• The Schwarzschild Metric has been refuted.

    From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 25 16:10:42 2025
    This metric doubles the Newtonian deflection, so the relativity
    derivation is invalid.

    "Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
    Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
    Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
    Mei Xiaochun

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 25 18:54:25 2025
    "5. Conclusions
    Johann von Soldner of Munich Observatory proved in 1801 that the gravity
    field of the sun39 would deflect the light from distant stars and the deflection angel was 0.875 ". But Soldner’ proof was to simple to
    understand.

    In this paper, a standard calculation method is given according to the hyperbolic orbit
    equation of the Newton's theory of gravity, and the same result is
    obtained. Then the motion equation of light in general relativity is
    compared with that in the Newton's theory of gravity. The result shows
    that a constant term is missing in the motion equation of general
    relativity. The loss of this term would cause serious problems, so that
    the motion equation of light in general relativity can not be the
    modification of the Newton's equation of motion and can not
    be correct.

    Einstein assumed that the light passed across the sun's surface when he calculated the deflection of light in the solar gravitational field. It indicated that the orbital pole of light was on the solar surface. Based
    on the theory of cubic equation of one variable, it is proved in this
    paper that the solar radius can not be the root of the motion equation
    of light in general
    relativity, and all poles of the motion equation of light are located
    inside the sun. The lights coming from stars in outer space would go
    into the sun and disappear in it. It is impossible for the observers on
    the earth to see them, but this is not the case.

    The reason is just that comparing with the motion equation of the
    Newtonian gravity theory, the motion equation of light of general
    relativity lost a constant term. It is proved once again that the
    prediction value 175’’ of general relativity for the deflection of light
    is impossible. General relativity can not correctly describe the motion
    of light in the gravitational field of the sun, indicates that the
    Einstein's gravity theory of curved space-time can not hold." ibid.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to All on Fri Apr 25 18:55:56 2025
    SCIREA Journal of Physics
    ISSN: 2706-8862
    http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
    March 24, 2022
    Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
    https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
    "Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
    Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
    Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sat Apr 26 20:35:26 2025
    Den 25.04.2025 20:55, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
    SCIREA Journal of Physics
    ISSN: 2706-8862
    http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
    March 24, 2022
    Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
    https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
    "Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
    Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
    Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"

    https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf

    I quote from the Introduction:
    "The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
    passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
    that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
    proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
    poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
    interior not far from the solar center, so the light from stars in
    outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
    observed by the observers on the earth. The night sky on the earth
    would be starless."

    Mei Xiaochun actually claims that according to GR, the light from
    all the stars in outer space should be sucked into the Sun so
    no stars would be visible from the Earth!

    Laurence Clark Crossen, how did you manage to fail to see
    that Mei Xiaochun's paper is meaningless drivel?

    Well done! :-D


    https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf https://paulba.no/Deflection.html 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/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Sat Apr 26 21:16:42 2025
    On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 18:35:26 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 25.04.2025 20:55, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
    SCIREA Journal of Physics
    ISSN: 2706-8862
    http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
    March 24, 2022
    Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
    https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
    "Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
    Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
    Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"

    https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf

    I quote from the Introduction:
    "The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
    passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
    that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
    proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
    poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
    interior not far from the solar center, so the light from stars in
    outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
    observed by the observers on the earth. The night sky on the earth
    would be starless."

    Mei Xiaochun actually claims that according to GR, the light from
    all the stars in outer space should be sucked into the Sun so
    no stars would be visible from the Earth!

    Laurence Clark Crossen, how did you manage to fail to see
    that Mei Xiaochun's paper is meaningless drivel?

    Well done! :-D


    https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf https://paulba.no/Deflection.html 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
    As usual, you misconstrue willfully and stupidly.
    That is why your take on it is meaningless drivel.
    He has clearly stated that the GR assumptions in the Schwarzschild
    metric involve starlight passing through the center of the Sun.
    You have not disproved his case for that.
    It won't suffice for you to thumb your nose at criticisms of relativity.
    Are you a Sinophobe?
    Your reply sucks.
    You are incompetent at defending relativity as usual.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Sat Apr 26 23:58:07 2025
    On 4/26/2025 8:35 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
    Den 25.04.2025 20:55, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
    SCIREA Journal of Physics
    ISSN: 2706-8862
    http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
    March 24, 2022
    Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
    https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
    "Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
    Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
    Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"

    https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf

    I quote from the Introduction:
    "The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
    passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
    that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
    proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
    poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
    interior not far from the solar center, so the light from stars in
    outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
    observed by the observers on the earth. The night sky on the earth
    would be starless."

