Another Error of Einstein: The Calculation of Starlight Bending

Another Error of Einstein: The Calculation of Starlight Bending

Einstein's 1915 formula for calculating the bending of light
by the gravity of the Sun is wrong. It gives a twice bigger result
than what is documented.
The cause of the error of Einstein seems to be his wrong use
of the unit "arcsecond". Let's see:

As everybody knows the angular measure of an object
is usually expressed in degrees, arcminutes and arcseconds:
1 degree = 1/360 of a circle
1 arcminute = 1/60 of a degree
1 arcsecond = 1/60 of an arcminute = 1/3600 of a degree
So we can say a circle has that much arcseconds:
ARCS = pi / (360 * 60 * 60) = pi / 1296000

Soldner in 1801 applied Newton's laws to get this result:
a = 2*G*M/(R * c^2)

Einstein's 1915 solution is twice that of Soldner:
a = 4*G*M/(R * c^2)

Let's solve both using these data:
M = Mass of Sun = 1.9891E30 kg
R = Radius of Sun = 6.955E8 m

a(Soldner) = 4.246614480E-6
a(Einstein) = 8.493228960E-6

Result(Soldner) = 4.246614480E-6 / ARCS = 1.75 arcseconds
Result(Einstein) = 8.493228960E-6 / ARCS = 3.50 arcseconds

CONCLUSION:
The wrong formula is Einstein's formula, not Soldner's!
Einstein has just taken only the halve of his wrong result
by calculating it this way:
Result(Einstein) = 8.493228960E-6 / ARCS / 2 = 1.75 arcseconds
Ergo:
Soldner's formula from the year 1801 is correct, whereas
it is Einstein's formula which is wrong!

See also this analysis from the year 1981 on the Soldner paper:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1981AN....302..275T
"On Soldner's Value of Newtonian Deflection of Light",
H.-J.TReder, in Astron.Nachr., Bd. 302, H.6 (1981)
CITE It is shown that in SOLDNER's publication of 1801 the angle
of deflection for light in the sun's gravitational field is given
with the correct Newtonian value. A factor of 2, which had been the
occassion for misinterpretation, has to be attributed to the terminology
used by German physicists and astronomers of that time."/CITE

The formula of Soldner (ie. Newton) is correct.
The cause of confusion is the wrong use of the unit "arcsecond"!

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 08:24:21 +0200, "meda" wrote:

[snip dumb****ery]

The Newtonian result is wrong. Familiarize yourself with 20th century
physics.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/...rticlesu7.html

I am continually amazed by your arrogant stupidity. You continue to
make post after post detailing why you think, in typical
my-education-ended-in-high-school terms, everything in modern physics
is "wrong".

Just give it a rest.

On Sep 12, 11:24 pm, "meda" wrote:

Another Error of Einstein: The Calculation of Starlight Bending

Einstein's 1915 formula for calculating the bending of light
by the gravity of the Sun is wrong. It gives a twice bigger result
than what is documented.
The cause of the error of Einstein seems to be his wrong use
of the unit "arcsecond". Let's see:

As everybody knows the angular measure of an object
is usually expressed in degrees, arcminutes and arcseconds:
1 degree = 1/360 of a circle
1 arcminute = 1/60 of a degree
1 arcsecond = 1/60 of an arcminute = 1/3600 of a degree
So we can say a circle has that much arcseconds:
ARCS = pi / (360 * 60 * 60) = pi / 1296000

Soldner in 1801 applied Newton's laws to get this result:
a = 2*G*M/(R * c^2)

Einstein's 1915 solution is twice that of Soldner:
a = 4*G*M/(R * c^2)

Let's solve both using these data:
M = Mass of Sun = 1.9891E30 kg
R = Radius of Sun = 6.955E8 m

a(Soldner) = 4.246614480E-6
a(Einstein) = 8.493228960E-6

Result(Soldner) = 4.246614480E-6 / ARCS = 1.75 arcseconds
Result(Einstein) = 8.493228960E-6 / ARCS = 3.50 arcseconds

CONCLUSION:
The wrong formula is Einstein's formula, not Soldner's!
Einstein has just taken only the halve of his wrong result
by calculating it this way:
Result(Einstein) = 8.493228960E-6 / ARCS / 2 = 1.75 arcseconds
Ergo:
Soldner's formula from the year 1801 is correct, whereas
it is Einstein's formula which is wrong!

See also this analysis from the year 1981 on the Soldner paper:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1981AN....302..275T
"On Soldner's Value of Newtonian Deflection of Light",
H.-J.TReder, in Astron.Nachr., Bd. 302, H.6 (1981)
CITE It is shown that in SOLDNER's publication of 1801 the angle
of deflection for light in the sun's gravitational field is given
with the correct Newtonian value. A factor of 2, which had been the
occassion for misinterpretation, has to be attributed to the terminology
used by German physicists and astronomers of that time."/CITE

The formula of Soldner (ie. Newton) is correct.
The cause of confusion is the wrong use of the unit "arcsecond"!

Nice try, but your error is in

ARCS = pi * (360 * 60 *60)

It should be

ARCS = 2 * pi * (360 * 60 *60)

However, twice the Soldner's prediction in the bending angle of a
photon still remains unobserved experimentally. The 1909 expeditions
led by Sir Eddington were total jokes. Professor Roberts, please take
note here.

Koobee Wublee wrote:
On Sep 12, 11:24 pm, "meda" wrote:

Another Error of Einstein: The Calculation of Starlight Bending

Nice try, but your error is in

ARCS = pi * (360 * 60 *60)

It should be

ARCS = 2 * pi * (360 * 60 *60)

However, twice the Soldner's prediction in the bending angle of a
photon still remains unobserved experimentally. The 1909 expeditions
led by Sir Eddington were total jokes. Professor Roberts, please take
note here.

OH my! And here I thought we finally found someone smarter than
Einstein!

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 06:46:15 -0000, Koobee Wublee
wrote:

[...]

However, twice the Soldner's prediction in the bending angle of a
photon still remains unobserved experimentally. The 1909 expeditions
led by Sir Eddington were total jokes. Professor Roberts, please take
note here.

Who cares? The prediction has been verified plenty of times since
then.

"Koobee Wublee" wrote in message ps.com...
On Sep 12, 11:24 pm, "meda" wrote:

Another Error of Einstein: The Calculation of Starlight Bending

Einstein's 1915 formula for calculating the bending of light
by the gravity of the Sun is wrong. It gives a twice bigger result
than what is documented.
The cause of the error of Einstein seems to be his wrong use
of the unit "arcsecond". Let's see:

As everybody knows the angular measure of an object
is usually expressed in degrees, arcminutes and arcseconds:
1 degree = 1/360 of a circle
1 arcminute = 1/60 of a degree
1 arcsecond = 1/60 of an arcminute = 1/3600 of a degree
So we can say a circle has that much arcseconds:
ARCS = pi / (360 * 60 * 60) = pi / 1296000

Soldner in 1801 applied Newton's laws to get this result:
a = 2*G*M/(R * c^2)

Einstein's 1915 solution is twice that of Soldner:
a = 4*G*M/(R * c^2)

Let's solve both using these data:
M = Mass of Sun = 1.9891E30 kg
R = Radius of Sun = 6.955E8 m

a(Soldner) = 4.246614480E-6
a(Einstein) = 8.493228960E-6

Result(Soldner) = 4.246614480E-6 / ARCS = 1.75 arcseconds
Result(Einstein) = 8.493228960E-6 / ARCS = 3.50 arcseconds

CONCLUSION:
The wrong formula is Einstein's formula, not Soldner's!
Einstein has just taken only the halve of his wrong result
by calculating it this way:
Result(Einstein) = 8.493228960E-6 / ARCS / 2 = 1.75 arcseconds
Ergo:
Soldner's formula from the year 1801 is correct, whereas
it is Einstein's formula which is wrong!

See also this analysis from the year 1981 on the Soldner paper:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1981AN....302..275T
"On Soldner's Value of Newtonian Deflection of Light",
H.-J.TReder, in Astron.Nachr., Bd. 302, H.6 (1981)
CITE It is shown that in SOLDNER's publication of 1801 the angle
of deflection for light in the sun's gravitational field is given
with the correct Newtonian value. A factor of 2, which had been the
occassion for misinterpretation, has to be attributed to the terminology
used by German physicists and astronomers of that time."/CITE

The formula of Soldner (ie. Newton) is correct.
The cause of confusion is the wrong use of the unit "arcsecond"!

Nice try, but your error is in

ARCS = pi * (360 * 60 *60)

It should be

ARCS = 2 * pi * (360 * 60 *60)

You see Meda, I told you that you can't impress people
more stupid than yourself, because there simply aren't any.
Kooobee is only slightly less stupid than you are. Even he
knowns how to calculate the circumference of a circle.
At this side of the Atlantic we learn this at the age of 10.

Dirk Vdm

On Sep 13, 1:27 am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"Koobee Wublee" wrote in glegroups.com...
On Sep 12, 11:24 pm, "meda" wrote:

Another Error of Einstein: The Calculation of Starlight Bending

Einstein's 1915 formula for calculating the bending of light
by the gravity of the Sun is wrong. It gives a twice bigger result
than what is documented.
The cause of the error of Einstein seems to be his wrong use
of the unit "arcsecond". Let's see:

As everybody knows the angular measure of an object
is usually expressed in degrees, arcminutes and arcseconds:
1 degree = 1/360 of a circle
1 arcminute = 1/60 of a degree
1 arcsecond = 1/60 of an arcminute = 1/3600 of a degree
So we can say a circle has that much arcseconds:
ARCS = pi / (360 * 60 * 60) = pi / 1296000

