What Did Eddington Prove in 1919?



 Science > Physics > What Did Eddington Prove in 1919?

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "Pentcho Valev"
Date: 30 Nov 2005 12:41:10 AM
Object: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919?
Judging from Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity", if Eddington has
observed deflection of light during the solar eclipse in 1919, he has
thereby proved that the speed of light "varies with position", that is,
that the theory of relativity is false. Of course, the final
conclusions of both Eddington and Einstein are consistent with the
first principle of Postscientism: FALSITY IS TRUTH. The three
principles of Postscientism (a la George Orwell) are:
FALSITY IS TRUTH
The postulate of constancy of the speed of light is false, but the
theory of relativity is true (A. Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 22).
Carnot's premise (heat is an indestructible substance) is false, but
its corollary (the second law of thermodynamics) is true.
Orwell's original text: "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but
that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and
two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is
unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the
mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"
OBSCURITY IS POWER
C. Truesdell: "Clausius' verbal statement of the second law makes no
sense.... All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition ; a century of
philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandement ; a
century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from
the unclean...Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to
follow the argument Clausius offers....and seven times has it blanked
and gravelled me.... I cannot explain what I cannot understand."
A. Eddington (king of sycophants): "The law that entropy always
increases, - the second law of thermodynamics - holds, I think, the
supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you
that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with
Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations.
If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these
experimentalists bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found
to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope ;
there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."
SCIENCE IS MONEY
http://www.detnews.com/2005/business/0507/24/D04-256983.htm
http://einsteinplag.tripod.com/intro.html
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm
Pentcho Valev
.

User: "Harry"

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 30 Nov 2005 03:15:35 AM
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133332870.097425.242520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Judging from Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity", if Eddington has
observed deflection of light during the solar eclipse in 1919, he has
thereby proved that the speed of light "varies with position", that is,
that the theory of relativity is false.

I can understand your original confusion, but do you ever listen? Don't you
understand the difference between SRT and GRT? (And do you know the
definition of a crank?)
Harald

Of course, the final
conclusions of both Eddington and Einstein are consistent with the
first principle of Postscientism: FALSITY IS TRUTH. The three
principles of Postscientism (a la George Orwell) are:

FALSITY IS TRUTH
The postulate of constancy of the speed of light is false, but the
theory of relativity is true (A. Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 22).
Carnot's premise (heat is an indestructible substance) is false, but
its corollary (the second law of thermodynamics) is true.
Orwell's original text: "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but
that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and
two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is
unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the
mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

OBSCURITY IS POWER
C. Truesdell: "Clausius' verbal statement of the second law makes no
sense.... All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition ; a century of
philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandement ; a
century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from
the unclean...Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to
follow the argument Clausius offers....and seven times has it blanked
and gravelled me.... I cannot explain what I cannot understand."
A. Eddington (king of sycophants): "The law that entropy always
increases, - the second law of thermodynamics - holds, I think, the
supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you
that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with
Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations.
If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these
experimentalists bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found
to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope ;
there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

SCIENCE IS MONEY
http://www.detnews.com/2005/business/0507/24/D04-256983.htm
http://einsteinplag.tripod.com/intro.html
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

Pentcho Valev

.
User: "Androcles"

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 30 Nov 2005 03:18:13 AM
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438d6db8$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...


"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133332870.097425.242520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Judging from Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity", if Eddington has
observed deflection of light during the solar eclipse in 1919, he has
thereby proved that the speed of light "varies with position", that is,
that the theory of relativity is false.


I can understand your original confusion, but do you ever listen? Don't
you
understand the difference between SRT and GRT? (And do you know the
definition of a crank?)

Defintion of a crank: harald.vanlintel
I can understand your original confusion, but do you ever listen? Don't you
understand the difference between x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v) ?
Androcles.
.
User: "Harry"

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 30 Nov 2005 05:18:28 AM
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:p7ejf.34050$8G6.26754@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438d6db8$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...


"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133332870.097425.242520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Judging from Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity", if Eddington has
observed deflection of light during the solar eclipse in 1919, he has
thereby proved that the speed of light "varies with position", that is,
that the theory of relativity is false.