    Mei Xiaochun actually claims that according to GR, the light from
    all the stars in outer space should be sucked into the Sun so
    no stars would be visible from the Earth!

    Laurence Clark Crossen, how did you manage to fail to see
    that Mei Xiaochun's paper is meaningless drivel?

    Well done! 😂


    See, trash - your idiot guru has claimed
    that a [mean] solar day compared to
    1/86400 of itself will give any value.
    And everyone of his idiot worshippers
    failexd to see his Shit is meaningless
    drivel.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Sat Apr 26 23:40:18 2025
    On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 18:35:26 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 25.04.2025 20:55, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
    SCIREA Journal of Physics
    ISSN: 2706-8862
    http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
    March 24, 2022
    Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
    https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
    "Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
    Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
    Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"

    https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf

    I quote from the Introduction:
    "The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
    passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
    that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
    proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
    poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
    interior not far from the solar center, so the light from stars in
    outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
    observed by the observers on the earth. The night sky on the earth
    would be starless."

    Mei Xiaochun actually claims that according to GR, the light from
    all the stars in outer space should be sucked into the Sun so
    no stars would be visible from the Earth!

    Laurence Clark Crossen, how did you manage to fail to see
    that Mei Xiaochun's paper is meaningless drivel?

    Well done! :-D


    https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf https://paulba.no/Deflection.html 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, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
    the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the
    Newtonian to get the GR deflection. You're begging the question
    (allegedly) answered in the Schwarzschild metric.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Sun Apr 27 10:43:13 2025
    On 4/27/2025 1:40 AM, LaurenceClarkCrossen wrote:
    On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 18:35:26 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 25.04.2025 20:55, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
    SCIREA Journal of Physics
    ISSN: 2706-8862
    http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
    March 24, 2022
    Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
    https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
    "Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
    Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
    Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"

    https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf

    I quote from the Introduction:
    "The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
    passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
    that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
    proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
    poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
    interior not far from the solar center, so the light from stars in
    outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
    observed by the observers on the earth. The night sky on the earth
    would be starless."

    Mei Xiaochun actually claims that according to GR, the light from
    all the stars in outer space should be sucked into the Sun so
    no stars would be visible from the Earth!

    Laurence Clark Crossen, how did you manage to fail to see
    that Mei Xiaochun's paper is meaningless drivel?

    Well done! 😂


    https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf
    https://paulba.no/Deflection.html
    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, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
    the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the Newtonian to get the GR deflection.

    Why do you repeat a relativistic lie?
    Newtonian physics (meant as pre-relativistic
    physics) says nothing about gravitational
    light deflection.
    Newtonian optics was abandoned in early XIXh
    century. Relativistic religion reactivated
    it - because something Newtonian was urgently
    needed to beat.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 27 10:49:08 2025
    Den 26.04.2025 23:16, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
    On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 18:35:26 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 25.04.2025 20:55, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
    SCIREA Journal of Physics
    ISSN: 2706-8862
    http://www.scirea.org/journal/Physics
    March 24, 2022
    Volume 7, Issue 1, February 2022
    https://doi.org/10.54647/physics14417
    "Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
    Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
    Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"

    https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf

    I quote from the Introduction:
    "The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
      passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
      that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
      proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
      poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
      interior not far from the solar center, so the light from stars in
      outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
      observed by the observers on the earth. The night sky on the earth
      would be starless."

      Mei Xiaochun actually claims that according to GR, the light from
      all the stars in outer space should be sucked into the Sun so
      no stars would be visible from the Earth!

    Laurence Clark Crossen, how did you manage to fail to see
    that Mei Xiaochun's paper is meaningless drivel?

    Well done! :-D


    As usual, you misconstrue willfully and stupidly.
    That is why your take on it is meaningless drivel.
    He has clearly stated that the GR assumptions in the Schwarzschild
    metric involve starlight passing through the center of the Sun.

