Science: "Light from a background star is deflected by the gravitational field of the Sun. This effect was used in 1919 to provide some of the first evidence for general relativity. Sahu et al. applied the concept to another star: a nearby white dwarf called Stein 2051 B, which passed close in front of a more distant normal star (see the Perspective by Oswalt). The authors measured the tiny shifts in the apparent position of the background star, an effect called astrometric microlensing. The apparent motion matched the predictions of general relativity, which allowed the authors to determine the mass of the white dwarf." http://science.sciencemag.org/content/356/6342/1046.full

The statement

"The apparent motion matched the predictions of general relativity"

is a blatant lie. Newton's theory also predicts "tiny shifts", and in order to be able to find out which prediction - Newton's or Einstein's - is correct, one must know, IN ADVANCE, the mass of the "massive object", its precise geometry, and the precise distribution of the mass within this geometry. Such knowledge is only available when the "massive object" is the Sun, and even in this case things are by no means certain:

"After He Said Einstein Was Wrong, Physicist Henry Hill Learned That Fame's Benefits Are Relative [...] A major proof of Einstein's theory involved a peculiarity in the planet Mercury's orbit, which he attributed to the distortion of space created by the great mass of the sun. Central to the proof was an assumption that the sun is perfectly spherical. But Hill's observations showed that the sun is not perfectly round, a discrepancy that Hill has said may be "Achilles tendon of the general theory." http://people.com/archive/after-he-said-einstein-was-wrong-physicist-henry-hill-learned-that-fames-benefits-are-relative-vol-18-no-10

Sahu et al's fraud was published in countless journals worldwide - not even a hint at the simple argument that, since the authors did not know the mass of the white dwarf in advance, they were unable to discriminate between the Newtonian and the Einsteinian prediction and therefore their observation did not confirm general relativity:

Nature: "The Hubble Space Telescope has spotted light bending because of the gravity of a nearby white dwarf star - the first time astronomers have seen this type of distortion around a star other than the Sun. The finding once again confirms Einstein's general theory of relativity." http://www.nature.com/news/hubble-sees-light-bending-around-nearby-star-1.22108

A single fraud is easy to expose, but the Einstein cult has been producing fraudulent "confirmations" of Einstein's relativity for more than a century and critics have to clean up Augean stables. No matter how many frauds you have exposed, you end up buried under Einsteinian excreta. Yet sometimes even hopeless battles should be fought.

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On 2022-02-12 08:50:46 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:

>
> [ … ]

> No matter how many frauds you have exposed, you end up buried under
> Einsteinian excreta. Yet sometimes even hopeless battles should be
> fought.

Maybe, but if you're serious you'll send your analysis for publication
in a serious journal.
Writing endless quote-mining posts in a news group full of crackpots
won't convince anyone.

You refer Sabine Hossenfelder's blog quite often, but although I follow
her posts regularly, her view of Einstein doesn't seem to be the same
as yours. I don't remember ever seeing a post of hers in which a
paragraph begins "As Pentcho Valev has wisely pointed out, ..." or
anything equivalent. Perhaps you could give a reference to somewhere
she says she accepts your crackpottery?

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

On Saturday, 12 February 2022 at 10:47:17 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> On 2022-02-12 08:50:46 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:
>
> >
> > [ … ]
> > No matter how many frauds you have exposed, you end up buried under
> > Einsteinian excreta. Yet sometimes even hopeless battles should be
> > fought.
> Maybe, but if you're serious you'll send your analysis for publication
> in a serious journal.
> Writing endless quote-mining posts in a news group full of crackpots
> won't convince anyone.
>
> You refer Sabine Hossenfelder's blog quite often, but although I follow
> her posts regularly, her view of Einstein doesn't seem to be the same
> as yours.

Well, you're often referring to your idiot guru, but your idiocies
differ from his idiocies.

