ANALYZE IT JUST FOR YOURSELF.

I am not going to analyse your incoherent babble.
I can't see what your point is, because whatever
Einstein might have written in 1911 and 1915,
it is a FACT that GR predicts that the gravitational
θ = (4GM/c²d)⋅(1+cosφ)/2 (1)
And it is a FACT that Newton's law of gravitation predicts that
θ = (2GM/c²d)⋅(1+cosφ)/2 (2)
where d is the impact parameter (shortest distance from
light trajectory to the centre of M)
and φ is the angle between the star and centre of M.
Do you dispute the above?
----------------------------
θ = (4GM/c²d)⋅((1+γ)/2)⋅(1+cosφ)/2 (3)
If you in (3) set the PPM parameter γ = 1
you get equation (1), the GR prediction.
If you in (3) set the PPM parameter γ = 0
you get equation (2), the Newtonian prediction.
This and nothing else (in this context) is the meaning
of the PPM parameter γ.
If you compare the prediction of equation (3) with
measurements of θ, you can calculate what γ must be
to make the prediction equal to the measurement.
If γ is zero or close to zero, GR is falsified and
Newtons law of gravitation is confirmed.
If γ is 1 or close to 1, Newtons law of gravitation
is falsified and GR is confirmed.
And we know what the results are, don't we?

Why do you insist that Soldner wrongly claimed that the Newtonian prediction was twice of what it is?

Don't mix Newton with von Soldner. He didn't even mentioned him.

Why should he?
Newtonian mechanics/gravitation was the only physics he knew AND USED.

He, obviously as it's written, surrendered under the genius of Laplace. So great it was that, still today, is adored by scientists
because he was the one who brought the light of integro-differential calculus to celestial mechanics, replacing Newton's geometric
approach. And Laplace adored Euler (as Lagrange did), and Euler adored Newton. So, von Soldner is the result of a third generation
of newtonians, who was 100 years past in time.
CLEAR, SIMPLE AND FINAL: von Soldner wrote, as it perspired on the WHOLE FUCKING PAPER, that IF he could be standing
on Sun's surface, he WOULD OBSERVE light of stars just above Sun's horizon, DEFLECTED BY 0.84". PERIOD!

I don't really ROLF, of course, but I am VERY amused. :-D
"If we substitute into the formula for tang ω the acceleration
of gravity on the surface of the sun, and assume the radius of
this body as unity, then we find ω = 0".84. If it were possible
to observe the fixed stars very nearly at the sun, then we would
have to take this into consideration. However, as it is well
known that this doesn't happen, then also the perturbation of
the sun shall be neglected. "
IF he could be standing on Sun's surface, he WOULD OBSERVE
light of stars just above Sun's horizon, DEFLECTED BY 0.84".
His statement is obviously that if we, who are on Earth, could observe
a star very close to the Sun, then we would have to take the ω = 0.84"
deflection into consideration. But since it is impossible from
the Earth to observe stars very close to the Sun we must ignore it.
(He didn't think about eclipses.)

I think Soldner was a genius and correctly calculated that the Newtonian prediction for the gravitational
bending of light grazing the Sun is: δ ≈ 2GM/Rc² ≈ 0.64"

.. as Soldner himself said.

This is a 1911 formula, 109 after von Soldner's DIFFERENT formula, and 233 years after Newton's final thoughts on the matter
of light corpuscles. But you like to mix things, because YOU NEED TO CONVINCE YOURSELF ABOUT THIS.

Right.
Einstein's 1911 formula was indeed a = 2GM/c²R = .83 seconds of arc
which is equal to Soldner's correct calculation of the Newtonian prediction.
That wasn't what Einstein tried to calculate, though.
So Soldner was more successful in 1801 than Einstein was in 1911.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/

Your reply is a pathetic attempt to divert attention from my MAJOR QUESTION (besides the fact that you
took shelter with the "too stupid to comment" line:

You REFUSED to answer which function represent the trajectory of starlight passing by the Sun and reaching
our eyes during a Sun's eclipse: an hyperbola, a 5th. degree or higher polynomial, a new kind of function that nor
geometry or algebra can provide?

And with THE ANSWER, the TRUTH emerges!

But you are chickening out! You run and hide before giving any answer, because you know the consequences, isn't it, Paul?

So, you ARE CORNERED by a simple question UNRELATED to any GR or Newtonian theory.

The simplicity of the question and your refusal to answer MARKS WHO IS THE STUBBORN IMBECILE HERE!

[Dono.]

<snip>

Post by Dono.
It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

These jews disagree with you,

1. Tillman Sauer is German , not Jewish
2. You are a cretin, all that Sauer says is that Soldner got the Newtonian value of 0.87 deflection right.
3. Soldner couldn't get anything more because there is nothing more to be obtained by using Newtonian mechanics.
4. As an aside, Soldner is forced to assign non-zero mass to the photon in the very foirst equation of the derivation, otherwise, the while argument falls apart. But we know that the photon has zero mass, so, Sildner argument, DOES fall apart.