    So you agree with Mei Xiaochun that the Schwarzschild metric
    predicts that the light from all the stars in outer space would be
    passing through the interior of the Sun, so the light from stars
    in outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
    observed by the observers on the Earth. The night sky on the Earth
    would be starless.

    You have not disproved his case for that.

    Is it really possible to fail to understand that this is
    meaningless drivel?

    It won't suffice for you to thumb your nose at criticisms of relativity.
    Are you a Sinophobe?
    Your reply sucks.
    You are incompetent at defending relativity as usual.

    OK.
    So we can conclude that according Laurence Clark Crossen
    the Schwarzschild metric predicts that the night sky on
    the Earth should be starless. So the fact that we can see
    the stars falsifies the Schwarzschild metric.

    Congratulation! :-D

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 27 14:38:12 2025
    Den 27.04.2025 10:43, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
    Newtonian physics (meant as pre-relativistic
    physics) says nothing about gravitational
    light deflection.

    https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/andp.202100203
    "The Newtonian value of 0.84" for the gravitational deflection
    of a ray of light from a distant star, grazing the rim of the Sun,
    was derived already in 1801 by Johann Georg von Soldner."

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Sun Apr 27 15:00:18 2025
    On 4/27/2025 2:22 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
    Den 27.04.2025 01:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
    On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 18:35:26 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:


    https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf

    Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
    the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the
    Newtonian to get the GR deflection.

    It has been known for 110 years that GR predicts twice
    the gravitational deflection than does Newton.

    Newtonian optics has been abandoned in very
    early XIX, however. Relativistic idiots has
    reactivated it because of their urgent need
    to kick something Newtonian.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Sun Apr 27 14:22:22 2025
    Den 27.04.2025 01:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
    On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 18:35:26 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:


    https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf

    Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
    the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the Newtonian to get the GR deflection.

    It has been known for 110 years that GR predicts twice
    the gravitational deflection than does Newton.

    So why does it surprise you that you get the Newtonian prediction
    by dividing the GR prediction by 2?

    The Newtonian prediction for the deflection observed from the Earth is:

    θ = (GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ

    The GR prediction for the deflection observed from the Earth is:

    θ = (2GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ

    Where:
    AU = one astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
     φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
    c = speed of light in vacuum
    G = Gravitational constant
    M = solar mass

    Examples:

    φ = 0.266⁰ (light grazing the sun)
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.876078"
    GR: θ = 1.752156"

    φ = 15⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.015468"
    GR: θ = 0.030938"

    φ = 30⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.007600"
    GR: θ = 0.015201"

    φ = 45⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.004917"
    GR: θ = 0.009833"

    φ = 60⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.003527"
    GR: θ = 0.007055"

    φ = 75⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.002654"
    GR: θ = 0.005308"

    φ = 90⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.002037"
    GR: θ = 0.004073"

    Now you can compare these predictions with
    the measurements made in the following experiments:

    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

    What is your conclusion?
    Is any of the theories falsified?

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Trinidad Dogadaev@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Sun Apr 27 13:15:54 2025
    Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 27.04.2025 01:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
    Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
    the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the
    Newtonian to get the GR deflection.

    It has been known for 110 years that GR predicts twice the gravitational deflection than does Newton.

    completely nonsense, the gay newtone is not predicting deflections at all. Shame on you promoting lies. Want truth, *_NATO_is_Khazaria_in_Drag_*. You
    know that. Your entire corrupt lying government is khazar

    Is Chabad Lubavitch Behind the Russo-Ukraine War https://bitchute.com/video/sYr9l8mxn30n

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Darwin Balakshin@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Sun Apr 27 14:12:32 2025
    Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 26.04.2025 23:16, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
    As usual, you misconstrue willfully and stupidly.
    That is why your take on it is meaningless drivel.
    He has clearly stated that the GR assumptions in the Schwarzschild
    metric involve starlight passing through the center of the Sun.

    So you agree with Mei Xiaochun that the Schwarzschild metric predicts
    that the light from all the stars in outer space would be passing
    through the interior of the Sun, so the light from stars

    cacamerica and the /collective_khazar_west/ angry like shit, gay in gps
    and glonass-k2 without relativity too. Amazing, gay Einstine proven gay
    one more time.

