**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

Welcome to the first and only proof of starlight deflection since Einstein's famous phony 1919 prediction. Proof of scientific fraud by Einstein and Eddington combined with mathematical proof of correct value. You may comprehend this proof better if you've seen one or more recent videos proving for the first time how space expands at every point into an infinite void and how this force of expansion causes the equal and opposite force of gravity. This is NOT conspiracy theory, a new idea or a hypothesis. This is all about facts. These are the infallible revelations of a dedicated scientist and are welcome to challenge by professional mathematicians.

Professional Qualifications

My academic objective was not aimed at a specific career. I only wanted to conquer the toughest science and math classes the university had to offer. A master's in soils and chemistry was the best for that at Montana State in the 70s. MSU is a land grant agricultural and engineering school with a reputation then as one of the toughest and best. Despite impossible personal and financial obstacles, I studied a minimum of sixteen hours a day (often twenty) solving the most difficult math and science problems for many years and achieved a very advanced level of proficiency beyond the requirements of a degree. This all had nothing to do with theories but facts as black and white as 2+2=4. Solving for the cause of gravity is no tougher. The correct value of starlight deflection was beyond me, but then having so neatly uncovered the cause of gravity as spatial expansion and the style of Einstein's fakery so vivid, it might just be possible to find the correct solution by comparing the Pound-Rebka fraud to the starlight deflection problem.

What propelled Einstein to everlasting fame was the appearance of uncanny foresight. With help from the media, he claimed to predict a series of newly discovered phenomena. 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 all scientists. Hoax, as Essen claimed, or the real deal? Einstein's stated method was to multiply Newton's formula by two (2 times Newton's 2GM/Rc^2) where G is Newton's constant, mass M and radius R of the sun. When Eddington confirmed the prediction in 1919 (within a wide margin of error). Multiplication by two just prior to the experiment was claimed necessary to account for the additional effect of redshift other than the gravitational effect Einstein derived independently of Newton. Gravitational redshift is in fact a measure of gravitational effect and not a separate phenomenon, so the lie escapes not the trained eye. HEREIN will I prove his prediction a contrived fake while also providing with certainty the true value of starlight deflection. The problem is cast within the context of cosmic expansion.

The fraud should have been starkly obvious to any real scientist over the last hundred years, but those who question Einstein's infallibility neither finish a PhD or find a career in physics. I never imagined it remotely possible for me to understand Einstein's starlight formula let alone prove it wrong and substitute the correct value, but after a clear vision of gravity since 2020 and Einstein's blatant fraud in the Pound-Rebka experiment, my confidence has grown. I thought back on my favorite book, the little locomotive that could... "I think I can, I think I can.... I thought I could, I thought I could..." So bear with me because it was a huge surprise that the solution turns out to be easy, mathematically and scientifically exact and thoroughly immune from serious challenge. It should be regarded as a prime example of pure and eternal fact and a revolutionary finding that forever disproves the standard model and big bang theories.

An effective investigation begins with intensive review. You might Google up the story of Lenard's accusation that Einstein had plagiarized his deflection formula from an 1801 paper by a scientist named Soldner. Few people stop and tip the can to see if any money is hidden under it as I did at age six and found a bag of money. So, I dug up Soldner's original (1801) paper and guess what? No formula resembling Einstein's is anywhere in the paper. Other formulas predicting starlight deflection by gravity are developed, but Soldner's assumptions are fatally flawed and my best attempts to solve his equations insolvable despite serious effort. The Lenard story is too weak to be taken seriously and, if anything, only an invention to gain sympathy for Einstein. The real formula Einstein claimed to have derived independently was likely published over a hundred years earlier by Newton himself. At any rate, the entire physics community credits the formula to Newton though no evidence suggests he would have approved of that.

So, restating for effect... Einstein formula published a paper purporting to derive "Newton's" formula (not Soldner's), claiming to be unaware of any prior work until Lenard allegedly launched his allegation. Now you should see in the unforgiving light of new knowledge and sound mathematical inference that Newton's formula was way off the mark to start. Light has no mass and is not attracted by gravity. That Einstein could have replicated the same fundamental errors as Newton is beyond credible. On one hand, he claims to have validated Newton (good for him Newton was dead) and on the other distances himself from Newton by factoring in a false claim. This was his modus operandi on every level. It repeatedly created a false appearance that he was more than Newton's equal. Later, just ahead of Eddington's expedition to measure starlight deflection, Einstein doubled his prediction by claiming an additional deflection by virtue of gravitational redshift (or "time dilation") so well demonstrated by the 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment. Eddington's result was close enough to create everlasting fame for Einstein, but any real scientist will admit that redshift is a measure of gravitational force and not a separate phenomenon. Einstein's formula and his logic are a deliberate and thinly veiled fraud, but how can the real problem of gravitational starlight deflection be solved?

