EINSTEINIANS TEST DIVINE ALBERT'S DIVINE THEORY

[Pentcho Valev]

http://theconversation.com/where-are-the-missing-gravitational-waves-47940
Paul Lasky, Ryan Shannon: "As part of the Parkes Pulsar Timing Array, we have been observing pulsar J1909-3744 with the CSIRO's Parkes Radio Telescope for 11 years. (...) Gravitational waves from all of the black holes in the universe were supposed to ruin the timing precision of this pulsar. But they have not. (...) Why no gravitational waves? But we want to be very clear that our lack of a detection does not imply that Einstein's theory of relativity is wrong, nor does it imply that gravitational waves don't exist. While we don't know the real solution, we have a number of ideas."
Michael Burton, Professor in Physics and Astronomy, UNSW Australia: "So how many rotations of the pulsar will you need to count before you can conclude that the theory of gravitational waves is in serious trouble? Twice as many, tens times as many?"
Paul Lasky, in reply to Michael Burton: "The devil is all in the detail here. As we discuss in the article, there are many ways the amplitude of the background could be smaller for much more mundane reasons than Einstein being wrong. We could certainly observe for another 5 years and not see anything. Even then we would not say that Einstein was wrong..."

http://thecaliforniapost.com/content/esa%E2%80%99s-mission-lisa-pathfinder-will-not-actually-search-waves-itself
"The European Space Agency (ESA) has successfully launched a mission on December 4 for testing wave-finding technology. Known as LISA Pathfinder, the mission won't really look for waves itself. Instead the mission will function as trailblazer for the technology, which as per scientists would be helpful in finding these ripples in space-time. ESA is looking forward to launch a later mission in 2034, actually seeking gravitational waves, but it hasn't finalized the design for that mission so far."

http://www.everythingimportant.org/Einstein_worship/DivineEinstein.jpg

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

http://journals.aps.org/prl/edannounce/10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.130001
Clifford Will in Physical Review Letters: "...a third test of the theory, called the gravitational redshift, was initially a bust. Two 1917 observations failed to detect the predicted shift in the Sun's spectral lines. It wasn't until 1960 that the effect was finally measured in a laboratory experiment involving gamma rays [5]."

Between the 1917 "bust" and the 1960 measurement there was the 1925 horrific fraud (as will be shown later, the 1960 "laboratory experiment", that of Pound and Rebka, was a fraud as well):

http://preterism.ning.com/forum/topics/can-we-trust-the-data
"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger - 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H
"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 Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddington's estimate and Adams' measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four."

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980QJRAS..21..246H
"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. (...) ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... (...) In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... (...) ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. (...) More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second."

http://irfu.cea.fr/Phocea/file.php?file=Ast/2774/RELATIVITE-052-456.pdf
Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud: "Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux particularités, il faut supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles caractéristiques, ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable. Eddington s'adresse aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson, en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une température de 8 000 degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même, le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20 km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour réaliser la mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique, le décalage passe finalement à 21 km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s, et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat, pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000 degrés envisagés par Eddington, l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude a bien été envisagée."

Pentcho Valev

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/8/15 3:41 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> the 1960 "laboratory experiment", that of Pound and Rebka, was a fraud...

How so?



--

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[Pentcho Valev]

The lie:

http://sweetwaternow.com/the-100th-anniversary-of-einsteins-theory-of-general-relativity-wyomings-connection/
"In 1960, Harvard University's Glen Rebka and Robert Pound finally verified Einstein's prediction that gravity could change light's frequency. The Pound-Rebka effect, Rebka's Ph.D. thesis, was the first measurement of Einstein's general relativity prediction of a gravitational redshift. Physicists credit this finding as being essential to modern navigational technology and the global positioning system (GPS). (...) This was a "major scientific achievement," wrote Clifford Will of Washington University in St. Louis, not only because it was a classic test of relativity, but because of the ingenious experimental design. And there is a practical consequence, he adds. The satellite-borne clocks of the GPS navigational system must be regularly corrected for changes induced by gravitational redshift. So relativity calculations keep every freighter and fighter jet on course."

The truth:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

Pentcho Valev

[Sam Wormley]

On 12/9/15 2:37 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> The lie:
>
> http://sweetwaternow.com/the-100th-anniversary-of-einsteins-theory-of-general-relativity-wyomings-connection/

> "In 1960, Harvard University's Glen Rebka and Robert Pound finally
> verified Einstein's prediction that gravity could change light's
> frequency. The Pound-Rebka effect, Rebka's Ph.D. thesis, was the
> first measurement of Einstein's general relativity prediction of a
> gravitational redshift. Physicists credit this finding as being
> essential to modern navigational technology and the global
> positioning system (GPS). (...) This was a "major scientific
> achievement," wrote Clifford Will of Washington University in St.
> Louis, not only because it was a classic test of relativity, but
> because of the ingenious experimental design. And there is a
> practical consequence, he adds. The satellite-borne clocks of the GPS
> navigational system must be regularly corrected for changes induced
> by gravitational redshift. So relativity calculations keep every
> freighter and fighter jet on course."

Oh how, Pentcho is blinded to the physics.

The fact is that there has never been a singe observation that
contradicts a prediction of relativity theory. Relativity remains
a fruitful tool of physics.

[Pentcho Valev]

Einstein's general relativity is not deductive and accordingly does not predict anything in the traditional sense. Its making was analogous to "curve fitting" ("empirical models") as defined here:

http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/documents/Intro_Curve_Fitting.pdf
"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property."

Note that the parameters of the empirical model "do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property". So Einstein's general relativity idiotically says that the speed of light falling towards the source of gravity DECREASES - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is NEGATIVE, -2g:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...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+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential φ would be c(1+φ/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+φ. 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. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2φ, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

Unlike special relativity, general relativity was not, to use Einstein's words, "built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions". Rather, it was "a purely empirical enterprise" - Einstein and his mathematical friends changed and fudged equations countless times until "a classified catalogue" was compiled where known in advance results and pet assumptions (such as the Mercury's precession, the equivalence principle, gravitational time dilation) coexisted in an apparently consistent manner:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap03.htm
Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."

http://www.weylmann.com/besso.pdf
Michel Janssen: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. (...) The Einstein-Grossmann theory - also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed to formulate a theory along these lines. (...) Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board. (...) On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann équations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation."

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Eddington's 1919 fraud exposed by Steven Weinberg and Brian Greene:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=m-ucJgXm0Go
Experimentalist Vs Theorist on Einsteins General Theory of Relativity

Pentcho Valev

[Kathleen Winder]

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> Prevaricating Pentcho has trouble understanding the spoken word. They

Technically it is impossible to distinguish between Relativity and IRT.

[Sam Wormley]

William Wallace Campbell (Lick Observatory) nailed it that Eddington
was correct and Einstein's prediction of the bending a starlight by
the sun was EXACTLY correct.


Ref: http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/William_Campbell.aspx

> Campbell was a most careful observer and a designer of techniques of
> observation and of reduction, and he put forth his findings with
> confidence, irrespective of their accord with accepted theory. He did
> not, however, hesitate to repeat his observations if he felt this
> necessary, An example is his eclipse observations to detect the sun’s
> deflection of light from the stars, which had been predicted by
> Einstein. An attempt at the Russian eclipse of 1914 was thwarted by
> weather. Although the eclipse equipment was kept in Russia because of
> the war, a further attempt was made in 1918 at Goldendale,
> Washington. The results were negative. When Eddington reported a
> confirmation of Einstein’s predictions in 1919, Campbell returned to
> the task and attempted with Trumpler to observe the predicted
> deflection at the 1922 eclipse in Western Australia. This time the
> results fully confirmed the predictions of the general theory.

[Pentcho Valev]

Experimentalist Vs Theorist on Einsteins General Theory of Relativity (where Eddington's 1919 fraud is exposed by Steven Weinberg and Brian Greene) now seems to be at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVGAKbRdKcY

Pentcho Valev

[Sam Wormley]

On 1/2/16 7:02 AM, Pentcho Valev wrote:
> Experimentalist Vs Theorist on Einsteins General Theory of Relativity
> (where Eddington's 1919 fraud is exposed by Steven Weinberg and Brian

> Greene) ...

William Wallace Campbell (Lick Observatory) nailed it that Eddington
was correct and Einstein's prediction of the bending a starlight by

the sun was EXACTLY correct. 93 stars!