    Russia's Most Classified and Powerful EW Systems
    Completely Disabled U.S. Missiles and Aerial Bombs https://bi%74%63%68%75te.com/v%69%64%65o/zECTGGUyr3pC

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Sun Apr 27 19:40:04 2025
    On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 12:22:22 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 27.04.2025 01:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
    On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 18:35:26 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:


    https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf

    Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
    the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the
    Newtonian to get the GR deflection.

    It has been known for 110 years that GR predicts twice
    the gravitational deflection than does Newton.

    So why does it surprise you that you get the Newtonian prediction
    by dividing the GR prediction by 2?

    The Newtonian prediction for the deflection observed from the Earth is:

    θ = (GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ

    The GR prediction for the deflection observed from the Earth is:

    θ = (2GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ

    Where:
    AU = one astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
     φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
    c = speed of light in vacuum
    G = Gravitational constant
    M = solar mass

    Examples:

    φ = 0.266⁰ (light grazing the sun)
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.876078"
    GR: θ = 1.752156"

    φ = 15⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.015468"
    GR: θ = 0.030938"

    φ = 30⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.007600"
    GR: θ = 0.015201"

    φ = 45⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.004917"
    GR: θ = 0.009833"

    φ = 60⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.003527"
    GR: θ = 0.007055"

    φ = 75⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.002654"
    GR: θ = 0.005308"

    φ = 90⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.002037"
    GR: θ = 0.004073"

    Now you can compare these predictions with
    the measurements made in the following experiments:

    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

    What is your conclusion?
    Is any of the theories falsified?
    Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight
    going through the Sun. You have not demonstrated otherwise, As Einstein
    is famous for, you have only engaged in straw man tactics and are
    begging the question.

    You haven't understood that Mei has shown the Schwarzschild metric does
    not give twice Newtonian, so GR does not predict it.

    You haven't understood that a false derivation cannot provide a
    prediction, so no evidence can be adduced.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to Mikko on Mon Apr 28 11:33:51 2025
    On 4/28/2025 11:29 AM, Mikko wrote:
    On 2025-04-25 16:10:42 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

    This metric doubles the Newtonian deflection, so the relativity
    derivation is invalid.

    "Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
    Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
    Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
    Mei Xiaochun

    Actual measurements of the deflection support General Relativity.
    So do the measurements of light travel times. Newtonian gravity
    does not say anything about light.


    In the meantime in the real world, however -
    forbidden by your insane church "improper"
    clocks keep measuring "improper" t'=t in
    "improper" seconds.


    With the additional hypthesis
    that light is a stream of particles with small but non-zero mass,
    which hypothesis is compatible with Newtonian optics, the deflection
    can be computed. The result is refuted by observations

    In early XIXth century.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Mon Apr 28 12:29:52 2025
    On 2025-04-25 16:10:42 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

    This metric doubles the Newtonian deflection, so the relativity
    derivation is invalid.

    "Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
    Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
    Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
    Mei Xiaochun

    Actual measurements of the deflection support General Relativity.
    So do the measurements of light travel times. Newtonian gravity
    does not say anything about light. With the additional hypthesis
    that light is a stream of particles with small but non-zero mass,
    which hypothesis is compatible with Newtonian optics, the deflection
    can be computed. The result is refuted by observations but Newtonian
    gravity without the additional hypthesis is not refuted.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Mon Apr 28 12:36:49 2025
    On 2025-04-27 19:40:04 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

    On Sun, 27 Apr 2025 12:22:22 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 27.04.2025 01:40, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
    On Sat, 26 Apr 2025 18:35:26 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:


    https://paulba.no/pdf/GravitationalDeflection.pdf

    Paul, your fascinating article, "Gravitational deflection of light by
    the Sun" astounded me with its erudition. In it you simply double the
    Newtonian to get the GR deflection.

    It has been known for 110 years that GR predicts twice
    the gravitational deflection than does Newton.

    So why does it surprise you that you get the Newtonian prediction
    by dividing the GR prediction by 2?

