Watch this picture and think ONLY in basic geometry:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung.jpg

There is a circle, with radius AC. If you sit at point A and look straight to the
horizon, the prolongation of the line AD toward INFINITY is where you THINK
that starlight is coming right to your eyes.

But gravity is a bitch. The figure represents a VERY SMALL deviation given by
the angle ω, which is the smallest angle of the triangle ADB. Do you see it?

The sides of the right triangle are: AD = DB cosω and AB = DB sinω. Simple, isn't it?

Now, naturally, tanω = AB/AD = sinω/cosω.

So far, even a 9 years old child gets it.

As AB << AD (by more than 100,000 times), it's almost natural to make:

ω ≈ AB/AD (with an error lower than 1/100000).

And that's it! It gives ω ≈ 4.2E-06 radians = 0.84 arcseconds.

Crystal clear, so far.

Now, watch again the figure at the link presented above:

Do you see it clearly? At this figure, 221 years ago, a lone genius deduced (first time ever) that, if you are SIT at the point A, the starlight that you BELIEVE is coming almost at the horizon, in a straight line is ACTUALLY
coming to a source at infinity but ω radians BELOW THE HORIZON, but
you can see it anyway.

Again, crystal clear. A deflection of ω radians deceiving your senses WHEN
you are sit at point A.

Now, the undue controversy that ROTTEN, DISGUSTING EINSTENIAN MINDS
have created since 1921 (almost 100 years ago), to protect Einstein.

They have written all over and in all possible languages and ways, that
von Soldner wrote about an angle ω/2, crapping all over such simple figure.

And, also, they OMIT to say what von Soldner wrote in one single paragraph, not dreaming of the consequences.

And it was as simple as: IF YOU OBSERVE starlight passing by a celestial
body MASSIVE ENOUGH, you should compute THE OTHER HALF OF THE
TRAJECTORY, because he didn't use it for his paper over Earth or the Sun.

He obviously was not a fortune-teller predicting that the unborn cretin would
plagiarize his work 110 years in the future, NOT UNDERSTANDING IT, because
he was an IMBECILE!

And that such imbecile would need more than four years to realize it and
make corrections with the due gobbledygook with which he fucked everyone by then, as many do by now: METHAPHYSICAL gobbledygook.

But the truth, pure and simple, thanks to elementary geometry, is present
at the drawing that nobody could make dissapear (only distort it for the
retarded who don't THINK and borrow/repeat stupidity!).

Von Soldner predicted correctly a deflection of 2ω ≈ 1.7 arcsec for
starlight deflected by the Sun IF a full Sun's eclipse allow to take pics.
And Eddington didn't prove the fucking GR. The homo proved von Soldner.

Go and cry foul, einstein's bitches. Life has no other use for you all.

