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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

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

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)