Much thanks to the person who pointed out that gravitational deflection bends opposite that of attraction towards the sun due to acceleration away from mass, not gravitational attraction. The line of sight from an observer would cause distant stars to shift inwards, not outwards. I forgot about that when finishing up, so it's necessary to designate the angle of deflection as negative 0.189 arc seconds. This means that deflection due to atmospheric refraction would be Eddington's value of 0.875 plus the 0.189 opposite deflection for 1.06 arc seconds. The web page and PDF versions have been corrected. My apology. https://www.foosresearch.com/starlight.html

Again, I don't read emails from you little Einstiens, but if anyone notices any other errors or has a contribution to make, send an email with a different subject to get my attention. This is a recent project. Thanks again.

Al Foos

Den 08.10.2022 11:53, skrev Foos Research:
> Much thanks to the person who pointed out that gravitational deflection bends opposite that of attraction towards the sun due to acceleration away from mass, not gravitational attraction. The line of sight from an observer would cause distant stars to shift inwards, not outwards. I forgot about that when finishing up, so it's necessary to designate the angle of deflection as negative 0.189 arc seconds. This means that deflection due to atmospheric refraction would be Eddington's value of 0.875 plus the 0.189 opposite deflection for 1.06 arc seconds. The web page and PDF versions have been corrected. My apology. https://www.foosresearch.com/starlight.html
>
> Again, I don't read emails from you little Einstiens, but if anyone notices any other errors or has a contribution to make, send an email with a different subject to get my attention. This is a recent project. Thanks again.
>
> Al Foos

And you don't read what real measurements
in the real world show, do you?

https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

On Saturday, 8 October 2022 at 13:37:42 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 08.10.2022 11:53, skrev Foos Research:
> > Much thanks to the person who pointed out that gravitational deflection bends opposite that of attraction towards the sun due to acceleration away from mass, not gravitational attraction. The line of sight from an observer would cause distant stars to shift inwards, not outwards. I forgot about that when finishing up, so it's necessary to designate the angle of deflection as negative 0.189 arc seconds. This means that deflection due to atmospheric refraction would be Eddington's value of 0.875 plus the 0.189 opposite deflection for 1.06 arc seconds. The web page and PDF versions have been corrected. My apology. https://www.foosresearch.com/starlight.html
> >
> > Again, I don't read emails from you little Einstiens, but if anyone notices any other errors or has a contribution to make, send an email with a different subject to get my attention. This is a recent project. Thanks again.
> >
> > Al Foos
> And you don't read what real measurements
> in the real world show, do you?

And, as anyone can check in GPS, real measurements
keep resulting in t'=t, like always.

On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 2:53:11 AM UTC-7, cretin Al Foos persevered:
> This means that deflection due to atmospheric refraction

Imbecile,

If the starlight bending would be due to "atmospheric refraction" THE white light would be refracted differently, DEPENDING on wavelength. It isn't , so you are an idiot.

Le 08/10/2022 à 16:47, "Dono." a écrit :
> On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 2:53:11 AM UTC-7, cretin Al Foos persevered:
>> This means that deflection due to atmospheric refraction
>
> Imbecile,

Merci de ne pas insulter les autres contributeurs.

R.H.

On 2022-10-08 14:30:07 +0000, Maciej Wozniak said:

> On Saturday, 8 October 2022 at 13:37:42 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Den 08.10.2022 11:53, skrev Foos Research:> > Much thanks to the person
>> who pointed out that gravitational deflection bends opposite that of
>> attraction towards the sun due to acceleration away from mass, not
>> gravitational attraction. The line of sight from an observer would
>> cause distant stars to shift inwards, not outwards. I forgot about that
>> when finishing up, so it's necessary to designate the angle of
>> deflection as negative 0.189 arc seconds. This means that deflection
>> due to atmospheric refraction would be Eddington's value of 0.875 plus
>> the 0.189 opposite deflection for 1.06 arc seconds. The web page and
>> PDF versions have been corrected. My apology.
>> https://www.foosresearch.com/starlight.html> >> > Again, I don't read
>> emails from you little Einstiens, but if anyone notices any other
>> errors or has a contribution to make, send an email with a different
>> subject to get my attention. This is a recent project. Thanks again.>
>> >> > Al Foos
>> And you don't read what real measurements> in the real world show, do you?
> And, as anyone can check in GPS, real measurements
> keep resulting in t'=t, like always.

505

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

On 2022-10-08 15:34:25 +0000, Richard Hachel said:

> Le 08/10/2022 à 16:47, "Dono." a écrit :
>> On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 2:53:11 AM UTC-7, cretin Al Foos persevered:
>>> This means that deflection due to atmospheric refraction
>>
>> Imbecile,
>
> Merci de ne pas insulter les autres contributeurs.

Something you would never do, of course, but there is this, which you
wrote today:

Et mes couilles, tu crois qu'elles sauraient résoudre une équation du
second degré?

For those not familiar with French slang, I should add that "couilles"
means "bollocks".

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

Le 08/10/2022 à 17:51, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2022-10-08 15:34:25 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
>> Le 08/10/2022 à 16:47, "Dono." a écrit :
>>> On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 2:53:11 AM UTC-7, cretin Al Foos persevered:
>>>> This means that deflection due to atmospheric refraction
>>>
>>> Imbecile,
>>
>> Merci de ne pas insulter les autres contributeurs.
>
> Something you would never do, of course, but there is this, which you
> wrote today:
>
> Et mes couilles, tu crois qu'elles sauraient résoudre une équation du
> second degré?
>
> For those not familiar with French slang, I should add that "couilles"
> means "bollocks".

Le 08/10/2022 à 17:51, Athel Cornish-Bowden a écrit :
> On 2022-10-08 15:34:25 +0000, Richard Hachel said:
>
>> Le 08/10/2022 à 16:47, "Dono." a écrit :
>>> On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 2:53:11 AM UTC-7, cretin Al Foos persevered:
>>>> This means that deflection due to atmospheric refraction
>>>
>>> Imbecile,
>>
>> Merci de ne pas insulter les autres contributeurs.
>
> Something you would never do, of course, but there is this, which you
> wrote today:
>
> Et mes couilles, tu crois qu'elles sauraient résoudre une équation du
> second degré?
>
> For those not familiar with French slang, I should add that "couilles"
> means "bollocks".

That's not the point. The question is:
x²-4x+4=0

You have to stay in charter.

R.H.

On Saturday, October 8, 2022 at 4:37:42 AM UTC-7, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Den 08.10.2022 11:53, skrev Foos Research:
> > Much thanks to the person who pointed out that gravitational deflection bends opposite that of attraction towards the sun due to acceleration away from mass, not gravitational attraction. The line of sight from an observer would cause distant stars to shift inwards, not outwards. I forgot about that when finishing up, so it's necessary to designate the angle of deflection as negative 0.189 arc seconds. This means that deflection due to atmospheric refraction would be Eddington's value of 0.875 plus the 0.189 opposite deflection for 1.06 arc seconds. The web page and PDF versions have been corrected. My apology. https://www.foosresearch.com/starlight.html
> >
> > Again, I don't read emails from you little Einstiens, but if anyone notices any other errors or has a contribution to make, send an email with a different subject to get my attention. This is a recent project. Thanks again.
> >
> > Al Foos
> And you don't read what real measurements
> in the real world show, do you?
>
>
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
> https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
>
> --
> Paul
>
> https://paulba.no/

Ha, what is that, a joke.

Though if you have a table of the numbers especially
according to various crossings that'd be great.

Excuse me, I thought that was funny, because I didn't
expect him to not know the numbers.

Yeah, Hipparcos is about coolest.