On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 9:58:47 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Watch this picture and think ONLY in basic geometry:
>
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung.jpg
>
> There is a circle, with radius AC. If you sit at point A and look straight to the
> horizon, the prolongation of the line AD toward INFINITY is where you THINK
> that starlight is coming right to your eyes.
>
> But gravity is a bitch. The figure represents a VERY SMALL deviation given by
> the angle ω, which is the smallest angle of the triangle ADB. Do you see it?
>
> The sides of the right triangle are: AD = DB cosω and AB = DB sinω. Simple, isn't it?
>
> Now, naturally, tanω = AB/AD = sinω/cosω.
>
> So far, even a 9 years old child gets it.
>
> As AB << AD (by more than 100,000 times), it's almost natural to make:
>
> ω ≈ AB/AD (with an error lower than 1/100000).
>
> And that's it! It gives ω ≈ 4.2E-06 radians = 0.84 arcseconds.
>
> Crystal clear, so far.
>
> Now, watch again the figure at the link presented above:
>
> Do you see it clearly? At this figure, 221 years ago, a lone genius deduced (first time ever) that, if you are SIT at the point A, the starlight that you BELIEVE is coming almost at the horizon, in a straight line is ACTUALLY
> coming to a source at infinity but ω radians BELOW THE HORIZON, but
> you can see it anyway.
>
> Again, crystal clear. A deflection of ω radians deceiving your senses WHEN
> you are sit at point A.
>
> Now, the undue controversy that ROTTEN, DISGUSTING EINSTENIAN MINDS
> have created since 1921 (almost 100 years ago), to protect Einstein.
>
> They have written all over and in all possible languages and ways, that
> von Soldner wrote about an angle ω/2, crapping all over such simple figure.
>
> And, also, they OMIT to say what von Soldner wrote in one single paragraph, not dreaming of the consequences.
>
> And it was as simple as: IF YOU OBSERVE starlight passing by a celestial
> body MASSIVE ENOUGH, you should compute THE OTHER HALF OF THE
> TRAJECTORY, because he didn't use it for his paper over Earth or the Sun.
>
> He obviously was not a fortune-teller predicting that the unborn cretin would
> plagiarize his work 110 years in the future, NOT UNDERSTANDING IT, because
> he was an IMBECILE!
>
> And that such imbecile would need more than four years to realize it and
> make corrections with the due gobbledygook with which he fucked everyone by then, as many do by now: METHAPHYSICAL gobbledygook.
>
>
> But the truth, pure and simple, thanks to elementary geometry, is present
> at the drawing that nobody could make dissapear (only distort it for the
> retarded who don't THINK and borrow/repeat stupidity!).
>
> Von Soldner predicted correctly a deflection of 2ω ≈ 1.7 arcsec for
> starlight deflected by the Sun IF a full Sun's eclipse allow to take pics..
> And Eddington didn't prove the fucking GR. The homo proved von Soldner.
>
> Go and cry foul, einstein's bitches. Life has no other use for you all.
Einstenian bitches hate the truth, and more if it's supported by evidence that even a child would understand.

But einstenians have very low moral values, which they use to educate children.

Did you notice that only news on astronomy and physics supporting Einstein are broadcasted or published through MSM channels, and that this move is increasing in the last two decades, along with woke movements coverage and even encouraging them?

Just breaking down only three MSM conglomerates and their huge web of subsidiaries solves the problem in the western world. They concentrate more than 75% of media outlets. The same apply for publishing houses: three.

Just saying.

Read how many imbeciles distort the truth in papers with the similar WRONG UNDERSTANDING of which is the deflection angle.

In this original drawing (link):

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung.jpg

is absolutely clear (crystal clear) that the angle ω (which trick our senses) is given by:

tanω = AB/AD ---> ω ≈ AB/AD

ω tilt the asymptote BR from the straight vertical path by a small amount (in the order of 1E-06 radians in this case).

As MASS decreases, AB decreases almost proportionally, which makes ω decrease at the same pace. If MASS = ZERO, AB = 0
because there is not gravitational deflection and ω = 0. The starlight comes directly to our eyes.

But MANY semi-illustrated relativist cretins are selling, in different papers, that ω IS THE WRONG ANGLE OF DEFLECTION.

That the REAL ANGLE IS δ = π - 2ω, which is really infamous!

Like in this stupid paper, which concept is repeated in several others:

On the Gravitational Bending of Light —Was Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington Right?
November 2013, Journal of Modern Physics 4(01)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262954703_On_the_Gravitational_Bending_of_Light_-Was_Sir_Arthur_Stanley_Eddington_Right

Watch Figure (2), in page 8 (of 30). They are CLAIMING that δ = π - 2ω IS THE ANGLE TO CONSIDER!.

And they calculate: δ = π - 2ω = δ = π - 2 arcos (GM/c²R) ≈ π - 2GM/c²R = π - rS/R

And if you watch again Figure (2), you'll understand that if M = 0, then δ = π !

So, starlight has shifted 180° from his REAL POSITION, on the heavenly sky!

And this is because the authors, a couple of imbeciles, took the wrong angle from the original von Soldner's drawing.

If this is done ON PURPOSE to help Einstein's GR or because they are as retarded as he was by 1911, I can't tell.

I only add that a simple and careful look at von Soldner's original drawing reveals the truth, and you don't need to resort to Newton.
Just pure geometry and hyperbole.

CONCLUSION: The deflection by starlight passing by the limb of the Sun, and perceived from Earth is 2ω = 1.68 arcseconds.

But terrified, coward relativist rats are trying (for 100 years) to sell you rotten fish. Period. Final period.

It's settled, Paul. Now go and cry at the corner.