On 2022-02-12 10:11:53 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:

> On Saturday, 12 February 2022 at 10:47:17 UTC+1, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
>> On 2022-02-12 08:50:46 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:>> >> > [ … ]
>>> No matter how many frauds you have exposed, you end up buried under> >
>>> Einsteinian excreta. Yet sometimes even hopeless battles should be> >
>>> fought.
>> Maybe, but if you're serious you'll send your analysis for publication>
>> in a serious journal.> Writing endless quote-mining posts in a news
>> group full of crackpots> won't convince anyone.>> You refer Sabine
>> Hossenfelder's blog quite often, but although I follow> her posts
>> regularly, her view of Einstein doesn't seem to be the same> as yours.
> Well, you're often referring to your idiot guru,

Really?!! When, for example? Give some references, please.

> but your idiocies
> differ from his idiocies.

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2022-02-12 08:50:46 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:
>
> >
> > [ … ]
>
> > No matter how many frauds you have exposed, you end up buried under
> > Einsteinian excreta. Yet sometimes even hopeless battles should be
> > fought.
>
> Maybe, but if you're serious you'll send your analysis for publication
> in a serious journal.
> Writing endless quote-mining posts in a news group full of crackpots
> won't convince anyone.

Now that would be a great paper. Summary:
Einstein is wrong, so the Newtonian formula for the deflection of
starlight must be used to analyse the observed microlensing by Stein
2051 B. Therefore the white dwarf Stein 2051 B must be twice as heavy as
Einsteinians assume. Unfortunately this doubled mass is incompatible
with the observed motions of the Stein 2051 A/Stein 2051 B double star
system. This mystery will be explained in a follow-up paper.

Guess both of us could peer-review that one,

Jan

Athel Cornish-Bowden is iconoclast by heart but since he is not very intelligent, he is never able to find the crux of the problem:

Athel Cornish-Bowden: "The concept of entropy was introduced to thermodynamics by Clausius, who deliberately chose an obscure term for it, wanting a word based on Greek roots that would sound similar to "energy". In this way he hoped to have a word that would mean the same to everyone regardless of their language, and, as Cooper [2] remarked, he succeeded in this way in finding a word that meant the same to everyone: NOTHING. From the beginning it proved a very difficult concept for other thermodynamicists, even including such accomplished mathematicians as Kelvin and Maxwell; Kelvin, indeed, despite his own major contributions to the subject, never appreciated the idea of entropy [3]. The difficulties that Clausius created have continued to the present day, with the result that a fundamental idea that is absolutely necessary for understanding the theory of chemical equilibria continues to give trouble, not only to students but also to scientists who need the concept for their work." https://www.beilstein-institut.de/download/712/cornishbowden_1.pdf

Pentcho Valev

On Saturday, 12 February 2022 at 12:52:28 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
>
> > On 2022-02-12 08:50:46 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:
> >
> > >
> > > [ … ]
> >
> > > No matter how many frauds you have exposed, you end up buried under
> > > Einsteinian excreta. Yet sometimes even hopeless battles should be
> > > fought.
> >
> > Maybe, but if you're serious you'll send your analysis for publication
> > in a serious journal.
> > Writing endless quote-mining posts in a news group full of crackpots
> > won't convince anyone.
> Now that would be a great paper. Summary:
> Einstein is wrong, so the Newtonian formula for the deflection of
> starlight must be used to analyse the observed microlensing by Stein

The logic of an idiot: Einstein is wrong=>Newton is right.

> 2051 B. Therefore the white dwarf Stein 2051 B must be twice as heavy as

Newtonian optics wasn't the best of his theories
and didn't survive even 50 years, poor halfbrain.
Fell free to refute it.

On 2022-02-12 12:10:46 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:

> Athel Cornish-Bowden is iconoclast by heart but since he is not very
> intelligent, he is never able to find the crux of the problem:
>
>
> [ … ]
So, no answer to my question. Who can be surprised?
>

--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

Question: "If a light beam is sent tangent across earth would it curve at 9..8 m/s^2?" https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/627464/if-a-light-beam-is-sent-tangent-across-earth-would-it-curve-at-9-8-rm-m-s2/627496

My answer: "Yes the light beam would curve at 9.8 m/s^2, as per Newton's theory":

"To see why a deflection of light would be expected, consider Figure 2-17, which shows a beam of light entering an accelerating compartment. Successive positions of the compartment are shown at equal time intervals. Because the compartment is accelerating, the distance it moves in each time interval increases with time. The path of the beam of light, as observed from inside the compartment, is therefore a parabola. But according to the equivalence principle, there is no way to distinguish between an accelerating compartment and one with uniform velocity in a uniform gravitational field. We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

An Einsteinian’s answer: "Yes it will curve, but not at 9.8 m/s^2 as predicted by Newton's theory. Its curvature will be twice that value as predicted by General Relativity."