5. You are still licking ass to your nazi masters, odious kapo.

[Richard Hertz]

Post by Dono.

<snip>

Post by Dono.
It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

These jews disagree with you,

1. Tillman Sauer is German , not Jewish
2. You are a cretin, all that Sauer says is that Soldner got the Newtonian value of 0.87 deflection right.
3. Soldner couldn't get anything more because there is nothing more to be obtained by using Newtonian mechanics.
4. As an aside, Soldner is forced to assign non-zero mass to the photon in the very foirst equation of the derivation, otherwise, the while argument falls apart. But we know that the photon has zero mass, so, Sildner argument, DOES fall apart.
5. You are still licking ass to your nazi masters, odious kapo.

Fucking retarded meddling into things of which doesn't know SHIT, IMBECILE.

Von Soldner did choose acceleration because it's particle mass independent! Or do you think that equation m.g = kMm/r2
was invented by Eotvos and Einstein, cretin? It was used since early 1700's, once Euler derived the correct expression for F = m.a

And still, von Soldner calculated HALF THE DEFLECTION (as an observer on the surface looking to stars just above the horizon).

He knew that it was impossible to be seated at Sun's surface, so his "german joke". Because germans are known to have a "fine" sense
of humor! A Swedish is a clown in a party, compared with a German, even when both be heavily drunk.

Or the fucking imbecile Dutch people: tell a joke to Dork vin Muuuurtel, and tell me how did it go.

[Dono.]

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Dono.

<snip>

Post by Dono.
It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

These jews disagree with you,

1. Tillman Sauer is German , not Jewish
2. You are a cretin, all that Sauer says is that Soldner got the Newtonian value of 0.87 deflection right.
3. Soldner couldn't get anything more because there is nothing more to be obtained by using Newtonian mechanics.
4. As an aside, Soldner is forced to assign non-zero mass to the photon in the very first equation of the derivation, otherwise, the while argument falls apart. But we know that the photon has zero mass, so, Soldner argument, DOES fall apart.
5. You are still licking ass to your nazi masters, odious kapo.

Von Soldner did choose acceleration because it's particle mass independent!

Cretinoid,

The first equation in Soldner paper uses Laplace's equation of motion:

m\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}=\frac{GMm}{r^2}

"m" in the above, represents the "photon mass" which gets reduced from both sides of the equation. And just like that, you get to eat more shit. Again.

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Dono.

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Dono.

<snip>

Post by Dono.
It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

These jews disagree with you,

1. Tillman Sauer is German , not Jewish
2. You are a cretin, all that Sauer says is that Soldner got the Newtonian value of 0.87 deflection right.
3. Soldner couldn't get anything more because there is nothing more to be obtained by using Newtonian mechanics.
4. As an aside, Soldner is forced to assign non-zero mass to the photon in the very first equation of the derivation, otherwise, the while argument falls apart. But we know that the photon has zero mass, so, Soldner argument, DOES fall apart.
5. You are still licking ass to your nazi masters, odious kapo.

Von Soldner did choose acceleration because it's particle mass independent!

Cretinoid,
m\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}=\frac{GMm}{r^2}
"m" in the above, represents the "photon mass" which gets reduced from both sides of the equation.

Cretinoid,
you can't reduce 0/0 to 1.

[Dono.]

Post by Dono.

Post by Dono.

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Dono.

<snip>

Post by Dono.
It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

These jews disagree with you,

1. Tillman Sauer is German , not Jewish
2. You are a cretin, all that Sauer says is that Soldner got the Newtonian value of 0.87 deflection right.
3. Soldner couldn't get anything more because there is nothing more to be obtained by using Newtonian mechanics.
4. As an aside, Soldner is forced to assign non-zero mass to the photon in the very first equation of the derivation, otherwise, the while argument falls apart. But we know that the photon has zero mass, so, Soldner argument, DOES fall apart.
5. You are still licking ass to your nazi masters, odious kapo.

Von Soldner did choose acceleration because it's particle mass independent!

Cretinoid,
m\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}=\frac{GMm}{r^2}
"m" in the above, represents the "photon mass" which gets reduced from both sides of the equation.

Cretinoid,
you can't reduce 0/0 to 1.

That was the OTHER error in Soldner derivation, making it invalid, drunken janitor.

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Dono.

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Dono.

<snip>

Post by Dono.
It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

These jews disagree with you,

1. Tillman Sauer is German , not Jewish
2. You are a cretin, all that Sauer says is that Soldner got the Newtonian value of 0.87 deflection right.
3. Soldner couldn't get anything more because there is nothing more to be obtained by using Newtonian mechanics.
4. As an aside, Soldner is forced to assign non-zero mass to the photon in the very first equation of the derivation, otherwise, the while argument falls apart. But we know that the photon has zero mass, so, Soldner argument, DOES fall apart.
5. You are still licking ass to your nazi masters, odious kapo.

Von Soldner did choose acceleration because it's particle mass independent!

Cretinoid,
m\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}=\frac{GMm}{r^2}
"m" in the above, represents the "photon mass" which gets reduced from both sides of the equation.

you can't reduce 0/0 to 1.

You can't. But you can extend x/x at x=0.

(warning: there are two variables in this example and you
only have one neuron, take care)

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Cretinoid,

Nice signature Maciej.

[Jess Bucy]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Dono.
Cretinoid,
m\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}=\frac{GMm}{r^2}
"m" in the above, represents the "photon mass" which gets reduced from
both sides of the equation.

you can't reduce 0/0 to 1.

You can't. But you can extend x/x at x=0.

but it's not about extension, brainfart imbecile, can't your read.
Extensions you may do some other places, so fuck off.

[Python]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Dono.
Cretinoid,
m\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}=\frac{GMm}{r^2}
"m" in the above, represents the "photon mass" which gets reduced from
both sides of the equation.

you can't reduce 0/0 to 1.

You can't. But you can extend x/x at x=0.

[snip imbecilities]
User-Agent: tin/1.9.3 (Mac OS 10.10.5)
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.9.2

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Dono.

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Dono.

<snip>

Post by Dono.
It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

These jews disagree with you,

1. Tillman Sauer is German , not Jewish
2. You are a cretin, all that Sauer says is that Soldner got the Newtonian value of 0.87 deflection right.
3. Soldner couldn't get anything more because there is nothing more to be obtained by using Newtonian mechanics.
4. As an aside, Soldner is forced to assign non-zero mass to the photon in the very first equation of the derivation, otherwise, the while argument falls apart. But we know that the photon has zero mass, so, Soldner argument, DOES fall apart.
5. You are still licking ass to your nazi masters, odious kapo.

Von Soldner did choose acceleration because it's particle mass independent!

Cretinoid,
m\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}=\frac{GMm}{r^2}
"m" in the above, represents the "photon mass" which gets reduced from both sides of the equation.

you can't reduce 0/0 to 1.

You can't. But you can extend x/x at x=0.

And you can wear a red cap, too. But you can't
reduce 0/0 to 1, poor stinker.

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Dono.

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Dono.

<snip>

Post by Dono.
It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

These jews disagree with you,

1. Tillman Sauer is German , not Jewish
2. You are a cretin, all that Sauer says is that Soldner got the Newtonian value of 0.87 deflection right.
3. Soldner couldn't get anything more because there is nothing more to be obtained by using Newtonian mechanics.
4. As an aside, Soldner is forced to assign non-zero mass to the photon in the very first equation of the derivation, otherwise, the while argument falls apart. But we know that the photon has zero mass, so, Soldner argument, DOES fall apart.
5. You are still licking ass to your nazi masters, odious kapo.

Von Soldner did choose acceleration because it's particle mass independent!

Cretinoid,
m\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}=\frac{GMm}{r^2}
"m" in the above, represents the "photon mass" which gets reduced from both sides of the equation.

you can't reduce 0/0 to 1.

You can't. But you can extend x/x at x=0.

And you can wear a red cap, too. But you can't
reduce 0/0 to 1, [snip profanity]

Impressive! You've never understood anything more subtle that
shitting in a hole in your whole life Maciej...

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Dono.

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Dono.

<snip>

Post by Dono.
It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

These jews disagree with you,

1. Tillman Sauer is German , not Jewish
2. You are a cretin, all that Sauer says is that Soldner got the Newtonian value of 0.87 deflection right.
3. Soldner couldn't get anything more because there is nothing more to be obtained by using Newtonian mechanics.
4. As an aside, Soldner is forced to assign non-zero mass to the photon in the very first equation of the derivation, otherwise, the while argument falls apart. But we know that the photon has zero mass, so, Soldner argument, DOES fall apart.
5. You are still licking ass to your nazi masters, odious kapo.

Von Soldner did choose acceleration because it's particle mass independent!

Cretinoid,
m\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}=\frac{GMm}{r^2}
"m" in the above, represents the "photon mass" which gets reduced from both sides of the equation.

you can't reduce 0/0 to 1.

You can't. But you can extend x/x at x=0.

And you can wear a red cap, too. But you can't
reduce 0/0 to 1, [snip profanity]

Impressive! You've never understood anything more subtle that
shitting in a hole in your whole life Maciej...

Your subtle suggestion - that 0/0 should be 1 whenever
it's comfortable for stinker Python or one of his idiot
gurus - is exactly as subtle as shitting in a hole, so I
understood it anyway.

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Dono.

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Dono.

<snip>

Post by Dono.
It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

These jews disagree with you,

1. Tillman Sauer is German , not Jewish
2. You are a cretin, all that Sauer says is that Soldner got the Newtonian value of 0.87 deflection right.
3. Soldner couldn't get anything more because there is nothing more to be obtained by using Newtonian mechanics.
4. As an aside, Soldner is forced to assign non-zero mass to the photon in the very first equation of the derivation, otherwise, the while argument falls apart. But we know that the photon has zero mass, so, Soldner argument, DOES fall apart.
5. You are still licking ass to your nazi masters, odious kapo.

Von Soldner did choose acceleration because it's particle mass independent!

Cretinoid,
m\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}=\frac{GMm}{r^2}
"m" in the above, represents the "photon mass" which gets reduced from both sides of the equation.

you can't reduce 0/0 to 1.

You can't. But you can extend x/x at x=0.

And you can wear a red cap, too. But you can't
reduce 0/0 to 1, [snip profanity]

Impressive! You've never understood anything more subtle that
shitting in a hole in your whole life Maciej...

Your subtle suggestion - that 0/0 should be 1

This is not what I wrote. Read above. Learn. Think. (I know you won't.)

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Dono.

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Dono.

<snip>

Post by Dono.
It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

These jews disagree with you,

1. Tillman Sauer is German , not Jewish
2. You are a cretin, all that Sauer says is that Soldner got the Newtonian value of 0.87 deflection right.
3. Soldner couldn't get anything more because there is nothing more to be obtained by using Newtonian mechanics.
4. As an aside, Soldner is forced to assign non-zero mass to the photon in the very first equation of the derivation, otherwise, the while argument falls apart. But we know that the photon has zero mass, so, Soldner argument, DOES fall apart.
5. You are still licking ass to your nazi masters, odious kapo.

Von Soldner did choose acceleration because it's particle mass independent!

Cretinoid,
m\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}=\frac{GMm}{r^2}
"m" in the above, represents the "photon mass" which gets reduced from both sides of the equation.

you can't reduce 0/0 to 1.

You can't. But you can extend x/x at x=0.

And you can wear a red cap, too. But you can't
reduce 0/0 to 1, [snip profanity]

Impressive! You've never understood anything more subtle that
shitting in a hole in your whole life Maciej...

Your subtle suggestion - that 0/0 should be 1

This is not what I wrote.

No, that is just your subtle suggestion.
Don't you understand your own subtle suggestions?
Not especially surprising.

[Python]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Dono.

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Dono.

<snip>

Post by Dono.
It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

These jews disagree with you,

1. Tillman Sauer is German , not Jewish
2. You are a cretin, all that Sauer says is that Soldner got the Newtonian value of 0.87 deflection right.
3. Soldner couldn't get anything more because there is nothing more to be obtained by using Newtonian mechanics.
4. As an aside, Soldner is forced to assign non-zero mass to the photon in the very first equation of the derivation, otherwise, the while argument falls apart. But we know that the photon has zero mass, so, Soldner argument, DOES fall apart.
5. You are still licking ass to your nazi masters, odious kapo.

Von Soldner did choose acceleration because it's particle mass independent!

Cretinoid,
m\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}=\frac{GMm}{r^2}
"m" in the above, represents the "photon mass" which gets reduced from both sides of the equation.

you can't reduce 0/0 to 1.

You can't. But you can extend x/x at x=0.

And you can wear a red cap, too. But you can't
reduce 0/0 to 1, [snip profanity]

Impressive! You've never understood anything more subtle that
shitting in a hole in your whole life Maciej...

Your subtle suggestion - that 0/0 should be 1

This is not what I wrote.

No

Well, you've just admitted you lied. You didn't notice, but
this is a progress anyway...

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Dono.

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Dono.

<snip>

Post by Dono.
It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

These jews disagree with you,

1. Tillman Sauer is German , not Jewish
2. You are a cretin, all that Sauer says is that Soldner got the Newtonian value of 0.87 deflection right.
3. Soldner couldn't get anything more because there is nothing more to be obtained by using Newtonian mechanics.
4. As an aside, Soldner is forced to assign non-zero mass to the photon in the very first equation of the derivation, otherwise, the while argument falls apart. But we know that the photon has zero mass, so, Soldner argument, DOES fall apart.
5. You are still licking ass to your nazi masters, odious kapo.

Von Soldner did choose acceleration because it's particle mass independent!

Cretinoid,
m\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}=\frac{GMm}{r^2}
"m" in the above, represents the "photon mass" which gets reduced from both sides of the equation.

you can't reduce 0/0 to 1.

You can't. But you can extend x/x at x=0.

And you can wear a red cap, too. But you can't
reduce 0/0 to 1, [snip profanity]

Impressive! You've never understood anything more subtle that
shitting in a hole in your whole life Maciej...

Your subtle suggestion - that 0/0 should be 1

This is not what I wrote.

No

Well, you've just admitted you lied.

No, I haven't. Like usual, you're fabricating and lying.
As predicted for a relativistic stinker in general,
and for you especially.

[Python]

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Dono.

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Dono.

<snip>

Post by Dono.
It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

These jews disagree with you,

1. Tillman Sauer is German , not Jewish
2. You are a cretin, all that Sauer says is that Soldner got the Newtonian value of 0.87 deflection right.
3. Soldner couldn't get anything more because there is nothing more to be obtained by using Newtonian mechanics.
4. As an aside, Soldner is forced to assign non-zero mass to the photon in the very first equation of the derivation, otherwise, the while argument falls apart. But we know that the photon has zero mass, so, Soldner argument, DOES fall apart.
5. You are still licking ass to your nazi masters, odious kapo.

Von Soldner did choose acceleration because it's particle mass independent!

Cretinoid,
m\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}=\frac{GMm}{r^2}
"m" in the above, represents the "photon mass" which gets reduced from both sides of the equation.

you can't reduce 0/0 to 1.

You can't. But you can extend x/x at x=0.

And you can wear a red cap, too. But you can't
reduce 0/0 to 1, [snip profanity]

Impressive! You've never understood anything more subtle that
shitting in a hole in your whole life Maciej...

Your subtle suggestion - that 0/0 should be 1

This is not what I wrote.

No

Well, you've just admitted you lied.

No, I haven't.

You didn't notice, but you did. LOL.

How an idiot you are, this is pathetic...

[Maciej Wozniak]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Dono.

Post by Richard Hertz

Post by Dono.

<snip>

Post by Dono.
It is disgusting to see a Jew (Richard Hertz) sucking ass to the Nazi propaganda of "Deutsche Physik".
Cretinoid,
It is impossible for Newtonian mechanics to produce a correct result for starlight bending by the Sun. But, please , continue to
suck ass to Lenard and your other nazis.

These jews disagree with you,

1. Tillman Sauer is German , not Jewish
2. You are a cretin, all that Sauer says is that Soldner got the Newtonian value of 0.87 deflection right.
3. Soldner couldn't get anything more because there is nothing more to be obtained by using Newtonian mechanics.
4. As an aside, Soldner is forced to assign non-zero mass to the photon in the very first equation of the derivation, otherwise, the while argument falls apart. But we know that the photon has zero mass, so, Soldner argument, DOES fall apart.
5. You are still licking ass to your nazi masters, odious kapo.

Von Soldner did choose acceleration because it's particle mass independent!

Cretinoid,
m\frac{d^2r}{dt^2}=\frac{GMm}{r^2}
"m" in the above, represents the "photon mass" which gets reduced from both sides of the equation.

you can't reduce 0/0 to 1.

You can't. But you can extend x/x at x=0.

And you can wear a red cap, too. But you can't
reduce 0/0 to 1, [snip profanity]

Impressive! You've never understood anything more subtle that
shitting in a hole in your whole life Maciej...

Your subtle suggestion - that 0/0 should be 1

This is not what I wrote.

No

Well, you've just admitted you lied.

No, I haven't.

You didn't notice, but you did. LOL.

No. Sorry, poor stinker.

[Michael Moroney]

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak

Post by Python

Post by Python

Post by Maciej Wozniak
Your subtle suggestion - that 0/0 should be 1

This is not what I wrote.

No

Well, you've just admitted you lied.

No, I haven't.

You didn't notice, but you did. LOL.
How an idiot you are, this is pathetic...

What did you expect from a janitor who huffs the bowl cleaner every night?

[Dono.]

The world is a SHITTY PLACE due to imbecile kapos LIKE ME.

Yep

[Dono.]

And the imbecile kapo Richard Hertz continues to worship von Soldner in true nazi traduition

[Dono.]

And the imbecile kapo Richard Hertz continues to worship von Soldner in true nazi tradition

[Paul B. Andersen]

Post by Richard Hertz
So, Paul, have your list at hand, so I can give "non-insulting" answers, as you requested.

https://paulba.no/paper/index.html

[Dono.]

repetition of his already debunked cretinisms<

[Richard Hertz]

This is an excerpt of the 41 pages report from Edddington to the Royal Astronomic Society.

Not that he's a biased gal (gay):