I can understand your original confusion, but do you ever listen? Don't
you
understand the difference between SRT and GRT? (And do you know the
definition of a crank?)


Defintion of a crank: harald.vanlintel

I can understand your original confusion, but do you ever listen? Don't

you

understand the difference between x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v) ?
Androcles.

I explained such matters to you, as did some others. My sketch of a crank
beyond hope: to start a thread and then don't bother to answer any replies
because he/she isn't anymore willing or able to input ideas from others.
Harald
.
User: "Androcles"

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 30 Nov 2005 07:06:15 AM
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438d8a85$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...


"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:p7ejf.34050$8G6.26754@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438d6db8$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...


"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133332870.097425.242520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Judging from Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity", if Eddington has
observed deflection of light during the solar eclipse in 1919, he has
thereby proved that the speed of light "varies with position", that
is,
that the theory of relativity is false.


I can understand your original confusion, but do you ever listen? Don't
you
understand the difference between SRT and GRT? (And do you know the
definition of a crank?)


Defintion of a crank: harald.vanlintel

I can understand your original confusion, but do you ever listen? Don't

you

understand the difference between x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v) ?
Androcles.


I explained such matters to you, as did some others. My sketch of a crank
beyond hope: to start a thread and then don't bother to answer any replies
because he/she isn't anymore willing or able to input ideas from others.

Harald

Fits you to a tee, old son. You never listen.
***** the others, I asked the same question of Auntie Alice, Bielawski,
McCullough.
They went away, couldn't answer it.
YOU don't listen, you are a crank beyond hope.
I've asked YOU a straight question, not the "others" that you hide behind.
YOU can't answer it. By YOUR definition of a crank, YOU are a crank.
By my definition of an idiot, you are a stooopid phuckwit.
Answer the fucking question or shut the ***** up, you funny grinning baboon.
Definition of a COWARDLY crank: harald.vanlintel, hides behind "others".
Androcles.
.
User: "Harry"

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 30 Nov 2005 09:37:51 AM
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:bthjf.109388$Es4.100563@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438d8a85$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...


"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:p7ejf.34050$8G6.26754@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438d6db8$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...


"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133332870.097425.242520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Judging from Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity", if Eddington has
observed deflection of light during the solar eclipse in 1919, he

has

thereby proved that the speed of light "varies with position", that
is,
that the theory of relativity is false.


I can understand your original confusion, but do you ever listen?

Don't

you
understand the difference between SRT and GRT? (And do you know the
definition of a crank?)


Defintion of a crank: harald.vanlintel

I can understand your original confusion, but do you ever listen? Don't

you

understand the difference between x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v) ?
Androcles.


I explained such matters to you, as did some others. My sketch of a

crank

beyond hope: to start a thread and then don't bother to answer any

replies

because he/she isn't anymore willing or able to input ideas from others.

Harald


Fits you to a tee, old son. You never listen.
***** the others, I asked the same question of Auntie Alice, Bielawski,
McCullough.
They went away, couldn't answer it.
YOU don't listen, you are a crank beyond hope.
I've asked YOU a straight question, not the "others" that you hide behind.
YOU can't answer it. By YOUR definition of a crank, YOU are a crank.
By my definition of an idiot, you are a stooopid phuckwit.
Answer the fucking question or shut the ***** up, you funny grinning

baboon.


Definition of a COWARDLY crank: harald.vanlintel, hides behind "others".
Androcles.

:)))
.
User: "Androcles"

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 30 Nov 2005 10:34:02 AM
"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438dc750$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...


"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:bthjf.109388$Es4.100563@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438d8a85$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...


"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:p7ejf.34050$8G6.26754@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438d6db8$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...


"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133332870.097425.242520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Judging from Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity", if Eddington
has
observed deflection of light during the solar eclipse in 1919, he

has

thereby proved that the speed of light "varies with position", that
is,
that the theory of relativity is false.


I can understand your original confusion, but do you ever listen?

Don't

you
understand the difference between SRT and GRT? (And do you know the
definition of a crank?)


