They are THEORETICALLY correct, they are not a merit of GR, and precede
Einstein's GR between 17 and 113 years. The myth installed by relativists
is that Gerber's theory is wrong and that von Soldner only gave half the
1.75", being that he calculated ONLY HALF the deflection of starlight (half
the trajectory, when passing by Earth's surface). Difference appears when
Binet's equation is correctly used on von Soldner's work.

On Nov. 18, 1915, , Einstein read his paper on Mercury's perihelion
phenomenon to the Prussian Academy of Science. The paper presented
the solution for Mercury phenomenon as the 1898 Gerber's equation
by cooking GR, and 10 lines about the new value for 1802 von Soldner's
solution on deflection of light, cloned by Einstein in 1911.

Two numbers remain written in stone since then: 43" and 1.75", and the
merits was attributed to the success of GR. In the next century, until now,
the efforts to keep these numbers have been extraordinary. But they are
not a merit of the validity of GR, but to the genius of Gerber and von
Soldner, buried for not being relativistic.

Most of the thousands of papers written support these values, mostly using Schwarzschild-Hilbert metric.

Einstein had it easy. He modified Newton's potential

Φ = - GM/r for Φ = - GM/r (1 + B²/r²), in his equation (7c).

Long story short: In the same paper, and using this change, he managed
to obtain Gerber's formula and 43" and, as a bonus, DOUBLED the
gravitational potential on the formula for deflection of starlight, used in
1911.

ψ(1911) = 1/c² 2GM/RS = 0.85 arcsec

ψ(1915) = 2 x ψ(1911) = 1/c² 4GM/RS = 1.75 arcsec

The key for this "magic prediction" is simple. The extra (1 + B²/r²) factor
in Φ(r), in physical units, is

Φ(r) = - GMm/r [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)]

B = mr²ω is the constant angular momentum, under Newton's Law of
Gravitation, so

Φ(r) = - GMm/r (1 + r²ω²/c²)

Φ(Rs) = - GMm/Rs (1 + Rs²ω²/c²) = - GMm/Rs (1 + 1) = - 2GMm/Rs
(at hyperbolic trajectory perigee, Rs).

It means that he made Rs.ω = c at the perigee of the trajectory, at which
the test particle has maximum speed.

But it implies a variable speed of light, besides that "photons" have mass
and suffer gravitational attraction.

This is the newtonian equation that Einstein seek, using 80% of the paper,
before changing for a new Φ:

m [r² (dɸ/dt)² + (dr/dt)²] - GMm/r = 2E ; (E < 0, the total energy of the system, is CONSTANT. Also angular momentum B = m r² dɸ/dt ).

The above equations describe any elliptic, parabolic or hyperbolic orbit,
and was used by Einstein TWICE:

1) To get the final expression of the advance of Mercury's perihelion in
an orbit with e = 0.2025 and E < 0.

2) For the deflection of light, at the perigee of an hyperbolic trajectory of
a photon, with r = RS, e >> 1, E > 0.

Einstein REFUSED to show his calculations for 2) and only presented the
new value for deflection of light plus a lot of gobbledygook using GR.
Astronomers and physicists from ALL OVER the world asked Einstein to
present his calculations. Einstein NEVER delivered them.

Why did Einstein refused to show his derivation? Because he had to explain:

1) The use of light as "quanta of energy" (A.K.A. photons) having mass
m = hf/c².

2) The change of the bounded elliptic orbit of Mercury, with e = 0.2025 into
a highly eccentric hyperbolic orbit (e > 200,000), which passed by the Sun
at its perigee (r = RS).

3) The angular momentum at the perigee, B(RS) = m.RS.c. In this way, the
quotient between brackets of ψ(RS) became equal to 1, DOUBLING the
gravitational potential.

4) Making the angular velocity of the photon at the orbit's perigee:
c = RS. ωMAX, implied a VARIABLE SPEED OF LIGHT in the trajectory of
the photon: c' = rω (only reaching c at r = RS).

He had a LOT OF THINGS to explain. And because of the above points,
his ETERNAL SILENCE.

