info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
EINSTEIN'S PERSONA: WHAT CAUSED HIS FAME? (1987, R. S. COHEN, Boston University)
192 views
Skip to first unread message
Richard Hertz
Sep 30, 2021, 12:12:23 AM9/30/21
to
These are excepts from a 1987 book, "The comparative reception of relativity",
which I posted recently (with link) about how relativity gained acceptance in
many countries since 1920, as well as an explanation about the sudden
worldwide fame of Einstein, and WHO were involved into it.
For me, it's important to understand how and why the Einstein's Myth was
created and still preserved, beyond scientific circles, in intellectual circles and
within general public, which ignored what relativity meant.
I quote some excerpts from CULTURAL ISSUES IN THE RECEPTION OF
RELATIVITY (THOMAS F. GLICK, page 384):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most categorical hypothesis is that adduced recently by Lewis Elton:
Einstein's fame arose from controversies surrounding the verification of
his theory and from the myth of its incomprehensibility, both of which
originated in the AngloSaxon world. 24 For Missner, the American press
was the instrument that made Einstein a celebrity.
...............
The contingency created the illusion of a great press campaign guided by
an invisible hand. 25
.............
Einstein's much publicized trips (to the United States and Italy in 1921,
France in 1922, Japan and Spain in 1922-23, Brazil and Argentina in
1925) raise a number of issues. What did the lionizing crowds who
pressed in on him throughout his travels get from such an exercise?
Various professional and political groups sought to associate Einstein's
prestige with their own cause or objectives. With regard to the
professions, Einstein's presence reinforced the prestige of dominant
groups.......Sometimes Einstein is presented as an establishment pawn:
he is carted by officials from place to place, where he opens his bag of
three speeches for another uncomprehending audience.
It should be remarked in passing that Einstein's travels generated a
tremendous avalanche of local commentary, mainly in newspapers,
constituting a great and generally unmined source of information on
Einstein as a personality and public figure and the cultural impact of
his ideas.
..................
Much of the information gleaned (in Spain and Latin America for instance)
consists of trivial comments spun out for the benefit of local readers (the
genius' opinion of the local folk dance, architecture, politics, and so forth)
and reflected Einstein's knack for telling people what they wanted to hear
without thereby revealing too much about himself.
..................
The positive mass response occurred everywhere, whether there was a
Jewish community or not (the Argentinian experience was very similar to
the Spanish, in spite of Einstein's involvement with the Argentinian Zionist
movement), or whether the culture was western or non-western, as in
Japan.
................
A number of authors (Biezunski, Missner) stress the theme of Einstein
the destroyer as one of the most prevalent images. This is, of course, a
negative image, associated with the supposed destruction by Einstein of
the Newtonian worldview or the traditional Western cosmology. The
destroyer image persists to this day.
..............
On an excursion to Toledo in 1923, Einstein asked Ortega y Gasset how an
abstract idea like relativity could be of interest to the masses. Ortega
thought the mass appeal had to do with the conjunction of a new
cosmological theory with the post-World War I loss of faith in European
society: "In such a circumstance there appeared your work, in which
laws are promulgated for the stars, which obey them. The human
masses have always perceived astronomical phenomena as religious.
.............
To invent the electric light, the myth held, Edison had to refabricate the
myths of Nature. No one else had been able to accomplish this feat but
Edison, because he was a wizard, could perceive secrets of nature hidden
to others. The public viewed Edisons's "magic" with awe, tempered with
the inference of evil that inhered in wizardry.31
The same was true of Einstein. The awe that scientists expressed over
Einstein's magical formulation fed this aspect of the myth and in tum
was reinforced by it. The magical creator was also a destroyer and the
two images fused seamlessly in the post -1945 myth regarding Einstein
and atomic energy.32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: And, IMO, establishment had/has everything to gain by managing
general public as a herd of indoctrinated retarded on global affairs
concerning globalization, political and military power, technology, money
and a wide range of cultural and social issues. The more misinformed the
general public, the better for the elite to dominate without questions.
I mention several critical topics in recent history. Think about disinformation:
- WWII and atomic bombs.
- Korea, Cold War and space rush.
- Eisenhower and warning about MIC
- Vietnam, JFK + Beatles, Apollo missions.
- Nixon, gold, 1973 oil crisis, Carter, Iran, Reagan
- USSR disintegration, NWO, Irak, Clinton
- 9/11, Bush, Patriot Act, Manning-WikiLeaks , NSA-Snowden
- 2008 global financial crisis, Obama-Trump-Biden, Israel-Iran, Russia
- Brexit, cryptocurrency, China, COVID, ....
And the sheeple keep obeying and struggling to survive.
But Einstein is always proven right, even when he's wrong. Obey.
which I posted recently (with link) about how relativity gained acceptance in
many countries since 1920, as well as an explanation about the sudden
worldwide fame of Einstein, and WHO were involved into it.
For me, it's important to understand how and why the Einstein's Myth was
created and still preserved, beyond scientific circles, in intellectual circles and
within general public, which ignored what relativity meant.
I quote some excerpts from CULTURAL ISSUES IN THE RECEPTION OF
RELATIVITY (THOMAS F. GLICK, page 384):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The most categorical hypothesis is that adduced recently by Lewis Elton:
Einstein's fame arose from controversies surrounding the verification of
his theory and from the myth of its incomprehensibility, both of which
originated in the AngloSaxon world. 24 For Missner, the American press
was the instrument that made Einstein a celebrity.
...............
The contingency created the illusion of a great press campaign guided by
an invisible hand. 25
.............
Einstein's much publicized trips (to the United States and Italy in 1921,
France in 1922, Japan and Spain in 1922-23, Brazil and Argentina in
1925) raise a number of issues. What did the lionizing crowds who
pressed in on him throughout his travels get from such an exercise?
Various professional and political groups sought to associate Einstein's
prestige with their own cause or objectives. With regard to the
professions, Einstein's presence reinforced the prestige of dominant
groups.......Sometimes Einstein is presented as an establishment pawn:
he is carted by officials from place to place, where he opens his bag of
three speeches for another uncomprehending audience.
It should be remarked in passing that Einstein's travels generated a
tremendous avalanche of local commentary, mainly in newspapers,
constituting a great and generally unmined source of information on
Einstein as a personality and public figure and the cultural impact of
his ideas.
..................
Much of the information gleaned (in Spain and Latin America for instance)
consists of trivial comments spun out for the benefit of local readers (the
genius' opinion of the local folk dance, architecture, politics, and so forth)
and reflected Einstein's knack for telling people what they wanted to hear
without thereby revealing too much about himself.
..................
The positive mass response occurred everywhere, whether there was a
Jewish community or not (the Argentinian experience was very similar to
the Spanish, in spite of Einstein's involvement with the Argentinian Zionist
movement), or whether the culture was western or non-western, as in
Japan.
................
A number of authors (Biezunski, Missner) stress the theme of Einstein
the destroyer as one of the most prevalent images. This is, of course, a
negative image, associated with the supposed destruction by Einstein of
the Newtonian worldview or the traditional Western cosmology. The
destroyer image persists to this day.
..............
On an excursion to Toledo in 1923, Einstein asked Ortega y Gasset how an
abstract idea like relativity could be of interest to the masses. Ortega
thought the mass appeal had to do with the conjunction of a new
cosmological theory with the post-World War I loss of faith in European
society: "In such a circumstance there appeared your work, in which
laws are promulgated for the stars, which obey them. The human
masses have always perceived astronomical phenomena as religious.
.............
To invent the electric light, the myth held, Edison had to refabricate the
myths of Nature. No one else had been able to accomplish this feat but
Edison, because he was a wizard, could perceive secrets of nature hidden
to others. The public viewed Edisons's "magic" with awe, tempered with
the inference of evil that inhered in wizardry.31
The same was true of Einstein. The awe that scientists expressed over
Einstein's magical formulation fed this aspect of the myth and in tum
was reinforced by it. The magical creator was also a destroyer and the
two images fused seamlessly in the post -1945 myth regarding Einstein
and atomic energy.32
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: And, IMO, establishment had/has everything to gain by managing
general public as a herd of indoctrinated retarded on global affairs
concerning globalization, political and military power, technology, money
and a wide range of cultural and social issues. The more misinformed the
general public, the better for the elite to dominate without questions.
I mention several critical topics in recent history. Think about disinformation:
- WWII and atomic bombs.
- Korea, Cold War and space rush.
- Eisenhower and warning about MIC
- Vietnam, JFK + Beatles, Apollo missions.
- Nixon, gold, 1973 oil crisis, Carter, Iran, Reagan
- USSR disintegration, NWO, Irak, Clinton
- 9/11, Bush, Patriot Act, Manning-WikiLeaks , NSA-Snowden
- 2008 global financial crisis, Obama-Trump-Biden, Israel-Iran, Russia
- Brexit, cryptocurrency, China, COVID, ....