At the start of the investigation until now, however, I granted Einstein the benefit of doubt. In my world, it is an unforgivable sin to make harsh judgments unless you can find the real answer. It was time to dust off my 44 year old calculus notes and tap into my once finely honed talent for solving math and science problems. I was once proficient in calculus, physical chemistry and other sciences. To set up the problem, relevant equations are written in pencil followed the values of variables in the equations except for the unknown one. When properly done, the solution is easy as falling off a log. You could have asked me to solve Einstein's deflection problem in 1978, and I'd have given the correct answer within the hour. It seemed best to study Newton's original method. It's difficult to imagine the real Newton depending on such flawed assumptions as he did. But at the time he had plunged headlong into his particle theory of light and was losing a heated debate with Huygen's who had his own wave model. This resulted in a mental breakdown and pronounced mental impairment perhaps also brought on by mercury vapors in his alchemy experiments. Neither his idea that light has mass and that a solution would be defined by the asymptotes of a hyperbola contribute to a valid solution. How odd that Einstein didn't notice that when he derived the same equation. The shape of the curve isn't of any relevance at all, only where the beam starts and ends tangent to the sun's surface. So there is only one primary unknown we need to solve for to get the answer, the mathematician's prey. Given the fact of light propagation by cosmic expansion, a simple two vector sum will give an accurate result. You will likely have to review simple vector operations found in the first few pages of a textbook chapter on vector math. I hadn't done the calculation yet, but at this point my spirits rose. This is why I slaved for so many years at the university. This is my briar patch. It would be a crime not to pursue this to the end. Why? As a service to mankind? To tell everyone what kind of guy this Einstein really was? In hopes the followers of Einstein and the Big Bang disappear? Cancel the ticker tape parade, please.

Getting close to the solution now. Let me emphasize that you may treat light as attracted to gravity as both Einstein and Newton did and still find the same solution, but the logic is upside down which is why Newton and his grave robbers weren't able to properly set up the problem. Here it is, boys, in the harsh light of day for the first time in world history. I'm not thinking myself as the greatest anything, but physics has become a cult whose job is to emulate Einstein's fakery with complicated equations without any physical meaning and fanciful flights of imagination like the Big Bang. Hopefully, this particular case of starlight deflection will convince you of the truth, not just Einstein's blatant fraud, not just the true angle of deflection, but the true cause of gravity as documented by Foos Research since 2020. Don't doubt, don't walk away, this is the holy grail of cosmology.

It is far easier to perceive the solution by conceptualizing the path of light as it is, being propagated by the expansion of space in proportion to mass density. If that doesn't work for you, try thinking of it as moving opposite the force of gravity as demonstrated by Pound-Rebka. The speed of light being identical to the rate of spatial expansion and opposite the force of gravity makes construction of the correct vector graph all too simple. Refer to the graph. HERE IT IS! This is it, this is the formula for the gravitational deflection of light 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. The universe as a whole expands at the accelerating rate c/s, the distance light travels per second per second in all directions as proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment. The vertical vector begins (or ends) at the center of the sun, and so c/s should include MG/r^2, the acceleration due to gravity contributed by the sun. This tiny boost isn't of any practical significance since c is so large, but Foos Research deals in pure mathematical fact, not high falutin theory. Light follows the path of expansion on the Y axis for a distance of c/s*t^2, acceleration of light (force of expansion) times elapsed time squared. Thankfully, we can let t^2 cancel out since it appears in all terms. The vertical vector W is pushed off course by the horizontal force of expansion from the sun which we call vector U of magnitude MG/r^2, same as the rate of falling bodies on the sun's surface and outward accelerating velocity of light. The vector sum of W and U is V. See that V is the only possible vector magnitude and direction of a light beam tangent to the surface of the sun, and that this simple vector sum is solid proof of the degree of deflection by the sun.

The angle between W and V we designate as theta, the angle of deflection (or half angle of total deflection after passing the sun). Theta is the un rewarded prize Foos Research presents that overturns the clever fudgery that snared Einstein a ticker tape parade. 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. After suffering from the intimidating challenge of 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 and included in college textbooks world wide.