Defintion of a crank: harald.vanlintel

I can understand your original confusion, but do you ever listen?
Don't

you

understand the difference between x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v) ?
Androcles.


I explained such matters to you, as did some others. My sketch of a

crank

beyond hope: to start a thread and then don't bother to answer any

replies

because he/she isn't anymore willing or able to input ideas from
others.

Harald


Fits you to a tee, old son. You never listen.
***** the others, I asked the same question of Auntie Alice, Bielawski,
McCullough.
They went away, couldn't answer it.
YOU don't listen, you are a crank beyond hope.
I've asked YOU a straight question, not the "others" that you hide
behind.
YOU can't answer it. By YOUR definition of a crank, YOU are a crank.
By my definition of an idiot, you are a stooopid phuckwit.
Answer the fucking question or shut the ***** up, you funny grinning

baboon.


Definition of a COWARDLY crank: harald.vanlintel, hides behind "others".
Androcles.


:)))

Knowledge hurts, faith doesn't.
"That's right" - vanlintel, crank beyond hope.
.
User: "Harry"

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 01 Dec 2005 06:23:42 AM
"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:_vkjf.105825$375.54096@fe3.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438dc750$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...


"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:bthjf.109388$Es4.100563@fe2.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438d8a85$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...


"Androcles" <Androcles@MyPlace.yep> wrote in message
news:p7ejf.34050$8G6.26754@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...


"Harry" <harald.vanlintel@epfl.ch> wrote in message
news:438d6db8$1@epflnews.epfl.ch...


"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133332870.097425.242520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Judging from Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity", if Eddington
has
observed deflection of light during the solar eclipse in 1919, he

has

thereby proved that the speed of light "varies with position",

that

is,
that the theory of relativity is false.


I can understand your original confusion, but do you ever listen?

Don't

you
understand the difference between SRT and GRT? (And do you know

the

definition of a crank?)


Defintion of a crank: harald.vanlintel

I can understand your original confusion, but do you ever listen?
Don't

you

understand the difference between x'/(c-v) and x'/(c+v) ?
Androcles.


I explained such matters to you, as did some others. My sketch of a

crank

beyond hope: to start a thread and then don't bother to answer any

replies

because he/she isn't anymore willing or able to input ideas from
others.

Harald


Fits you to a tee, old son. You never listen.
***** the others, I asked the same question of Auntie Alice, Bielawski,
McCullough.
They went away, couldn't answer it.
YOU don't listen, you are a crank beyond hope.
I've asked YOU a straight question, not the "others" that you hide
behind.
YOU can't answer it. By YOUR definition of a crank, YOU are a crank.
By my definition of an idiot, you are a stooopid phuckwit.
Answer the fucking question or shut the ***** up, you funny grinning

baboon.


Definition of a COWARDLY crank: harald.vanlintel, hides behind

"others".

Androcles.


:)))


Knowledge hurts, faith doesn't.
"That's right" - vanlintel, crank beyond hope.

;-)
.







User: "Bill Hobba"

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 30 Nov 2005 02:06:36 AM
"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1133332870.097425.242520@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Judging from Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity", if Eddington has
observed deflection of light during the solar eclipse in 1919, he has
thereby proved that the speed of light "varies with position", that is,
that the theory of relativity is false.

Since that is not what relativity says it is simply another example of your
obvious confusion. Learn the difference between inertial and non inertial
frames.
Bill
.

User: "Tom Roberts"

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 01 Dec 2005 08:47:05 PM
Pentcho Valev wrote:

Judging from Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity", if Eddington has
observed deflection of light during the solar eclipse in 1919, he has
thereby proved that the speed of light "varies with position", that is,
that the theory of relativity is false.

Nonsense. That only proves that your personal MISCONCEPTIONS about
relativity are false.
The actual theory of relativity predicted this bending, so you really
have to be ignorant to make a claim like this.
But I will say that one of the things Eddington's results show is that a
proper error analysis is crucial to making experimental tests of
physical theories....
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
User: "Mike"

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 02 Dec 2005 01:49:34 AM
Tom Roberts wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Judging from Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity", if Eddington has
observed deflection of light during the solar eclipse in 1919, he has
thereby proved that the speed of light "varies with position", that is,
that the theory of relativity is false.