And the sheeple keep obeying and struggling to survive.
But Einstein is always proven right, even when he's wrong. Obey.
Richard Hertz
Sep 30, 2021, 1:39:07 AM9/30/21
to
I like this part:
At least, he admitted to Ortega y Gasset: Relativity is an ABSTRACT IDEA that has
nothing to do with the real world.
Even the retarded wondered why people was SO STUPID then (and now).
..............
On an excursion to Toledo in 1923, Einstein asked Ortega y Gasset how an
ABSTRACT IDEA like relativity could be of interest to the masses. Ortega
On an excursion to Toledo in 1923, Einstein asked Ortega y Gasset how an
thought the mass appeal had to do with the conjunction of a new
cosmological theory with the post-World War I loss of faith in European
society: "In such a circumstance there appeared your work, in which
laws are promulgated for the stars, which obey them. The human
masses have always perceived astronomical phenomena as religious.
..............
cosmological theory with the post-World War I loss of faith in European
society: "In such a circumstance there appeared your work, in which
laws are promulgated for the stars, which obey them. The human
masses have always perceived astronomical phenomena as religious.
At least, he admitted to Ortega y Gasset: Relativity is an ABSTRACT IDEA that has
nothing to do with the real world.
Even the retarded wondered why people was SO STUPID then (and now).
Michael Moroney
Sep 30, 2021, 3:12:23 AM9/30/21
to
relativity means you can't have a jar of relativity, just like you can't
have a jar of gravity or magnetic field and so forth.
Quit making up garbage and pretending that it's true.
Maciej Wozniak
Sep 30, 2021, 5:38:40 AM9/30/21
to
On Thursday, 30 September 2021 at 09:12:23 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 9/30/2021 1:39 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > I like this part:
> > ..............
> > On an excursion to Toledo in 1923, Einstein asked Ortega y Gasset how an
> > ABSTRACT IDEA like relativity could be of interest to the masses. Ortega
> > thought the mass appeal had to do with the conjunction of a new
> > cosmological theory with the post-World War I loss of faith in European
> > society: "In such a circumstance there appeared your work, in which
> > laws are promulgated for the stars, which obey them. The human
> > masses have always perceived astronomical phenomena as religious.
> > ..............
> >
> > At least, he admitted to Ortega y Gasset: Relativity is an ABSTRACT IDEA that has
> > nothing to do with the real world.
> He never said it had nothing to do with the real world.
Still, stupid Mike, it has nothing to do with the real
> On 9/30/2021 1:39 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > I like this part:
> > ..............
> > On an excursion to Toledo in 1923, Einstein asked Ortega y Gasset how an
> > ABSTRACT IDEA like relativity could be of interest to the masses. Ortega
> > thought the mass appeal had to do with the conjunction of a new
> > cosmological theory with the post-World War I loss of faith in European
> > society: "In such a circumstance there appeared your work, in which
> > laws are promulgated for the stars, which obey them. The human
> > masses have always perceived astronomical phenomena as religious.
> > ..............
> >
> > At least, he admitted to Ortega y Gasset: Relativity is an ABSTRACT IDEA that has
> > nothing to do with the real world.
> He never said it had nothing to do with the real world.
world, where GPS clocks keep indicating t'=t,
just like all serious clocks always did.
Odd Bodkin
Sep 30, 2021, 9:07:20 AM9/30/21
to
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> These are excepts from a 1987 book, "The comparative reception of relativity",
> which I posted recently (with link) about how relativity gained acceptance in
> many countries since 1920, as well as an explanation about the sudden
> worldwide fame of Einstein, and WHO were involved into it.
>
> For me, it's important to understand how and why the Einstein's Myth was
> created and still preserved, beyond scientific circles, in intellectual circles and
> within general public, which ignored what relativity meant.
And why is this adulation among the general public an issue for you?
> These are excepts from a 1987 book, "The comparative reception of relativity",
> which I posted recently (with link) about how relativity gained acceptance in
> many countries since 1920, as well as an explanation about the sudden
> worldwide fame of Einstein, and WHO were involved into it.
>
> For me, it's important to understand how and why the Einstein's Myth was
> created and still preserved, beyond scientific circles, in intellectual circles and
> within general public, which ignored what relativity meant.
Physicists don’t care, why should you? What is it about this mythos in the
*general public* such a whipping boy for you?
>
> NOTE: And, IMO, establishment had/has everything to gain by managing
> general public as a herd of indoctrinated retarded on global affairs
> concerning globalization, political and military power, technology, money
> and a wide range of cultural and social issues. The more misinformed the
> general public, the better for the elite to dominate without questions.
worship. They do that all by themselves.
Now you’re compounding a hatred for public adulation with a strong dollop
of conspiracy theory. You feeling ok?
>
> I mention several critical topics in recent history. Think about disinformation:
>
> - WWII and atomic bombs.
> - Korea, Cold War and space rush.
> - Eisenhower and warning about MIC
> - Vietnam, JFK + Beatles, Apollo missions.
> - Nixon, gold, 1973 oil crisis, Carter, Iran, Reagan
> - USSR disintegration, NWO, Irak, Clinton
> - 9/11, Bush, Patriot Act, Manning-WikiLeaks , NSA-Snowden
> - 2008 global financial crisis, Obama-Trump-Biden, Israel-Iran, Russia
> - Brexit, cryptocurrency, China, COVID, ....
>
> And the sheeple keep obeying and struggling to survive.
>
> But Einstein is always proven right, even when he's wrong. Obey.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Odd Bodkin
Sep 30, 2021, 9:07:21 AM9/30/21
to
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I like this part:
> ..............
> On an excursion to Toledo in 1923, Einstein asked Ortega y Gasset how an
> ABSTRACT IDEA like relativity could be of interest to the masses. Ortega
> thought the mass appeal had to do with the conjunction of a new
> cosmological theory with the post-World War I loss of faith in European
> society: "In such a circumstance there appeared your work, in which
> laws are promulgated for the stars, which obey them. The human
> masses have always perceived astronomical phenomena as religious.
> ..............
OK, yes, the general populace runs with an idea and distorts it. This is
> I like this part:
> ..............
> On an excursion to Toledo in 1923, Einstein asked Ortega y Gasset how an
> ABSTRACT IDEA like relativity could be of interest to the masses. Ortega
> thought the mass appeal had to do with the conjunction of a new
> cosmological theory with the post-World War I loss of faith in European
> society: "In such a circumstance there appeared your work, in which
> laws are promulgated for the stars, which obey them. The human
> masses have always perceived astronomical phenomena as religious.
> ..............
not new. So what’s the concern?
>
> At least, he admitted to Ortega y Gasset: Relativity is an ABSTRACT IDEA that has
> nothing to do with the real world.
with reality. Same for quantum mechanical spin. So, for that matter, does
the “invisible hand” of capitalism, another abstract idea. As do many other
abstract ideas, such as neoclassicism, bioethics, and gross national
product.
>
> Even the retarded wondered why people was SO STUPID then (and now).
>
Dono.
Sep 30, 2021, 10:56:24 AM9/30/21
to
On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 9:12:23 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz brainfarted:
> I mention several critical topics in recent history. Think about disinformation:
>
> - WWII and atomic bombs.
> - Korea, Cold War and space rush.
> - Eisenhower and warning about MIC
> - Vietnam, JFK + Beatles, Apollo missions.
> - Nixon, gold, 1973 oil crisis, Carter, Iran, Reagan
> - USSR disintegration, NWO, Irak, Clinton
> - 9/11, Bush, Patriot Act, Manning-WikiLeaks , NSA-Snowden
> - 2008 global financial crisis, Obama-Trump-Biden, Israel-Iran, Russia
> - Brexit, cryptocurrency, China, COVID, ....
Nurse,
Lunatic asylum patient Richard Hertz has another conniption, bring the straightjacket and the water hose.
> I mention several critical topics in recent history. Think about disinformation:
>
> - WWII and atomic bombs.
> - Korea, Cold War and space rush.
> - Eisenhower and warning about MIC
> - Vietnam, JFK + Beatles, Apollo missions.
> - Nixon, gold, 1973 oil crisis, Carter, Iran, Reagan
> - USSR disintegration, NWO, Irak, Clinton
> - 9/11, Bush, Patriot Act, Manning-WikiLeaks , NSA-Snowden
> - 2008 global financial crisis, Obama-Trump-Biden, Israel-Iran, Russia
> - Brexit, cryptocurrency, China, COVID, ....
Lunatic asylum patient Richard Hertz has another conniption, bring the straightjacket and the water hose.
>
> But Einstein is always proven right
Yep, every time. And you get to eat shit. Every time.
> But Einstein is always proven right
Odd Bodkin
Sep 30, 2021, 11:25:33 AM9/30/21
to
voice of authority, without ever understanding it, which is impossible
because no one understands it.” This is the religious incantation
invocation. But of course, it’s not impossible and even amateur woodworkers
understand it and no one needs to just swallow it, because all it takes is
some dedicated reading time. Of course, the bitching propagandist just
mutters under his breath that he has no time or interest to read any of
that stuff.
Laziness is not a rationale for being “forced” into swallowing anything.
Maciej Wozniak
Sep 30, 2021, 1:52:00 PM9/30/21
to
On Thursday, 30 September 2021 at 17:25:33 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 9:12:23 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz brainfarted:
> >
> >> I mention several critical topics in recent history. Think about disinformation:
> >>
> >> - WWII and atomic bombs.
> >> - Korea, Cold War and space rush.
> >> - Eisenhower and warning about MIC
> >> - Vietnam, JFK + Beatles, Apollo missions.
> >> - Nixon, gold, 1973 oil crisis, Carter, Iran, Reagan
> >> - USSR disintegration, NWO, Irak, Clinton
> >> - 9/11, Bush, Patriot Act, Manning-WikiLeaks , NSA-Snowden
> >> - 2008 global financial crisis, Obama-Trump-Biden, Israel-Iran, Russia
> >> - Brexit, cryptocurrency, China, COVID, ....
> >
> > Nurse,
> >
> > Lunatic asylum patient Richard Hertz has another conniption, bring the
> > straightjacket and the water hose.
> >>
> >
> >> But Einstein is always proven right
> >
> > Yep, every time. And you get to eat shit. Every time.
> >
> The story usually is “People are asked to just swallow it as true on the
> voice of authority, without ever understanding it, which is impossible
And it's a bullshit; your authority isn't asking about
> Dono. <eggy20...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 29, 2021 at 9:12:23 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz brainfarted:
> >
> >> I mention several critical topics in recent history. Think about disinformation:
> >>
> >> - WWII and atomic bombs.
> >> - Korea, Cold War and space rush.
> >> - Eisenhower and warning about MIC
> >> - Vietnam, JFK + Beatles, Apollo missions.
> >> - Nixon, gold, 1973 oil crisis, Carter, Iran, Reagan
> >> - USSR disintegration, NWO, Irak, Clinton
> >> - 9/11, Bush, Patriot Act, Manning-WikiLeaks , NSA-Snowden
> >> - 2008 global financial crisis, Obama-Trump-Biden, Israel-Iran, Russia
> >> - Brexit, cryptocurrency, China, COVID, ....
> >
> > Nurse,
> >
> > Lunatic asylum patient Richard Hertz has another conniption, bring the
> > straightjacket and the water hose.
> >>
> >
> >> But Einstein is always proven right
> >
> > Yep, every time. And you get to eat shit. Every time.
> >
> The story usually is “People are asked to just swallow it as true on the
> voice of authority, without ever understanding it, which is impossible
anything, it just screams "You're FORCED!!!!!!!
We're THE COMMUNITY OF PHYSICISTS!!!!"
Richard Hertz
Sep 30, 2021, 7:25:08 PM9/30/21
to
My last thought on this topic:
Politics and bankers made Einstein famous because they identified with him 100%.
Not difficult to imagine what happened: "Hey, this guy is parroting about a lot of shit and he managed
that skilled physicists bought his shit, almost without questioning him. He has the values that we endorse,
so we have to make him member of our club. He can get as a foot on science and the fuckers working in it.
Welcome, Albert. Let me tell you about the privileges of belonging. Do you like to travel?
Politics and bankers made Einstein famous because they identified with him 100%.
Not difficult to imagine what happened: "Hey, this guy is parroting about a lot of shit and he managed
that skilled physicists bought his shit, almost without questioning him. He has the values that we endorse,
so we have to make him member of our club. He can get as a foot on science and the fuckers working in it.
Welcome, Albert. Let me tell you about the privileges of belonging. Do you like to travel?
Python
Sep 30, 2021, 7:34:41 PM9/30/21
to
Michael Moroney
Sep 30, 2021, 7:47:25 PM9/30/21
to
On 9/30/2021 7:25 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> My last thought on this topic:
Like all your other thoughts, this one is wrong, also.
> My last thought on this topic:
>
> Politics and bankers made Einstein famous because they identified with him 100%.
The fame really does irk you, doesn't it.
> Politics and bankers made Einstein famous because they identified with him 100%.
Einstein became famous because he made a rather outlandish prediction
that light will bend, and by how much, and it can be seen during an
eclipse, and he was correct. The media (not scientists, not
politicians, not bankers) made him into a celebrity.
>
> Not difficult to imagine what happened:
You mean not to difficult for your runaway imagination to come up with
> Not difficult to imagine what happened:
that crap.
Paul Alsing
Sep 30, 2021, 8:50:13 PM9/30/21
to
On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 4:25:08 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> My last thought on this topic:
Well, we all know that THIS statement is a lie...
> My last thought on this topic:
> Politics and bankers made Einstein famous because they identified with him 100%.
Dono.
Sep 30, 2021, 9:17:48 PM9/30/21
to
On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 4:25:08 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz brainfarted:
> My last thought on this topic:
>
> Politics and bankers made Einstein famous because they identified with him 100%.
You need your meds, whacko
>
> Politics and bankers made Einstein famous because they identified with him 100%.
Richard Hertz
Sep 30, 2021, 10:50:15 PM9/30/21
to
On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 8:47:25 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
<snip>
> Einstein became famous because he made a rather outlandish prediction
> that light will bend, and by how much, and it can be seen during an
> eclipse, and he was correct. The media (not scientists, not
> politicians, not bankers) made him into a celebrity.
No, no, no! Moroney. As usual, you get it all wrong.
It's not that "he made a rather outlandish prediction that light will bend, and by how much".
He did that in 1911, when he plagiarized von Soldner 100% with the newtonian value of 0.85",
which made him a laughing stock for everyone, as with the other 2 points in his paper.
He changed it to 2x the 1911 on his Nov.18, 1915 paper, so nobody could keep saying, by then, that he was a fake copycat.
And made sure to sync with Eddington (the homo conscience objector at WWI) and the England part
of the masonry that was paying his salary for doing nothing at Berlin.
As in any crime, follow the money.
If Germany and UK were at war until Nov. 11, 1918, and a formal state of war between both persisted until the signing of
the Treaty of Versailles with Germany on 28 June 1919, tell me why:
1) If any communication between British and Germans was considered an Act of Treason, with death penalty, how come
Eddington and Einstein communicated (by third parties), so Eddington could prepare his 29 May 1919 expedition?
An expedition like that required more than 6-8 months to get the permits, money and logistic to travel to Africa, which
put an start date around Sep. 1918 (full live fire by then).
2) How come, in effort to RE-WRITE such dark history, many films (documentaries, Einstein and Eddington movie, etc.) and
articles were made to FIT dates and/or provide excuses for Eddington actions?
3) How come this article of Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment
exists right now (I'm reading it), where the dates and purposes were accommodated to FIT the narrative?. I quote:
"One of the first considerations of gravitational deflection of light was published in 1801, when Johann Georg von Soldner
pointed out that Newtonian gravity predicts that starlight will be deflected when it passes near a massive object. Initially,
in a paper published in 1911, Einstein had incorrectly calculated that the amount of light deflection was the same as the
Newtonian value."
...........
"Eddington's interest in general relativity began in 1916, during World War I, when he read papers by Einstein (presented in
Berlin, Germany, in 1915), which had been sent by the neutral Dutch physicist Willem de Sitter to the Royal Astronomical
Society in Britain." NOTE: THIS WAS FORBIDDEN BY LAW IN UK!
............
"Following the return of the expeditions, the results were presented by Eddington to the Royal Society of London,[2] and,
after some DELIBERATIONS, were accepted. Widespread newspaper coverage of the results led to worldwide fame for
Einstein and his theories."
.............
Wartime conscription in Britain was introduced in 1917. At the age of 34, Eddington was eligible to be drafted into the
military, but his exemption from this was obtained by his university on the grounds of national interest.
NOTE: An exemption for an astronomer had grounds of national interest, when hundred of scientists had died by then?
This exemption was later appealed by the War Ministry, and at a series of hearings in JUNE and JULY 1918, Eddington,
who was a Quaker, stated that he was a conscientious objector, based on religious grounds.[9] At the final hearing, the
Astronomer Royal, Frank Watson Dyson, supported the exemption by PROPOSING that Eddington undertake an EXPEDITION
to observe the total eclipse in May the following year to test Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. (NOTE: WHAT?).
The appeal board granted a TWELVE months extension for Eddington to do so. Although this extension was rendered MOOT
by the signing of the Armistice in November, ending the war, the expedition went ahead as planned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See how HISTORY IS RE-WRITTEN? GIVE ME A BREAK, PLEASE!
Any of you, educated adult, draw your own conclusions. Mine are obvious and negative about the "manufactured history".
Go!
<snip>
> Einstein became famous because he made a rather outlandish prediction
> that light will bend, and by how much, and it can be seen during an
> eclipse, and he was correct. The media (not scientists, not
> politicians, not bankers) made him into a celebrity.