If you know high school geometry, the value of the sum of magnitudes U and W is the vector V with magnitude square root (U^2 + W^2) and direction theta. For many years I solved thousands of complex science and math problems in dozens of classes, sixteen or more hours a day. This deflection problem doesn't rank that high in difficulty. This is the right answer, the only answer, and Foos Research the only one who appears to have ever gotten it dead to rights aside from any others who were ignored in favor of the Einstein myth. Since the universe expands equally in all directions in proportion to mass density (see illustrations in prior videos), the same angles are preserved inside the box. Dimensions inside our spacetime box are fixed by the relation between clock speed and distance and frequency as set in stone by Pound-Rebka. The increase in meter length is real, even though local observers will verify the additional space consists of nothing. Once you get your head around it, you go, oh yeah, how did I ever miss it? The observed redshift from point to point exactly matches change in distance outside the box due to the rate of expansion perceived as gravity inside the box. Einstein multiplied Soldner's (Newton's) equation by two to account for the redshift effect added to the gravitational effect, but note carefully that redshift is synonymous with gravitational effect so there can be no honest justification for multiplying Newton's equation by two. Let that sink in. Outright, deliberate fraud.

So will I be found right? 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 the vector W matching the magnitude of expansion U and rate of falling bodies at the sun's radius. The distance to any star is many times greater than the 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 surface. Both are perfect geometric facts, not ideas or theories that require relativistic adjustments. Only light beams that match the magnitude of W can be tangent to the sun's surface whether from objects closer or farther than W. Theta represents the only accurate solution to the one way angle of deflection of light beams from remote sources. The solution is easily found by plugging in the known mass of the sun M 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. You will gain a perfect comprehension by studying the graph.

Now for the procedure to find the solution. First we line up the formulas as shown on the next page needed to find the magnitudes of U, W and V. After that, we crunch the values for use in finding the answer. The cosine of the angle between V and W is calculated by the law of cosines from elementary geometry. 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. WHAT?

So, if Eddington's measurement confirmed Einstein's prediction of 1.75 total arc seconds, Foos Research must be dead wrong. I hear ya barkin, big dogs. Where did I put that 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 found must have both been wrong and both must have known it beforehand. Not conspiracy theory, Mack. There is no other logical possibility. They had the 1919 coup planned well in advance with a little help from the media. Newton wasn't half right and Einstein all right .They were both all wrong.

I agonized over this for many hours. How could Eddington get 0.875 times 2 for 1.75 total deflection and Einstein predict this when the correct value could not be anything different than 0.18882? Then the obvious smacked me in the face. These two great scientists were a couple of real clowns, that nobody can deny. 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 deflection as would be caused by gravitational distortion. This is a well known fact of science. Whenever light is slowed by passage through transparent substances, the wave front is bent towards the normal. This is basic high school physics (don't tell anyone I was kicked out of high school physics). The sun's atmosphere is far more dense than Earth's so it would be quite incredible indeed if the observed deflection wasn't almost entirely due to atmospheric refraction. Compute that, Einstein! Any sane and honest bloke must conclude that atmospheric refraction would account for nearly all of the deflection measured by Eddington. This isn't theory, Einsteins, it's a brutal, everyday fact.

So... Einstein's prediction was a staged hoax. No other possibility exists. And... not only have I given the correct value of gravitational deflection to be 0.18882 arc seconds on approach and again that amount after passing midpoint of the sun on its way to an observer, but we can peg the amount of deflection from atmospheric refraction. Eddington's one way estimate of 0.875 within margin of error minus starlight deflection of 0.18882 equals 0.68618 arc seconds owed to atmospheric refraction. Put that in your pipe, Prince Albert! About 79% of Eddington's 1919 observation of deflection is owed to atmospheric refraction and the remaining 19% to gravitational deflection without further need of doubt. How could this simple fact escaped the mental capacity of professional physicists for over a hundred years? How impaired they must be! The Eddington-Einstein starlight and Big Bang lies are driven deeper into the public psyche every day. The Big Bang and delusion of raisins receding into oblivion are elaborate and expensive deceptions by grandiose pretenders. Take it to the bank.

So, this ends the quest with a conclusion no proficient mathematician can honestly dispute. But let's make more use of the graph while we can. With a second, similar graph 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 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 C1+c1 plus C2+c2 plus C3+c3... The raisins are not receding and a Big Bang would have never been possible.

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 we now know 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 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 and no end. It dimensions are fixed as Newton's G says they must be. 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 corresponding to the potential energy at the surface of the universe, mc^2. Eureka!

Professional Qualifications

My academic objective was not aimed at a specific career. I only wanted to conquer the toughest science and math classes the university had to offer. A master's in soils and chemistry was the best for that at Montana State in the 70s. MSU is a land grant agricultural and engineering school with a reputation then as one of the toughest and best. Despite impossible personal and financial obstacles, I studied a minimum of sixteen hours a day (often twenty) solving the most difficult math and science problems for many years and achieved a very advanced level of proficiency beyond the requirements of a degree. This all had nothing to do with theories but facts as black and white as 2+2=4. Solving for the cause of gravity is no tougher. The correct value of starlight deflection was beyond me, but then having so neatly uncovered the cause of gravity as spatial expansion and the style of Einstein's fakery so vivid, it might just be possible to find the correct solution by comparing the Pound-Rebka fraud to the starlight deflection problem.

What propelled Einstein to everlasting fame was the appearance of uncanny foresight. With help from the media, he claimed to predict a series of newly discovered phenomena. 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 all scientists. Hoax, as Essen claimed, or the real deal? Einstein's stated method was to multiply Newton's formula by two (2 times Newton's 2GM/Rc^2) where G is Newton's constant, mass M and radius R of the sun. When Eddington confirmed the prediction in 1919 (within a wide margin of error). Multiplication by two just prior to the experiment was claimed necessary to account for the additional effect of redshift other than the gravitational effect Einstein derived independently of Newton. Gravitational redshift is in fact a measure of gravitational effect and not a separate phenomenon, so the lie escapes not the trained eye. HEREIN will I prove his prediction a contrived fake while also providing with certainty the true value of starlight deflection. The problem is cast within the context of cosmic expansion.

The fraud should have been starkly obvious to any real scientist over the last hundred years, but those who question Einstein's infallibility neither finish a PhD or find a career in physics. I never imagined it remotely possible for me to understand Einstein's starlight formula let alone prove it wrong and substitute the correct value, but after a clear vision of gravity since 2020 and Einstein's blatant fraud in the Pound-Rebka experiment, my confidence has grown. I thought back on my favorite book, the little locomotive that could... "I think I can, I think I can.... I thought I could, I thought I could..." So bear with me because it was a huge surprise that the solution turns out to be easy, mathematically and scientifically exact and thoroughly immune from serious challenge. It should be regarded as a prime example of pure and eternal fact and a revolutionary finding that forever disproves the standard model and big bang theories.

An effective investigation begins with intensive review. You might Google up the story of Lenard's accusation that Einstein had plagiarized his deflection formula from an 1801 paper by a scientist named Soldner. Few people stop and tip the can to see if any money is hidden under it as I did at age six and found a bag of money. So, I dug up Soldner's original (1801) paper and guess what? No formula resembling Einstein's is anywhere in the paper. Other formulas predicting starlight deflection by gravity are developed, but Soldner's assumptions are fatally flawed and my best attempts to solve his equations insolvable despite serious effort. The Lenard story is too weak to be taken seriously and, if anything, only an invention to gain sympathy for Einstein. The real formula Einstein claimed to have derived independently was likely published over a hundred years earlier by Newton himself. At any rate, the entire physics community credits the formula to Newton though no evidence suggests he would have approved of that.

So, restating for effect... Einstein formula published a paper purporting to derive "Newton's" formula (not Soldner's), claiming to be unaware of any prior work until Lenard allegedly launched his allegation. Now you should see in the unforgiving light of new knowledge and sound mathematical inference that Newton's formula was way off the mark to start. Light has no mass and is not attracted by gravity. That Einstein could have replicated the same fundamental errors as Newton is beyond credible. On one hand, he claims to have validated Newton (good for him Newton was dead) and on the other distances himself from Newton by factoring in a false claim. This was his modus operandi on every level. It repeatedly created a false appearance that he was more than Newton's equal. Later, just ahead of Eddington's expedition to measure starlight deflection, Einstein doubled his prediction by claiming an additional deflection by virtue of gravitational redshift (or "time dilation") so well demonstrated by the 1960 Pound-Rebka experiment. Eddington's result was close enough to create everlasting fame for Einstein, but any real scientist will admit that redshift is a measure of gravitational force and not a separate phenomenon. Einstein's formula and his logic are a deliberate and thinly veiled fraud, but how can the real problem of gravitational starlight deflection be solved?

At the start of the investigation until now, however, I granted Einstein the benefit of doubt. In my world, it is an unforgivable sin to make harsh judgments unless you can find the real answer. It was time to dust off my 44 year old calculus notes and tap into my once finely honed talent for solving math and science problems. I was once proficient in calculus, physical chemistry and other sciences. To set up the problem, relevant equations are written in pencil followed the values of variables in the equations except for the unknown one. When properly done, the solution is easy as falling off a log. You could have asked me to solve Einstein's deflection problem in 1978, and I'd have given the correct answer within the hour. It seemed best to study Newton's original method. It's difficult to imagine the real Newton depending on such flawed assumptions as he did. But at the time he had plunged headlong into his particle theory of light and was losing a heated debate with Huygen's who had his own wave model. This resulted in a mental breakdown and pronounced mental impairment perhaps also brought on by mercury vapors in his alchemy experiments. Neither his idea that light has mass and that a solution would be defined by the asymptotes of a hyperbola contribute to a valid solution. How odd that Einstein didn't notice that when he derived the same equation. The shape of the curve isn't of any relevance at all, only where the beam starts and ends tangent to the sun's surface. So there is only one primary unknown we need to solve for to get the answer, the mathematician's prey. Given the fact of light propagation by cosmic expansion, a simple two vector sum will give an accurate result. You will likely have to review simple vector operations found in the first few pages of a textbook chapter on vector math. I hadn't done the calculation yet, but at this point my spirits rose. This is why I slaved for so many years at the university. This is my briar patch. It would be a crime not to pursue this to the end. Why? As a service to mankind? To tell everyone what kind of guy this Einstein really was? In hopes the followers of Einstein and the Big Bang disappear? Cancel the ticker tape parade, please.

Getting close to the solution now. Let me emphasize that you may treat light as attracted to gravity as both Einstein and Newton did and still find the same solution, but the logic is upside down which is why Newton and his grave robbers weren't able to properly set up the problem. Here it is, boys, in the harsh light of day for the first time in world history. I'm not thinking myself as the greatest anything, but physics has become a cult whose job is to emulate Einstein's fakery with complicated equations without any physical meaning and fanciful flights of imagination like the Big Bang. Hopefully, this particular case of starlight deflection will convince you of the truth, not just Einstein's blatant fraud, not just the true angle of deflection, but the true cause of gravity as documented by Foos Research since 2020. Don't doubt, don't walk away, this is the holy grail of cosmology.

It is far easier to perceive the solution by conceptualizing the path of light as it is, being propagated by the expansion of space in proportion to mass density. If that doesn't work for you, try thinking of it as moving opposite the force of gravity as demonstrated by Pound-Rebka. The speed of light being identical to the rate of spatial expansion and opposite the force of gravity makes construction of the correct vector graph all too simple. Refer to the graph. HERE IT IS! This is it, this is the formula for the gravitational deflection of light 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. The universe as a whole expands at the accelerating rate c/s, the distance light travels per second per second in all directions as proved by the Michelson-Morley experiment. The vertical vector begins (or ends) at the center of the sun, and so c/s should include MG/r^2, the acceleration due to gravity contributed by the sun. This tiny boost isn't of any practical significance since c is so large, but Foos Research deals in pure mathematical fact, not high falutin theory. Light follows the path of expansion on the Y axis for a distance of c/s*t^2, acceleration of light (force of expansion) times elapsed time squared. Thankfully, we can let t^2 cancel out since it appears in all terms. The vertical vector W is pushed off course by the horizontal force of expansion from the sun which we call vector U of magnitude MG/r^2, same as the rate of falling bodies on the sun's surface and outward accelerating velocity of light. The vector sum of W and U is V. See that V is the only possible vector magnitude and direction of a light beam tangent to the surface of the sun, and that this simple vector sum is solid proof of the degree of deflection by the sun.

The angle between W and V we designate as theta, the angle of deflection (or half angle of total deflection after passing the sun). Theta is the un rewarded prize Foos Research presents that overturns the clever fudgery that snared Einstein a ticker tape parade. 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. After suffering from the intimidating challenge of 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 and included in college textbooks world wide.

If you know high school geometry, the value of the sum of magnitudes U and W is the vector V with magnitude square root (U^2 + W^2) and direction theta. For many years I solved thousands of complex science and math problems in dozens of classes, sixteen or more hours a day. This deflection problem doesn't rank that high in difficulty. This is the right answer, the only answer, and Foos Research the only one who appears to have ever gotten it dead to rights aside from any others who were ignored in favor of the Einstein myth. Since the universe expands equally in all directions in proportion to mass density (see illustrations in prior videos), the same angles are preserved inside the box. Dimensions inside our spacetime box are fixed by the relation between clock speed and distance and frequency as set in stone by Pound-Rebka. The increase in meter length is real, even though local observers will verify the additional space consists of nothing. Once you get your head around it, you go, oh yeah, how did I ever miss it? The observed redshift from point to point exactly matches change in distance outside the box due to the rate of expansion perceived as gravity inside the box. Einstein multiplied Soldner's (Newton's) equation by two to account for the redshift effect added to the gravitational effect, but note carefully that redshift is synonymous with gravitational effect so there can be no honest justification for multiplying Newton's equation by two. Let that sink in. Outright, deliberate fraud.

So will I be found right? 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 the vector W matching the magnitude of expansion U and rate of falling bodies at the sun's radius. The distance to any star is many times greater than the 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 surface. Both are perfect geometric facts, not ideas or theories that require relativistic adjustments. Only light beams that match the magnitude of W can be tangent to the sun's surface whether from objects closer or farther than W. Theta represents the only accurate solution to the one way angle of deflection of light beams from remote sources. The solution is easily found by plugging in the known mass of the sun M 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. You will gain a perfect comprehension by studying the graph.

Now for the procedure to find the solution. First we line up the formulas as shown on the next page needed to find the magnitudes of U, W and V. After that, we crunch the values for use in finding the answer. The cosine of the angle between V and W is calculated by the law of cosines from elementary geometry. 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. WHAT?

So, if Eddington's measurement confirmed Einstein's prediction of 1.75 total arc seconds, Foos Research must be dead wrong. I hear ya barkin, big dogs. Where did I put that 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 found must have both been wrong and both must have known it beforehand. Not conspiracy theory, Mack. There is no other logical possibility. They had the 1919 coup planned well in advance with a little help from the media. Newton wasn't half right and Einstein all right .They were both all wrong.

I agonized over this for many hours. How could Eddington get 0.875 times 2 for 1.75 total deflection and Einstein predict this when the correct value could not be anything different than 0.18882? Then the obvious smacked me in the face. These two great scientists were a couple of real clowns, that nobody can deny. 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 deflection as would be caused by gravitational distortion. This is a well known fact of science. Whenever light is slowed by passage through transparent substances, the wave front is bent towards the normal. This is basic high school physics (don't tell anyone I was kicked out of high school physics). The sun's atmosphere is far more dense than Earth's so it would be quite incredible indeed if the observed deflection wasn't almost entirely due to atmospheric refraction. Compute that, Einstein! Any sane and honest bloke must conclude that atmospheric refraction would account for nearly all of the deflection measured by Eddington. This isn't theory, Einsteins, it's a brutal, everyday fact.

So... Einstein's prediction was a staged hoax. No other possibility exists. And... not only have I given the correct value of gravitational deflection to be 0.18882 arc seconds on approach and again that amount after passing midpoint of the sun on its way to an observer, but we can peg the amount of deflection from atmospheric refraction. Eddington's one way estimate of 0.875 within margin of error minus starlight deflection of 0.18882 equals 0.68618 arc seconds owed to atmospheric refraction. Put that in your pipe, Prince Albert! About 79% of Eddington's 1919 observation of deflection is owed to atmospheric refraction and the remaining 19% to gravitational deflection without further need of doubt. How could this simple fact escaped the mental capacity of professional physicists for over a hundred years? How impaired they must be! The Eddington-Einstein starlight and Big Bang lies are driven deeper into the public psyche every day. The Big Bang and delusion of raisins receding into oblivion are elaborate and expensive deceptions by grandiose pretenders. Take it to the bank.

So, this ends the quest with a conclusion no proficient mathematician can honestly dispute. But let's make more use of the graph while we can. With a second, similar graph 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 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 C1+c1 plus C2+c2 plus C3+c3... The raisins are not receding and a Big Bang would have never been possible.

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 we now know 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 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 and no end. It dimensions are fixed as Newton's G says they must be. 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 corresponding to the potential energy at the surface of the universe, mc^2. Eureka!