Nonsense. That only proves that your personal MISCONCEPTIONS about
relativity are false.

The actual theory of relativity predicted this bending, so you really
have to be ignorant to make a claim like this.

Here he comes again. As always, he gets some homework but he never
learns:
FTL propagation:
http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000610/fob7.asp
H&K falsified Relativity actually:
http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm
Axioms of SR:
1. Space-time is a 4-D continuum --- fails verification
2. There are globally inertial reference frames - fails verification
(actually fails)
3. POR ( epistemological principle that fails verification)
4. Constancy of speed of light is all inertial FoR - of cource false
because axiom 2 is fails.
Now, drink a cold glass of water.
Mike



But I will say that one of the things Eddington's results show is that a
proper error analysis is crucial to making experimental tests of
physical theories....


Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

.
User: "Eric Gisse"

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 02 Dec 2005 03:14:48 AM
Mike wrote:

Tom Roberts wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Judging from Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity", if Eddington has
observed deflection of light during the solar eclipse in 1919, he has
thereby proved that the speed of light "varies with position", that is,
that the theory of relativity is false.


Nonsense. That only proves that your personal MISCONCEPTIONS about
relativity are false.

The actual theory of relativity predicted this bending, so you really
have to be ignorant to make a claim like this.


Here he comes again. As always, he gets some homework but he never
learns:

The witty snipes used by cranks almost always are more aptly put
against themselves than the one they are trying to insult. Like this
one.


FTL propagation:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000610/fob7.asp

"The Italian scientists, led by Anedio Ranfagni of the Italian National
Research Council in Florence, devised their experiment so that
reflected microwaves in open air overlap and interfere as the waves
speed away from the mirror. Constructive interference creates a moving
pulse along the axis of the apparatus whose speed varies according to
the configuration of the experiment."
Again?
http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath210/kmath210.htm
Learn the difference between phase velocity and group velocity so you
do not repost this tired ***** again.


H&K falsified Relativity actually:

http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm

Jesus christ, him AGAIN? Well, to be fair it has been at least two
years since this ***** was brought up so it doesn't really surprise
me that he is being cited by those with an axe to grind.
The Hafele and Keating experiment is cited so often because it is a
Earthbound and macroscopic test that doesn't require sattelites or
particle physics. Kelly's basic premise is that there is too much noise
in the signal, and thus the experiment means nothing. Even if he is
correct, it is irrelevant because there is a wide body of experiments
that support special and general relativity.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html
A cursory search of google groups will reveal several fairly long
threads that talk all about our old friend A.G. Kelly. You will of
course, not look, because the conclusions reached are not the ones you
would like.
One of such threads is this:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/89664b48f2c2e50a


Axioms of SR:


1. Space-time is a 4-D continuum --- fails verification

2. There are globally inertial reference frames - fails verification
(actually fails)

3. POR ( epistemological principle that fails verification)

4. Constancy of speed of light is all inertial FoR - of cource false
because axiom 2 is fails.

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/782cf6fdb1114f5c?dmode=source&hl=en
You didn't have a response for Bilge, so I guess you cannot support
your arguments.

Now, drink a cold glass of water.


Mike






But I will say that one of the things Eddington's results show is that a
proper error analysis is crucial to making experimental tests of
physical theories....


Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

.
User: "Mike"

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 02 Dec 2005 08:24:04 AM
Eric Gisse wrote:

Mike wrote:

Tom Roberts wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Judging from Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity", if Eddington has
observed deflection of light during the solar eclipse in 1919, he has
thereby proved that the speed of light "varies with position", that is,
that the theory of relativity is false.


Nonsense. That only proves that your personal MISCONCEPTIONS about
relativity are false.

The actual theory of relativity predicted this bending, so you really
have to be ignorant to make a claim like this.


Here he comes again. As always, he gets some homework but he never
learns:


The witty snipes used by cranks almost always are more aptly put
against themselves than the one they are trying to insult. Like this
one.