It's not that "he made a rather outlandish prediction that light will bend, and by how much".
He did that in 1911, when he plagiarized von Soldner 100% with the newtonian value of 0.85",
which made him a laughing stock for everyone, as with the other 2 points in his paper.
He changed it to 2x the 1911 on his Nov.18, 1915 paper, so nobody could keep saying, by then, that he was a fake copycat.
And made sure to sync with Eddington (the homo conscience objector at WWI) and the England part
of the masonry that was paying his salary for doing nothing at Berlin.
As in any crime, follow the money.
If Germany and UK were at war until Nov. 11, 1918, and a formal state of war between both persisted until the signing of
the Treaty of Versailles with Germany on 28 June 1919, tell me why:
1) If any communication between British and Germans was considered an Act of Treason, with death penalty, how come
Eddington and Einstein communicated (by third parties), so Eddington could prepare his 29 May 1919 expedition?
An expedition like that required more than 6-8 months to get the permits, money and logistic to travel to Africa, which
put an start date around Sep. 1918 (full live fire by then).
2) How come, in effort to RE-WRITE such dark history, many films (documentaries, Einstein and Eddington movie, etc.) and
articles were made to FIT dates and/or provide excuses for Eddington actions?
3) How come this article of Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment
exists right now (I'm reading it), where the dates and purposes were accommodated to FIT the narrative?. I quote:
"One of the first considerations of gravitational deflection of light was published in 1801, when Johann Georg von Soldner
pointed out that Newtonian gravity predicts that starlight will be deflected when it passes near a massive object. Initially,
in a paper published in 1911, Einstein had incorrectly calculated that the amount of light deflection was the same as the
Newtonian value."
...........
"Eddington's interest in general relativity began in 1916, during World War I, when he read papers by Einstein (presented in
Berlin, Germany, in 1915), which had been sent by the neutral Dutch physicist Willem de Sitter to the Royal Astronomical
Society in Britain." NOTE: THIS WAS FORBIDDEN BY LAW IN UK!
............
"Following the return of the expeditions, the results were presented by Eddington to the Royal Society of London,[2] and,
after some DELIBERATIONS, were accepted. Widespread newspaper coverage of the results led to worldwide fame for
Einstein and his theories."
.............
Wartime conscription in Britain was introduced in 1917. At the age of 34, Eddington was eligible to be drafted into the
military, but his exemption from this was obtained by his university on the grounds of national interest.
NOTE: An exemption for an astronomer had grounds of national interest, when hundred of scientists had died by then?
This exemption was later appealed by the War Ministry, and at a series of hearings in JUNE and JULY 1918, Eddington,
who was a Quaker, stated that he was a conscientious objector, based on religious grounds.[9] At the final hearing, the
Astronomer Royal, Frank Watson Dyson, supported the exemption by PROPOSING that Eddington undertake an EXPEDITION
to observe the total eclipse in May the following year to test Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. (NOTE: WHAT?).
The appeal board granted a TWELVE months extension for Eddington to do so. Although this extension was rendered MOOT
by the signing of the Armistice in November, ending the war, the expedition went ahead as planned.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
See how HISTORY IS RE-WRITTEN? GIVE ME A BREAK, PLEASE!
Any of you, educated adult, draw your own conclusions. Mine are obvious and negative about the "manufactured history".
Go!
Michael Moroney
Oct 1, 2021, 1:55:33 AM10/1/21
to
On 9/30/2021 10:50 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 8:47:25 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Einstein became famous because he made a rather outlandish prediction
>> that light will bend, and by how much, and it can be seen during an
>> eclipse, and he was correct. The media (not scientists, not
>> politicians, not bankers) made him into a celebrity.
>
> No, no, no! Moroney. As usual, you get it all wrong.
Nope, once again you respond with revisionist history which is wrong.
> On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 8:47:25 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Einstein became famous because he made a rather outlandish prediction
>> that light will bend, and by how much, and it can be seen during an
>> eclipse, and he was correct. The media (not scientists, not
>> politicians, not bankers) made him into a celebrity.
>
> No, no, no! Moroney. As usual, you get it all wrong.
> It's not that "he made a rather outlandish prediction that light will bend, and by how much".
>
> He did that in 1911, when he plagiarized von Soldner 100% with the newtonian value of 0.85",
thing out for himself? Anyway, his prediction was later revealed to be a
mistake.
> which made him a laughing stock for everyone,
current theory wouldn't be laughed at. Maybe if the reason for the
incorrect prediction/calculation was a real bonehead move, THAT could be
worth a chuckle (but not laughingstock worthy) once Einstein corrected
it, and they found out the boneheadedness of the mistake, if any.
> as with the other 2 points in his paper.
>
> He changed it to 2x the 1911 on his Nov.18, 1915 paper, so nobody could keep saying, by then, that he was a fake copycat.
the correct value. Revisionism.
> As in any crime, follow the money.
>
> If Germany and UK were at war until Nov. 11, 1918, and a formal state of war between both persisted until the signing of
> the Treaty of Versailles with Germany on 28 June 1919, tell me why:
>
> 1) If any communication between British and Germans was considered an Act of Treason, with death penalty, how come
> Eddington and Einstein communicated (by third parties), so Eddington could prepare his 29 May 1919 expedition?
Is that the crime of which you spoke?
> If Germany and UK were at war until Nov. 11, 1918, and a formal state of war between both persisted until the signing of
> the Treaty of Versailles with Germany on 28 June 1919, tell me why:
>
> 1) If any communication between British and Germans was considered an Act of Treason, with death penalty, how come
> Eddington and Einstein communicated (by third parties), so Eddington could prepare his 29 May 1919 expedition?
It seems the answer was that two pacifists considered science to be more
important than the war. The devil is in the details of this "treason"
of discussing science. If I was in the UK and mom in Germany, I would
be executed if I write her a letter saying I missed her and I love her?
> An expedition like that required more than 6-8 months to get the permits, money and logistic to travel to Africa, which
> put an start date around Sep. 1918 (full live fire by then).
Dyson (cleverly) proposed and Eddington was granted a 1 year exemption
from service if Eddington (and Dyson) performed an expedition to observe
the eclipse. So the expedition was known and above board as of July
1918. 10 months to prepare. The only issue now is the "death penalty"
(really?) communication between Einstein and Eddington.
Aside: What was the body count of mothers and children executed for
writing each other, between England and Germany?
>
> 2) How come, in effort to RE-WRITE
Rewrite what? Again your mouth foam has accumulated so that it has
> 2) How come, in effort to RE-WRITE
blinded you.
> such dark history, many films (documentaries, Einstein and Eddington movie, etc.) and
> articles were made to FIT dates and/or provide excuses for Eddington actions?
was able to be pulled off so quickly after the war?
>
> 3) How come this article of Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment
> exists right now (I'm reading it), where the dates and purposes were accommodated to FIT the narrative?.
Where?
> 3) How come this article of Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddington_experiment
> exists right now (I'm reading it), where the dates and purposes were accommodated to FIT the narrative?.
> I quote:
>
> "One of the first considerations of gravitational deflection of light was published in 1801, when Johann Georg von Soldner
> pointed out that Newtonian gravity predicts that starlight will be deflected when it passes near a massive object. Initially,
> in a paper published in 1911, Einstein had incorrectly calculated that the amount of light deflection was the same as the
> Newtonian value."
> ...........
> "Eddington's interest in general relativity began in 1916, during World War I, when he read papers by Einstein (presented in
> Berlin, Germany, in 1915), which had been sent by the neutral Dutch physicist Willem de Sitter to the Royal Astronomical
> Society in Britain." NOTE: THIS WAS FORBIDDEN BY LAW IN UK!
> ............
> "Following the return of the expeditions, the results were presented by Eddington to the Royal Society of London,[2] and,
> after some DELIBERATIONS, were accepted. Widespread newspaper coverage of the results led to worldwide fame for
> Einstein and his theories."
> .............
> Wartime conscription in Britain was introduced in 1917. At the age of 34, Eddington was eligible to be drafted into the
> military, but his exemption from this was obtained by his university on the grounds of national interest.
>
> NOTE: An exemption for an astronomer had grounds of national interest, when hundred of scientists had died by then?
dept. appealed his objector status) but he got a year exemption.
>
> This exemption was later appealed by the War Ministry, and at a series of hearings in JUNE and JULY 1918, Eddington,
> who was a Quaker, stated that he was a conscientious objector, based on religious grounds.[9] At the final hearing, the
> Astronomer Royal, Frank Watson Dyson, supported the exemption by PROPOSING that Eddington undertake an EXPEDITION
> to observe the total eclipse in May the following year to test Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. (NOTE: WHAT?).
>
> The appeal board granted a TWELVE months extension for Eddington to do so. Although this extension was rendered MOOT
> by the signing of the Armistice in November, ending the war, the expedition went ahead as planned.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> See how HISTORY IS RE-WRITTEN? GIVE ME A BREAK, PLEASE!