EXCERPT FROM EDDINGTON REPORT IN 1919
****************************************************************
IX. A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations made at the TotalE clipse of May 29, 1919.
By Sir F. W. DYSON, F.R.S., Astronomer Royal, Prof. A. S. EDDINGTON, F.R.S., and Mr. C. DAVIDSON.
(Communicated by the Joint Permanent Eclipse Committee.). Received October 30,-Read November 6, 1919.
.......................................
4. The results of the observations here described appear to point quite definitively to the third alternative, and confirm EINSTEIN'S generalised relativity theory. As is well known the theory is also confirmed by the motion of the perihelion of Mercury, which exceeds the Newtonian value by 43" per century - an amount practically identical with that deduced from EINSTEIN'S theory. 0n the other hand, his theory predicts a displacementt on the red of the Fraunhofer lines on the sun amounting to about 0'008 A in the violet. According to Dr. ST. JOHN this displacement is not confirmed. If this disagrement is to be taken as final it necessitates considerable modifications of EINSTEIN'S theory, which it is outside our province to discuss. But, whether or not changes are needed in other parts of the theory, it appears now to be established that EINSTEIN'S law of gravitation gives the true deviations from the Newtonian law both for the relatively slow-moving planet Mercury and for the fast-moving waves of light.
........................38 pages later ..........................................
Discussion of the Results. 37. The four determinations from the two eclipse plates are
X-G . . . . 1.94"
X-H . . . . 1.44"
W-D . . . . 1.55"
W-I . . . . 1.67"
giving a mean of 1.65".
They evidently agree with EINSTEIN'S predicted value 1".75.
****************************************************************

Meanwhile, other reports in the next 53 years gave:

Optical Deflection of Starlight During Eclipses

29 May 1919 - Sobral: 1.82 to 2.14 arcsec
29 May 1919 -Principe: 1.21 to 2.01 arcsec
21 Sep 1922 - Australia: 1.32 to 2.12 arcsec
21 Sep 1922 - Australia: 2.05 to 2.05 arcsec
21 Sep 1922 - Australia: 1.42 to 2.16 arcsec
21 Sep 1922 - Australia: 1.57 to 1.87 arcsec
21 Sep 1922 - Australia: 1.62 to 2.02 arcsec
9 May 1929 - Sumatra: 2.14 to 2.34 arcsec
19 Jun 1936 - USSR: 2.42 to 3.04 arcsec
19 Jun 1936 - Japan: 1.28 to 2.13 arcsec
20 May 1947 - Brazil: 1.74 to 2.28 arcsec
25 Feb 1952 - Sudan: 1.60 to 1.80 arcsec
30 Jun 1973 - Mauritania: 1.47 to 1.85 arcsec

Average (50 years): 1.903+/-0.237 arcsec; 1.666 arcsec to 2.139 arcsec

Nowadays, some reports using MW instead of visible light claim that 1.75 arcsec is verified up to 10E-04 error (99.99% accuracy).

Go figure. I'll continue with certified data from several reports and their evolution along the years.

Also, I'll study theories using diffraction, more credible for me than half deflection or full deflection
due to light having mass (Einstein's dixit, not mine).

[Richard Hertz]

Unless relativists abandon newtonian hyperbolic trajectories for starlight deflection and start using
polynomials approximations, the speed of light or momentum conservation will be a serious threat
to GR validation.

Like changing ψ(r) = 1.75/(r/RSun) arcsec , r >= RSun

for ψ(r) = - 0,0005 x⁵ + 0,0143 x⁴ - 0,1627 x³ + 0,9106 x² - 2,6 x + 3,5257 arcsec , with x = r/RSun >= 1.

It works well up to r/RSun = 8

Now, can use the polynomial to introduce another reasons for starlight deflection instead of gravitational attraction.

No hyperbolic trajectories, no Newton. Just a fresh start. Diffraction maybe?

[Dono.]

Post by Richard Hertz
No hyperbolic trajectories, no Newton. Just a fresh start. Diffraction maybe?

Not "diffraction maybe", Richard Hertz' cretinism for sure

[Dono.]

Post by Richard Hertz
Also, I'll study theories using diffraction, more credible for me than half deflection or full deflection

Cretinoid,


Diffraction would separate the components of white lite. Observation shows that that is not the case. But, go ahead, "study" diffraction, odious kapo.

[Dono.]

Post by Dono.

Post by Richard Hertz
Also, I'll study theories using diffraction, more credible for me than half deflection or full deflection

Cretinoid,
Diffraction would separate the components of white light. Observation shows that that is not the case. But, go ahead, "study" diffraction, odious kapo.

[Richard Hertz]

Gono:

1) I used the term diffraction (Franhoufer, Fresnel) as a generalization for classic optics physics: diffraction, refraction, reflection, etc.
Diffraction don't involve, necessarily, changes in the speed of light but affect each wavelength. Refraction (Snell) involve changes
in the speed of light, but I'm not familiar with the impact on wavefronts at any of those phenomena. I said I'm going to study it for
a while, to see where it goes. There are papers dealing with starlight deflection with both effects, which I'll read.

2) When you write your posts, you show your mental illness clearly. Only a fucking retarded mocks as a cartoon character, asshole.
You have nothing more in your mind than resentment, and your behavioral decline show how useless being are you becoming, poor
reptilian lifeform.

Bodkin and Gono:

Anything but a thoughtful contribution, isn't it? Because anything any of you may compromise your relativism. You both are at the ends
of cretinism and jealousy. You both are incapable of openly expose your knowledge with mathematics, because both know that are
a fucking fraud, mathematicians.