You have notthing to say except your usual 'character assasination".



FTL propagation:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000610/fob7.asp


"The Italian scientists, led by Anedio Ranfagni of the Italian National
Research Council in Florence, devised their experiment so that
reflected microwaves in open air overlap and interfere as the waves
speed away from the mirror. Constructive interference creates a moving
pulse along the axis of the apparatus whose speed varies according to
the configuration of the experiment."

Again?

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath210/kmath210.htm

Learn the difference between phase velocity and group velocity so you
do not repost this tired ***** again.

No, you learn the difference between the ***** you promoting and the
facts. There si not issue of phase velocity in the German experiment.



H&K falsified Relativity actually:

http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm


Jesus christ, him AGAIN? Well, to be fair it has been at least two
years since this ***** was brought up so it doesn't really surprise
me that he is being cited by those with an axe to grind.

The only dirty askole here is you idiot. he presents hard numbers and
you just attempt your usual character assasination. You are pathetic.

The Hafele and Keating experiment is cited so often because it is a
Earthbound and macroscopic test that doesn't require sattelites or
particle physics. Kelly's basic premise is that there is too much noise
in the signal, and thus the experiment means nothing. Even if he is
correct, it is irrelevant because there is a wide body of experiments
that support special and general relativity.

there are experiments that support a class of theories in which SR/GR
is only a possibility. But that is probably beyind your cocky brain.


http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html

baez is a crank.

A cursory search of google groups will reveal several fairly long
threads that talk all about our old friend A.G. Kelly. You will of
course, not look, because the conclusions reached are not the ones you
would like.

One of such threads is this:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/89664b48f2c2e50a

Responding with anathema shows the quality of your character.


Axioms of SR:


1. Space-time is a 4-D continuum --- fails verification

2. There are globally inertial reference frames - fails verification
(actually fails)

3. POR ( epistemological principle that fails verification)

4. Constancy of speed of light is all inertial FoR - of cource false
because axiom 2 is fails.


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/782cf6fdb1114f5c?dmode=source&hl=en

You didn't have a response for Bilge, so I guess you cannot support
your arguments.

Bilge is number one crank. You won second place now.
Mike


Now, drink a cold glass of water.


Mike






But I will say that one of the things Eddington's results show is that a
proper error analysis is crucial to making experimental tests of
physical theories....


Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

.
User: "Eric Gisse"

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 02 Dec 2005 02:31:43 PM
Mike wrote:

Eric Gisse wrote:

Mike wrote:

Tom Roberts wrote:

Pentcho Valev wrote:

Judging from Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity", if Eddington has
observed deflection of light during the solar eclipse in 1919, he has
thereby proved that the speed of light "varies with position", that is,
that the theory of relativity is false.


Nonsense. That only proves that your personal MISCONCEPTIONS about
relativity are false.

The actual theory of relativity predicted this bending, so you really
have to be ignorant to make a claim like this.


Here he comes again. As always, he gets some homework but he never
learns:


The witty snipes used by cranks almost always are more aptly put
against themselves than the one they are trying to insult. Like this
one.


You have notthing to say except your usual 'character assasination".

You only say that because I disagree with you. If I were agreeing with
you, I would be getting a high-five.




FTL propagation:

http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20000610/fob7.asp


"The Italian scientists, led by Anedio Ranfagni of the Italian National
Research Council in Florence, devised their experiment so that
reflected microwaves in open air overlap and interfere as the waves
speed away from the mirror. Constructive interference creates a moving
pulse along the axis of the apparatus whose speed varies according to
the configuration of the experiment."

Again?

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath210/kmath210.htm

Learn the difference between phase velocity and group velocity so you
do not repost this tired ***** again.


No, you learn the difference between the ***** you promoting and the
facts. There si not issue of phase velocity in the German experiment.

Oh, then what is it?
Certaintly looks like another phase-velocity experiment.




H&K falsified Relativity actually:

http://www.dipmat.unipg.it/~bartocci/H&KPaper.htm


Jesus christ, him AGAIN? Well, to be fair it has been at least two
years since this ***** was brought up so it doesn't really surprise
me that he is being cited by those with an axe to grind.


The only dirty askole here is you idiot. he presents hard numbers and
you just attempt your usual character assasination. You are pathetic.

I have been over this before with Keith "eh!" Stein. The source of
these "hard numbers" is a report that was based on incomplete data that
is nolonger accessable. You think this is the first time I have seen
this waste of space being cited?



The Hafele and Keating experiment is cited so often because it is a
Earthbound and macroscopic test that doesn't require sattelites or
particle physics. Kelly's basic premise is that there is too much noise
in the signal, and thus the experiment means nothing. Even if he is
correct, it is irrelevant because there is a wide body of experiments
that support special and general relativity.


there are experiments that support a class of theories in which SR/GR
is only a possibility. But that is probably beyind your cocky brain.

So?
Every candidate theory must be able to replicate every result SR and GR
have provided to date. I doubt you like that.
The list of viable theories of gravitation other than GR is a very,
very short one.
This, however, is irrelevant. You are only interested in fighting GR
because of your own weak-minded inability to comprehend. It is almost
guranteed to be more difficult to understand than GR, and thus you will
be no better off than you were before.



http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/RelWWW/tests.html


baez is a crank.

Pot, kettle, black.
You did not even look at the page, you just saw "baez" and started
whining.



A cursory search of google groups will reveal several fairly long
threads that talk all about our old friend A.G. Kelly. You will of
course, not look, because the conclusions reached are not the ones you
would like.

One of such threads is this:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/browse_frm/thread/89664b48f2c2e50a



Responding with anathema shows the quality of your character.

Instead of reading what other, more qualified people, have to say about
the matter - you whine. Classic Mike.




Axioms of SR:


1. Space-time is a 4-D continuum --- fails verification

2. There are globally inertial reference frames - fails verification
(actually fails)

3. POR ( epistemological principle that fails verification)

4. Constancy of speed of light is all inertial FoR - of cource false
because axiom 2 is fails.


http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics.relativity/msg/782cf6fdb1114f5c?dmode=source&hl=en

You didn't have a response for Bilge, so I guess you cannot support
your arguments.


Bilge is number one crank. You won second place now.

No response then, no response now. Your arguments are bunk.



Mike





Now, drink a cold glass of water.


Mike






But I will say that one of the things Eddington's results show is that a
proper error analysis is crucial to making experimental tests of
physical theories....


Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

.



User: "tj Frazir"

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 02 Dec 2005 10:07:27 PM
dumbfucks will never nearn a fuckng thing .
c is c dumbass.
OH and ***** your stupid rant.
hubble constant proves c is constant.
you dont understand because your a dumbass .
dumbasses dont deserve an explanation
.
User: ""

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 03 Dec 2005 02:59:42 AM
tj Frazir wrote:

dumbfucks will never nearn a fuckng thing .
c is c dumbass.
OH and ***** your stupid rant.
hubble constant proves c is constant.
you dont understand because your a dumbass .
dumbasses dont deserve an explanation

Like for blazars with matter at 25c????????????????
Thanks for the laff
Jim G
c'=c+v
.



User: "Schoenfeld"

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 01 Dec 2005 10:58:31 PM
Tom Roberts wrote:
[...]


But I will say that one of the things Eddington's results show is that a
proper error analysis is crucial to making experimental tests of
physical theories....

Are you implying that Eddington was a good experimentalist, or
otherwise? Aside from other major achievements, Eddington proved that
the fine-structure constant was 1/136, and then a year later he proved
it was 1/137. A review of his 1919 result revealed a heavy bias in
favour of Einstein.


Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com

.
User: "Tom Roberts"

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 02 Dec 2005 09:13:45 AM
Schoenfeld wrote:

Tom Roberts wrote:

But I will say that one of the things Eddington's results show is that a
proper error analysis is crucial to making experimental tests of
physical theories....


Are you implying that Eddington was a good experimentalist, or
otherwise?