Who is right?

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 9:58:13 AM UTC-3, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, 12 February 2022 at 12:52:28 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-12 08:50:46 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > [ … ]
> > >
> > > > No matter how many frauds you have exposed, you end up buried under
> > > > Einsteinian excreta. Yet sometimes even hopeless battles should be
> > > > fought.
> > >
> > > Maybe, but if you're serious you'll send your analysis for publication
> > > in a serious journal.
> > > Writing endless quote-mining posts in a news group full of crackpots
> > > won't convince anyone.
> > Now that would be a great paper. Summary:
> > Einstein is wrong, so the Newtonian formula for the deflection of
> > starlight must be used to analyse the observed microlensing by Stein
> The logic of an idiot: Einstein is wrong=>Newton is right.
> > 2051 B. Therefore the white dwarf Stein 2051 B must be twice as heavy as
> Newtonian optics wasn't the best of his theories
> and didn't survive even 50 years, poor halfbrain.
> Fell free to refute it.

I thoroughly researched this topic: Newton vs. Einstein on gravitational deflection of light about two months ago, betting for Newton.

As far as I know, between 1801 and 1915, there were three attempts to explain such phenomenom under the influence of gravity:

1) Von Soldner 1801.
2) Einstein 1911, which was a plagiarism of Von Soldner on disguise, 110 years after and with new theories and parameters that existed.
3) Einstein 1915 (Nov. 18), which was an outcome of an APPROXIMATION using GR math, as Einstein didn't know how to manage math.

Attempts 1) and 2) were based on: a) Light having mass ; b) Light passing by the surface of the Sun follows an hyperbolic trajectory.
Both calculations, 110 years appart, gave a deflection of 0.85" of arc for r = RSun, decaying with 1/(r/RSun) for greater distances.

Attempt 3) came out of the blue for Einstein, while he was trying to PLAGIARIZE Gerber's solution to the Mercury's perihelion advance.
In the middle of his work with newtonian celestial mechanics, Einstein "found" that his BASIC GR (approximation fudged as hell) gave,
on his equation (7c) a new gravitational potential expression Φ = - GM/r (1 + B²/r²), where B is the angular momentum of Mercury.

Traduced from geometrical to physical units, it gives

Φ(r) = - GMm/r [1 + B²/(m²c²r²)] (Eq. 7c on paper of Nov. 18, 1915)

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

Φ(r) = - GMm/r (1 + r²ω²/c²)

Einstein used this change to derive the final formula of 1898 Gerber (a blatant plagiarism).

The anecdotical part is that, in the same paper, he wrote a few lines about that he found that his new value for starlight deflection
was TWICE his 1911 value.

The 1911 expression (a clone of Von Soldner's one) was:

ψ(1911) = 2 Φ(r)/c² = 0.85 arcsec, if r = RSun

ψ(1915) = 2 Φ(r)/c² (1 + r²ω²/c²).

At this point, he clearly saw that the maximum angular momentum happens at r =RSun. So, making the angular speed of the
"photons" on hyperbolic trajectory c = Rsun x ω_max, he just DOUBLED the 1911 value, and announced it so.

ψ(1915) = 2 Φ(r)/c² (1 + 1) = 4 Φ(r)/c² = 1.75 arcsec, if r = RSun

This duplication is "allegedly" proved in experiments for the last 100 years, stating that HALF the deflection is newtonian (1802, 1911)
and the OTHER HALF (called PPN_Gamma = 1.0000) has been proved by million of MW measurements in the last 50 years.

