**Fatal Stab To Einstein's Starlight Deflection**

**Correct Value Derived First Time In Human History**

August 2022 by Al Foos

August 2022 by Al Foos

Prerequisite to this problem is a thorough understanding of what the 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment demonstrated. Figures 1 and 2 summarize the results mathematically. The first is the Pound-Rebka wiki article showing the basic result that light frequency increases from a higher potential energy (PE) to lower over distance h. The actual point stated in the article was to prove Einstein's “theory of relativity” in that clock speed was slower in proportion to the fractional change in PE over distance h, but the wiki article doesn’t progress past the complicated equation for frequency, where final frequency f sub r equals initial frequency f sub e times the square root of this very complicated expression. This is emblematic of Einstein’s style of fraud in that the authors themselves toss the equation, stated that h is insignificant in this context. Well, h of course is the point of the experiment. So, Einstein is then discarded as in fact irrelevant. The derivation then ends with the formula for change in energy E over distance h expressed as small delta E (instantaneous change) over initial E equals gh/c^2. The small delta (instantaneous change) is an incorrect form meant to impress and should be capital delta for (total) change in energy. In other words, the fractional change in energy over h is gh/c^2. We already knew that, this is only Newton’s fractional change in potential energy over distance h, just another expression for Newtons PE=mgh, though it could be other forms of energy. What happened to frequency? Well, just replace little delta with capital delta and E with initial f to get us back on track. But what happened to the point stated at the outset, change in clock speed. Frequency f can be replaced with r for clock speed, the correct inference being that clock speed depends of frequency. This is the root of Einstein's famous “time dilation,” but it’s really nothing but the way time and space are defined. We know clock speed and wavelength change together because the length of a meter by natural definition is the number of wavelengths traveled over time t, so if frequency increases, clock speed must decrease if the article was true to its word, and so must the length of a meter. The shorter length of a meter is also attributed to Einstein, but again both are only natural consequences of higher frequency (shorter wavelength). The unshaded area under Einstein’s formulas are different mathematical ways of expressing change in clock speed. Note that g*h is simply change in velocity (squared) over distance h (hence, E=mc^2, a simple variation of Newton’s energy E for an inelastic collision at velocity c). These are indisputable facts expressed in more complete form in Figure 2.

So clock speed r, wavelength, and length l all shrink together with the fractional change in PE or change in velocity over distance h (delta v/c)^2. Figure 2 summarizes these simple facts: delta r, l, and f, clock speed, length and frequency all change in proportion to fractional change in velocity delta v^2 over c^2 expressed using Newton’s formula alone. It is also a well known fact that c changes in the same way; hence, light accelerates away from a body of mass at the rate c plus the velocity change indicated by redshift at the same rate bodies fall in the downward direction. The local value of c is always constant because the relationship between length and clock speed is fixed, but a remote observer observes an increase in velocity and clock speed with redshift. These are all established facts purported to prove relativity. We don’t care about relativity. Fully satisfy yourself that they are correct before attacking the deflection problem. The new word redshift will be used to distinguish between “gravitational” and ordinary Doppler red shift, though you will see that both are of Doppler origin.

So clock speed r, wavelength, and length l all shrink together with the fractional change in PE or change in velocity over distance h (delta v/c)^2. Figure 2 summarizes these simple facts: delta r, l, and f, clock speed, length and frequency all change in proportion to fractional change in velocity delta v^2 over c^2 expressed using Newton’s formula alone. It is also a well known fact that c changes in the same way; hence, light accelerates away from a body of mass at the rate c plus the velocity change indicated by redshift at the same rate bodies fall in the downward direction. The local value of c is always constant because the relationship between length and clock speed is fixed, but a remote observer observes an increase in velocity and clock speed with redshift. These are all established facts purported to prove relativity. We don’t care about relativity. Fully satisfy yourself that they are correct before attacking the deflection problem. The new word redshift will be used to distinguish between “gravitational” and ordinary Doppler red shift, though you will see that both are of Doppler origin.

These facts provide the first and only correct proof of starlight deflection since Einstein's famous but false 1919 prediction that earned him a ticker tape parade in New York, also exposing clear scientific fraud by Einstein and Eddington. You may strengthen comprehension by viewing recent YouTube videos. Though both time dilation and length expansion are attributed to Einstein’s relativity, nowhere by Einstein or anyone has the difference between a longer and shorter meter explained, though it is a fact and natural consequence of redshift. Locally, like c, the length of a meter is constant and its properties do not change, but the redshift observed remotely is equivalent to an increase in the length of a meter in terms of empty space. It is thus a fact that with the acceleration of light away from Earth, space does in fact expand with redshift.

Figure 2 on the next page summarizes the facts established by Pound-Rekba. Light accelerates away from Earth at the rate viewed remotely as redshift which is also expansion of space by virtue of a longer meter while at the same time ensuring that internal (local) dimensions are fixed. A big bang would have never been possible, the size of the universe is fixed. This force of expansion causes the equal and opposite force of gravity in accordance with Newton’s Third Law of Motion. These are statements of fact established by the 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment among others, not ideas or theories. All of these dimensional effects are proportional to the amount of mass or combined mass density in a given region; thus, the observed “gravitational” redshift is in reality recessional velocity into a void where these changes in dimension are not visible because all points in space expand together simultaneously. “Inside the box” dimensions remain constant because every point within maintains the same distance in spite of accelerated expansion. Nor are photons “shot out of little canons” in Einstein’s view, but light waves having no mass are propagated by the expansion of space. As space expands outwardly, dimensions inside the box are fixed and light is carried away by the force of expansion at the fixed internal rate c. Expansion is the fundamental property of mass. Yes, this is a bit a mind bender, but this is exactly what many experiments like that of Pound-Rebka proved and not relativity, so take the red pill and ponder the formulas, solid facts of observation which support this conclusion and no other.

This official confirmation of relativity based on Einstein’s formula being inappropriately abandoned is prima facie proof of fraud, not necessarily Einstein’s alone who had already been dead for five years, but by a scientific community dedicated to promoting this deception for whatever reasons. Legions of zealous little Einstein's will insist this excessively complicated expression is proof of the penetrating insights of a great mind armed with the theory of relativity, and they will pretend to understand it. So, to be fair, let's take a closer look. Despite years of intense mathematical training, I was unable to evaluate this expression for the same thinly veiled excuse the authorities give for dumping it. It is a bogus construction that can't provide a meaningful answer. The units do cancel correctly, but any answer would be false. Examine the wiki article yourself. I challenge anyone perform a stepwise evaluation leading to a reasonable answer. The article's statement that Einstein's formula represents a more accurate value than the Newtonian expression gh/c^2 is outright false and insupportable by either logic or result. Newton’s PE term gh/c^2 does not contain a flaw by assuming a constant gravitational field as the article claims, but on the contrary it and only it accurately represents the change in gravitational field strength over distance h. The claim to advanced insight and accuracy using Einstein's expression is an obvious and deliberate lie apparent to anyone accustomed to solving real life mathematical expressions. The additional failure of the article to carry the sequence of logic to the original point of clock speed is more than wiki's reputed shabbiness, but a conscious effort by authorities to avoid pursuing full understanding of the effects of gravitational force being clock speed, frequency, length and velocity c, which are not only easily derived from the Pound-Rebka experiment but well established and confirmed by other experiments wrongly purporting to validate the meaningless concept of relativity. True insight requires flushing these deceptions and replacing them with true understanding of the facts. Light accelerates away from a body of mass at the exact rate meters expand and objects fall in the opposite direction. These are not ideas of mine or delusions, only facts established by many experiments.

Professional Qualifications Brief

My academic objective was to take the toughest natural science and math classes the university had to offer. Montana State University Bozeman is a land grant agricultural and engineering school with a reputation as one of the best. For eight years, sixteen hours or more a day, I solved thousands of math and science problems to gain an advanced level of proficiency beyond the requirements of a degree. None of this had a thing to do with theories, only facts. Einstein’s theories employ bogus equations and contradictory postulates and hence represent popular myth and not real science. Other (prominent) scientists recognized the obvious foolishness of Einstein’s claims, but anyone who questions the Einstein myth has been shut out and accused of malpractice out of hand. Physics is the new Vatican. The real crackpots are the huge pile of little chips off the Einstein Master Crackpot. Nobody wishes to make that list, but my pledge as a science student was standing for the truth, especially when I was the only one appearing to have a firm handle on it. Daily life kept me occupied until 2020 when I finally had time to retrofit the broken pieces of garbled Einstein logic into a sensible whole. But simple as it is, it hasn’t been easy to penetrate the mind of the masses. As boredom settled in, the starlight deflection problem began to look interesting as a another way of unravelling more of Einstein follies. Was the style of Einstein's emblematic fraud also replicated in this famous example of a claim to deep insight? It turned out all the more obvious, so stick with me.

Starlight Deflection Historical Review

What propelled Einstein to everlasting fame was well publicized appearances of uncanny foresight beyond the imagination of mere mortal men. The media made a circus of his predictions by ignoring questions that they really were such. When Eddington confirmed Einstein's pending prediction for starlight deflection in his famous 1919 experiment, a media sensation punctuated by a ticker tape parade in New York propelled Einstein to fame as the God of science that no sane person dared challenge. It was all a hoax, as Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, claimed despite threats made against him. Einstein's stated method of solving the deflection question was to multiply Newton's formula by two (2 times Newton's 2GM/Rc^2) where G is Newton's constant, M mass and R radius of the sun. This included deflection on approach and equal deflection on departure consistent with bodies of mass being pulled towards the normal by the sun’s gravity. Einstein claimed to have independently arrived at Newton’s formula in a prior publication, then justified multiplication by two just prior to the experiment by citing an additional and equal effect of redshift. You should now understand that gravity and redshift are not separate effects but complementary aspects of only one where the rate of a falling body can be ascertained by its degree of Doppler redshift. Two extra wheels on a car don’t make it go twice as fast. The lie should not be let stand and does not escape the understanding of an informed mind. As we plumb for a reason behind Einstein’s deception, I will prove this prediction to have been a contrived fake while also proving with certainty the true value of starlight deflection. The problem is cast within the context of cosmic expansion and strictly consistent with the motion of light as demonstrated conclusively by the Pound-Rebka experiment. The fraud would have been obvious to any real scientist given the real path of light once revealed by the redshift effect. It was a surprise to me that the solution turned out to be so easy, mathematically and scientifically exact and thoroughly immune from serious challenge.

You may Google the story of Lenard's accusation that Einstein had plagiarized his deflection formula from an 1801 paper by a scientist named Soldner. After reading Soldner's original (1801) paper, no formula resembling Newton's or Einstein's version is anywhere in the paper, so Einstein couldn't have gotten it there. Soldner develops numerous expressions regarding deflection, but his assumptions are deeply flawed and his equations do not appear to be solvable. The real formula Einstein claimed to have derived independently could have been published over a hundred years earlier by Newton himself. The physics community universally credits the formula to Newton though no evidence demonstrates he was himself the author or hat he would claim it if given leave from the grave.

Restating... some time before 1919 Einstein published a paper purporting to independently derive “Newton's” formula (not Soldner's), claiming to be unaware of any prior work until Lenard aunched hissss allegation. This is beyond credibility in the unforgiving light of new knowledge. Newton's formula, if indeed it could be called that, was way off the mark to start with. The assumptions were that light having (corpuscular) mass is attracted by gravity and traces a hyperbolic curve in passing the sun. That Einstein could have replicated the same fundamental errors in independently arriving at Newton's formula is beyond credible. In everyr example, Einstein claims to have validated Newton and then proceeds to show him wrong by factoring in a false claim of his own making it appear he was more than Newton's equal. Later, just ahead of Eddington's grand expedition to test Einstein’s so called relativity, Einstein doubled his prediction based on duplicating Newton by claiming an additional deflection by virtue of gravitational redshift (or “time dilation”). Eddington's result created everlasting fame for Einstein, but a real scientist will note that redshift is an integral aspect of gravitational force and not a separate phenomenon. Einstein's formula was a deliberate and thinly veiled fraud. Apparently, no other mortal in the last hundred years has been able to correctly solve for starlight deflection.

At the start of the investigation and intial draft of this document, I gave Einstein the benefit of doubt. It is a grave matter to accuse a scientist of fraud and a vain attempt when the truth has been buried so deep for so long. It was time to dig up my fifty year old calculus notes and tap into my rusty talent for math and science problems. I was once proficient in calculus, physical chemistry and other sciences. To set up any such problem, relevant equations are written in pencil followed by the values of all variables in the equations except for the unknown being sought. The unknown can then be easily arrived at by anyone practiced in the art. It's difficult to imagine the real Newton depending on flawed assumptions, but he had plunged headlong into his own particle theory of light and was losing a heated debate with Huygen's who was promoting his own wave model. This resulted in Newton’s mental breakdown followed by significant mental impairment perhaps brought on as much by mercury vapors in his alchemy experiments. It is by now clear that neither his idea that light is gravitationally attracted to massive bodies or that the angle would be defined by the asymptotes of a hyperbola was remotely valid. How odd that Einstein didn't notice that light was not attracted to mass when he claimed to have independly derived Newton’s equation and then doubled the mistake by invoking gravitational redshift which proves light is pushed away by mass. In reality, the shape of any curve has no relevance but only where a beam tangent to the sun starts and ends. These unknowns are easy to solve for because light is propagated by a force. Why not call it force of expansion? Given this fact that light is propagated by expansion away from bodies of mass as established by the Pound-Rebka result, a simple two vector sum will give an accurate result. At the time, over forty years since leaving university study, I was much uncertain this would work, but it would be a crime not to pursue it to the end. Why a crime? To liberate real science from fraudulent spectacle and black hole it has fallen into? To expose what kind of guy this Einstein really was? I think the best answer is the hope of furthering the public good. Spare me the ticker tape parade, please.

Problem and Solution

Let me emphasize that you may treat light as attracted to gravity as Einstein and Newton some say did and still find the same solution, but you have to think backwards so Newton and his future grave robbers couldn’t help but set the problem up backwards and end up with the wrong result. Here we hone right in on the solution with confidence thanks to the 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment. But physics has become a cult of pretense, not science, whose job it is to reject and discredit real science while piling more embroidery on Einstein's fakery with free crequations and fanciful flights of imagination like the Big Bang and string theory, shows fit for Broadway. Hopefully, this case of starlight deflection will further expose the deeper truth, not just the true angle of deflection, but the cause of gravity being spatial expansion as revealed by Pound-Rebka and documented by Foos Research since 2020 and before. Don't doubt, don't walk away. This is the holy grail, not another imposter. Experiments done forty to a hundred years ago proved it perfectly correct in every respect, all the more reason the authorities will never permit it, but light, clock speed and meters tell us themselves how they behave with changing gravitational potential or velocity.

It is easy to perceive the solution by conceptualizing the path of light as we know it as it follows the expansion of space as redshift from a planet in proportion to mass density in the equal and opposite direction of falling bodies as demonstrated by Pound-Rebka in 1960. Ponder the outgoing path of light accelerating beyond our own fixed c as spatial expansion opposite the force of gravity, in other words, the force GM/R^2. This is the rate of expansion and recession into the external void. Since intersecting forces are vectors, dig up your freshman calculus text. The correct vector graph is about as simple as they come. Refer to the first graph shown by Figure 3 below. This is the only correct path for the gravitational deflection of incoming light where tangent to the sun's surface. The main vector of propagation is the rate of expansion of the universe as a whole, c/s, represented on the Y axis.

Just as space expands away from any body of mass as an increase in redshift (GM/r^2), space expands within the universe as a whole at the accelerating rate c/s, the distance light travels per second per second in all directions as verified by by the Michelson-Morley experiment which was of course explained away as relativity. The vertical vector begins (or ends) at the center of the sun, and so c/s rightly includes GM/r^2, the acceleration due to gravity contributed by the sun. This tiny boost isn't of much significance since c is so large, but we deal here with pure mathematical facts. In terms of distance, light travels on the Y axis a distance of c/s*t^2, acceleration of light (force of expansion) times elapsed time squared. Thankfully, we can let t^2/s cancel out since it appears in all terms. We care not about actual distances traveled to find theta, but only the opposite rate of falling bodies at the distance R on the horizontal axis and the matching rate of expansion c (+GM/R^2*t) on the Y axis.

These both change in proportion so the angle theta is constant whatever time has elapsed if any. However you wish to imagine it, the vertical vector W is pushed off course by the horizontal force of vector U of magnitude MG/R^2, the same as the opposing rate of falling bodies on the sun's surface. This is the outward accelerating velocity of light, a known fact verified by numerous experiments purporting to validate relativity. The vector sum of W and U is V. V is the only possible vector of magnitude and direction for a light beam tangent to the surface of the sun. The vector sum of W and U gives the only correct angle of deflection by the sun, theta of a beam sent from a star of zero mass.

This angle theta is half the total deflection after passing the sun for an object of mass, but not for the linear path of a light beam. Einstein's fudgery snared him a ticker tape parade in New York, but it was wrong. Theta is the angle whose cosine is the ratio of magnitude W to magnitude V as the velocity of light is boosted by the sun. Despite contradicting the greatest scientist of all time, the problem turns out to have a perfectly elegant solution with a mathematical proof as sound as any ever accepted by any mathematics department in the world backed by textbooks world wide. Unlike the complicated mathematics of budding little Einsteins, this explanation begins with a page of relevant equations jotted down and declared variables for the series of intermediate steps to the solution for U and W and V. If you know high school geometry, the resultant path of light is the value of the sum of magnitudes U and W, vector V with magnitude square root of (U^2 + W^2) and direction theta, also known as the hypotenuse of a right triangle. This deflection problem doesn't rank high in difficulty. Since the universe expands simultaneously in all directions in proportion to mass density, the same angles are preserved inside the spacetime box where dimensions of length and c are fixed by the relation between clock speed and frequency as shown by Pound-Rebka. On the local level, a meter remains a meter it travels, even though it expands with distance from regions of greater mass density. The increase in meter length is real even though it consists of nothing, so don’t say nothing isn’t something.

The observed redshift from point to point exactly matches changes in velocity and meter length into an external void outside the spacetime box while perceived inside as gravitational potential. In other words, gravitational redshift is in fact still the Doppler measure of expansion as we see clearly in the vector graph where V is the vector sum of velocity of light c vertically and the the horizontal vector of falling bodies at the surface of the sun, MG/R^2 equaling about 275 meters/s as opposed to 9.8 m/s at sea level. The measured value of redshift from point to point tells us what the gravitational potential is between them unless beyond the influence of gravity. If the relative rate of expansion of a larger body isn't sufficient to overtake the other as witnessed outside the box, the observed “gravitational” redshift represents uniform rate of recession outside the box and a fixed distance within the universe. Redshift is the other side of Einstein's “gravitational” time dilation seen by a remote observer and coincident with length contraction which ensures fixed measurements locally. Think about it until it starts to make sense because it does.

But will the vector method match Eddington's confirmed value of 0.875 (half total) arc seconds or will Foos Research be exposed as yet another fool dashed to dust by the glory of Einstein? It is easily seen from the graph that distance is a critical measurement to find the degree of deflection, specifically the magnitude of vector W matching the magnitude of vector U where tangent at R. The distance to any star is many times greater than value W, but any beam failing to intersect the vertical distance W matching the horizontal magnitude U will also fail to be tangent to the sun's surface. Thus the sum of W and U, V, gives the exact magnitude and angle of deflection for any beam tangent to the sun’s surface from a source of zero mass. Both are perfect geometric facts, not the exotic ideas or theories of pretend scientists. Only light beams that match the magnitude and direction of V can be tangent to the sun's surface at R whatever their origin. The solution is easily found by plugging in the known mass M of the sun and Newton's gravitational constant G (use dimensions R^2/M^2*c/s), radius of the sun r, speed of light c, and cranking out the magnitudes of W, U and V. After perfect comprehension from the graph, follow the next two pages of formulas and the stepwise solution for V and theta. Find the magnitudes of U, W and V. After that, the cosine of the angle theta between V and W is calculated by the law of cosines found in any elementary geometry test. The arc cosine then gives the only true and rightful angle of deflection of starlight. This is the angle of deflection, theta, 0.18882 arc seconds or twice that after passing midpoint for a total of 0.37764 arc seconds (only three significant digits should apply). Wait! There is no second half because this isn’t gravitational attraction and the path of approaching light is perfectly linear.

WHAT? If Eddington's measurement confirmed Einstein's prediction of 1.75 total arc seconds, Foos Research must be dead wrong. I hear them little Einstein's barkin. Where did I put my cyanide? Not so fast, Quicks Draw! If Einstein independently derived Soldner's (Newton's) value for gravitational effect when it was based on wrong assumptions, then the numbers Einstein and Edddington used must have both been wrong, and both must have known that beforehand. Not conspiracy theory, Mack. There is no other logical possibility. They had that 1919 parade well in advance by staging a prediction based on fraudulent science. A couple of clowns nobody can deny. I agonized for hours knowing the lie has been repeated so often the truth has no chance. How could Eddington and Einstein both get 0.875 one way when the correct value could not be any more than 0.189 total? I glanced at the sky and then the obvious smacked me in the face. Einstein and Eddington didn't stop to think that we see the sun come up about two minutes before it really reaches the horizon because of atmospheric refraction. That's because refraction of light in the atmosphere bends the rays to create the same effect as deflection by gravitational distortion both on approach and again on departure. This is basic high school physics (never mind I was kicked out for asking too many questions). Whenever light is slowed by passage through transparent substances (glass or gas), the wave front is bent towards the normal. The sun's atmosphere is far more dense than Earth's so it would be impossible indeed if the observed deflection wasn't almost entirely due to atmospheric refraction. So... Einstein's prediction could only have been a staged hoax. The correct value of gravitational deflection by the sun is 0.189 arc seconds on approach and NOT again that amount after passing midpoint of the sun on its way to an observer. Eddington's two way estimate of 1.76 minus starlight deflection of 0.189 equals arc seconds owed to atmospheric refraction.

Since gravitational deflection in this example bends opposite that of attraction towards the sun, the line of sight from an observer would cause distant stars to shift inward, not outward, so it's necessary to designate theta as a negative 0.189 arc seconds offset by the remaining two way deflection from atmospheric refraction. A lifetime of having official indoctrination pounded into your head severely blinds insight, so initially hours were spent struggling to find the curve between the tangent to the sun at 275 m/s and matching intersection with the Y axis at value c. I had so believed myself the parabola postulated by Newton’s grave robbers must be the right path, but finally realized that there simply is no curve. The perfectly linear vector V represents the beam's actual path. Both X and Y axes expand at the same relative rates, so the path between them is linear. All vector sums of points closer or farther away than W or U must be parallel to V. The path of passing objects is curved, but the path of light is linear. Light is not constrained by gravity but instead forced away at a fixed rate, GM/r^2.

Another way of seeing this is that while local observers measure a constant c in all directions, the “gravitational” redshift corresponds to a real increase in the length of a meter without the addition of any substance or change in properties. No change in c is measured, but the outward expansion of space on the X axis is in fact a real increase in velocity precisely equal to the opposing rate of falling bodies (Newton’s Third Law of Motion). This is what happens when all points in space expand in proportion to mass simultaneously. A meter expands by the amount of increased wavelength (redshift), but it is still a meter, and that is exactly what the Pound-Rebka experiment shows. Credit for this discovery was given to Einstein leaving the real consequences of the Pound-Rebka experiment deliberately unrepresented. The space we see expands into an infinite void. That we know because of the “gravitational” redshift which Einstein the genius explained as due to gravitational redshift while leaving out discussion of length and speed of light.

All points in space expand at a rate determined by “gravitational” redshift which represents true Doppler recession, so the fundamental property of matter is expansion of space into an infinite void. When this expansion accelerates fast enough, according to Newton's Third Law of Motion, an equal and opposite force is created we call gravity, but expansion into a void does not alter relative dimensions or properties of objects “inside the box.” Expansion into a void does not change the properties or dimensions of matter. The addition of empty space in the expanding ruler as demonstrated by Pound-Rebka is claimed to be the genius of Einstein, avoiding mention of the fact that meter length does change without being locally measureable and that applies to measurements of the universe which are fixed as we might measure them. Likewise, along the vector's “local” path, there is no perceived change in length, frequency or clock speed. All are constant inside the box. Changes are real but only observed by what Einstein referred to as remote observers.

So, the incoming beam originating in empty space is deflected uniformly away from the normal by the expansion of space proportional to the sun's gravity just as by the Earth in the Pound-Rebka experiment. There is no curve. Beyond the tangent point it there is no additional affect, so Einstein’s reasoning was entirely and deliberately fallacious. There could be a serious fallacy in our model if you assume the angle of deflection is not affected by the amount of mass at its origin which is why our example isn’t realistic. If the beam's origin is a star of the same mass as our sun and equidistant from the observer, the resultant angle will be zero (parallel to the Y axis). If the star of origin has a larger mass than the sun, the deflection will be progressively positive instead of negative. Gravitational should be common under the right conditions. For the sake of illustrating our proof, the graph shows no mass where the beam originates. Then the angle of deflection is a constant -0.189 owing to redshift by the sun's gravity. Given Eddington's crude measurement of 1.75 total deflection and a negative 0.189 one way owed to gravity, a total of 1.95 arc seconds would be required for atmospheric refraction to offset the deficit. Half of that or 0.975 means that the additional angle departing the sun would be 0.975. The observed angle on approach would be 0.975 minus gravitational deflection of 0.189 equal to 0.785. Of course, the mass of the source object is likely greater than the sun. In those cases the deflection would be positive and add to the 0.975 owed to atmospheric refraction instead of subtracting from it. Of course, this will never be the case in reality since distant stars all have mass.

You may not like the concept of spatial expansion, but a real scientist is obligated to accept the path of light as it accelerates away from a body of mass as the Pound-Rebka experiment and others have aptly demonstrated. This is opposite Einstein's assumption and Newton's (according to history books). Presumably Einstein didn't understand that in 1919, and since he died in 1955 five years before the 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment, he might be excused. Then just how could he have predicted that change in clock speed is proportional to the fractional change in potential energy as found by Pound-Rebka? There are other experiments as well proving that light slows on approach to a body of mass with a blue shift and accelerates away redshifted. These experiments, like Pound-Rebka, are touted as examples validating Einstein's relativity, effectively blocking true understanding by the masses. Any kind of mass, even corpuscles of light, is pulled towards a body of mass, not pushed away. Light is not mass. If invoking redshift, Einstein should have known that even in 1919. You can't have it both ways. Unlike hundreds of papers pretending to prove relativity which rarely define terms or provide stepwise proofs, here you will find a straightforward, exam perfect stepwise solution to starlight deflection, at least for the unrealistic case where the source has no mass and isn’t interfered with by other objects. Figure 4 gives the equations needed to solve for U, W, V and cosine theta. It’s really just that simple. Figure 5 summarizes the results.

Derivation of Newton’s G

Einstein’s famous prediction was as wrong as wrong could be. The books were cooked. Light is not attracted by gravity, but repulsed. This vector model gives the only true path of light throughout gravitational gradients. However, the more educated a person is in modern physics the more indoctrinated, warped and irrational his perceptions will be. After submitting this endeavor to a physics forum I was deluged not only with dozens of deeply insulting personal attacks by email. There were also dozens of international phone calls. After a point, it isn't possible for anyone trapped in the relativity cult to recognize logical fallacies or follow a train of rational thought. But I hear you barking. If the increase in c by the sun's expansion is only reflected in the degree of redshift that expands a meter, then how could there be any deflection at all? To clear your head, consider the following simple analogy. Consider the sun to be the entire universe. Imagine all points within are expanding into an infinite void as they might in accord with our known laws of chemical equilibrium except it is all points in space, not just particles in space, so the sun is fixed in its own right because purely empty space is not recognized by mass expanding into it. The rate of that expansion is revealed in the degree of redshift from point to point if observed outside the sun, but because relative to itself the box retains fixed dimensions. This means that as light is propagated away externally as redshift at the fixed rate of GM/R^2, it appears within the box to be traveling away from mass rather than being pushed by expanding space. This isn’t a new idea, it’s easy to diagram on a paper napkin. In this little sun universe, the value of c is equal to GM/R^2. Recall Newton’s gravitational constant G is equal to R^2*(c/s)*M when expressed in those units. Are you awake? Note that c/s = GM/R^2/s for our sun universe, thus G = R^2*(c/s)*M. Wake up! We just derived the meaning of Newton’s G where R is the radius of any universe, M the mass of that universe, and c/s the acceleration of expansion of any universe or in this case the sun’s surface. Call me all the names you like, but here you can now open your eyes and comprehend the universe the way it really is. The true meaning of G is R^2*(c/s)*M where R is radius of the universe, c speed of light and c/s the acceleration of expansion at the surface equal to the rate of falling bodies if there could be any beyond the boundary to fall. You can find these units for G in most physics textbooks, but what the units actually represent will never be explained. Now you truly understand what G means, Foos being the only beaten path to understanding the universe as it really is.

The expansion of mass into a void follows from the second law of thermodynamics. Uniform expansion, however, does not represent a force, and force is required to achieve equilibrium. The universe is dead unless it expands by means of force to give us both gravity and light within a sphere internally fixed in size. Since the void is infinite, there is no outward friction to resist the force of expansion so gravity is the equal and opposite result required by Newton’s Third Law of Motion. Force is rate of change, so outward rate of expansion must be proportional to mass density in a given region. Let that be 275 meters per second per second, the value of g at the radius R at the sun's surface. All points within the sun expand together so dimensions remain fixed internally. There is no perception of expansion except the redshift of falling bodies or light traveling away from mass. Note that Einstein's concept of “gravitational” versus Doppler redshift belies the fact all redshift is of Doppler origin. Redshift is the rate of recession between any two points anywhere due to expansion and also the rate of falling objects when near enough to be overtaken by the larger body at rate g.

Since dimensions of matter within the universe-sun are fixed, light is propagated throughout inner space at the fixed value of 275 m/s as would be verified by experiment. In this example of a little sun-universe, the constant value of c is fixed at 275 m/s. If matter is not distributed evenly within the sun, and a meter stick moved from point to point, expansion or constriction of a meter as evidenced by frequency shift is offset by changes in clock speed such that a meter remains a meter and all dimensions remain fixed despite expansion of our sun universe or uneven distribution of matter within. The radius of the sun is fixed at R and the speed of light is fixed at 275 m/s. Now let a beam of light approach the sun universe from a great distance of zero mass at the rate of c. Indeed, it must be forced away from the normal by the perpendicular rate of 275 m/s and gain speed equal to the resultant vector. The local observer will not perceive any such change in the velocity of light as measured directly from “inside the box,” but it is still real. It will be reflected perfectly by redshift as expansion of space in the opposing direction and still be reflected in the angle of approach, a negative 0.189 arc seconds or greater. These are not ideas of mine, but the conclusion of numerous experiments besides Pound-Rebka. It is accepted fact that light slows on approach to a body of mass coincident with a blue shift because clocks are running more slowly and wavelength shrinks, and hence by definition the length of a meter shrinks, though also by definition the length of a meter remains constant along the path of the photon. No local changes in clock speed or frequency occur.

When light departs a body of mass, the opposite occurs. Space expands as a meter expands as defined by the widening wavelength of light, aka redshift, at the equal and opposite rate of falling bodies, even though the meter locally remains always remains a meter. These are known facts but never properly understood being obscured by endless references to Einstein's relativity delusion. The path of light passing the sun is linear and not bent because it is not shot out of little atomic cannons but carried forth by the stretching of expanding space from point to point outside the box. In contrast, objects within fixed space are forced in the opposite direction towards the greatest center of mass which is an elliptical path at the rate of g, GM/R^2.