It was the job of others, in the next decades until now, to RATIONALIZE
this derivation with gobbledygook about GR, Schwarzschild, stress-energy
tensor and a lot of fallacies and sophism, shielded by the incredible
defense that 200+ non linear differential equations can provide. Not to
mention when, after Kerr's solution was introduced by 1963, the myriad of
new explanations to justify Einstein's cooking.

Examples: Kerr's metric; inclusion of relativistic effect of (v/c)³ order;
monopoles, quadrupoles, etc., from expansion of 3D-4D polar equations;
solar gravitational monopole; gravito-magnetic effects caused by motions
and rotations; addition of the effect of planetary gravitatiobal deflections of
light, plus the Sun; barycentric coordinate position of the light source;
parameterized post-Newtonian method; Lorentz invariance; optical path
difference between wavefronts of light in telescope's interferometry;
differential astrometry; Post-post-Newtonian deflection of light by the Sun; etc.

But the truth is much more simpler: he cooked his paper, either on Mercury's
analysis or on the calculation of light deflection. It's worth to say that
historical research about Eddington's position under this new value was of
astonishment, as he couldn't reproduce Einstein's result except by resorting
to DOUBLE Sun's mass. He didn't see this coming, so he went in despair to
perform CONTROL DAMAGE.

If you, forum member (relativist or not) want to realize the HUGE difference
of physical magnitudes involved in ONE SINGLE PAPER, that day on Nov. 18,
1915, please read this comparison (both in only 10 pages):

For Mercury's system orbiting in a BOUNDED ELLIPTICAL and ETERNAL trajectory:

A = - 3.784E+32 Joules ; e = 0.2025 ; B = 8.949E+38 Joules x sec ;
m = 3.3E+23 Kg ; rω ≈ 48 Km/sec

For star light's system passing ONLY ONCE in an UNBOUNDED HYPERBOLIC
trajectory (using a 300nm photon):

A = + 1.1E-19 Joules ; e = 235731 ; B(Rs) = 5.14E-19 Joules x sec ;
m(300 nm) = 0.25E-35 Kg ; rω = 3E05 Km/sec

A change of 1 million in eccentricity; a change of 6,000 in velocity; a change
of sign and 10E+43 in energy of the system; a change of MEANING and
10E+57 in angular momentum; as change of mass of 10E+49 plus frequency
dependence; a change of an elliptic orbit to an one time hyperbolic
trajectory. And no explanation, except gobbledygook using GR.

Mercury's Ellipse: x² + y²/(1 - e²) = a² ; a = 5.7909E10 m ; e = 0.2025

Light Hyperbola: x² − y²/(e² - 1) = a² ; a = 2954 m ; e = 235731

And one more SAD THING. This is the Binet's equation (a French
mathematician, physicist and astronomer):

d²u/dɸ²+ u = GM/L² ; (u = 1/r, m = 1, c = 1)

Had it be USED by von Soldner for starlight deflection, with the WHOLE
trajectory instead of using HALF OF IT, it would give 1.75" for deflection,
WITHOUT the complexities of GR and 200+ non linear differential equations
(no curved space).

But, as it is old classic non-relativistic theory (like Gerber's), it has been
DISMISSED, hidden, buried, forgotten.

REMEMBER: von Soldner and Gerber are HEROES of classic, non relativistic
physics. And SR/GR is METHAPHYSICS (fairy tails that had feed 100,000
indoctrinated scientists in the last 100 years), and still worth NOTHING!

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.

On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 8:36:44 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
<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!

Conservation of r.ω = c implies either:

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,
as Einstein proposed in 1911:

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 (1700) up to now (2021), and accept:

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....

Read how much was tortured the poor Lane Poor:

> 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 light through space as :

"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.
******************************************************************************************

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:07:56 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 8:36:44 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> <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!
>
> Conservation of r.ω = c implies either:
>
> 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,
> as Einstein proposed in 1911:
>
> 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 (1700) up to now (2021), and accept:
>
> 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....
>
> Read how much was tortured the poor Lane Poor:
> > 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 light through space as :
>
> "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.