Where was history rewritten? The reason for the temporary exemption was
> This exemption was later appealed by the War Ministry, and at a series of hearings in JUNE and JULY 1918, Eddington,
> who was a Quaker, stated that he was a conscientious objector, based on religious grounds.[9] At the final hearing, the
> Astronomer Royal, Frank Watson Dyson, supported the exemption by PROPOSING that Eddington undertake an EXPEDITION
> to observe the total eclipse in May the following year to test Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. (NOTE: WHAT?).
>
> The appeal board granted a TWELVE months extension for Eddington to do so. Although this extension was rendered MOOT
> by the signing of the Armistice in November, ending the war, the expedition went ahead as planned.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> See how HISTORY IS RE-WRITTEN? GIVE ME A BREAK, PLEASE!
bizarre, but the war dept. did apparently see that science which
couldn't wait was worth doing without one soldier for a year, especially
a soldier who, as a pacifist, would likely would have done a rather poor
job at shooting Germans.
>
> Any of you, educated adult, draw your own conclusions.
My conclusion is, as it has been, is that you are a mouth-foaming crank.
> Any of you, educated adult, draw your own conclusions.
Paul B. Andersen
Oct 1, 2021, 4:40:46 AM10/1/21
to
Den 01.10.2021 04:50, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 8:47:25 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Einstein became famous because he made a rather outlandish prediction
>> that light will bend, and by how much, and it can be seen during an
>> eclipse, and he was correct. The media (not scientists, not
>> politicians, not bankers) made him into a celebrity.
>
> No, no, no! Moroney. As usual, you get it all wrong.
>
> It's not that "he made a rather outlandish prediction that light will bend, and by how much".
>
> He did that in 1911, when he plagiarized von Soldner 100% with the newtonian value of 0.85",
> which made him a laughing stock for everyone, as with the other 2 points in his paper.
But I hardly think that anybody laughed at it,
because nobody knew it was wrong before Einstein
gave the correct solution in 1915.
>
> He changed it to 2x the 1911 on his Nov.18, 1915 paper, so nobody could keep saying, by then, that he was a fake copycat.
GR's predictions for deflection of EM-radiation have
proven to be in accordance with the measured values
within the precision of the measurements.
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
Your opinion about Einstein is of little interest.
And what errors Einstein might have done in his
life doesn't change the fact that no experiment
has falsified GR. A lot of experiments have confirmed GR.
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
The hallmark of a crank is that he trust his own belief
more than the experimental evidence that prove him wrong.
What do you do?
>
> And made sure to sync with Eddington (the homo conscience objector at WWI) and the England part
> of the masonry that was paying his salary for doing nothing at Berlin.
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Odd Bodkin
Oct 1, 2021, 9:29:35 AM10/1/21
to
regardless of veracity, just to put those words in the wind. It’s
propagandist pollution, a form of information vandalism, and those who do
it have the same mental maturity as testosterone- and alcohol-fueled
joyriders who take baseball bats after street-side mailboxes. You may get
the same giggle fits out of what you’re doing as those infantile joyriders,
but to adults it looks idiotic, pointless, and deliberately destructive for
its own sake.
If you like saying things just to get a rise out of people, so you will be
remembered after you can’t say anything anymore.
Richard Hertz
Oct 1, 2021, 12:04:51 PM10/1/21
to
On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 5:40:46 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
<snip>
> > He did that in 1911, when he plagiarized von Soldner 100% with the newtonian value of 0.85",
> > which made him a laughing stock for everyone, as with the other 2 points in his paper.
> It's well known that Einstein's 1911 paper is wrong.
> But I hardly think that anybody laughed at it, because nobody knew it was wrong before Einstein
> gave the correct solution in 1915.
Nor even Eddington between 1915 and 1919, Paul. And because of that, you'll find (if search in depth)
it's very curious that Eddington had the WRITTEN WORD from Einstein's 1915 GRT of a deflection of
1.7" while the EQUATION showed the 1911 value of 0.85". And this persisted until corrections in 1920.
Then, is that Eddington took a risk to prove Einstein STATEMENT OF 1.75" only, when printed equations
from 1916 to 1920 WERE similar to 1911? And did Eddington cooked his results (as he was accused) to
avoid prison if he failed in his expedition? These two interesting questions about Eddington are addressed
in the following links but, anyway, Eddington should have known better that Einstein's 1916 equations
CONTRADICTED Einstein's 1916 statement about the amount of deflection: 0.85" vs. 1.7" in the same paper,
and for years!
1) https://www.americanscientist.org/article/judging-einstein
2) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/andp.202100203
From 2), I extract this:
Incidentally, Einstein's 1916 Annalen paper was also marred by a printer's error. On its last page, Einstein asserted
that “a light ray going past the Sun undergoes a deflection of 1.7′′,[2] but the relevant Equation (74) gave the angle
of deflection WRONG BY A FACTOR OF 2, that is, as 𝜅𝑀/4𝜋Δ with 𝜅=8𝜋𝐾/𝑐2, where K is the gravitational constant,
M the Sun's mass and Δ its radius.
When asked about this error in 1920 by Carl Runge, Einstein wrote in response: “You are completely right with your
correction. This error does indeed originally appear in my Annalen paper. It has already been rectified, however, in
Teubner's collected edition Das Relativitätsprinzip.”[15] Indeed, inspection of the reprint of Einstein's Annalen paper
in the third edition of ref. [16] from 1920 reveals that its Equation (74) (as well as the associated Equation (70a)) has
been emended, and there the correct value of 𝜅𝑀/2𝜋Δ was given.
NOTE: So, for 4 years, a WRONG EQUATION was going around contradicting the 1.7" statement. But what happened
with Eddington and Einstein in those years? What value was pursuing Eddington in 1919? (1911 or 1916 value?).
And, I have to add the FEAR that Eddington had IF HE FAILED. Not for nothing, accusations on him for cooking data
happened within astronomers community.
I quote from 1)
Another suitable eclipse would occur in 1919, and although in 1915 there was no immediate hope for peace, the British
Astronomer Royal, Frank Dyson, began to lay plans (no doubt at Eddington's prompting) for an expedition to photograph
the event. Eddington, of course, was eager to lead such an expedition but worried that his uncertain standing with the
authorities might cause difficulties for the project. Then, in a stroke of genius, Dyson wrote a carefully worded letter to
officialdom. In response, the government notified Eddington that he was lucky so far in having avoided prison, and that
HIS ONLY HOPE OF REMAINING THAT WAY was to lead Dyson's expedition, whether Eddington liked it or not!
Eddington dutifully bowed to the hoped-for ultimatum.
.....................
Many months later, back in England, Eddington pondered the inconsistent results. Einstein's theory predicted a displacement
of 1.75 arcseconds, but none of the experiments was in perfect agreement with the theory. The usable photos from Principe
showed an average difference of 1.61±0.30 arcseconds, the astrograph in Brazil indicated a deflection of about 0.93 arcseconds (depending on how one weighted the individual spoiled photos), and the little 10-centimeter telescope gave a result of 1.98±0.12 arcseconds.
.....................
Eventually, Eddington, after much discussion with Dyson, suggested an overall measurement of 1.64 arcseconds, which he took
to be in pretty good agreement with Einstein, but he also gave the separate results from each telescope so others might weight
them as they saw fit. Moreover, Dyson offered to send exact contact copies of the original photographic glass plates to anyone
who wished to make their own measurements, which should have gone far to refute the OCCASIONAL allegation that Eddington
HAD COOKED THE RESULTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: A homosexual man (there were strong penalties, remember 1953 Turing's history), facing prison for "coward in war times"
was or not an easy prey for the establishment that had prepared a HUGE MACHINERY of propaganda after his POSITIVE
expedition? I would say: YES! Eddington would sell his soul to the devil to avoid TWICE the probability of being in prison (1.7" and
his homosexuality). I always regret what U.K. made people suffer for this condition, but I never can forget what happened with
the poor Turing 40 years later. UK abolished homosexuality penalties only by 1972, I have to make you remember, and that the
hypocrites made a courier stamp and "forgave" him after 60 years past his death. Now, Paul, talk to me about NOT TRUE that
history is RE-WRITTEN at convenience of those in power.
Finally, what REALLY did Eddington measured?
<snip>
> > He did that in 1911, when he plagiarized von Soldner 100% with the newtonian value of 0.85",
> > which made him a laughing stock for everyone, as with the other 2 points in his paper.
> It's well known that Einstein's 1911 paper is wrong.
> But I hardly think that anybody laughed at it, because nobody knew it was wrong before Einstein
> gave the correct solution in 1915.
it's very curious that Eddington had the WRITTEN WORD from Einstein's 1915 GRT of a deflection of
1.7" while the EQUATION showed the 1911 value of 0.85". And this persisted until corrections in 1920.
