Einstein's Relativity : Fraudulent Until 1971, Honest Afterwards

[Pentcho Valev]

Frederick Soddy, An Address to the fourth Conference of Nobel Prizewinners at Lindau (Bodensee), S. Germany, 30.VI.1954: "Incidentally the attempt to verify this during a recent solar eclipse, provided the world with the most disgusting spectacle perhaps ever witnessed of the lengths to which a preconceived notion can bias what was supposed to be an impartial scientific inquiry. For Eddington, who was one of the party, and ought to have been excluded as an ardent supporter of the theory that was under examination, in his description spoke of the feeling of dismay which ran through the expedition when it appeared at one time that Einstein might be wrong! Remembering that in this particular astronomical investigation, the corrections for the normal errors of observation - due to diffraction, temperature changes, and the like - exceeded by many times the magnitude of the predicted deflection of the star's ray being looked for, one wonders exactly what this sort of "science" is really worth." http://www.reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/aarch/pages/10-soddy-to-nobel-prizewinners.htm

Sabine Hossenfelder: "As light carries energy and is thus subject of gravitational attraction, a ray of light passing by a massive body should be slightly bent towards it. This is so both in Newton's theory of gravity and in Einstein's, but Einstein's deflection is by a factor two larger than Newton's. [...] As history has it, Eddington's original data actually wasn't good enough to make that claim with certainty. His measurements had huge error bars due to bad weather and he also might have cherry-picked his data because he liked Einstein's theory a little too much. Shame on him." http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html

"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://puritanreformed.blogspot.bg/2010/08/fallible-nature-of-supposed-objective.html

"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/abs/2010AAS...21530404H

"...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://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980QJRAS..21..246H

Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud tells a breathtaking story. According to him, initially Einsteinians were all fraudsters but the fraudulent period ended in 1971 when Eddington's second (Sirius B) hoax was exposed. Then, in the 1970's, all Einsteinians became as honest as the day is long:

"The whole world believed for more than fifty years in an unverified theory. Because, we know it today, the first proofs, descent notably from a famous eclipse of 1919, were not proofs. They were based in part on unmentionable manipulations aiming to obtain a result known in advance, and on measurements tainted with uncertainties, when it was not a question of characterized fraud. It took until the 1970s for new methods to finally provide solid experimental proof of relativity." http://bonnetbidaud.free.fr/ce/relativite2008/pdf_CE/RELATIVITE-052-456.pdf

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Any physicist knows that Newton's theory did predict gravitational deflection of light but Einstein's deflection was larger by a factor of two:

Sabine Hossenfelder: "As light carries energy and is thus subject of gravitational attraction, a ray of light passing by a massive body should be slightly bent towards it. This is so both in Newton's theory of gravity and in Einstein's, but Einstein's deflection is by a factor two larger than Newton's...As history has it, Eddington's original data actually wasn't good enough to make that claim with certainty. His measurements had huge error bars due to bad weather and he also might have cherry-picked his data because he liked Einstein's theory a little too much. Shame on him." http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html

Yet Kip Thorne teaches that Newton's theory predicted no gravitational deflection of light:

Kip Thorne: "A second crucial proof of the breakdown in Newtonian gravity was the relativistic bending of light. Einstein's theory predicted that starlight passing near the limb of the sun should be deflected by 1.75 seconds of arc, whereas NEWTON'S LAW PREDICTED NO DEFLECTION. Observations during the 1919 eclipse of the sun in Brazil, carried out by Sir Arthur Eddington and his British colleagues, brilliantly confirmed Einstein's prediction to an accuracy of about 20 percent. This dealt the final death blow to Newton's law and to most other relativistic theories of gravity." http://commons.erau.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3169&context=space-congress-proceedings

Lying so blatantly is only safe and profitable if science is dead (criticism is dead as well) and an all-powerful ideology protects and even generously rewards the liar:

"This paper investigates an alternative possibility: that the critics were right and that the success of Einstein's theory in overcoming them was due to its strengths as an ideology rather than as a science. The clock paradox illustrates how relativity theory does indeed contain inconsistencies that make it scientifically problematic. These same inconsistencies, however, make the theory ideologically powerful...The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse...The triumph of relativity theory represents the triumph of ideology not only in the profession of physics bur also in the philosophy of science." Peter Hayes, The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox https://tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/02691720902741399

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev