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

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

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

WERE EINSTEIN AND EDDINGTON INNOCENT?

Yes, they had absolutely nothing to do with the Kennedy assassination.

"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]

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 -

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