    The Newtonian prediction for the deflection observed from the Earth is:

    θ = (GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ

    The GR prediction for the deflection observed from the Earth is:

    θ = (2GM/(AU+c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ

    Where:
    AU = one astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
     φ = angle Sun-Earth as observed from the Earth
    c = speed of light in vacuum
    G = Gravitational constant
    M = solar mass

    Examples:

    φ = 0.266⁰ (light grazing the sun)
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.876078"
    GR: θ = 1.752156"

    φ = 15⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.015468"
    GR: θ = 0.030938"

    φ = 30⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.007600"
    GR: θ = 0.015201"

    φ = 45⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.004917"
    GR: θ = 0.009833"

    φ = 60⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.003527"
    GR: θ = 0.007055"

    φ = 75⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.002654"
    GR: θ = 0.005308"

    φ = 90⁰
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.002037"
    GR: θ = 0.004073"

    Now you can compare these predictions with
    the measurements made in the following experiments:

    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

    What is your conclusion?
    Is any of the theories falsified?
    Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight going through the Sun.

    Actually Schwarzschild geometry predicts that light from most stars is
    not blocked by Sun. This is easiest to prove about a star that is
    exacly opposite to Sun.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Mon Apr 28 14:59:40 2025
    Den 27.04.2025 21:40, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:

    Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight going through the Sun. You have not demonstrated otherwise,

    Let's analyse what Mei has shown:

    https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf

    I quote from the introduction:
    "The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
    passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
    that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
    proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
    poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
    interior not far from the solar center.

    This is almost correct!

    For a star to be blocked by the Sun the star must
    be in the ecliptic plane. The Earth is orbiting
    the Earth at 1 AU, so when the Earth is at
    a straight line from the star through the centre of
    the Sun, the star will be behind the Sun.
    (The angle star-Sun observed from the Earth = 0⁰)

    It is then easy to calculate that if the light should
    be bent around the Sun and be visible from the Earth,
    the deflection angle would have to be:
    R/AU radians = 0.266696⁰.
    But the deflection is only 1.75" = 0.000486⁰
    So the star is blocked by the Sun.

    This is what Mei correctly discovered.
    --------------------------------------

     φ = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth

    Mei's blunder is that he claims that GR predicts
    that the deflection is 1.75" when φ = 0⁰.
    That is obviously not the case.
    It is easy to calculate that the star will be visible
    when φ < -R/AU rad + 1.75" = -0.2662⁰
    and when φ > R/AU rad - 1.75" = 0.2662⁰
    It will blocked by the Sun when -0.2662⁰ < φ < 0.2662⁰
    When φ = ±0.2662⁰ then the light from the star that reaches
    the Earth will graze the Sun.

    In the post you responded to, I wrote:

    φ = 0.266⁰ (light grazing the sun)
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.876078"
    GR: θ = 1.752156"


    Mei's gigantic blunder is that when a star in the ecliptic
    plane is blocked by the Sun, then:
    "the light from stars in outer space would be lost in the solar
    interior and could not be observed by the observers on the earth.
    The night sky on the earth would be starless."

    Mei's confusion is so gigantic that the whole paper
    is meaningless drivel even if it may contain some correct math.

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Mon Apr 28 18:49:37 2025
    On 4/28/2025 2:59 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    It is then easy to calculate that if the light should
    be bent around the Sun and be visible from the Earth,
    the deflection angle would have to be:

    Of course - The Shit of your idiot guru
    is predicting no deflection, according to
    it light [in vacuum] always takes a straight/
    geodesic paths. Even relativistic idiots,
    however, are not stupid enough to treat
    it seriously.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to Mikko on Mon Apr 28 18:27:54 2025
    On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 9:29:52 +0000, Mikko wrote:

    On 2025-04-25 16:10:42 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

    This metric doubles the Newtonian deflection, so the relativity
    derivation is invalid.

    "Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
    Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
    Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
    Mei Xiaochun

    Actual measurements of the deflection support General Relativity.
    So do the measurements of light travel times. Newtonian gravity
    does not say anything about light. With the additional hypthesis
    that light is a stream of particles with small but non-zero mass,
    which hypothesis is compatible with Newtonian optics, the deflection
    can be computed. The result is refuted by observations but Newtonian
    gravity without the additional hypthesis is not refuted.
    Experimental results cannot provide evidence for a fallacious derivation because that derivation can not predict.

    You have forgotten that Galileo proved all masses are affected the same
    by gravity.

    I take it you mean that adding curved space to Newtonian is not refuted.
    It has not been proven because it hasn't been predicted when the
    derivation is faulty.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From LaurenceClarkCrossen@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Mon Apr 28 18:39:01 2025
    On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 12:59:40 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 27.04.2025 21:40, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:

    Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight
    going through the Sun. You have not demonstrated otherwise,

    Let's analyse what Mei has shown:

    https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf

    I quote from the introduction:
    "The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
    passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
    that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
    proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
    poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
    interior not far from the solar center.

    This is almost correct!

    For a star to be blocked by the Sun the star must
    be in the ecliptic plane. The Earth is orbiting
    the Earth at 1 AU, so when the Earth is at
    a straight line from the star through the centre of
    the Sun, the star will be behind the Sun.
    (The angle star-Sun observed from the Earth = 0⁰)

    It is then easy to calculate that if the light should
    be bent around the Sun and be visible from the Earth,
    the deflection angle would have to be:
    R/AU radians = 0.266696⁰.
    But the deflection is only 1.75" = 0.000486⁰
    So the star is blocked by the Sun.

    This is what Mei correctly discovered.
    --------------------------------------

     φ = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth

    Mei's blunder is that he claims that GR predicts
    that the deflection is 1.75" when φ = 0⁰.
    That is obviously not the case.
    It is easy to calculate that the star will be visible
    when φ < -R/AU rad + 1.75" = -0.2662⁰
    and when φ > R/AU rad - 1.75" = 0.2662⁰
    It will blocked by the Sun when -0.2662⁰ < φ < 0.2662⁰
    When φ = ±0.2662⁰ then the light from the star that reaches
    the Earth will graze the Sun.

    In the post you responded to, I wrote:

    φ = 0.266⁰ (light grazing the sun)
    -----------------------------------
    Newton: θ = 0.876078"
    GR: θ = 1.752156"


    Mei's gigantic blunder is that when a star in the ecliptic
    plane is blocked by the Sun, then:
    "the light from stars in outer space would be lost in the solar
    interior and could not be observed by the observers on the earth.
    The night sky on the earth would be starless."

    Mei's confusion is so gigantic that the whole paper
    is meaningless drivel even if it may contain some correct math.
    Paul, your comprehension is feeble.

    No, that is not what he discovered. He pointed out that the
    Schwarzschild metric implicitly assumes this.

    "Mei's blunder is that he claims that GR predicts
    that the deflection is 1.75" when φ = 0⁰."

    Mei points out that Schwarzschild makes this blunder.

    You cannot defeat his criticism without addressing the Schwarzschild
    metric.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Tue Apr 29 13:45:44 2025
    On 4/29/2025 1:42 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    You are competing with Maciej Woźniak about being the most
    ignorant and stupid contributor in this NG.

    See, poor trash: I've proven the mumble of
    the idiot you're worshipping to be not even
    consistent - and except spitting, insulting
    or slandering you can do nothing about it.

    But you will do what you can. The Shit expects
    that every doggie will do his duty.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Mikko@21:1/5 to LaurenceClarkCrossen on Tue Apr 29 14:40:21 2025
    On 2025-04-28 18:27:54 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

    On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 9:29:52 +0000, Mikko wrote:

    On 2025-04-25 16:10:42 +0000, LaurenceClarkCrossen said:

    This metric doubles the Newtonian deflection, so the relativity
    derivation is invalid.

    "Using the Newton’s Theory of Gravity to Calculate the
    Deflection of Light in the Solar System and the Orbital
    Poles of Light’s Motion of General Relativity"
    Mei Xiaochun

    Actual measurements of the deflection support General Relativity.
    So do the measurements of light travel times. Newtonian gravity
    does not say anything about light. With the additional hypthesis
    that light is a stream of particles with small but non-zero mass,
    which hypothesis is compatible with Newtonian optics, the deflection
    can be computed. The result is refuted by observations but Newtonian
    gravity without the additional hypthesis is not refuted.

    Experimental results cannot provide evidence for a fallacious derivation because that derivation can not predict.

    That's right. Only a mathematical derivation can, and only if done correctly.

    You have forgotten that Galileo proved all masses are affected the same
    by gravity.

    Irrelevant. The important point is that GR says the same (as long as the
    masses are small enough that they don't affect the sources of gravity).

    I take it you mean that adding curved space to Newtonian is not refuted.

    That does not make sense. A Galilean space, where the spatial gemotry
    is Euclidean, is an essential part of Newton's theory. If a curved
    space is allowed then all consequences of Galilean geometry must be reconsidered, which Newton didn't do.