Then, is that Eddington took a risk to prove Einstein STATEMENT OF 1.75" only, when printed equations
from 1916 to 1920 WERE similar to 1911? And did Eddington cooked his results (as he was accused) to
avoid prison if he failed in his expedition? These two interesting questions about Eddington are addressed
in the following links but, anyway, Eddington should have known better that Einstein's 1916 equations
CONTRADICTED Einstein's 1916 statement about the amount of deflection: 0.85" vs. 1.7" in the same paper,
and for years!
1) https://www.americanscientist.org/article/judging-einstein
2) https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/andp.202100203
From 2), I extract this:
Incidentally, Einstein's 1916 Annalen paper was also marred by a printer's error. On its last page, Einstein asserted
that “a light ray going past the Sun undergoes a deflection of 1.7′′,[2] but the relevant Equation (74) gave the angle
of deflection WRONG BY A FACTOR OF 2, that is, as 𝜅𝑀/4𝜋Δ with 𝜅=8𝜋𝐾/𝑐2, where K is the gravitational constant,
M the Sun's mass and Δ its radius.
When asked about this error in 1920 by Carl Runge, Einstein wrote in response: “You are completely right with your
correction. This error does indeed originally appear in my Annalen paper. It has already been rectified, however, in
Teubner's collected edition Das Relativitätsprinzip.”[15] Indeed, inspection of the reprint of Einstein's Annalen paper
in the third edition of ref. [16] from 1920 reveals that its Equation (74) (as well as the associated Equation (70a)) has
been emended, and there the correct value of 𝜅𝑀/2𝜋Δ was given.
NOTE: So, for 4 years, a WRONG EQUATION was going around contradicting the 1.7" statement. But what happened
with Eddington and Einstein in those years? What value was pursuing Eddington in 1919? (1911 or 1916 value?).
And, I have to add the FEAR that Eddington had IF HE FAILED. Not for nothing, accusations on him for cooking data
happened within astronomers community.
I quote from 1)
Another suitable eclipse would occur in 1919, and although in 1915 there was no immediate hope for peace, the British
Astronomer Royal, Frank Dyson, began to lay plans (no doubt at Eddington's prompting) for an expedition to photograph
the event. Eddington, of course, was eager to lead such an expedition but worried that his uncertain standing with the
authorities might cause difficulties for the project. Then, in a stroke of genius, Dyson wrote a carefully worded letter to
officialdom. In response, the government notified Eddington that he was lucky so far in having avoided prison, and that
HIS ONLY HOPE OF REMAINING THAT WAY was to lead Dyson's expedition, whether Eddington liked it or not!
Eddington dutifully bowed to the hoped-for ultimatum.
.....................
Many months later, back in England, Eddington pondered the inconsistent results. Einstein's theory predicted a displacement
of 1.75 arcseconds, but none of the experiments was in perfect agreement with the theory. The usable photos from Principe
showed an average difference of 1.61±0.30 arcseconds, the astrograph in Brazil indicated a deflection of about 0.93 arcseconds (depending on how one weighted the individual spoiled photos), and the little 10-centimeter telescope gave a result of 1.98±0.12 arcseconds.
.....................
Eventually, Eddington, after much discussion with Dyson, suggested an overall measurement of 1.64 arcseconds, which he took
to be in pretty good agreement with Einstein, but he also gave the separate results from each telescope so others might weight
them as they saw fit. Moreover, Dyson offered to send exact contact copies of the original photographic glass plates to anyone
who wished to make their own measurements, which should have gone far to refute the OCCASIONAL allegation that Eddington
HAD COOKED THE RESULTS.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTE: A homosexual man (there were strong penalties, remember 1953 Turing's history), facing prison for "coward in war times"
was or not an easy prey for the establishment that had prepared a HUGE MACHINERY of propaganda after his POSITIVE
expedition? I would say: YES! Eddington would sell his soul to the devil to avoid TWICE the probability of being in prison (1.7" and
his homosexuality). I always regret what U.K. made people suffer for this condition, but I never can forget what happened with
the poor Turing 40 years later. UK abolished homosexuality penalties only by 1972, I have to make you remember, and that the
hypocrites made a courier stamp and "forgave" him after 60 years past his death. Now, Paul, talk to me about NOT TRUE that
history is RE-WRITTEN at convenience of those in power.
Finally, what REALLY did Eddington measured?
Dono.
Oct 1, 2021, 12:11:35 PM10/1/21
to
On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 9:04:51 AM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz ate shit:
> Finally, what REALLY did Eddington measured?
Eat shit, crank : https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.00343
> Finally, what REALLY did Eddington measured?
Richard Hertz
Oct 1, 2021, 12:12:38 PM10/1/21
to
Bla bla bla bla.... is a way of living at Argentina. So, I think that you would fit perfectly
within this society.
Your only problem would be your deep lack of humor. Argentinians have made humor
the NATIONAL SCIENCE, by default. It's used in politics, economy, social sciences, etc.
as a main mechanism to agree, disagree, justify, etc.
You should understand better the sarcasm of my post. I never thought that any part be true, Bodkin.
But, that's me: a person who likes irony and sarcasm, and hate people who lives/lived parroting around,
no matter what the subject is (relativity, your science, etc.).
Odd Bodkin
Oct 1, 2021, 12:44:30 PM10/1/21
to
but you, are you as funny as you think you are?
Speaking of irony, don’t assume that just because YOU don’t understand a
subject well, that no one else does either. When you say someone is
parroting, that means that the person is repeating something they do not
understand. So far, the only one parroting physics here is you.
Richard Hertz
Oct 1, 2021, 1:27:38 PM10/1/21
to
Also, I understand much more than what you are conceding to me, in hard sciences as well as in philosophy, etc.
But, everyone is rightly entitled to have a self-perception, isn't it, Bodkin? Like you, as some kind of supreme thinker.
Odd Bodkin
Oct 1, 2021, 2:24:37 PM10/1/21
to
whether anybody else thought you were as funny as you think you are.
As for me, I have no illusions about being a “supreme thinker”. I’m a
woodworker. I’ve read some physics. (Not just histories and biographies,
real physics.) I try not to talk about things I know little about. Unlike
some people who think they’re being funny.
Richard Hertz
Oct 1, 2021, 3:37:00 PM10/1/21
to
On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 3:24:37 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> As for me, I have no illusions about being a “supreme thinker”. I’m a
> woodworker. I’ve read some physics. (Not just histories and biographies,
> real physics.) I try not to talk about things I know little about. Unlike
> some people who think they’re being funny.
Bodkin, I read not only biographies and history of many people at many fields and time,
which is just a HOBBY.
Meanwhile, I've study physics (2 years, and left it puking) and engineering (EE + 2 Master degrees),
worked in research, design and construction of several systems and devices, many of them state
of the art by the time (also heavy stuff in defense systems), as well as MANY complex devices
since I was 14 y.o. I've read more books and articles than anyone here living twice their age.
But, except in the above paragraph, I'm not going around showing off nor I have websites where
I would post my work, because I DON'T NEED IT. I don't like people who promote themselves with
their personal propaganda. My work spoke by itself, and I had due recognition for it in its time.
We are playing a game here, and there is no prize. It's just another hobby for me, but many here act
as IF their lives depend on the sustainability of their "forbidden to challenge" credence.
Well, I find it funny, not tragic. And I have a good time enervating their belief with credible sources
(which I always reference with a link, for fact-check), and poking them just where it hurts more:
relativity and Einstein.
I tried to amplify the scope of my mocks to other fields, only to receive critics that this forum is only
for relativity (1905 and 1915). So I followed those rules, but 95% don't like it. I'm sorry but.......
<snip>
> As for me, I have no illusions about being a “supreme thinker”. I’m a
> woodworker. I’ve read some physics. (Not just histories and biographies,
> real physics.) I try not to talk about things I know little about. Unlike
> some people who think they’re being funny.
which is just a HOBBY.
Meanwhile, I've study physics (2 years, and left it puking) and engineering (EE + 2 Master degrees),
worked in research, design and construction of several systems and devices, many of them state
of the art by the time (also heavy stuff in defense systems), as well as MANY complex devices
since I was 14 y.o. I've read more books and articles than anyone here living twice their age.
But, except in the above paragraph, I'm not going around showing off nor I have websites where
I would post my work, because I DON'T NEED IT. I don't like people who promote themselves with
their personal propaganda. My work spoke by itself, and I had due recognition for it in its time.
We are playing a game here, and there is no prize. It's just another hobby for me, but many here act
as IF their lives depend on the sustainability of their "forbidden to challenge" credence.
Well, I find it funny, not tragic. And I have a good time enervating their belief with credible sources
(which I always reference with a link, for fact-check), and poking them just where it hurts more:
relativity and Einstein.
I tried to amplify the scope of my mocks to other fields, only to receive critics that this forum is only
for relativity (1905 and 1915). So I followed those rules, but 95% don't like it. I'm sorry but.......