On 1/13/2022 10:07 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, January 13, 2022 at 9:58:47 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
>> Watch this picture and think ONLY in basic geometry:
>>
>> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung.jpg
>>
>> There is a circle, with radius AC. If you sit at point A and look straight to the
>> horizon, the prolongation of the line AD toward INFINITY is where you THINK
>> that starlight is coming right to your eyes.
>>
>> But gravity is a bitch. The figure represents a VERY SMALL deviation given by
>> the angle ω, which is the smallest angle of the triangle ADB. Do you see it?
>>
>> The sides of the right triangle are: AD = DB cosω and AB = DB sinω. Simple, isn't it?
>>
>> Now, naturally, tanω = AB/AD = sinω/cosω.
>>
>> So far, even a 9 years old child gets it.
>>
>> As AB << AD (by more than 100,000 times), it's almost natural to make:
>>
>> ω ≈ AB/AD (with an error lower than 1/100000).
>>
>> And that's it!

So far so good!

> It gives ω ≈ 4.2E-06 radians = 0.84 arcseconds.

Oh no! FAIL! Not von Soldner, but YOU. You pull that figure from your
butt. von Soldner came up with that figure for the total of both arms
of the hyperbola, for light grazing the surface of the sun.

>> Von Soldner predicted correctly a deflection of 2ω ≈ 1.7 arcsec for

No, von Soldner knew enough he couldn't double the single hyperbola
arm's deflection twice. Just once, where he got 0.84".

Sucks to be you, doesn't it.

On Friday, January 14, 2022 at 3:54:28 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 1/13/2022 10:07 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:

<snip>

> >> ω ≈ AB/AD (with an error lower than 1/100000).
> >>
> >> And that's it!

> So far so good!
> > It gives ω ≈ 4.2E-06 radians = 0.84 arcseconds.

> Oh no! FAIL! Not von Soldner, but YOU. You pull that figure from your
> butt. von Soldner came up with that figure for the total of both arms
> of the hyperbola, for light grazing the surface of the sun.
> >> Von Soldner predicted correctly a deflection of 2ω ≈ 1.7 arcsec for
> No, von Soldner knew enough he couldn't double the single hyperbola
> arm's deflection twice. Just once, where he got 0.84".
>
> Sucks to be you, doesn't it.

Imbecile, each arm contributes with ω ≈ AB/AD ≈ rS/Rsun = 1/235967 = 4.2E-06 radians.

Both arms make 2ω ≈ 2 rS/Rsun = 4GM/c²Rsun = 1/117984 ≈ 8.4E-06 rad ≈ 1.72 arcsec

Use the hyperbola equation (VIII): r + [(v² − 2g )/2g] r cos h = v²/2g , and replace h = h = π/2 - θ, to center it on the point C
of the figure, instead of the point M.

Then, work your way out to obtain a general equation of an hyperbola:

r (1 + e cos θ) = a (1 - e²)

The data is at the paper, but maybe you can't manage to equate both expressions, because you are an idiot.

Tip: Don't forget that r is actually (r/RSun), because it's normalized to 1..

Richard Hertz wrote:

> Watch this picture and think ONLY in basic geometry:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/
Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung.jpg

Does Stoltenberg condemn the attack on the former, 2014, democratically
elected government?

Does Stoltenberg condemn the attack on the Odessa building where innocent
people were burned alive by terrorists?

Does Stoltenberg condemn the Neo-Nazi regiment for their racism and
murder?

Does Stoltenberg condemn the closing of opposition and free media in
Ukraine?

Does Stoltenberg condemn the actual and intended imprisonment of
opposition leaders and political party members?

Does Stoltenberg condemn the attacks on free republicans, and the refusal
to enforce Minsk agreements signed by the main EU partners?

Does Stoltenberg condemn the incitement for war and the destruction and
murder of fellow Europeans (Russians)?

Richard Hertz wrote:

> Watch this picture and think ONLY in basic geometry:
> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3d/
Ueber_die_Ablenkung_eines_Lichtstrals_von_seiner_geradlinigen_Bewegung.jpg

It says a lot about NATO if the secretary General protects and arms
countries such as the Ukraine, with large Neo-Nazi supporters and a
dictator for president. Almost as much as what is says about the attacks
on Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.