    It has not been proven because it hasn't been predicted when the
    derivation is faulty.

    You haven't presented any derivation, faulty or otherwise.

    --
    Mikko

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 29 13:42:57 2025
    Den 28.04.2025 20:39, skrev that according:
    On Mon, 28 Apr 2025 12:59:40 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    Den 27.04.2025 21:40, skrev Laurence Clark Crossen:

    Mei has shown that the Schwarzschild metric implicitly has the starlight >>> going through the Sun. You have not demonstrated otherwise,

    Let's analyse what Mei has shown:

    https://article.scirea.org/pdf/14417.pdf

    I quote from the introduction:
    "The calculations of general relativity assumed that the light
      passes across the solar surface, which was equivalent to assume
      that the solar radius was a root of the cubic equation. It is
      proved in this paper that the solar radius can not be the orbital
      poles of light. The orbital poles of light were located in the solar
      interior not far from the solar center.

    This is almost correct!

    For a star to be blocked by the Sun the star must
    be in the ecliptic plane. The Earth is orbiting
    the Earth at 1 AU, so when the Earth is at
    a straight line from the star through the centre of
    the Sun, the star will be behind the Sun.
    (The angle star-Sun observed from the Earth = 0⁰)

    It is then easy to calculate that if the light should
    be bent around the Sun and be visible from the Earth,
    the deflection angle would have to be:
      R/AU radians = 0.266696⁰.
    But the deflection is only 1.75" = 0.000486⁰
    So the star is blocked by the Sun.

    This is what Mei correctly discovered.
    --------------------------------------

     φ  = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth

    Mei's blunder is that he claims that GR predicts
    that the deflection is 1.75" when  φ = 0⁰.
    That is obviously not the case.
    It is easy to calculate that the star will be visible
    when     φ < -R/AU rad + 1.75" = -0.2662⁰
    and when φ >  R/AU rad - 1.75" =  0.2662⁰
    It will blocked by the Sun when  -0.2662⁰ < φ < 0.2662⁰
    When φ = ±0.2662⁰ then the light from the star that reaches
              the Earth will graze the Sun.

    In the post you responded to, I wrote:

    φ = 0.266⁰  (light grazing the sun)
    -----------------------------------
    Newton:  θ = 0.876078"
    GR:      θ = 1.752156"


    Mei's gigantic blunder is that when a star in the ecliptic
    plane is blocked by the Sun, then:
    "the light from stars in outer space would be lost in the solar
      interior and could not be observed by the observers on the earth.
      The night sky on the earth  would be starless."

    Mei's confusion is so gigantic that the whole paper
    is meaningless drivel even if it may contain some correct math.

    Paul, your comprehension is feeble.

    No, that is not what he discovered. He pointed out that the
    Schwarzschild metric implicitly assumes this.

    "Mei's blunder is that he claims that GR predicts
    that the deflection is 1.75" when  φ = 0⁰."

    Mei points out that Schwarzschild makes this blunder.

    You cannot defeat his criticism without addressing the Schwarzschild
    metric.

    I didn't expect you to understand anything, you never do.
    I bet you didn't even read my post, probably because
    you are mathematically illiterate and found it too difficult.

    So we can conclude that Laurence Clark Crossen still
    agrees with Mei Xiaochun that the Schwarzschild metric
    predicts that the light from all the stars in outer space would be
    passing through the interior of the Sun, so the light from stars
    in outer space would be lost in the solar interior and could not be
    observed by the observers on the Earth. The night sky on the Earth
    would be starless.

    You are competing with Maciej Woźniak about being the most
    ignorant and stupid contributor in this NG.

    I thing you are in the lead.
    Congratulations!

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul.B.Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 29 14:31:12 2025
    Den 28.04.2025 20:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
    Experimental results cannot provide evidence for a fallacious derivation because that derivation can not predict.

    This equation:
    θ = (2GM/(AU⋅c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ (1)

    Where:
    AU = one astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
     φ = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
    c = speed of light in vacuum
    G = Gravitational constant
    M = solar mass

    Is thoroughly experimentally confirmed.

    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

    It doesn't matter where equation (1) comes from,
    experimental evidence shows that the equation is correct.