Soldner in 1801 applied Newton's laws to get this result:
a = 2*G*M/(R * c^2)

Einstein's 1915 solution is twice that of Soldner:
a = 4*G*M/(R * c^2)

Let's solve both using these data:
M = Mass of Sun = 1.9891E30 kg
R = Radius of Sun = 6.955E8 m

a(Soldner) = 4.246614480E-6
a(Einstein) = 8.493228960E-6

Result(Soldner) = 4.246614480E-6 / ARCS = 1.75 arcseconds
Result(Einstein) = 8.493228960E-6 / ARCS = 3.50 arcseconds

CONCLUSION:
The wrong formula is Einstein's formula, not Soldner's!
Einstein has just taken only the halve of his wrong result
by calculating it this way:
Result(Einstein) = 8.493228960E-6 / ARCS / 2 = 1.75 arcseconds
Ergo:
Soldner's formula from the year 1801 is correct, whereas
it is Einstein's formula which is wrong!

See also this analysis from the year 1981 on the Soldner paper:
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1981AN....302..275T
"On Soldner's Value of Newtonian Deflection of Light",
H.-J.TReder, in Astron.Nachr., Bd. 302, H.6 (1981)
CITE It is shown that in SOLDNER's publication of 1801 the angle
of deflection for light in the sun's gravitational field is given
with the correct Newtonian value. A factor of 2, which had been the
occassion for misinterpretation, has to be attributed to the terminology
used by German physicists and astronomers of that time."/CITE

The formula of Soldner (ie. Newton) is correct.
The cause of confusion is the wrong use of the unit "arcsecond"!

Nice try, but your error is in

ARCS = pi * (360 * 60 *60)

It should be

ARCS = 2 * pi * (360 * 60 *60)

You see Meda, I told you that you can't impress people
more stupid than yourself, because there simply aren't any.
Kooobee is only slightly less stupid than you are. Even he
knowns how to calculate the circumference of a circle.
At this side of the Atlantic we learn this at the age of 10.

Dirk Vdm



:-)

On Sep 13, 2:24 am, "meda" wrote:
Another Error of Einstein: The Calculation of Starlight Bending

And possible even greater error is that relativistic mass at near "c"
quintuples gravity...which will affect all of Einstein's measurements
because the light's bending will also quintuple and all Lorentz
measurements as well.

meda wrote:

Another Error of Einstein: The Calculation of Starlight Bending

Einstein's 1915 formula for calculating the bending of light
by the gravity of the Sun is wrong. It gives a twice bigger result
than what is documented.

1) Newton was wrong about falling light,

Newton, Isaac. 1687, "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica"
("Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and his System of the
World"), trans. by A. Motte and revised by F. Cajori (University of
California Press: Berkeley, 1934)

Newton, Isaac. "The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural
Philosophy," Trans. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, with the
assistance of Julia Budenz (University of California Press: Berkeley,
1999)

2) Einstein was right about falling light,
Annalen der Physik 4 XVII 891-921 (1905)
http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/specrel/www/
http://fourmilab.to/etexts/einstein/specrel/specrel.pdf

3) Falling relativistic bodies,
http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)

4) You are an idiot.

[snip lies]

The minor problem with longitudinal vs. transverse mass has been
corrected,

http://www.geocities.com/physics_world/sr/ae_1905_error.htm
http://www.physics.gatech.edu/people/faculty/finkelstein/relativity.pdf

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/lajos.htm#a2

On 13 Sept, 20:12, Uncle Al wrote:
meda wrote:

Another Error of Einstein: The Calculation of Starlight Bending

Einstein's 1915 formula for calculating the bending of light
by the gravity of the Sun is wrong. It gives a twice bigger result
than what is documented.

1) Newton was wrong about falling light,

Newton, Isaac. 1687, "Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica"
("Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy and his System of the
World"), trans. by A. Motte and revised by F. Cajori (University of
California Press: Berkeley, 1934)

Newton, Isaac. "The Principia: Mathematical Principles of Natural
Philosophy," Trans. I. Bernard Cohen and Anne Whitman, with the
assistance of Julia Budenz (University of California Press: Berkeley,
1999)

2) Einstein was right about falling light,
Annalen der Physik 4 XVII 891-921 (1905)http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einst...el/specrel.pdf

3) Falling relativistic bodies,http://arXiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9909014
Amer. J. Phys. 71 770 (2003)
Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 121101 (2004)

Irrelevant references. Let me help you:

3) Master Steve Carlip was right about falling light:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html
"Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity
which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked
about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book
"Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: ". . .
according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the
constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of
the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity
[. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector
quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not
clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to
special relativity suggests that he did mean so."

4) Master Warren Davis was right about falling light:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the
calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of
Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

Pentcho Valev