|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
WERE EINSTEIN AND EDDINGTON INNOCENT?
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...070903-20.html
http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/...t-this-is.html "One of the more recent victims of this revisionism is the 'confirmation' of Einstein's theory of general relativity offered in 1919 by the British astronomer Arthur Eddington, who reported the predicted bending of light in observations made during a total ecplise. Eddington, it has been said, cooked his books to make sure that Einstein was vindicated over Newton, because he had already decided that this must be so. This idea has become so widespread that even physicists who celebrate Einstein's theory commonly charge Eddington with over-interpreted his data. In his Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking says of the result that "Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get." Hawking reports the widespread view that the errors in the data were as big as the effect they were meant to probe. Some go further,saying that Eddington consciously excluded data that didn't agree with Einstein's prediction. Is that true? According to a study by Daniel Kennefick, a physicist at the University of Arkansas [1], Eddington was in fact completely justified in asserting that his measurements matched the prediction of general relativity. Kennefick thinks that anyone now presented with the same data would have to share Eddington's conclusion......With the technology then available, measuring the bending of starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief, Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected - Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers. The results from the two locations were conflicting. It has been claimed that those at Sobral showed little bending, and thus supported Newton, whereas those at Principe were closer to Einstein's predictions. The case for prosecuting Eddington is that he is said to have rejected the former and concentrated on the latter." Presented in this way the story is a red herring. It camouflages the fact that the bending of light is due to the variability of the speed of light in a gravitational field - a fact Einstein confirmed in his 1920 "Relativity": http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic..._of_light.html "Einstein went on to discover a more general theory of relativity which explained gravity in terms of curved spacetime, and he talked about the speed of light changing in this new theory. In the 1920 book "Relativity: the special and general theory" he wrote: ". . . according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity [. . .] cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position." Since Einstein talks of velocity (a vector quantity: speed with direction) rather than speed alone, it is not clear that he meant the speed will change, but the reference to special relativity suggests that he did mean so." After the 1919 glory Einstein and Eddington should have returned to Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) showing how the speed of light varies with the gravitational potential: 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." http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity. One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2) where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT FACTOR." Since Einstein's 1911 equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) is consistent with Newton's prediction of the bending of light, and since Einstein's 1915 new prediction was different from Newton's, Einstein and Eddington should have offered an equation different from c'=c(1+V/c^2) but consistent with Einstein's new prediction. They did not do so. Pentcho Valev |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
WERE EINSTEIN AND EDDINGTON INNOCENT?
It's ridiculous how much hype there is in modern physics. Many
physicists seem unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy. Shubee http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf If a real intellect like Ben Rudiak-Gould, Eugene Stefanovich, Tom Roberts or Daryl McCullough wants to correct me, that is fine. I don't listen to dull-witted, mentally disturbed psychopaths. BLACKLIST ****-throwing chimpanzees, crustaceans, and other lower life-forms: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-iijzOlHuk http://www.pritchettcartoons.com/low-life.htm Eric Gisse Androcles Bilge Bill Hobba Dirk Van de moortel YBM Dono a.k.a. Sam Wormley Tim Shuba |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
WERE EINSTEIN AND EDDINGTON INNOCENT?
On Sep 17, 1:14 am, Pentcho Valev wrote:
http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...070903-20.html http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/...-was-innocent-... "One of the more recent victims of this revisionism is the 'confirmation' of Einstein's theory of general relativity offered in 1919 by the British astronomer Arthur Eddington, who reported the predicted bending of light in observations made during a total ecplise. Eddington, it has been said, cooked his books to make sure that Einstein was vindicated over Newton, because he had already decided that this must be so. This idea has become so widespread that even physicists who celebrate Einstein's theory commonly charge Eddington with over-interpreted his data. In his Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking says of the result that "Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get." Hawking reports the widespread view that the errors in the data were as big as the effect they were meant to probe. Some go further,saying that Eddington consciously excluded data that didn't agree with Einstein's prediction. Is that true? Since it has been independently verified since then, does it matter? Does it matter that Newton's gravitation was off by a factor of two when describing the deflection of light? Apparently not for you, Pentcho. You concentrate on reading the minds of people that have been dead for 50 years, rather than learning something new. David A. Smith |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
WERE EINSTEIN AND EDDINGTON INNOCENT?