At any case, the 50% due to SPACE BENDING and the 50% corresponding to classic newtonian trajectories of photons with mass are,
for me, non consistent with physical reality.

So, my final opinion on this matter is that (as Eddington NEGATED on his 1919 report to the Royal Astronomical Society) JUST pure
and simple REFRACTION of starlight by the complex and NOT UNDERSTOOD atmosphere that surround the Sun and extend several
radii. It involves unknown electromagnetic effects on the motion of ionized elements (plasma).

So, to finish: For me, there is NO GRAVITATIONAL DEFLECTION OF starlight by massive celestial objects.

All the observations are perfectly explained by the old and well established theory of REFRACTION OF LIGHT. It also may include
another minor optical phenomena.

All news about this is just P.R. over the MSM and Journals to push GR as a valid science, and not meta-physics (which it is).

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 10:47:26 AM UTC-8, cretin crank Richard Hertz wrote:
> So, to finish: For me, there is NO GRAVITATIONAL DEFLECTION OF starlight by massive celestial objects.

Village imbecile Richard Hertz latest cretinism.

Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> For me, there is NO GRAVITATIONAL DEFLECTION OF starlight by massive celestial objects.

But for the rest of us, the gravitational deflections of
light by massive bodies is as predicted by GR.

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Richard Hertz wrote:
> >
> > For me, there is NO GRAVITATIONAL DEFLECTION OF starlight by massive celestial objects.
> But for the rest of us, the gravitational deflections of
> light by massive bodies is as predicted by GR.
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

50% only. The other 50& is newtonian, and I didn't invent it. Einstein said that, and it's documented.

But maybe you want to challege your Einstein by refuting (1 + PPN_Gamma) = 2.0000.

One month ago I asked you a very simple question on this matter: Can you tell me what function (if any) describe the trajectory
of starlight passyng by the Sun?

It can't be constructed in a simpler way. Is there any?

Anyway, you would have to explain the problem of the constancy of the speed of light one way or another.

You and the reptilian lifeform are cornered AGAIN. Choose what to violate: constancy of c or conservation of momentum?

Not that difficult to understand, isn't it? But this is THE FORBIDDEN QUESTION, because expose the fraudulent structure of modern physics.

Richard Hertz wrote:

>> https://paulba.no/
>
> 50% only. The other 50& is newtonian, and I didn't invent it. Einstein
> said that, and it's documented.
> But maybe you want to challege your Einstein by refuting (1 + PPN_Gamma)
> = 2.0000.
> One month ago I asked you a very simple question on this matter: Can you
> tell me what function (if any) describe the trajectory of starlight
> passyng by the Sun?

Einstine was *pushed* to commit this crime.

Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Saturday, 12 February 2022 at 12:52:28 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-12 08:50:46 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:
> > >
> > > >
> > > > [ … ]
> > >
> > > > No matter how many frauds you have exposed, you end up buried under
> > > > Einsteinian excreta. Yet sometimes even hopeless battles should be
> > > > fought.
> > >
> > > Maybe, but if you're serious you'll send your analysis for publication
> > > in a serious journal.
> > > Writing endless quote-mining posts in a news group full of crackpots
> > > won't convince anyone.
> > Now that would be a great paper. Summary:
> > Einstein is wrong, so the Newtonian formula for the deflection of
> > starlight must be used to analyse the observed microlensing by Stein
>
> The logic of an idiot: Einstein is wrong=>Newton is right.

If you have a third prediction you should publish asap,

Jan

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:39:06 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz ate some extra shit:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> > Richard Hertz wrote:
> > >
> > > For me, there is NO GRAVITATIONAL DEFLECTION OF starlight by massive celestial objects.
> > But for the rest of us, the gravitational deflections of
> > light by massive bodies is as predicted by GR.
> >
> > --
> > Paul
> >
> > https://paulba.no/
> 50% only.

Only for stubborn cretin cranks like Richard Hertz. For mainstream physics, that is 100% GR. You are eating shit with the excavator cup. Once again.