Because the outward force of accelerating expansion propagates light at c/s, physical objects within our fixed space time box see not expansion, except as redshift, but as light moving away from our fixed positions at the rate c. Light we observe as moving is nonetheless being propagated by expansion at rate c/s into a void. This we see reflected in redshift, progressively faster clock speeds and longer meter sticks confirmed perfectly by the Pound-Rebka experiment but also by other experiments as you can find them. It is not possible to comprehend them correctly if your intellect has been clouded by relentless relativistic dogma. Herein I've illuminated a sure path out of your black hole. Who among you little Einstein's is looking for a way out? Correct Cause of Progressive Intergalactic Redshift

But let's make more use of the graph while we can. With a second, similar graph, Figure 6, stretched to the intergalactic scale, we can conceptualize the spatial expansion of the universe as a whole and perceive the true cause of progressive intergalactic redshift as not a matter of receding raisins, but of a universe with internally fixed dimensions expanding outwards at the geometric rate of c/s, and so looking back over billions of years we see a progressive redshift matching the difference in rates of expansion between now and way back then defined by the geometric series of cosmic expansion, C1+c1 plus C2+c2 plus C3+c3... Where C is the current unknown rate of expansion near infinity and c the current instantaneous rate of increase of C. The raisins are not receding internally and a Big Bang would have never been possible, a fact confirmed again by the proper definition of Newton’s G.

So now you've learned from Foos Research the truth that all points in space expand in proportion to the mass density in a given region, and that the fundamental property of mass being accelerating expansion is what sustains the equal and opposite force of gravity conforming to Newton's Third Law of Motion. This you should understand as fact. Dimensions of the universe have always consisted of the three fundamental constants of mass M, radius R, and c/s, the three key variables embodied in Newton's G where c/s is the constant of accelerating expansion into an infinite void and c the fixed speed of light observed inside the box. The universe has no beginning or end. Its dimensions are fixed as real science tells us. When we look back far in time to observe intergalactic redshift, we see the wake from our internally fixed universe as it relentlessly explodes outward into empty space at the rate of c/s corresponding to the potential energy at the surface of the universe, mc^2. The smaller and redder dots in Figure 6 represent the universe as it looked billions of light years ago when it was expanding, and the degree of redshift between remote galaxies equals the difference in rates of expansion between back then and just now.

Eureka!

Figure 2 on the next page summarizes the facts established by Pound-Rekba. Light accelerates away from Earth at the rate viewed remotely as redshift which is also expansion of space by virtue of a longer meter while at the same time ensuring that internal (local) dimensions are fixed. A big bang would have never been possible, the size of the universe is fixed. This force of expansion causes the equal and opposite force of gravity in accordance with Newton’s Third Law of Motion. These are statements of fact established by the 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment among others, not ideas or theories. All of these dimensional effects are proportional to the amount of mass or combined mass density in a given region; thus, the observed “gravitational” redshift is in reality recessional velocity into a void where these changes in dimension are not visible because all points in space expand together simultaneously. “Inside the box” dimensions remain constant because every point within maintains the same distance in spite of accelerated expansion. Nor are photons “shot out of little canons” in Einstein’s view, but light waves having no mass are propagated by the expansion of space. As space expands outwardly, dimensions inside the box are fixed and light is carried away by the force of expansion at the fixed internal rate c. Expansion is the fundamental property of mass. Yes, this is a bit a mind bender, but this is exactly what many experiments like that of Pound-Rebka proved and not relativity, so take the red pill and ponder the formulas, solid facts of observation which support this conclusion and no other.

This official confirmation of relativity based on Einstein’s formula being inappropriately abandoned is prima facie proof of fraud, not necessarily Einstein’s alone who had already been dead for five years, but by a scientific community dedicated to promoting this deception for whatever reasons. Legions of zealous little Einstein's will insist this excessively complicated expression is proof of the penetrating insights of a great mind armed with the theory of relativity, and they will pretend to understand it. So, to be fair, let's take a closer look. Despite years of intense mathematical training, I was unable to evaluate this expression for the same thinly veiled excuse the authorities give for dumping it. It is a bogus construction that can't provide a meaningful answer. The units do cancel correctly, but any answer would be false. Examine the wiki article yourself. I challenge anyone perform a stepwise evaluation leading to a reasonable answer. The article's statement that Einstein's formula represents a more accurate value than the Newtonian expression gh/c^2 is outright false and insupportable by either logic or result. Newton’s PE term gh/c^2 does not contain a flaw by assuming a constant gravitational field as the article claims, but on the contrary it and only it accurately represents the change in gravitational field strength over distance h. The claim to advanced insight and accuracy using Einstein's expression is an obvious and deliberate lie apparent to anyone accustomed to solving real life mathematical expressions. The additional failure of the article to carry the sequence of logic to the original point of clock speed is more than wiki's reputed shabbiness, but a conscious effort by authorities to avoid pursuing full understanding of the effects of gravitational force being clock speed, frequency, length and velocity c, which are not only easily derived from the Pound-Rebka experiment but well established and confirmed by other experiments wrongly purporting to validate the meaningless concept of relativity. True insight requires flushing these deceptions and replacing them with true understanding of the facts. Light accelerates away from a body of mass at the exact rate meters expand and objects fall in the opposite direction. These are not ideas of mine or delusions, only facts established by many experiments.

Professional Qualifications Brief

My academic objective was to take the toughest natural science and math classes the university had to offer. Montana State University Bozeman is a land grant agricultural and engineering school with a reputation as one of the best. For eight years, sixteen hours or more a day, I solved thousands of math and science problems to gain an advanced level of proficiency beyond the requirements of a degree. None of this had a thing to do with theories, only facts. Einstein’s theories employ bogus equations and contradictory postulates and hence represent popular myth and not real science. Other (prominent) scientists recognized the obvious foolishness of Einstein’s claims, but anyone who questions the Einstein myth has been shut out and accused of malpractice out of hand. Physics is the new Vatican. The real crackpots are the huge pile of little chips off the Einstein Master Crackpot. Nobody wishes to make that list, but my pledge as a science student was standing for the truth, especially when I was the only one appearing to have a firm handle on it. Daily life kept me occupied until 2020 when I finally had time to retrofit the broken pieces of garbled Einstein logic into a sensible whole. But simple as it is, it hasn’t been easy to penetrate the mind of the masses. As boredom settled in, the starlight deflection problem began to look interesting as a another way of unravelling more of Einstein follies. Was the style of Einstein's emblematic fraud also replicated in this famous example of a claim to deep insight? It turned out all the more obvious, so stick with me.

Starlight Deflection Historical Review

What propelled Einstein to everlasting fame was well publicized appearances of uncanny foresight beyond the imagination of mere mortal men. The media made a circus of his predictions by ignoring questions that they really were such. When Eddington confirmed Einstein's pending prediction for starlight deflection in his famous 1919 experiment, a media sensation punctuated by a ticker tape parade in New York propelled Einstein to fame as the God of science that no sane person dared challenge. It was all a hoax, as Louis Essen, inventor of the atomic clock, claimed despite threats made against him. Einstein's stated method of solving the deflection question was to multiply Newton's formula by two (2 times Newton's 2GM/Rc^2) where G is Newton's constant, M mass and R radius of the sun. This included deflection on approach and equal deflection on departure consistent with bodies of mass being pulled towards the normal by the sun’s gravity. Einstein claimed to have independently arrived at Newton’s formula in a prior publication, then justified multiplication by two just prior to the experiment by citing an additional and equal effect of redshift. You should now understand that gravity and redshift are not separate effects but complementary aspects of only one where the rate of a falling body can be ascertained by its degree of Doppler redshift. Two extra wheels on a car don’t make it go twice as fast. The lie should not be let stand and does not escape the understanding of an informed mind. As we plumb for a reason behind Einstein’s deception, I will prove this prediction to have been a contrived fake while also proving with certainty the true value of starlight deflection. The problem is cast within the context of cosmic expansion and strictly consistent with the motion of light as demonstrated conclusively by the Pound-Rebka experiment. The fraud would have been obvious to any real scientist given the real path of light once revealed by the redshift effect. It was a surprise to me that the solution turned out to be so easy, mathematically and scientifically exact and thoroughly immune from serious challenge.

You may Google the story of Lenard's accusation that Einstein had plagiarized his deflection formula from an 1801 paper by a scientist named Soldner. After reading Soldner's original (1801) paper, no formula resembling Newton's or Einstein's version is anywhere in the paper, so Einstein couldn't have gotten it there. Soldner develops numerous expressions regarding deflection, but his assumptions are deeply flawed and his equations do not appear to be solvable. The real formula Einstein claimed to have derived independently could have been published over a hundred years earlier by Newton himself. The physics community universally credits the formula to Newton though no evidence demonstrates he was himself the author or hat he would claim it if given leave from the grave.

Restating... some time before 1919 Einstein published a paper purporting to independently derive “Newton's” formula (not Soldner's), claiming to be unaware of any prior work until Lenard aunched hissss allegation. This is beyond credibility in the unforgiving light of new knowledge. Newton's formula, if indeed it could be called that, was way off the mark to start with. The assumptions were that light having (corpuscular) mass is attracted by gravity and traces a hyperbolic curve in passing the sun. That Einstein could have replicated the same fundamental errors in independently arriving at Newton's formula is beyond credible. In everyr example, Einstein claims to have validated Newton and then proceeds to show him wrong by factoring in a false claim of his own making it appear he was more than Newton's equal. Later, just ahead of Eddington's grand expedition to test Einstein’s so called relativity, Einstein doubled his prediction based on duplicating Newton by claiming an additional deflection by virtue of gravitational redshift (or “time dilation”). Eddington's result created everlasting fame for Einstein, but a real scientist will note that redshift is an integral aspect of gravitational force and not a separate phenomenon. Einstein's formula was a deliberate and thinly veiled fraud. Apparently, no other mortal in the last hundred years has been able to correctly solve for starlight deflection.

At the start of the investigation and intial draft of this document, I gave Einstein the benefit of doubt. It is a grave matter to accuse a scientist of fraud and a vain attempt when the truth has been buried so deep for so long. It was time to dig up my fifty year old calculus notes and tap into my rusty talent for math and science problems. I was once proficient in calculus, physical chemistry and other sciences. To set up any such problem, relevant equations are written in pencil followed by the values of all variables in the equations except for the unknown being sought. The unknown can then be easily arrived at by anyone practiced in the art. It's difficult to imagine the real Newton depending on flawed assumptions, but he had plunged headlong into his own particle theory of light and was losing a heated debate with Huygen's who was promoting his own wave model. This resulted in Newton’s mental breakdown followed by significant mental impairment perhaps brought on as much by mercury vapors in his alchemy experiments. It is by now clear that neither his idea that light is gravitationally attracted to massive bodies or that the angle would be defined by the asymptotes of a hyperbola was remotely valid. How odd that Einstein didn't notice that light was not attracted to mass when he claimed to have independly derived Newton’s equation and then doubled the mistake by invoking gravitational redshift which proves light is pushed away by mass. In reality, the shape of any curve has no relevance but only where a beam tangent to the sun starts and ends. These unknowns are easy to solve for because light is propagated by a force. Why not call it force of expansion? Given this fact that light is propagated by expansion away from bodies of mass as established by the Pound-Rebka result, a simple two vector sum will give an accurate result. At the time, over forty years since leaving university study, I was much uncertain this would work, but it would be a crime not to pursue it to the end. Why a crime? To liberate real science from fraudulent spectacle and black hole it has fallen into? To expose what kind of guy this Einstein really was? I think the best answer is the hope of furthering the public good. Spare me the ticker tape parade, please.

Problem and Solution

Let me emphasize that you may treat light as attracted to gravity as Einstein and Newton some say did and still find the same solution, but you have to think backwards so Newton and his future grave robbers couldn’t help but set the problem up backwards and end up with the wrong result. Here we hone right in on the solution with confidence thanks to the 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment. But physics has become a cult of pretense, not science, whose job it is to reject and discredit real science while piling more embroidery on Einstein's fakery with free crequations and fanciful flights of imagination like the Big Bang and string theory, shows fit for Broadway. Hopefully, this case of starlight deflection will further expose the deeper truth, not just the true angle of deflection, but the cause of gravity being spatial expansion as revealed by Pound-Rebka and documented by Foos Research since 2020 and before. Don't doubt, don't walk away. This is the holy grail, not another imposter. Experiments done forty to a hundred years ago proved it perfectly correct in every respect, all the more reason the authorities will never permit it, but light, clock speed and meters tell us themselves how they behave with changing gravitational potential or velocity.

It is easy to perceive the solution by conceptualizing the path of light as we know it as it follows the expansion of space as redshift from a planet in proportion to mass density in the equal and opposite direction of falling bodies as demonstrated by Pound-Rebka in 1960. Ponder the outgoing path of light accelerating beyond our own fixed c as spatial expansion opposite the force of gravity, in other words, the force GM/R^2. This is the rate of expansion and recession into the external void. Since intersecting forces are vectors, dig up your freshman calculus text. The correct vector graph is about as simple as they come. Refer to the first graph shown by Figure 3 below. This is the only correct path for the gravitational deflection of incoming light where tangent to the sun's surface. The main vector of propagation is the rate of expansion of the universe as a whole, c/s, represented on the Y axis.

Just as space expands away from any body of mass as an increase in redshift (GM/r^2), space expands within the universe as a whole at the accelerating rate c/s, the distance light travels per second per second in all directions as verified by by the Michelson-Morley experiment which was of course explained away as relativity. The vertical vector begins (or ends) at the center of the sun, and so c/s rightly includes GM/r^2, the acceleration due to gravity contributed by the sun. This tiny boost isn't of much significance since c is so large, but we deal here with pure mathematical facts. In terms of distance, light travels on the Y axis a distance of c/s*t^2, acceleration of light (force of expansion) times elapsed time squared. Thankfully, we can let t^2/s cancel out since it appears in all terms. We care not about actual distances traveled to find theta, but only the opposite rate of falling bodies at the distance R on the horizontal axis and the matching rate of expansion c (+GM/R^2*t) on the Y axis.

These both change in proportion so the angle theta is constant whatever time has elapsed if any. However you wish to imagine it, the vertical vector W is pushed off course by the horizontal force of vector U of magnitude MG/R^2, the same as the opposing rate of falling bodies on the sun's surface. This is the outward accelerating velocity of light, a known fact verified by numerous experiments purporting to validate relativity. The vector sum of W and U is V. V is the only possible vector of magnitude and direction for a light beam tangent to the surface of the sun. The vector sum of W and U gives the only correct angle of deflection by the sun, theta of a beam sent from a star of zero mass.

This angle theta is half the total deflection after passing the sun for an object of mass, but not for the linear path of a light beam. Einstein's fudgery snared him a ticker tape parade in New York, but it was wrong. Theta is the angle whose cosine is the ratio of magnitude W to magnitude V as the velocity of light is boosted by the sun. Despite contradicting the greatest scientist of all time, the problem turns out to have a perfectly elegant solution with a mathematical proof as sound as any ever accepted by any mathematics department in the world backed by textbooks world wide. Unlike the complicated mathematics of budding little Einsteins, this explanation begins with a page of relevant equations jotted down and declared variables for the series of intermediate steps to the solution for U and W and V. If you know high school geometry, the resultant path of light is the value of the sum of magnitudes U and W, vector V with magnitude square root of (U^2 + W^2) and direction theta, also known as the hypotenuse of a right triangle. This deflection problem doesn't rank high in difficulty. Since the universe expands simultaneously in all directions in proportion to mass density, the same angles are preserved inside the spacetime box where dimensions of length and c are fixed by the relation between clock speed and frequency as shown by Pound-Rebka. On the local level, a meter remains a meter it travels, even though it expands with distance from regions of greater mass density. The increase in meter length is real even though it consists of nothing, so don’t say nothing isn’t something.

The observed redshift from point to point exactly matches changes in velocity and meter length into an external void outside the spacetime box while perceived inside as gravitational potential. In other words, gravitational redshift is in fact still the Doppler measure of expansion as we see clearly in the vector graph where V is the vector sum of velocity of light c vertically and the the horizontal vector of falling bodies at the surface of the sun, MG/R^2 equaling about 275 meters/s as opposed to 9.8 m/s at sea level. The measured value of redshift from point to point tells us what the gravitational potential is between them unless beyond the influence of gravity. If the relative rate of expansion of a larger body isn't sufficient to overtake the other as witnessed outside the box, the observed “gravitational” redshift represents uniform rate of recession outside the box and a fixed distance within the universe. Redshift is the other side of Einstein's “gravitational” time dilation seen by a remote observer and coincident with length contraction which ensures fixed measurements locally. Think about it until it starts to make sense because it does.

But will the vector method match Eddington's confirmed value of 0.875 (half total) arc seconds or will Foos Research be exposed as yet another fool dashed to dust by the glory of Einstein? It is easily seen from the graph that distance is a critical measurement to find the degree of deflection, specifically the magnitude of vector W matching the magnitude of vector U where tangent at R. The distance to any star is many times greater than value W, but any beam failing to intersect the vertical distance W matching the horizontal magnitude U will also fail to be tangent to the sun's surface. Thus the sum of W and U, V, gives the exact magnitude and angle of deflection for any beam tangent to the sun’s surface from a source of zero mass. Both are perfect geometric facts, not the exotic ideas or theories of pretend scientists. Only light beams that match the magnitude and direction of V can be tangent to the sun's surface at R whatever their origin. The solution is easily found by plugging in the known mass M of the sun and Newton's gravitational constant G (use dimensions R^2/M^2*c/s), radius of the sun r, speed of light c, and cranking out the magnitudes of W, U and V. After perfect comprehension from the graph, follow the next two pages of formulas and the stepwise solution for V and theta. Find the magnitudes of U, W and V. After that, the cosine of the angle theta between V and W is calculated by the law of cosines found in any elementary geometry test. The arc cosine then gives the only true and rightful angle of deflection of starlight. This is the angle of deflection, theta, 0.18882 arc seconds or twice that after passing midpoint for a total of 0.37764 arc seconds (only three significant digits should apply). Wait! There is no second half because this isn’t gravitational attraction and the path of approaching light is perfectly linear.

WHAT? If Eddington's measurement confirmed Einstein's prediction of 1.75 total arc seconds, Foos Research must be dead wrong. I hear them little Einstein's barkin. Where did I put my cyanide? Not so fast, Quicks Draw! If Einstein independently derived Soldner's (Newton's) value for gravitational effect when it was based on wrong assumptions, then the numbers Einstein and Edddington used must have both been wrong, and both must have known that beforehand. Not conspiracy theory, Mack. There is no other logical possibility. They had that 1919 parade well in advance by staging a prediction based on fraudulent science. A couple of clowns nobody can deny. I agonized for hours knowing the lie has been repeated so often the truth has no chance. How could Eddington and Einstein both get 0.875 one way when the correct value could not be any more than 0.189 total? I glanced at the sky and then the obvious smacked me in the face. Einstein and Eddington didn't stop to think that we see the sun come up about two minutes before it really reaches the horizon because of atmospheric refraction. That's because refraction of light in the atmosphere bends the rays to create the same effect as deflection by gravitational distortion both on approach and again on departure. This is basic high school physics (never mind I was kicked out for asking too many questions). Whenever light is slowed by passage through transparent substances (glass or gas), the wave front is bent towards the normal. The sun's atmosphere is far more dense than Earth's so it would be impossible indeed if the observed deflection wasn't almost entirely due to atmospheric refraction. So... Einstein's prediction could only have been a staged hoax. The correct value of gravitational deflection by the sun is 0.189 arc seconds on approach and NOT again that amount after passing midpoint of the sun on its way to an observer. Eddington's two way estimate of 1.76 minus starlight deflection of 0.189 equals arc seconds owed to atmospheric refraction.

Since gravitational deflection in this example bends opposite that of attraction towards the sun, the line of sight from an observer would cause distant stars to shift inward, not outward, so it's necessary to designate theta as a negative 0.189 arc seconds offset by the remaining two way deflection from atmospheric refraction. A lifetime of having official indoctrination pounded into your head severely blinds insight, so initially hours were spent struggling to find the curve between the tangent to the sun at 275 m/s and matching intersection with the Y axis at value c. I had so believed myself the parabola postulated by Newton’s grave robbers must be the right path, but finally realized that there simply is no curve. The perfectly linear vector V represents the beam's actual path. Both X and Y axes expand at the same relative rates, so the path between them is linear. All vector sums of points closer or farther away than W or U must be parallel to V. The path of passing objects is curved, but the path of light is linear. Light is not constrained by gravity but instead forced away at a fixed rate, GM/r^2.

Another way of seeing this is that while local observers measure a constant c in all directions, the “gravitational” redshift corresponds to a real increase in the length of a meter without the addition of any substance or change in properties. No change in c is measured, but the outward expansion of space on the X axis is in fact a real increase in velocity precisely equal to the opposing rate of falling bodies (Newton’s Third Law of Motion). This is what happens when all points in space expand in proportion to mass simultaneously. A meter expands by the amount of increased wavelength (redshift), but it is still a meter, and that is exactly what the Pound-Rebka experiment shows. Credit for this discovery was given to Einstein leaving the real consequences of the Pound-Rebka experiment deliberately unrepresented. The space we see expands into an infinite void. That we know because of the “gravitational” redshift which Einstein the genius explained as due to gravitational redshift while leaving out discussion of length and speed of light.

All points in space expand at a rate determined by “gravitational” redshift which represents true Doppler recession, so the fundamental property of matter is expansion of space into an infinite void. When this expansion accelerates fast enough, according to Newton's Third Law of Motion, an equal and opposite force is created we call gravity, but expansion into a void does not alter relative dimensions or properties of objects “inside the box.” Expansion into a void does not change the properties or dimensions of matter. The addition of empty space in the expanding ruler as demonstrated by Pound-Rebka is claimed to be the genius of Einstein, avoiding mention of the fact that meter length does change without being locally measureable and that applies to measurements of the universe which are fixed as we might measure them. Likewise, along the vector's “local” path, there is no perceived change in length, frequency or clock speed. All are constant inside the box. Changes are real but only observed by what Einstein referred to as remote observers.

So, the incoming beam originating in empty space is deflected uniformly away from the normal by the expansion of space proportional to the sun's gravity just as by the Earth in the Pound-Rebka experiment. There is no curve. Beyond the tangent point it there is no additional affect, so Einstein’s reasoning was entirely and deliberately fallacious. There could be a serious fallacy in our model if you assume the angle of deflection is not affected by the amount of mass at its origin which is why our example isn’t realistic. If the beam's origin is a star of the same mass as our sun and equidistant from the observer, the resultant angle will be zero (parallel to the Y axis). If the star of origin has a larger mass than the sun, the deflection will be progressively positive instead of negative. Gravitational should be common under the right conditions. For the sake of illustrating our proof, the graph shows no mass where the beam originates. Then the angle of deflection is a constant -0.189 owing to redshift by the sun's gravity. Given Eddington's crude measurement of 1.75 total deflection and a negative 0.189 one way owed to gravity, a total of 1.95 arc seconds would be required for atmospheric refraction to offset the deficit. Half of that or 0.975 means that the additional angle departing the sun would be 0.975. The observed angle on approach would be 0.975 minus gravitational deflection of 0.189 equal to 0.785. Of course, the mass of the source object is likely greater than the sun. In those cases the deflection would be positive and add to the 0.975 owed to atmospheric refraction instead of subtracting from it. Of course, this will never be the case in reality since distant stars all have mass.