WERE EINSTEIN AND EDDINGTON INNOCENT? Yes, they had absolutely nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
WERE EINSTEIN AND EDDINGTON INNOCENT?
"dlzc" wrote in message ups.com... : On Sep 17, 1:14 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: : http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...070903-20.html : : http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/...-was-innocent-... : "One of the more recent victims of this : revisionism is the 'confirmation' of : Einstein's theory of general relativity : offered in 1919 by the British astronomer : Arthur Eddington, who reported the : predicted bending of light in observations : made during a total ecplise. Eddington, it : has been said, cooked his books to make : sure that Einstein was vindicated over : Newton, because he had already decided : that this must be so. This idea has become : so widespread that even physicists who : celebrate Einstein's theory commonly charge : Eddington with over-interpreted his data. : In his Brief History of Time, Stephen : Hawking says of the result that "Their : measurement had been sheer luck, or a case : of knowing the result they wanted to get." : Hawking reports the widespread view that : the errors in the data were as big as the : effect they were meant to probe. Some go : further,saying that Eddington consciously : excluded data that didn't agree with : Einstein's prediction. Is that true? : : Since it has been independently verified since then, does it matter? Yes, since those that "verified" it were not independent. : Does it matter that Newton's gravitation was off by a factor of two : when describing the deflection of light? It would if it were true. [drool snipped] |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
WERE EINSTEIN AND EDDINGTON INNOCENT? (EXTREME HUMAN RIGHTS PROTEST)
On Sep 17, 11:59 am, Art Deco wrote:
Shubee wrote: It's ridiculous how much hype there is in modern physics. Many physicists seem unable to distinguish between fact and fantasy. Shubee http://www.everythingimportant.org/r...ty/special.pdf If a real intellect like Ben Rudiak-Gould, Eugene Stefanovich, Tom Roberts or Daryl McCullough wants to correct me, that is fine. I don't listen to dull-witted, mentally disturbed psychopaths. BLACKLIST ****-throwing chimpanzees, crustaceans, and other lower life-forms: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-iijzOlHuk http://www.pritchettcartoons.com/low-life.htm Eric Gisse Androcles Bilge Bill Hobba Dirk Van de moortel YBM Dono a.k.a. Sam Wormley Tim Shuba Nice hate lits. Can you put my name on next? -- Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion", as designated by Brad Guth COOSN-266-06-39716- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
WERE EINSTEIN AND EDDINGTON INNOCENT?
On Sep 17, 8:21 am, dlzc wrote:
On Sep 17, 1:14 am, Pentcho Valev wrote: http://www.nature.com/news/2007/0709...070903-20.html http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/...-was-innocent-... "One of the more recent victims of this revisionism is the 'confirmation' of Einstein's theory of general relativity offered in 1919 by the British astronomer Arthur Eddington, who reported the predicted bending of light in observations made during a total ecplise. Eddington, it has been said, cooked his books to make sure that Einstein was vindicated over Newton, because he had already decided that this must be so. This idea has become so widespread that even physicists who celebrate Einstein's theory commonly charge Eddington with over-interpreted his data. In his Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking says of the result that "Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get." Hawking reports the widespread view that the errors in the data were as big as the effect they were meant to probe. Some go further,saying that Eddington consciously excluded data that didn't agree with Einstein's prediction. Is that true? Since it has been independently verified since then, does it matter? Does it matter that Newton's gravitation was off by a factor of two when describing the deflection of light? Since there have been no other credible follow-up experiments after Eddington, what you are saying is totally conjectures. shrug Apparently not for you, Pentcho. You concentrate on reading the minds of people that have been dead for 50 years, rather than learning something new. It is better than you. You seem to concentrate on hatred. shrug |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
In the Context of Sir Arthur Eddington | Richard Saam | Research | 9 | February 28th 07 02:50 PM |
Eddington Potential - analytic solution? | [email protected] | Research | 1 | January 19th 07 06:40 PM |
I AM ONLY GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. . . | mirage | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 19th 06 09:38 PM |
I AM ONLY GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. . . | John Zinni | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 19th 06 02:55 PM |
I AM ONLY GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT. . . | El Guapo | Astronomy Misc | 0 | January 19th 06 02:32 PM |