I have no problem to post calculations. If they are right, OK. If they are wrong, I'll learn and modify them. Permanent refinement through
successive steps, I wrote here several times.

For instance, I was thinking IF the speed c in the denominator of the second term within the brackets should be c or c', as it's a parameter
used to go from geometrical to physical units. If I change it to c', then the speed of light c is higher at the perigee, returning to its value
c at a distance. It would help to keep the constancy of c FAR AWAY from gravitational sources.

And this is the way that I work and think, making my thought more clear and coherent with time. Because I'M MENTALLY FLEXIBLE.

But you both just have FOSSILIZED MINDS, rotten by decades of dealing with BORROWED KNOWLEDGE, assholes.

And Bodkin, how do you dare to bring the "attention whore" topic, stoneface?

You are the regent whore of the whorehouse, position gained through your efforts being an attention prostitute.

Anyway, Newton keeps ruling your pathetic world, whether you like it or not. And Gerber, von Soldner and similar in the past still are
present for anyone without mental imprisonment to think differently than the relativistic herd, imbeciles.

[Richard Hertz]

Post by Richard Hertz
Just as an historical curiosity. This is an excerpt of a paper presented by Charles Lane Poor, an US astronomer of high caliber.
Poor (1866 - 1951) was an astronomer and professor of celestial mechanics at Columbia University from 1903 to 1944, when he was named Professor Emeritus. He published several works disputing the evidence for Einstein's theory of relativity during the 1920s,
reflecting objections to the theory.
He was a fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society and an associate fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. At Columbia
University, Poor was a teacher of the astronomer Samuel A. Mitchell, who went on to become director of the Leander McCormick Observatory at the University of Virginia.
EXCERPT OF THE 1927 PAPER
*******************************************************************************************************************
THE JOURNAL OF THE ROYAL ASTRONOMICAL SOCIETY OF CANADA
Vol. XXI, No. 6 , JULY-AUGUST, 1927 , Whole No. 1 6
THE RELATIVITY DEFLECTION OF LIGHT?
By CHARLES LANE POOR
Presented at the Philadelphia Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and the American
Astronomical Society. December 29, 1926.
The claim of the relativists, which has attracted the greatest popular interest, is that of "bent light”; the claim that light has weight and
falls towards the earth in a manner entirely similar to that of the famed apple of Newton. And this interest has been intensified by the
widely heralded eclipse expeditions to Africa, to South America, and to Australia to test and to verify the predictions of Einstein, and by
the repeated assertions that these expeditions have fully confirmed all the wonders of the relativity theory by obtaining results which
"are in exact accord with the requirements of the Einstein Theory".
But just what these requirements of the theory really are, and how they result from the theory, neither Einstein, nor any of his followers,
has explained in simple, understandable language. Einstein, himself, has given two very definite predictions as to the amount by which
the light of a star should be bent, or deflected in its passage by the sun. In 1911 he fixed this amount as 0".83; in 1916 he doubled this
and made the deflection, according to his theories, 1".70. But the way in which Einstein derived these two different values is not given in
any general works on relativity. Such works of the relativists are replete with philosophical contemplations, with vague speculations and
generalizations as to the structure of the universe, with references to the principle of equivalence, to warps and twists in space; but they
one and all fail to give a direct explanation of the basis of Einstein's claim as to the deflection of light rays, and of the ways in which he
arrived at the two different and conflicting values. The statement of Einstein, contained in his general work on relativity, is probably as
"According to the theory half of this deflection is produced by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun, and the other
half by the geometrical modification ('curvature') of space caused by the sun."
If this be taken literally then it would appear that Einstein, in 1911, evolved the theory that light has weight and is acted upon by gravitation
in exactly the same way as is a particle of matter; that he afterwards and prior to 1916 found that the sun warps and twists space in its
neighborhood, and that light is further deflected by its passage through such warps and twists. Thus it would seem that his 1911
prediction of a deflection of only 0".83 was based upon some direct effect of Newtonian gravitation upon light; that his revised prediction
of 1".70 in 1916 was based upon some additional and newly discovered effect of gravitation upon space. The summation of these two
supposed effects of gravitation, the one directly upon a body, the other indirectly through an intermediary action upon space, has been
termed a “new”, or the "Einstein" law of gravitation. And the deflections of light, observed at solar eclipses, have been cited as tests
between these two theories, or laws of gravitation :the Newtonian and the Einsteinian.
*******************************************************************************************************************

Another bit of excerpts from Poor's 1927 paper:

© The Royal Astronomical Society of Canada. Provided by the NASA Astrophysics Data System
Charles Lane Poor

In these formulas, and in Einstein's computation, there is not the slightest trace of non-Euclidean geometry, nor of “curvature of space".
Unfortunately Einstein does not give the numerical calculation in detail: he gives merely the formulas and the result, stating that by
carrying out the calculation:

"According to this, a ray of light going past the sun undergoes a deflection of 1".70."