    It doesn't matter if someone has arrived at the equation
    with faulty math, experimental evidence still show that
    the equation is correct.

    But we know of course that the equation is GR's prediction,
    and it would be rather stupid to claim that the derivation
    is fallacious, but experimental evidence still show that
    the equation happens to be correct.

    Do you, Laurence Clark Crossen, still claim that experimental
    evidence do not show that this equation is correct?
    θ = (2GM/(AU⋅c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ


    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to Paul.B.Andersen on Tue Apr 29 16:02:16 2025
    On 4/29/2025 2:31 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
    Den 28.04.2025 20:27, skrev LaurenceClarkCrossen:
    Experimental results cannot provide evidence for a fallacious derivation
    because that derivation can not predict.

    This equation:
        θ = (2GM/(AU⋅c²))⋅(1+cosφ)/sinφ   (1)

    Where:
     AU = one astronomical unit (distance Sun-Earth)
     φ  = angle star-Sun as observed from the Earth
     c  = speed of light in vacuum
     G  = Gravitational constant
     M  = solar mass

    Is thoroughly experimentally confirmed.

    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

    It doesn't matter where equation (1) comes from,
    experimental evidence shows that the equation is correct.


    Too bad, however, that The Shit of your idiot
    guru predicts no deflection. According to
    it light [in vacuum] takes always a straight/
    geodesic path.



    It doesn't matter if someone has arrived at the equation
    with faulty math, experimental evidence still show that
    the equation is correct.

    But we know of course that the equation is GR's prediction,

    You know and you mistake.
    Mistakes often happen to brainwashed idiots
    like yourself.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Charlton Bajinov@21:1/5 to All on Tue Apr 29 18:39:51 2025
    Maciej Woźniak wrote:

    On 4/29/2025 1:42 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    You are competing with Maciej Woźniak about being the most ignorant
    and stupid contributor in this NG.

    See, poor trash: I've proven the mumble of the idiot you're worshipping
    to be not even consistent - and except spitting, insulting or slandering
    you can do nothing about it.

    But you will do what you can. The Shit expects that every doggie will do
    his duty.

    I beg to differ, until you show me a model simulation and related, you are zero. The fucking shit polakia is shit anyway, traitors. I have no words
    for the fuckin polakia. A disgrace. I hope mother Russia will give you
    what you deserve. You stupid fake Christians, you dont undrestant
    relativity at all.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Paul B. Andersen@21:1/5 to All on Thu May 1 12:48:10 2025
    Den 29.04.2025 13:45, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
    On 4/29/2025 1:42 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    You are competing with Maciej Woźniak about being the most
    ignorant and stupid contributor in this NG.

    See, poor trash: I've proven the mumble of
    the idiot you're worshipping to be not even
    consistent - and except spitting, insulting
    or slandering you can do nothing about it.

    But you will do what you can. The Shit expects
    that every doggie will do his duty.

    Sorry, you have to do better to catch up with
    Laurence Clark Crossen.

    Try varying your mantra a bit. Repeating the same over and
    over won't do, so Laurence Clark Crossen is still in the lead.

    Try again?

    --
    Paul

    https://paulba.no/

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From =?UTF-8?Q?Maciej_Wo=C5=BAniak?=@21:1/5 to Paul B. Andersen on Thu May 1 13:33:04 2025
    On 5/1/2025 12:48 PM, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
    Den 29.04.2025 13:45, skrev Maciej Woźniak:
    On 4/29/2025 1:42 PM, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:

    You are competing with Maciej Woźniak about being the most
    ignorant and stupid contributor in this NG.

    See, poor trash: I've proven the mumble of
    the idiot you're worshipping to be not even
    consistent - and except spitting, insulting
    or slandering you can do nothing about it.

    But you will do what you can. The Shit expects
    that every doggie will do his duty.

    Sorry, you have to do better to catch up with
    Laurence Clark Crossen.

    Try varying your mantra a bit. Repeating the same over and
    over won't do, so Laurence Clark Crossen is still in the lead.

    Try again?


    See, poor trash: I've proven the mumble of
    the idiot you're worshipping to be not even
    consistent - and except spitting, insulting
    or slandering you can do nothing about it.

    But you will do what you can. The Shit expects
    that every doggie will do his duty.

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