Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #576895 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2022-02-12 00:50 -0800 |
| Last post | 2022-02-27 09:52 -0800 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 210 — 18 participants |
Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity
Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2022-02-12 00:50 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-02-12 10:47 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 02:11 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-02-12 11:51 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2022-02-12 04:10 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> - 2022-02-12 13:59 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-12 12:52 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 04:58 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 10:47 -0800
Cretin CRank Richard Hertz latest imbecility "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 10:52 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-02-12 20:25 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 11:39 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Darrel Angus <argus@iiehdc.mx> - 2022-02-12 19:42 +0000
Cretin crank Richard Hertz eats a ton of shit. "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 11:45 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-02-13 10:17 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 22:12 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-12 21:52 -0500
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 21:38 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-14 13:08 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 04:28 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-12 20:44 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 12:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-13 13:36 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 04:48 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:33 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 05:55 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 14:18 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 06:27 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 14:28 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 06:37 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 19:20 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 23:17 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-13 15:42 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 08:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-20 09:22 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2022-02-12 10:23 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 15:11 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2022-02-12 15:39 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 17:07 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 17:17 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 17:22 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2022-02-12 17:49 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 18:03 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2022-02-12 18:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 19:24 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-02-12 23:28 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Townes Olson <townesolson7@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 10:18 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 13:30 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> - 2022-02-13 14:51 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 15:11 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz takes andother mouthful of shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-13 15:21 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-02-14 11:35 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2022-02-14 14:30 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Richard Hachel <r.hachel@tiscali.fr> - 2022-02-14 13:56 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 14:35 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 14:58 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 16:47 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 22:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 14:13 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 06:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 15:05 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 07:24 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-14 16:45 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 07:55 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 16:08 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 08:26 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 16:29 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 08:37 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 17:13 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 09:32 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 19:29 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 12:03 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-14 21:08 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 12:39 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-14 21:57 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 13:02 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-14 22:11 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 22:22 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-14 18:21 -0500
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 20:31 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-15 01:18 -0500
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 23:46 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 14:01 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 06:10 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-15 15:12 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 06:20 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-15 15:22 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 06:28 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-15 15:34 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 07:14 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-15 16:40 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 08:37 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-15 10:38 -0500
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 15:46 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 08:44 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 17:04 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 09:24 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 17:41 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 09:48 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-15 14:04 -0500
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 11:30 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-15 16:08 -0500
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 13:25 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 08:36 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-15 14:06 -0500
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 11:28 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-15 16:57 -0500
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 22:07 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 14:44 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 07:16 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-15 10:45 -0500
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 08:40 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 22:39 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-15 02:21 -0500
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 23:48 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 14:31 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 22:50 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-02-15 15:45 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 13:54 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 23:28 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-16 20:12 -0500
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 19:15 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-16 22:38 -0500
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 22:21 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 00:27 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 14:05 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 18:33 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 14:42 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-16 19:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 00:28 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-17 03:43 -0500
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 01:04 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 01:20 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 14:05 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 06:35 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-18 00:24 -0500
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 21:50 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 22:21 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 14:42 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 22:21 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-18 01:57 -0500
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 23:08 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 01:12 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-02-18 10:45 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 02:19 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-02-18 11:41 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 02:45 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 14:55 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 07:16 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 15:02 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-02-19 00:07 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 17:19 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 17:32 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 20:25 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 21:15 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 03:06 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 17:35 -0800
Crank Richard Hertz rushes to eat shit "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 17:55 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-19 15:24 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-19 15:18 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Dirk Van de moortel <dirkvandemoortel@notmail.com> - 2022-02-19 17:58 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-18 20:17 -0500
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) - 2022-02-19 18:45 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-20 15:20 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> - 2022-02-18 20:15 -0500
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 22:43 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> - 2022-02-18 14:04 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 14:42 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 04:10 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 04:17 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 14:05 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 06:34 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? everything isalllies <itsalllieseverything@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 18:30 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-18 03:41 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-18 14:27 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 00:32 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-17 14:05 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 21:19 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-14 22:27 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-20 09:25 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-20 20:28 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 05:23 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-21 14:28 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 05:32 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-21 14:39 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 05:48 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-21 14:54 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 06:15 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-21 15:24 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 06:42 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-21 15:46 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 06:53 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-21 16:01 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 07:07 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-21 16:15 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 07:23 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-21 16:31 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 07:35 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Python <python@example.invalid> - 2022-02-21 16:36 +0100
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 14:02 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> - 2022-02-21 06:17 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-23 06:17 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-23 14:36 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 03:59 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-24 14:44 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 10:36 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-26 18:45 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Ken Seto <setoken47@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 05:44 -0800
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 13:52 +0000
Re: Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? "mitchr...@gmail.com" <mitchrae3323@gmail.com> - 2022-02-27 09:52 -0800
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
| From | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 00:50 -0800 |
| Subject | Gravitational Deflection of Light: as per Einstein or as per Newton? |
| Message-ID | <855d0537-a3f9-46a1-b812-7d4ff06aad06n@googlegroups.com> |
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
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 10:47 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j6pe11Ft7mhU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #576895 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 02:11 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <3032606b-e3af-49e0-afe8-860d5093ef56n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576897 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 11:51 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j6phpdFttirU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #576898 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Pentcho Valev <pvalev@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 04:10 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <c1ef731a-cddb-4d83-a1fc-cf5877edf00bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576899 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Athel Cornish-Bowden <acornish@imm.cnrs.fr> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 13:59 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <j6pp99Fr4qU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #576901 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 12:52 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1pn9k33.73f9u9o4kudlN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #576897 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 04:58 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <32a864b0-bc2d-494c-87c4-e9f7c2365c9an@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576900 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 10:47 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <86d84bf0-6124-43ca-b4e2-1e7a0a5e833dn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576904 |
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).