On Saturday, 12 February 2022 at 20:44:30 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> Maciej Wozniak <maluw...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Saturday, 12 February 2022 at 12:52:28 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote:
> > > Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:
> > >
> > > > On 2022-02-12 08:50:46 +0000, Pentcho Valev said:
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > [ … ]
> > > >
> > > > > No matter how many frauds you have exposed, you end up buried under
> > > > > Einsteinian excreta. Yet sometimes even hopeless battles should be
> > > > > fought.
> > > >
> > > > Maybe, but if you're serious you'll send your analysis for publication
> > > > in a serious journal.
> > > > Writing endless quote-mining posts in a news group full of crackpots
> > > > won't convince anyone.
> > > Now that would be a great paper. Summary:
> > > Einstein is wrong, so the Newtonian formula for the deflection of
> > > starlight must be used to analyse the observed microlensing by Stein
> >
> > The logic of an idiot: Einstein is wrong=>Newton is right.
> If you have a third prediction you should publish asap,

1)I don't
2)Your opinion of what I should doesn't interest me.
3): Einstein is wrong=>Newton is right is a logic of an idiot

Paul B. Andersen <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> wrote:
>
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>>
>> For me, there is NO GRAVITATIONAL DEFLECTION OF starlight by massive celestial objects.
>
> But for the rest of us, the gravitational deflections of
> light by massive bodies is as predicted by GR.
>

Not to mention inconsistent with the profile of gaseous density known to
exist, compared with what would be needed to account for it by refraction.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 10:23:28 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> "Sahu et al. applied the concept to another star: a nearby white dwarf called Stein 2051 B, which passed close in front of a more distant normal star... The apparent motion matched the predictions of general relativity, which allowed the authors to determine the mass of the white dwarf." The statement "The apparent motion matched the predictions of general relativity" is a blatant lie... in order to be able to find out which prediction is correct, one must know, IN ADVANCE, the mass of the "massive object", its precise geometry, and the precise distribution of the mass within this geometry..

The object (Stein 2051 B) appears to be a normal oxygen-carbon white dwarf (naturally spherical), with a radius and temperature that implies a mass of about 0.67 solar masses, which agrees with the mass inferred from the deflection of star light.

> Newton's theory also predicts "tiny shifts"...

That's somewhat ambiguous, because "Newton's theory" didn't include a self-consistent theory of light. For example, Newton says explicitly that he wasn't even sure if light propagates instantaneously or at the speed Roemer had recently speculated based on Jupiter's moons. Newton's theory of gravity is incompatible with observation in many ways, and there are obvious problems with treating light as a collection of massive particles... and even on that naive basis it would predict only half the deflection.

> Question: "If a light beam is sent tangent across earth would it curve at 9.8 m/s^2?"
> My answer: "Yes the light beam would curve at 9.8 m/s^2, as per Newton's theory":
> An Einsteinian’s answer: "Yes it will curve, but not at 9.8 m/s^2 as predicted by Newton's
> theory. Its curvature will be twice that value as predicted by General Relativity."
> Who is right?

The words "curve" and "accelerate" have different meanings, so it doesn't make sense to talk about "curving at 9.8 m/s^2". Also, in general relativity the acceleration depends not just on location but also on the trajectory and coordinate system. Making allowances for that, the correct answer is that at the point of closest approach the rate of deflection in terms of Schwarzschild coordinates is the same as the rate of deflection for a material particle at speed c in flat coordinates under Newtonian theory, but in terms of isotropic coordinates the rate of deflection at that point has twice the Newtonian value. In terms of Schwarzschild coordinates the rate of deflection is greater at other points on the trajectory, away from the tangent point. This difference is because Schwarzschild coordinates are not conformal, i.e., they do not preserve angles, but isotropic coordinates do.

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 12:11:47 AM UTC+1, Townes Olson wrote:
> On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 10:23:28 AM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> > "Sahu et al. applied the concept to another star: a nearby white dwarf called Stein 2051 B, which passed close in front of a more distant normal star... The apparent motion matched the predictions of general relativity, which allowed the authors to determine the mass of the white dwarf." The statement "The apparent motion matched the predictions of general relativity" is a blatant lie... in order to be able to find out which prediction is correct, one must know, IN ADVANCE, the mass of the "massive object", its precise geometry, and the precise distribution of the mass within this geometry..
>
> The object (Stein 2051 B) appears to be a normal oxygen-carbon white dwarf (naturally spherical), with a radius and temperature that implies a mass of about 0.67 solar masses, which agrees with the mass inferred from the deflection of star light.
>
> > Newton's theory also predicts "tiny shifts"...
>
> That's somewhat ambiguous, because "Newton's theory" didn't include a self-consistent theory of light. For example, Newton says explicitly that he wasn't even sure if light propagates instantaneously or at the speed Roemer had recently speculated based on Jupiter's moons. Newton's theory of gravity is incompatible with observation in many ways, and there are obvious problems with treating light as a collection of massive particles... and even on that naive basis it would predict only half the deflection.
> > Question: "If a light beam is sent tangent across earth would it curve at 9.8 m/s^2?"
> > My answer: "Yes the light beam would curve at 9.8 m/s^2, as per Newton's theory":
> > An Einsteinian’s answer: "Yes it will curve, but not at 9.8 m/s^2 as predicted by Newton's
> > theory. Its curvature will be twice that value as predicted by General Relativity."
> > Who is right?
> The words "curve" and "accelerate" have different meanings, so it doesn't make sense to talk about "curving at 9.8 m/s^2". Also, in general relativity the acceleration depends not just on location but also on the trajectory and coordinate system. Making allowances for that, the correct answer is that at the point of closest approach the rate of deflection in terms of Schwarzschild coordinates is the same as the rate of deflection for a material particle at speed c in flat coordinates under Newtonian theory, but in terms of isotropic coordinates the rate of deflection at that point has twice the Newtonian value. In terms of Schwarzschild coordinates the rate of deflection is greater at other points on the trajectory, away from the tangent point. This difference is because Schwarzschild coordinates are not conformal, i.e., they do not preserve angles, but isotropic coordinates do.

You are a master of red herrings. It is totally unreasonable to believe that Newton's particle theory of light correctly describes radial fall of photons but gives an incorrect prediction for the gravitational deflection of light. The two motions are identical - the gravitational deflection is, essentially, a fall:

"Soldner is now mostly remembered for having concluded - based on Newton's Corpuscular theory of light - that light would be diverted by heavenly bodies. In a paper written in 1801 and published in 1804, he calculated the amount of deflection of a light ray by a star... [...] Albert Einstein calculated and published a value for the amount of gravitational light-bending in light skimming the Sun in 1911, leading Phillip Lenard to accuse Einstein of plagiarising Soldner's result. Lenard's accusation against Einstein is usually considered to have been at least partly motivated by Lenard's Nazi sympathies and his enthusiasm for the Deutsche Physik movement. At the time, Einstein may well have been genuinely unaware of Soldner's work, or he may have considered his own calculations to be independent and free-standing, requiring no references to earlier research. Einstein's 1911 calculation was based on the idea of gravitational time dilation. In any case, Einstein's subsequent 1915 general theory of relativity argued that all these calculations had been incomplete, and that the "classic" Newtonian arguments, combined with light-bending effects due to gravitational time dilation, gave a combined prediction that was twice as high as the earlier predictions." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Georg_von_Soldner

Pentcho Valev

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 3:39:41 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
>>At the point of closest approach the rate of deflection in terms of Schwarzschild coordinates is the same as the rate of deflection for a material particle at speed c in flat coordinates under Newtonian theory, but in terms of isotropic coordinates the rate of deflection at that point has twice the Newtonian value. This difference is because Schwarzschild coordinates are not conformal, i.e., they do not preserve angles, but isotropic coordinates do.
>
> It is totally unreasonable to believe that Newton's particle theory of light correctly
> describes radial fall of photons but gives an incorrect prediction for the gravitational
> deflection of light.

It isn't unreasonable at all... in fact it is unavoidable. According to general relativity the speed of light in terms of Schwarzschild coordinates is different in the radial and circumferential directions, as are the accelerations, which also depend on the velocity. The explanation for why the radial redshift prediction was unaffected in 1915 but the light deflection prediction was doubled is very elementary. You can read about it in any good book on relativity.

