|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
PIECES OF EINSTEINIANA PROVED CORRECT
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...elativity.html
"Professor Jim Hough, an expert on gravitational waves at Glasgow University and a member of the committee that drew up the plans, said: "Gravitational waves are the last piece of Einstein's theory of general relativity that has still to be proved correct." Pieces of Einsteiniana proved correct: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...to-albert.html New Scientist: Ode to Albert "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light- bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168 Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science." http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...out-relativity "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action." http://www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational Redshift of Sirius B Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona. "In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the Einstein shift in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddingtons estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercurys anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddingtons estimate and Adams measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four." http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com...-deuxieme.html "D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein. Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours, il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..." http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html "Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes. Historiquement, pourtant, l'explication de l'avance du périhélie de Mercure, proposé par Einstein lui-même, donna ses lettres de noblesse à la relativité générale. Il s'agissait de comprendra pourquoi le périhélie de Mercure ( le point de son orbite le plus proche du soleil ) se déplaçait de 574 s d'arc par siècle. Certes, sur ces 574 s, 531 s'expliquaient par les perturbations gravitationnels dues aux autres planètes. Mais restait 43 s, le fameux effet "périhélique " inexpliqué par les lois de Newton. Le calcul relativiste d'Einstein donna 42,98 s ! L'accord et si parfait qu'il ne laisse la place à aucune discussion. Or depuis 1966, le soleil est soupçonné ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique mais légèrement aplati à l'équateur. Une très légère dissymétries qui suffirait à faire avancer le périhélie de quelques secondes d'arc. Du coup, la preuve se transformerait en réfutation puisque les 42,88 s du calcul d'Einstein ne pourrait pas expliquer le mouvement réel de Mercure." http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html "Arthur Eddington , le premier en 1924, calculâtes théoriquement un décalage 0,007% attendu la surface de Sirius mais avec des données fausses à l'époque sur la masse et le rayon de l'étoile. L'année suivante, Walter Adams mesurerait exactement ces 0.007%. Il s'avère aujourd'hui que ces mesures , qui constituèrent pendant quarante ans une "preuves" de la relativité, étaient largement "arrangée" tant était grand le désir de vérifier la théorie d'Enstein. La véritable valeur fut mesurée en 1965. Elle est de 0.03% car Sirius est plus petite , et sont champ de gravitation est plus fort que ne le pensait Eddington." http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses RELATIVITE: LES PREUVES ETAIENT FAUSSES "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées." http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...-la-relativite "Au début du XXème siècle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique Arthur Eddington avaient tant à coeur de vérifier la théorie de la relativité qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs expériences soient probantes." (ECOUTEZ!) Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
PIECES OF EINSTEINIANA PROVED CORRECT
On May 9, 12:01 pm, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...t-scientific-i... "Professor Jim Hough, an expert on gravitational waves at Glasgow expert in something that does not exists University and a member of the committee that drew up the plans, said: "Gravitational waves are the last piece of Einstein's theory of general relativity that has still to be proved correct." Pieces of Einsteiniana proved correct: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...to-albert.html New Scientist: Ode to Albert "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light- bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity." the bending was difraction because the heat and smoke |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
PIECES OF EINSTEINIANA PROVED CORRECT
Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...elativity.html "Professor Jim Hough, an expert on gravitational waves at Glasgow University and a member of the committee that drew up the plans, said: "Gravitational waves are the last piece of Einstein's theory of general relativity that has still to be proved correct." [snip 128 lines of crap] Hey stooopid - what else would allow the astronomic orbits of degenerate matter to decay? Just because a TeleTubby's butt cheeks wiggle doesn't mean there is a Smurf stuck inside - could be a Keebler elf. Prove it. -- Uncle Al http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals) http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
PIECES OF EINSTEINIANA PROVED CORRECT
In 1911 Einstein found it profitable to adopt the equation c'=c(1+V/
c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light and so created something that might be named the 1911 piece of Einsteiniana: http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is not constant in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99 of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is, c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 ) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured." Later Einstein found it profitable to create the 1915 piece of Einsteiniana (known as Divine Albert's Divine General Relativity) where the Newtonian equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) was replaced by the Einsteinian equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2). That is, if in the 1911 piece of Einsteinana the speed of light only humbly varies with the gravitational potential, in the 1915 piece of Einsteiniana the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential in a glorious way: http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm "In geometrical units we define c_0 = 1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c=1+phi. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. In fact, the general theory of relativity doesn't give any equation for the speed of light at a particular location, because the effect of gravity cannot be represented by a simple scalar field of c values. Instead, the "speed of light" at a each point depends on the direction of the light ray through that point, as well as on the choice of coordinate systems, so we can't generally talk about the value of c at a given point in a non- vanishing gravitational field. However, if we consider just radial light rays near a spherically symmetrical (and non- rotating) mass, and if we agree to use a specific set of coordinates, namely those in which the metric coefficients are independent of t, then we can read a formula analogous to Einstein's 1911 formula directly from the Schwarzschild metric. (...) In the Newtonian limit the classical gravitational potential at a distance r from mass m is phi=-m/r, so if we let c_r = dr/dt denote the radial speed of light in Schwarzschild coordinates, we have c_r =1+2phi, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term." http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm "Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German (download from: http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/an...35_898-908.pdf ). It predated the full formal development of general relativity by about four years. You can find an English translation of this paper in the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity' beginning on page 99; you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+phi/c^2) where phi is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light co is measured......You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation....For the 1955 results but not in coordinates see page 93, eqn (6.28): c(r)=[1+2phi(r)/c^2]c. Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911." In 1960 Pound and Rebka proved experimentally that the gravitational redshift factor is 1+V/c^2. Einsteinans saw its consistency with the Newtonian equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) and inferred that the 1911 piece of Einsteiniana was proved correct but in a humble way. They also realized that the gravitational redshift factor 1+V/c^2 was inconsistent with the Einsteinian equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2) and inferred that the 1915 piece of Einsteiniana was proved correct in a glorious way. Pentcho Valev wrote: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/s...elativity.html "Professor Jim Hough, an expert on gravitational waves at Glasgow University and a member of the committee that drew up the plans, said: "Gravitational waves are the last piece of Einstein's theory of general relativity that has still to be proved correct." Pieces of Einsteiniana proved correct: http://www.newscientist.com/article/...to-albert.html New Scientist: Ode to Albert "Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light- bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse measurements to confirm general relativity." http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-.../dp/0553380168 Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science." http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...out-relativity "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955, scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in action." http://www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational Redshift of Sirius B Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona. "In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the Einstein shift in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddingtons estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercurys anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddingtons estimate and Adams measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four." http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com...-deuxieme.html "D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein. Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours, il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..." http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html "Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes. Historiquement, pourtant, l'explication de l'avance du périhélie de Mercure, proposé par Einstein lui-même, donna ses lettres de noblesse à la relativité générale. Il s'agissait de comprendra pourquoi le périhélie de Mercure ( le point de son orbite le plus proche du soleil ) se déplaçait de 574 s d'arc par siècle. Certes, sur ces 574 s, 531 s'expliquaient par les perturbations gravitationnels dues aux autres planètes. Mais restait 43 s, le fameux effet "périhélique " inexpliqué par les lois de Newton. Le calcul relativiste d'Einstein donna 42,98 s ! L'accord et si parfait qu'il ne laisse la place à aucune discussion. Or depuis 1966, le soleil est soupçonné ne pas être rigoureusement sphérique mais légèrement aplati à l'équateur. Une très légère dissymétries qui suffirait à faire avancer le périhélie de quelques secondes d'arc. Du coup, la preuve se transformerait en réfutation puisque les 42,88 s du calcul d'Einstein ne pourrait pas expliquer le mouvement réel de Mercure." http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/g.../einstein.html "Arthur Eddington , le premier en 1924, calculâtes théoriquement un décalage 0,007% attendu la surface de Sirius mais avec des données fausses à l'époque sur la masse et le rayon de l'étoile. L'année suivante, Walter Adams mesurerait exactement ces 0.007%. Il s'avère aujourd'hui que ces mesures , qui constituèrent pendant quarante ans une "preuves" de la relativité, étaient largement "arrangée" tant était grand le désir de vérifier la théorie d'Enstein. La véritable valeur fut mesurée en 1965. Elle est de 0.03% car Sirius est plus petite , et sont champ de gravitation est plus fort que ne le pensait Eddington." http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses RELATIVITE: LES PREUVES ETAIENT FAUSSES "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées." http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...-la-relativite "Au début du XXème siècle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique Arthur Eddington avaient tant à coeur de vérifier la théorie de la relativité qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs expériences soient probantes." (ECOUTEZ!) Pentcho Valev |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Humor: Da Vinci Code Proved True--new evidence! | CG | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | June 24th 06 05:10 PM |
If String Theory Cannot Be Proved--Can It Be Disproved? Yes! | G=EMC^2 Glazier | Misc | 1 | January 11th 04 04:55 PM |
If String Theory Cannot Be Proved--Can It Be Disproved? Yes! | Bill Ferris | Amateur Astronomy | 2 | January 11th 04 01:25 AM |
Points I have proved/ filter adjustment needed? | Paul Maxson | Space Shuttle | 27 | August 14th 03 02:49 AM |
Is a Correct Image Finder Really Correct? | Alan French | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 1st 03 04:10 AM |