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 10:52 -0800 |
| Subject | Cretin CRank Richard Hertz latest imbecility |
| Message-ID | <2cbd4bc8-a6c4-4251-9c8a-f5a88be86243n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576926 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 20:25 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <tQTNJ.244122$xk8d.210444@fx10.ams4> |
| In reply to | #576926 |
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/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Richard Hertz <hertz778@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 11:39 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <d5f3ebc2-1677-46a4-8e60-f0cbffb4a4c1n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576931 |
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.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Darrel Angus <argus@iiehdc.mx> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 19:42 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <su92im$1vhp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576933 |
Richard Hertz wrote: >> https://paulba.no/ > > 50% only. The other 50& is newtonian, and I didn't invent it. Einstein > said that, and it's documented. > But maybe you want to challege your Einstein by refuting (1 + PPN_Gamma) > = 2.0000. > One month ago I asked you a very simple question on this matter: Can you > tell me what function (if any) describe the trajectory of starlight > passyng by the Sun? Einstine was *pushed* to commit this crime.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Dono." <eggy20011951@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 11:45 -0800 |
| Subject | Cretin crank Richard Hertz eats a ton of shit. |
| Message-ID | <3b875f8f-3cb2-491d-b6f2-acb687529c6bn@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576933 |
On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 11:39:06 AM UTC-8, Richard Hertz ate some extra shit: > On Saturday, February 12, 2022 at 4:25:16 PM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote: > > Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > > For me, there is NO GRAVITATIONAL DEFLECTION OF starlight by massive celestial objects. > > But for the rest of us, the gravitational deflections of > > light by massive bodies is as predicted by GR. > > > > -- > > Paul > > > > https://paulba.no/ > 50% only. Only for stubborn cretin cranks like Richard Hertz. For mainstream physics, that is 100% GR. You are eating shit with the excavator cup. Once again.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Paul B. Andersen" <paul.b.andersen@paulba.no> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-13 10:17 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <p04OJ.831549$CBm5.352805@fx01.ams4> |
| In reply to | #576933 |
Den 12.02.2022 20:39, skrev Richard Hertz: > 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. > Funny, but not very. :-| A good illustration of your confusion, though. -- Paul https://paulba.no/
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Odd Bodkin <bodkinodd@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 22:12 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <su9bc2$5ss$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576931 |
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
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 21:52 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <su9rog$1kkp$1@gioia.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #576926 |
On 2/12/2022 1:47 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > 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. > von Soldner is properly credited with coming up with the Newtonian prediction of the light deflection by the gravity of a star. 1915 Einstein predicted a different result than von Soldner's. Eclipses since then showed this to be correct.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-12 21:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <0ee343f0-91b9-4a66-b330-e84e08732a74n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #576961 |
On Sunday, 13 February 2022 at 03:52:04 UTC+1, Michael Moroney wrote: > On 2/12/2022 1:47 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > 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. > > > von Soldner is properly credited with coming up with the Newtonian > prediction of the light deflection by the gravity of a star. Is properly credited by idiots saying, that 6-foot-tall person standing 100m away will be measured as 43 feet tall.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | nospam@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J. Lodder) |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-14 13:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1pnd7a7.197dg2110g8o0lN%nospam@de-ster.demon.nl> |
| In reply to | #576961 |
Michael Moroney <moroney@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > On 2/12/2022 1:47 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > 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. > > > von Soldner is properly credited with coming up with the Newtonian > prediction of the light deflection by the gravity of a star. > > 1915 Einstein predicted a different result than von Soldner's. Eclipses > since then showed this to be correct. And precision position measurement on distant quasars has in the meantime confirmed Einstein's value for the deflection to better than 0.01 arcsecond, (at radio wavelengths) Jan
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Maciej Wozniak <maluwozniak@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2022-02-14 04:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <4b562963-9533-46a0-80af-1a81abbb7db9n@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #577057 |
On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 13:08:24 UTC+1, J. J. Lodder wrote: > Michael Moroney <mor...@world.std.spaamtrap.com> wrote: > > > On 2/12/2022 1:47 PM, Richard Hertz wrote: > > > > > 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. > > > > > von Soldner is properly credited with coming up with the Newtonian > > prediction of the light deflection by the gravity of a star. > > > > 1915 Einstein predicted a different result than von Soldner's. Eclipses > > since then showed this to be correct. > And precision position measurement on distant quasars Nobody is accepting von Soldner's result as valid Newton's theory predictions - apart of you and some similiar brainwashed idiots. Even some from your church don't. Von Soldner has assumed the light massive.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 1 of 11 [1] 2 3 … 11 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity
csiph-web