On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 1:57:49 PM UTC-8, crank Richard Hertz regurgitated:
> repetition of his already debunked cretinisms<

On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 8:18:36 PM UTC-8, Richard Hertz swallowed another spoonful of shit:

> And I even STARTED EATING MORE SHIT. I'M JUST WARMING UP.
You sure are. Bon apetit.

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).

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?

Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:07:56 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 8:36:44 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>> <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!
>>
>> Conservation of r.ω = c implies either:
>>
>> 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,
>> as Einstein proposed in 1911:
>>
>> 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
>> (1700) up to now (2021), and accept:
>>
>> 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....
>>
>> Read how much was tortured the poor Lane Poor:
>>> 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
>> light through space as :
>>
>> "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

Den 06.01.2022 05:18, skrev 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

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 10:57:37 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:07:56 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 8:36:44 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>
> >> <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!
> >>
> >> Conservation of r.ω = c implies either:
> >>
> >> 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,
> >> as Einstein proposed in 1911:
> >>
> >> 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
> >> (1700) up to now (2021), and accept:
> >>
> >> 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....
> >>
> >> Read how much was tortured the poor Lane Poor:
> >>> 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
> >> light through space as :
> >>
> >> "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.

On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 11:15:41 PM UTC-8, despicable kapo Richard Hertz wrote:

> 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.

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 5:52:19 AM UTC-8, cretin Richard Hertz wrote:
> No hyperbolic trajectories, no Newton. Just a fresh start. Diffraction maybe?

Not "diffraction maybe", Richard Hertz' cretinism for sure

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 7:36:58 AM UTC-8, Dono. wrote:
> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 11:15:41 PM UTC-8, despicable kapo Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> > 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 <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 10:57:37 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:07:56 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 8:36:44 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <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!
>>>>
>>>> Conservation of r.ω = c implies either:
>>>>
>>>> 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,
>>>> as Einstein proposed in 1911:
>>>>
>>>> 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
>>>> (1700) up to now (2021), and accept:
>>>>
>>>> 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....
>>>>
>>>> Read how much was tortured the poor Lane Poor:
>>>>> 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
>>>> light through space as :
>>>>
>>>> "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.

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

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 <hertz778@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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:

You are confused. You are writing for YOUR OWN sake, not for the sake of
others, remember? This is something you enjoy thinking through FOR
YOURSELF. You don’t need engagement with others, remember?

Or are you an attention whore?

>
> 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.
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 8:36:44 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> 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.
> *******************************************************************************************************************

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".

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?

On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 8:25:23 AM UTC-8, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 10:57:37 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, January 6, 2022 at 1:07:56 AM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, January 5, 2022 at 8:36:44 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> <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!
> >>>>
> >>>> Conservation of r.ω = c implies either:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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,
> >>>> as Einstein proposed in 1911:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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
> >>>> (1700) up to now (2021), and accept:
> >>>>
> >>>> 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....
> >>>>
> >>>> Read how much was tortured the poor Lane Poor:
> >>>>> 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
> >>>> light through space as :
> >>>>
> >>>> "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

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:54:09 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:

<snip>

> It's just gobbledygook. Not worth any attention.

Do you call gobbledygook what Newton, Laplace and other bright minds provided to science,
but says that a product of an imbecile fraudster and charlatan is not?, fucking retarded?

How do you explain 280 years, and counting, of hyperbolic trajectories of light and his variable speed near ponderable masses?

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?

Retarded cretin with no shame. Go back to the closet and party with other relativists in there.

What arrogant peacock! Except when served for dinner.

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 8:44:43 AM UTC-8, despicable kapo Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:54:09 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>
> <snip>
> > 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.

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 2:04:08 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 8:44:43 AM UTC-8, despicable kapo Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:54:09 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> > > 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!

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 10:18:07 AM UTC-8, cretin Richard Hertz wrote:
> 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

On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 3:18:07 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 2:04:08 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 8:44:43 AM UTC-8, despicable kapo Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > On Friday, January 7, 2022 at 1:54:09 AM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > > > 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.