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 10:07:50 PM UTC-3, Townes Olson wrote:

<snip>

.................. is very elementary. You can read about it in any good book on relativity.

"Like the one I may have written or will write, because as a relativist, I know no limits for deception, fraud, sophistry, fallacies, etc."

You, as humble as you always are, didn't want to credit yourself with such a lie. Good for you. Now write a book about why the
stock markets index are REAL. You are good fallacing around, and other people need your talent for deception.

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 3:39:41 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> It is totally unreasonable to believe that Newton's particle theory of light correctly
> describes radial fall of photons...

Newton's physics does not correctly describe radial behavior of light. For example, according to Newtonian mechanics, if we shoot one bullet per second upward from the bottom of a tower, according to a clock at the bottom, the bullets will arrive once per second at the top, according to a clock at the top. Yes, each bullets slows down during its ascent, but each one slows by the same amount, so this doesn't affect the frequency of arrivals. There is no gravitational redshift in Newtonian mechanics.

Yes, there's a web page written by Virginia Tremble (not a theoretical physicist) in which she erroneously says we get redshift from Newtonian physics, but her misconception was explained to her years ago, and she agreed. She is elderly, and doesn't know how to revise that web page. Likewise for the guy at the University of Illinois. It's pointless to base all your beliefs on a handful of erroneous web pages. Read a good book.

> but gives an incorrect prediction for the gravitational deflection of light.

It isn't unreasonable at all... in fact it is unavoidable. According to general relativity the speed of light in terms of Schwarzschild coordinates is different in the radial and circumferential directions, as are the accelerations, which also depend on the velocity. The explanation for why the radial redshift prediction was unaffected in 1915 but the light deflection prediction was doubled is very elementary. You can read about it in any good book on relativity.

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:22:56 AM UTC+1, Townes Olson wrote:

> Newton's physics does not correctly describe radial behavior of light. For example, according to Newtonian mechanics, if we shoot one bullet per second upward from the bottom of a tower, according to a clock at the bottom, the bullets will arrive once per second at the top, according to a clock at the top. Yes, each bullets slows down during its ascent, but each one slows by the same amount, so this doesn't affect the frequency of arrivals. There is no gravitational redshift in Newtonian mechanics.

I am afraid you are fatally confused.

Albert Einstein Institute: "...you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/redshift_white_dwarfs/

Pentcho Valev

On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 5:49:54 PM UTC-8, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 2:22:56 AM UTC+1, Townes Olson wrote:
>
> > Newton's physics does not correctly describe radial behavior of light. For example, according to Newtonian mechanics, if we shoot one bullet per second upward from the bottom of a tower, according to a clock at the bottom, the bullets will arrive once per second at the top, according to a clock at the top. Yes, each bullets slows down during its ascent, but each one slows by the same amount, so this doesn't affect the frequency of arrivals. There is no gravitational redshift in Newtonian mechanics.
>>Yes, there's a web page written by Virginia Tremble (not a theoretical physicist) in which she erroneously says we get redshift from Newtonian physics, but her misconception was explained to her years ago, and she agreed. She is elderly, and doesn't know how to revise that web page.

> I am afraid you are fatally confused. https://www.einstein-online.info/en/spotlight/redshift_white_dwarfs/

That's the article by Virginia Tremble that I explained above, who admitted that she was mistaken when her error was pointed out. See above.

Next you will post your quote from the University of Illinois, whose author also admitted he was wrong when his error was pointed out.

I say again: It isn't a good idea to base your beliefs on a handful of erroneous web pages written by non-experts. Read a good book on the subject. Or, as an alternative, you could actually address the explanation given above: According to Newtonian mechanics, if we shoot one bullet per second upward from the bottom of a tower, according to a clock at the bottom, the bullets will arrive once per second at the top, according to a clock at the top. Yes, each bullets slows down during its ascent, but each one slows by the same amount, so this doesn't affect the frequency of arrivals. There is no gravitational redshift in Newtonian mechanics.