In his day, Eddington was a fine experimental physicist, but his papers
would not pass muster today. This is true for virtually every paper
written before the advent of errorbars and error analysis, because the
concept of physics has changed -- instead of "measuring physical
quantities", experiments have become _tests_of_theories_. The difference
is profound, and in order to test a given theory one must know the
accuracy of the measurements (i.e. the errorbars).

Aside from other major achievements, Eddington proved that
the fine-structure constant was 1/136, and then a year later he proved
it was 1/137.

Case in point: a modern error analysis would show whether or not that
difference is SIGNIFICANT. Modern measurements have 8-9 significant
digits here.

A review of his 1919 result revealed a heavy bias in
favour of Einstein.

Yes. A modern error analysis applied to his 1919 photographs shows they
are equivocal at best in support of GR.
[Note that other, far more accurate measurements of similar
effects support GR quite accurately.]
Tom Roberts tjroberts@lucent.com
.
User: ""

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 02 Dec 2005 06:41:51 PM
Tom Roberts wrote:

Schoenfeld wrote:

Tom Roberts wrote:

But I will say that one of the things Eddington's results show is that a
proper error analysis is crucial to making experimental tests of
physical theories....


Are you implying that Eddington was a good experimentalist, or
otherwise?


In his day, Eddington was a fine experimental physicist, but his papers
would not pass muster today. This is true for virtually every paper
written before the advent of errorbars and error analysis, because the
concept of physics has changed -- instead of "measuring physical
quantities", experiments have become _tests_of_theories_. The difference
is profound, and in order to test a given theory one must know the
accuracy of the measurements (i.e. the errorbars).

Yes, and SR use the PREDICTIONS of the theories (eg shrinkage of the
moving ruler), to TEST the theories.
Hint: When a theory is to be "tested" as to a prediction of it (say
that something will measure 3m), SR uses a one meter ruler that is
(guess what!), 1/3 of the object to be
measured........................and then get excited because
(fanfare!!!) THE THEORY TRIUMPHS AGAIN!
Jim G
c'=c+v
.
User: "Eric Gisse"

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 02 Dec 2005 06:59:12 PM
wrote:

Tom Roberts wrote:

Schoenfeld wrote:

Tom Roberts wrote:

But I will say that one of the things Eddington's results show is that a
proper error analysis is crucial to making experimental tests of
physical theories....


Are you implying that Eddington was a good experimentalist, or
otherwise?


In his day, Eddington was a fine experimental physicist, but his papers
would not pass muster today. This is true for virtually every paper
written before the advent of errorbars and error analysis, because the
concept of physics has changed -- instead of "measuring physical
quantities", experiments have become _tests_of_theories_. The difference
is profound, and in order to test a given theory one must know the
accuracy of the measurements (i.e. the errorbars).


Yes, and SR use the PREDICTIONS of the theories (eg shrinkage of the
moving ruler), to TEST the theories.
Hint: When a theory is to be "tested" as to a prediction of it (say
that something will measure 3m), SR uses a one meter ruler that is
(guess what!), 1/3 of the object to be
measured........................and then get excited because
(fanfare!!!) THE THEORY TRIUMPHS AGAIN!

You are fantastically stupid if that is what you think.


Jim G
c'=c+v

.





User: ""

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 30 Nov 2005 07:29:29 AM
Pentcho Valev wrote:

Judging from Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity", if Eddington has
observed deflection of light during the solar eclipse in 1919, he has
thereby proved that the speed of light "varies with position", that is,
that the theory of relativity is false. Of course, the final
conclusions of both Eddington and Einstein are consistent with the
first principle of Postscientism: FALSITY IS TRUTH. The three
principles of Postscientism (a la George Orwell) are:

FALSITY IS TRUTH

Theories are neither true nor false. They either work well on a domain
of applicability or they don't. People --- normal people, that is ---
tend to choose the ones that work well. Most of your problem, Valev, is
that you haven't the slightest idea of how science works and what a
scientific theory is.

The postulate of constancy of the speed of light is false, but the
theory of relativity is true (A. Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 22).