This is exactly double the value given in 1911, and this doubling of values has given rise to many speculations, and to many and varied
explanations, on the part of the relativists.

*******************************************************************************************************************

It was the think of many astronomers for decades after 1915. How the fuck did he cook the "magic 2X" factor?

Read the OP on this thread to know, but don't forget Einstein's explanation in the 1920's:

"Half the value comes from newtonian deflection and the other half from my theory".

[Richard Hertz]

This is a copy of one recent post of Paul Andersen, which answer (as well as the topic of the post) belong to this thread,
not to: "Just for fun: What was your average IQ when being 15? And now?".

But for reasons that I prefer not to detail, but I think I understand, Paul prefer to ignore this thread, even when this topic
is 100% connected to his post.

Here it goes:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul B. Andersen , Jan 6, 2022 , 22:51 PM UTC

I am saying that this illustrates how difficult it is to precisely measure the gravitational deflection of light
by looking at a star grazing the Sun with a telescope.

That's why this method isn't used in any of these vastly more precise measurements:

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

You have to be pretty dumb if you don't understand that it is firmly confirmed that the gravitational deflection
of EM-radiation is as predicted by GR to high precision.

This is settled, case closed.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It seems that Paul address my alleged reject to gravitational deflection, which is not true.

Not for nothing, the topic of this thread is: "These numbers are written in stone: 43"/century and 1.75", not because
Einstein and his GR.", and I start the OP commenting:

"They are THEORETICALLY correct, they are not a merit of GR, and precede Einstein's GR between 17 and 113 years."

So, I conceded that light deflection by starlight passing by the limb of the Sun IS, THEORETICALLY, 1.75 arcseconds since ever,
and could be proven by von Soldner in 1802, had he applied his theory to the Sun and HAD USED AN ENTIRE TRAJECTORY of
starlight, from -∞ to +∞, which practically traduces almost into -π to +π for earthly observations.

Most of the papers he cites are devoted to the measurement of the factor γ in the PPN equation (Shapiro's paper):

θ = (1 + γ) GM/(c²b) (1 + cos ɸ)

which is the EXPANDED form (due to ɸ) from the original formula I wrote (Einstein 1915, in physical units)

ψ(r) = [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)] GM/(c²r) , being applied to r = RSun, giving EXACTLY 1.75 arcsec (which Shapiro takes for granted).

I used the OP to explain that such PPN γ = B²/(m²c²Rsun²) = 1.0000 THEORETICALLY, since Nov.18, 1915 and "written in stone".

Had Paul read and answered here WHY γ = B²/(m²c²Rsun²) = 1.0000 in an hyperbolic trajectory of a photon passing by Sun's surface,
he would have understood and replied accordingly that MY CONCERN is that the entire factor (1 + γ) is related to THE VARIABLE
SPEED OF LIGHT when passing by a massive celestial body like the Sun (I insist: Newton, Einstein or 50% each).

And this happens and will be happening anytime that the trajectory of light be described as a HIGHLY ECCENTRIC hyperbole, under
newtonian theory of gravitation. Don't forget that Einstein conceded that the "1" in (1 + γ) is NEWTONIAN.

Plus, had Paul read the OP, he would acknowledged that the factor γ = B²/(m²c²Rsun²) is derived from equation (7c) on Einstein's paper.

And that such factor B²/r² (in geometrical units and exactly as written by Einstein) is due to the effect ON SPACE OF GR!

My concern, when I wrote this thread and the OP, was very specific: What happens if the deflection is analyzed under Newton's theory
of gravitation for particles (like light?) having an hyperbolic trajectory. It's like IF THE ONLY MATH AVAILABLE is based on orbital
mechanics, which FORCES TO ONE TO THINK ABOUT:

1) Light having mass, and treated as a "quanta of energy particle" or photon particle?

2) Light having a VARIABLE SPEED, in order to conserve ANGULAR MOMENTUM or light speed being constant, but being that
MOMENTUM IS NOT CONSERVED in this POOR DESCRIPTION of the behavior of light on these scenarios.

Is it CLEAR NOW, Paul? I didn't wrote this thread to question Einstein or Newton, because the PROBLEM (to which I devoted many
hours of calculations and analysis is: WHY this formulation of light deflection persist in time and WHICH are the explanation that
thousands of scientists gave in the last 100 years?

Or is it going to happen as with light speed standard? Fixed by consensus to 299792458 meters/sec and HALF the problem is gone?

Then, what do we do with "trajectories" and violation of angular momentum?

It seems as if it's better to bury the head into the sand, so it isn't happening, like some idiot animals do?

I hope I may be explained myself without any doubt left. Read the OP and consequences. It's not a matter Newton vs. Einstein.

It's about the underlying BASIC theory, that's going around for more than 300 years. Understood?


 

[thor stoneman]

ether