You may not like the concept of spatial expansion, but a real scientist is obligated to accept the path of light as it accelerates away from a body of mass as the Pound-Rebka experiment and others have aptly demonstrated. This is opposite Einstein's assumption and Newton's (according to history books). Presumably Einstein didn't understand that in 1919, and since he died in 1955 five years before the 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment, he might be excused. Then just how could he have predicted that change in clock speed is proportional to the fractional change in potential energy as found by Pound-Rebka? There are other experiments as well proving that light slows on approach to a body of mass with a blue shift and accelerates away redshifted. These experiments, like Pound-Rebka, are touted as examples validating Einstein's relativity, effectively blocking true understanding by the masses. Any kind of mass, even corpuscles of light, is pulled towards a body of mass, not pushed away. Light is not mass. If invoking redshift, Einstein should have known that even in 1919. You can't have it both ways. Unlike hundreds of papers pretending to prove relativity which rarely define terms or provide stepwise proofs, here you will find a straightforward, exam perfect stepwise solution to starlight deflection, at least for the unrealistic case where the source has no mass and isn’t interfered with by other objects. Figure 4 gives the equations needed to solve for U, W, V and cosine theta. It’s really just that simple. Figure 5 summarizes the results.

Derivation of Newton’s G

Einstein’s famous prediction was as wrong as wrong could be. The books were cooked. Light is not attracted by gravity, but repulsed. This vector model gives the only true path of light throughout gravitational gradients. However, the more educated a person is in modern physics the more indoctrinated, warped and irrational his perceptions will be. After submitting this endeavor to a physics forum I was deluged not only with dozens of deeply insulting personal attacks by email. There were also dozens of international phone calls. After a point, it isn't possible for anyone trapped in the relativity cult to recognize logical fallacies or follow a train of rational thought. But I hear you barking. If the increase in c by the sun's expansion is only reflected in the degree of redshift that expands a meter, then how could there be any deflection at all? To clear your head, consider the following simple analogy. Consider the sun to be the entire universe. Imagine all points within are expanding into an infinite void as they might in accord with our known laws of chemical equilibrium except it is all points in space, not just particles in space, so the sun is fixed in its own right because purely empty space is not recognized by mass expanding into it. The rate of that expansion is revealed in the degree of redshift from point to point if observed outside the sun, but because relative to itself the box retains fixed dimensions. This means that as light is propagated away externally as redshift at the fixed rate of GM/R^2, it appears within the box to be traveling away from mass rather than being pushed by expanding space. This isn’t a new idea, it’s easy to diagram on a paper napkin. In this little sun universe, the value of c is equal to GM/R^2. Recall Newton’s gravitational constant G is equal to R^2*(c/s)*M when expressed in those units. Are you awake? Note that c/s = GM/R^2/s for our sun universe, thus G = R^2*(c/s)*M. Wake up! We just derived the meaning of Newton’s G where R is the radius of any universe, M the mass of that universe, and c/s the acceleration of expansion of any universe or in this case the sun’s surface. Call me all the names you like, but here you can now open your eyes and comprehend the universe the way it really is. The true meaning of G is R^2*(c/s)*M where R is radius of the universe, c speed of light and c/s the acceleration of expansion at the surface equal to the rate of falling bodies if there could be any beyond the boundary to fall. You can find these units for G in most physics textbooks, but what the units actually represent will never be explained. Now you truly understand what G means, Foos being the only beaten path to understanding the universe as it really is.

The expansion of mass into a void follows from the second law of thermodynamics. Uniform expansion, however, does not represent a force, and force is required to achieve equilibrium. The universe is dead unless it expands by means of force to give us both gravity and light within a sphere internally fixed in size. Since the void is infinite, there is no outward friction to resist the force of expansion so gravity is the equal and opposite result required by Newton’s Third Law of Motion. Force is rate of change, so outward rate of expansion must be proportional to mass density in a given region. Let that be 275 meters per second per second, the value of g at the radius R at the sun's surface. All points within the sun expand together so dimensions remain fixed internally. There is no perception of expansion except the redshift of falling bodies or light traveling away from mass. Note that Einstein's concept of “gravitational” versus Doppler redshift belies the fact all redshift is of Doppler origin. Redshift is the rate of recession between any two points anywhere due to expansion and also the rate of falling objects when near enough to be overtaken by the larger body at rate g.

Since dimensions of matter within the universe-sun are fixed, light is propagated throughout inner space at the fixed value of 275 m/s as would be verified by experiment. In this example of a little sun-universe, the constant value of c is fixed at 275 m/s. If matter is not distributed evenly within the sun, and a meter stick moved from point to point, expansion or constriction of a meter as evidenced by frequency shift is offset by changes in clock speed such that a meter remains a meter and all dimensions remain fixed despite expansion of our sun universe or uneven distribution of matter within. The radius of the sun is fixed at R and the speed of light is fixed at 275 m/s. Now let a beam of light approach the sun universe from a great distance of zero mass at the rate of c. Indeed, it must be forced away from the normal by the perpendicular rate of 275 m/s and gain speed equal to the resultant vector. The local observer will not perceive any such change in the velocity of light as measured directly from “inside the box,” but it is still real. It will be reflected perfectly by redshift as expansion of space in the opposing direction and still be reflected in the angle of approach, a negative 0.189 arc seconds or greater. These are not ideas of mine, but the conclusion of numerous experiments besides Pound-Rebka. It is accepted fact that light slows on approach to a body of mass coincident with a blue shift because clocks are running more slowly and wavelength shrinks, and hence by definition the length of a meter shrinks, though also by definition the length of a meter remains constant along the path of the photon. No local changes in clock speed or frequency occur.

When light departs a body of mass, the opposite occurs. Space expands as a meter expands as defined by the widening wavelength of light, aka redshift, at the equal and opposite rate of falling bodies, even though the meter locally remains always remains a meter. These are known facts but never properly understood being obscured by endless references to Einstein's relativity delusion. The path of light passing the sun is linear and not bent because it is not shot out of little atomic cannons but carried forth by the stretching of expanding space from point to point outside the box. In contrast, objects within fixed space are forced in the opposite direction towards the greatest center of mass which is an elliptical path at the rate of g, GM/R^2.

Because the outward force of accelerating expansion propagates light at c/s, physical objects within our fixed space time box see not expansion, except as redshift, but as light moving away from our fixed positions at the rate c. Light we observe as moving is nonetheless being propagated by expansion at rate c/s into a void. This we see reflected in redshift, progressively faster clock speeds and longer meter sticks confirmed perfectly by the Pound-Rebka experiment but also by other experiments as you can find them. It is not possible to comprehend them correctly if your intellect has been clouded by relentless relativistic dogma. Herein I've illuminated a sure path out of your black hole. Who among you little Einstein's is looking for a way out? Correct Cause of Progressive Intergalactic Redshift

But let's make more use of the graph while we can. With a second, similar graph, Figure 6, stretched to the intergalactic scale, we can conceptualize the spatial expansion of the universe as a whole and perceive the true cause of progressive intergalactic redshift as not a matter of receding raisins, but of a universe with internally fixed dimensions expanding outwards at the geometric rate of c/s, and so looking back over billions of years we see a progressive redshift matching the difference in rates of expansion between now and way back then defined by the geometric series of cosmic expansion, C1+c1 plus C2+c2 plus C3+c3... Where C is the current unknown rate of expansion near infinity and c the current instantaneous rate of increase of C. The raisins are not receding internally and a Big Bang would have never been possible, a fact confirmed again by the proper definition of Newton’s G.

So now you've learned from Foos Research the truth that all points in space expand in proportion to the mass density in a given region, and that the fundamental property of mass being accelerating expansion is what sustains the equal and opposite force of gravity conforming to Newton's Third Law of Motion. This you should understand as fact. Dimensions of the universe have always consisted of the three fundamental constants of mass M, radius R, and c/s, the three key variables embodied in Newton's G where c/s is the constant of accelerating expansion into an infinite void and c the fixed speed of light observed inside the box. The universe has no beginning or end. Its dimensions are fixed as real science tells us. When we look back far in time to observe intergalactic redshift, we see the wake from our internally fixed universe as it relentlessly explodes outward into empty space at the rate of c/s corresponding to the potential energy at the surface of the universe, mc^2. The smaller and redder dots in Figure 6 represent the universe as it looked billions of light years ago when it was expanding, and the degree of redshift between remote galaxies equals the difference in rates of expansion between back then and just now.

Eureka!