The constancy of the speed of light is an empirical fact on its domain
of applicability, which is when applied to local measurments in a
vacuum in an inertial frame. How many times do you have to be told this
before it sinks is?

Carnot's premise (heat is an indestructible substance) is false, but
its corollary (the second law of thermodynamics) is true.

So, you think that heat is really an indestructible substance?

Orwell's original text: "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but
that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and
two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is
unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the
mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

I assure you that this is relative. From the viewpoint of the modern
physicists, the cranks, who are mostly stuck in the mechanical
viewpoint, look like they employ: 2 + 2 = 5.


OBSCURITY IS POWER
C. Truesdell: "Clausius' verbal statement of the second law makes no
sense.... All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition ; a century of
philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandement ; a
century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from
the unclean...Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to
follow the argument Clausius offers....and seven times has it blanked
and gravelled me.... I cannot explain what I cannot understand."

This is a complaint from one person about the presentation of a concept
given by another person. So what?

A. Eddington (king of sycophants): "The law that entropy always
increases, - the second law of thermodynamics - holds, I think, the
supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you
that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with
Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations.
If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these
experimentalists bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found
to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope ;
there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

What's your point?


SCIENCE IS MONEY

People liked to get paid.
.

User: ""

Title: Re: What Did Eddington Prove in 1919? 30 Nov 2005 05:27:09 AM
Pentcho Valev wrote:

Judging from Chapter 22 in Einstein's "Relativity", if Eddington has
observed deflection of light during the solar eclipse in 1919, he has
thereby proved that the speed of light "varies with position", that is,
that the theory of relativity is false. Of course, the final
conclusions of both Eddington and Einstein are consistent with the
first principle of Postscientism: FALSITY IS TRUTH. The three
principles of Postscientism (a la George Orwell) are:

That's what Eddington observed though.
He observedt that when you observed a Solar Ecllipse
in Braxil, you observe Brazillians.
Which is 100% consistent with Darwin, The New Pork Times
Elevator Operators, Al Gore, NASA Retards, The Rolling Stones,
Stanford, AT&T, IBM, MIT, The Pope,
All-About-Eve, Newsweek, Cuban Beach Coolers,
Nazism, and The Year-Of-Retard Science.


FALSITY IS TRUTH
The postulate of constancy of the speed of light is false, but the
theory of relativity is true (A. Einstein, "Relativity", Chapter 22).
Carnot's premise (heat is an indestructible substance) is false, but
its corollary (the second law of thermodynamics) is true.
Orwell's original text: "In the end the Party would announce that two
and two made five, and you would have to believe it. It was inevitable
that they should make that claim sooner or later: the logic of their
position demanded it. Not merely the validity of experience, but the
very existence of external reality, was tacitly denied by their
philosophy. The heresy of heresies was common sense. And what was
terrifying was not that they would kill you for thinking otherwise, but
that they might be right. For, after all, how do we know that two and
two make four? Or that the force of gravity works? Or that the past is
unchangeable? If both the past and the external world exist only in the
mind, and if the mind itself is controllable what then?"

OBSCURITY IS POWER
C. Truesdell: "Clausius' verbal statement of the second law makes no
sense.... All that remains is a Mosaic prohibition ; a century of
philosophers and journalists have acclaimed this commandement ; a
century of mathematicians have shuddered and averted their eyes from
the unclean...Seven times in the past thirty years have I tried to
follow the argument Clausius offers....and seven times has it blanked
and gravelled me.... I cannot explain what I cannot understand."
A. Eddington (king of sycophants): "The law that entropy always
increases, - the second law of thermodynamics - holds, I think, the
supreme position among the laws of Nature. If someone points out to you
that your pet theory of the universe is in disagreement with
Maxwell's equations - then so much the worse for Maxwell's equations.
If it is found to be contradicted by observation - well, these
experimentalists bungle things sometimes. But if your theory is found
to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope ;
there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation."

SCIENCE IS MONEY
http://www.detnews.com/2005/business/0507/24/D04-256983.htm
http://einsteinplag.tripod.com/intro.html
http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/wallace.htm

Pentcho Valev

.


  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER