paul0 wrote:I believe this is four significant figures.
If you had bothered to do the math yourself, you'd find the final zero is significant.
This is an especially inapt formula to use in the quoted situation since the impact parameter (b classically or r in the quote) is an orthogonal distance from the path of the particle to the field potentially affecting it. Which, of course, would be zero in the quoted situation.
So you're saying there's no lensing at all (or there's less lensing than the billionths of radians I estimated), which is to say I am right that accounting for it is unnecessary?
There's still a lensing effect when the vector is directly away from the center of gravity, but it would be less than 4GM/rc^2, for reasons that as textbooks like to say will be left as an exercise to the reader.
This ad hominem attack is a logically fallacy and is consistent with the factual errors within the quotes.
It's not a logical fallacy, I made no factual errors, you didn't attack my actual use of math or provide a counterargument that it is necessary to compensate for lensing, and your grammar sucks.