Maciej Wozniak
Oct 1, 2021, 4:01:52 PM10/1/21
to
Python
Oct 1, 2021, 5:22:02 PM10/1/21
to
Richard Hertz wrote:
> My work spoke by itself
Definitely.
> My work spoke by itself
Definitely.
Michael Moroney
Oct 2, 2021, 12:00:15 AM10/2/21
to
On 10/1/2021 3:36 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 3:24:37 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> As for me, I have no illusions about being a “supreme thinker”. I’m a
>> woodworker. I’ve read some physics. (Not just histories and biographies,
>> real physics.) I try not to talk about things I know little about. Unlike
>> some people who think they’re being funny.
>
> Bodkin, I read not only biographies and history of many people at many fields and time,
> which is just a HOBBY.
You don't just read it, you misinterpret it or manipulate it.
> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 3:24:37 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> As for me, I have no illusions about being a “supreme thinker”. I’m a
>> woodworker. I’ve read some physics. (Not just histories and biographies,
>> real physics.) I try not to talk about things I know little about. Unlike
>> some people who think they’re being funny.
>
> Bodkin, I read not only biographies and history of many people at many fields and time,
> which is just a HOBBY.
>
> Meanwhile, I've study physics (2 years, and left it puking) and engineering (EE + 2 Master degrees),
> worked in research, design and construction of several systems and devices, many of them state
> of the art by the time (also heavy stuff in defense systems), as well as MANY complex devices
> since I was 14 y.o. I've read more books and articles than anyone here living twice their age.
Too bad that you didn't understand them. I bet Odd has understood more
> Meanwhile, I've study physics (2 years, and left it puking) and engineering (EE + 2 Master degrees),
> worked in research, design and construction of several systems and devices, many of them state
> of the art by the time (also heavy stuff in defense systems), as well as MANY complex devices
> since I was 14 y.o. I've read more books and articles than anyone here living twice their age.
books than you ever have, even if he has read fewer (which I have my
doubts).
>
> But, except in the above paragraph, I'm not going around showing off nor I have websites where
> I would post my work, because I DON'T NEED IT. I don't like people who promote themselves with
> their personal propaganda. My work spoke by itself, and I had due recognition for it in its time.
Yet you come here and huff and puff and try to intimidate others with
> But, except in the above paragraph, I'm not going around showing off nor I have websites where
> I would post my work, because I DON'T NEED IT. I don't like people who promote themselves with
> their personal propaganda. My work spoke by itself, and I had due recognition for it in its time.
bold talk.
>
> We are playing a game here, and there is no prize. It's just another hobby for me, but many here act
> as IF their lives depend on the sustainability of their "forbidden to challenge" credence.
No, nothing forbidden. You are simply wrong almost all the time, and get
> We are playing a game here, and there is no prize. It's just another hobby for me, but many here act
> as IF their lives depend on the sustainability of their "forbidden to challenge" credence.
called for it.
>
> Well, I find it funny, not tragic. And I have a good time enervating their belief with credible sources
> (which I always reference with a link, for fact-check),
And you always misinterpret them.
> Well, I find it funny, not tragic. And I have a good time enervating their belief with credible sources
> (which I always reference with a link, for fact-check),
> and poking them just where it hurts more:
> relativity and Einstein.
yourself produce.
Michael Moroney
Oct 2, 2021, 12:28:07 AM10/2/21
to
On 10/1/2021 12:04 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 5:40:46 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Then, is that Eddington took a risk to prove Einstein STATEMENT OF 1.75" only, when printed equations
> from 1916 to 1920 WERE similar to 1911?
Einstein predicted 1.75" in 1915.
> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 5:40:46 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> Then, is that Eddington took a risk to prove Einstein STATEMENT OF 1.75" only, when printed equations
> from 1916 to 1920 WERE similar to 1911?
> And did Eddington cooked his results (as he was accused) to
> avoid prison if he failed in his expedition?
GR prediction. If he didn't go at all, sure.
> These two interesting questions about Eddington are addressed
> in the following links but, anyway, Eddington should have known better that Einstein's 1916 equations
> CONTRADICTED Einstein's 1916 statement about the amount of deflection: 0.85" vs. 1.7" in the same paper,
> and for years!
> NOTE: So, for 4 years, a WRONG EQUATION was going around contradicting the 1.7" statement. But what happened
> with Eddington and Einstein in those years? What value was pursuing Eddington in 1919? (1911 or 1916 value?).
> And, I have to add the FEAR that Eddington had IF HE FAILED. Not for nothing, accusations on him for cooking data
> happened within astronomers community.
>
> I quote from 1)
>
> Another suitable eclipse would occur in 1919, and although in 1915 there was no immediate hope for peace, the British
> Astronomer Royal, Frank Dyson, began to lay plans (no doubt at Eddington's prompting) for an expedition to photograph
> the event. Eddington, of course, was eager to lead such an expedition but worried that his uncertain standing with the
> authorities might cause difficulties for the project. Then, in a stroke of genius, Dyson wrote a carefully worded letter to
> officialdom. In response, the government notified Eddington that he was lucky so far in having avoided prison, and that
> HIS ONLY HOPE OF REMAINING THAT WAY was to lead Dyson's expedition, whether Eddington liked it or not!
> Eddington dutifully bowed to the hoped-for ultimatum.
Lead the expedition, not validate the GR 1.75" prediction.
> I quote from 1)
>
> Another suitable eclipse would occur in 1919, and although in 1915 there was no immediate hope for peace, the British
> Astronomer Royal, Frank Dyson, began to lay plans (no doubt at Eddington's prompting) for an expedition to photograph
> the event. Eddington, of course, was eager to lead such an expedition but worried that his uncertain standing with the
> authorities might cause difficulties for the project. Then, in a stroke of genius, Dyson wrote a carefully worded letter to
> officialdom. In response, the government notified Eddington that he was lucky so far in having avoided prison, and that
> HIS ONLY HOPE OF REMAINING THAT WAY was to lead Dyson's expedition, whether Eddington liked it or not!
> Eddington dutifully bowed to the hoped-for ultimatum.
> .....................
> Many months later, back in England, Eddington pondered the inconsistent results. Einstein's theory predicted a displacement
> of 1.75 arcseconds, but none of the experiments was in perfect agreement with the theory. The usable photos from Principe
> showed an average difference of 1.61±0.30 arcseconds, the astrograph in Brazil indicated a deflection of about 0.93 arcseconds (depending on how one weighted the individual spoiled photos), and the little 10-centimeter telescope gave a result of 1.98±0.12 arcseconds.
> .....................
> Eventually, Eddington, after much discussion with Dyson, suggested an overall measurement of 1.64 arcseconds, which he took
> to be in pretty good agreement with Einstein, but he also gave the separate results from each telescope so others might weight
> them as they saw fit. Moreover, Dyson offered to send exact contact copies of the original photographic glass plates to anyone
> who wished to make their own measurements, which should have gone far to refute the OCCASIONAL allegation that Eddington
> HAD COOKED THE RESULTS.
It is known the results were of low quality.
> Many months later, back in England, Eddington pondered the inconsistent results. Einstein's theory predicted a displacement
> of 1.75 arcseconds, but none of the experiments was in perfect agreement with the theory. The usable photos from Principe
> showed an average difference of 1.61±0.30 arcseconds, the astrograph in Brazil indicated a deflection of about 0.93 arcseconds (depending on how one weighted the individual spoiled photos), and the little 10-centimeter telescope gave a result of 1.98±0.12 arcseconds.
> .....................
> Eventually, Eddington, after much discussion with Dyson, suggested an overall measurement of 1.64 arcseconds, which he took
> to be in pretty good agreement with Einstein, but he also gave the separate results from each telescope so others might weight
> them as they saw fit. Moreover, Dyson offered to send exact contact copies of the original photographic glass plates to anyone
> who wished to make their own measurements, which should have gone far to refute the OCCASIONAL allegation that Eddington
> HAD COOKED THE RESULTS.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> NOTE: A homosexual man (there were strong penalties, remember 1953 Turing's history), facing prison for "coward in war times"
> was or not an easy prey for the establishment that had prepared a HUGE MACHINERY of propaganda after his POSITIVE
> expedition? I would say: YES! Eddington would sell his soul to the devil to avoid TWICE the probability of being in prison (1.7" and
> his homosexuality).
Why would he go to jail if he disproved the GR 1.75" prediction?
>
> NOTE: A homosexual man (there were strong penalties, remember 1953 Turing's history), facing prison for "coward in war times"
> was or not an easy prey for the establishment that had prepared a HUGE MACHINERY of propaganda after his POSITIVE
> expedition? I would say: YES! Eddington would sell his soul to the devil to avoid TWICE the probability of being in prison (1.7" and
> his homosexuality).
Richard Hertz
Oct 2, 2021, 12:49:53 AM10/2/21
to
On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 1:28:07 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
> Why would he go to jail if he disproved the GR 1.75" prediction?
Or a prediction close to that value. Any value except 1911 value, which Einstein fudged. I just post something about that.
The idea, IMO, was that he MUST PROVE Einstein was right, sort of. (and von Soldner wrong). The propaganda machinery
was ready at both sides of the Atlantic waiting for a positive acknowledgment of Einstein's theory. You know what happened
after the expedition, and how the press exploded. Why and by whom?
Dono.
Oct 2, 2021, 1:04:36 AM10/2/21
to
On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 9:49:53 PM UTC-7, crank Richard Hertz swallowed hard:
> The idea, IMO, was that he MUST PROVE Einstein was right, sort of. (and von Soldner wrong).
Well, we know that Soldner was wrong, that Einstein was right and that Richard Hertz eats shit.
> The idea, IMO, was that he MUST PROVE Einstein was right, sort of. (and von Soldner wrong).
Michael Moroney
Oct 2, 2021, 1:36:31 AM10/2/21
to
On 10/2/2021 12:49 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 1:28:07 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Why would he go to jail if he disproved the GR 1.75" prediction?
>
> Or a prediction close to that value. Any value except 1911 value, which Einstein fudged. I just post something about that.
>
> The idea, IMO, was that he MUST PROVE Einstein was right, sort of. (and von Soldner wrong).
Why? Why proving von Soldner/1911 prediction would be punishable?
> On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 1:28:07 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Why would he go to jail if he disproved the GR 1.75" prediction?
>
> Or a prediction close to that value. Any value except 1911 value, which Einstein fudged. I just post something about that.
>
> The idea, IMO, was that he MUST PROVE Einstein was right, sort of. (and von Soldner wrong).
> The propaganda machinery
What propaganda machinery was that? The war propaganda? Sure it was big
but was much more interested in saying the Germans/British were evil nun
rapists or whatever.
> was ready at both sides of the Atlantic waiting for a positive acknowledgment of Einstein's theory.
> You know what happened
> after the expedition, and how the press exploded.
conventional physics on its head with a bizarre prediction being shown
correct. (to the general public: The sun's gravity bends light! To a
more educated physicist/astronomer: The sun's gravity bends light more
than Newton's prediction, and Einstein's prediction was (sort of)* correct!)
* Low quality but usable data.
> Why and by whom?
Because the press loves celebrities and celebrities sell newspapers! By
whom? The newspapers, of course.
They started with a stuffy physics story. How can they report such a
boring story in a way to sell papers? Well, scientists only discovered
it because this rather unknown physicist predicted it and other
physicists wanted to test it. Hey, lets make this unknown physicist a
HERO for predicting it correctly! Heroes sell papers!!!
Still true today: Why is Paris Hilton famous? Why was Princess Diana
literally hounded to death?
Maciej Wozniak
Oct 2, 2021, 2:24:21 AM10/2/21
to
On Saturday, 2 October 2021 at 07:36:31 UTC+2, Michael Moroney wrote:
> On 10/2/2021 12:49 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 1:28:07 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Why would he go to jail if he disproved the GR 1.75" prediction?
> >
> > Or a prediction close to that value. Any value except 1911 value, which Einstein fudged. I just post something about that.
> >
> > The idea, IMO, was that he MUST PROVE Einstein was right, sort of. (and von Soldner wrong).
> Why? Why proving von Soldner/1911 prediction would be punishable?
>
> > The propaganda machinery
>
> What propaganda machinery was that? The war propaganda? Sure it was big
> but was much more interested in saying the Germans/British were evil nun
> rapists or whatever.
> > was ready at both sides of the Atlantic waiting for a positive acknowledgment of Einstein's theory.
> So not the war propaganda machine? What propaganda machine again?
> > You know what happened
> > after the expedition, and how the press exploded.
> Because they just love piling on a celebrity. Einstein stands
> conventional physics on its head with a bizarre prediction being shown
> correct. (to the general public: The sun's gravity bends light!
Of course, according to your idiot guru light rays are [in vacuum]
> On 10/2/2021 12:49 AM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 1:28:07 AM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> >> Why would he go to jail if he disproved the GR 1.75" prediction?
> >
> > Or a prediction close to that value. Any value except 1911 value, which Einstein fudged. I just post something about that.
> >
> > The idea, IMO, was that he MUST PROVE Einstein was right, sort of. (and von Soldner wrong).
> Why? Why proving von Soldner/1911 prediction would be punishable?
>
> > The propaganda machinery
>
> What propaganda machinery was that? The war propaganda? Sure it was big
> but was much more interested in saying the Germans/British were evil nun
> rapists or whatever.
> > was ready at both sides of the Atlantic waiting for a positive acknowledgment of Einstein's theory.
> So not the war propaganda machine? What propaganda machine again?
> > You know what happened
> > after the expedition, and how the press exploded.
> Because they just love piling on a celebrity. Einstein stands
> conventional physics on its head with a bizarre prediction being shown
> correct. (to the general public: The sun's gravity bends light!
following straight lines; one of the core assumption of his spacetime
curvature nonsenses.
Richard Hertz
Oct 2, 2021, 3:26:21 AM10/2/21
to
These are some excerpts from a PRO-RELATIVITY author (so, don't worry), but it contains
some interesting excerpts.
By the way, Einstein NEVER SHOWED how he calculated his 1915 formula, which DOUBLED
the value of his 1911 formula by including light path contraction along with time dilation.
Formula: YES; Derivation: NO, THANKS.
The 1919 measurement of the deflection of light
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/32/12/124001/ampdf
Nevertheless, comparison of the two eclipse plates with a comparison plate taken at the
Oxford University telescope before the expedition yielded results corresponding to a
deflection at the limb of the Sun (grazing ray) of 1.60 ± 0.31 arcseconds for Eddington
expedition. For the Sobral expedition, eight usable plates showing at least seven stars each
yielded a grazing deflection of 1.98 ± 0.12 arcseconds.
.............
Before this, Einstein had been an obscure Swiss/German scientist, well-known and
respected within the small European community of physicists, but largely unknown
to the outside world. With the announcement of the measurement of the deflection
at the Royal Society of London on November 6, 1919, aided by some adroit advance
publicity engineered by Eddington, all this changed, and Einstein and his theory became
immediate sensations. The Einstein aura has not abated since.
..............
Other questions were raised, however, about the results of Eddington’s
measurements. Given the poor quality of the data, did they really support Einstein or
not? Was it proper for Eddington to discard the data from the second telescope at the
Sobral site? More recently, some [6] have wondered whether Eddington’s enthusiasm
for the theory of general relativity caused him to select or massage the data to get
the desired result.
.................
The amount
of bending agreed with the prediction of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, but
disagreed with the prediction of Newton’s gravitational theory. The announcement
made Einstein an international celebrity and brought the strange concepts and complex
mathematics of general relativity before the general public.
..............
This failure to “seal the deal” empirically with general relativity may have been
partially responsible for the steady decline of scientific interest in the theory from the
1920s onward. It wasn’t until the 1960s that a renaissance in experimental relativity
occurred, spurred by astronomical discoveries that heralded a central role for the theory
in astrophysics, by advances in precision technology that would provide tools to measure
the minuscule effects predicted by the theory, and by the space program, which would
provide a new platform for many tests.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From this site (Charles Lane Poor, 1927)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1927JRASC..21..225L
******************************************************
"Unfortunately, Einstein does not give the numerical calculations in detail; he gives merely the formula
and the result, stating that by carrying out the calculation;
"According to this, a ray of light going past
the sun undergoes a deflection of 1.70".
This is exactly double the value given in 1911, and this doubling value has given rise to many speculations,
and to many and varied explanations, on the part of the relativists".
An inspection on the formulas, which Einstein used, shows exactly what he did and how he derived the result".
********* END OF QUOTE FROM POOR ************
Charles Lane Poor obituary:
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/112/3/279/2603732
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lane_Poor
some interesting excerpts.
By the way, Einstein NEVER SHOWED how he calculated his 1915 formula, which DOUBLED
the value of his 1911 formula by including light path contraction along with time dilation.
Formula: YES; Derivation: NO, THANKS.
The 1919 measurement of the deflection of light
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/32/12/124001/ampdf
Nevertheless, comparison of the two eclipse plates with a comparison plate taken at the
Oxford University telescope before the expedition yielded results corresponding to a
deflection at the limb of the Sun (grazing ray) of 1.60 ± 0.31 arcseconds for Eddington
expedition. For the Sobral expedition, eight usable plates showing at least seven stars each
yielded a grazing deflection of 1.98 ± 0.12 arcseconds.
.............
Before this, Einstein had been an obscure Swiss/German scientist, well-known and
respected within the small European community of physicists, but largely unknown
to the outside world. With the announcement of the measurement of the deflection
at the Royal Society of London on November 6, 1919, aided by some adroit advance
publicity engineered by Eddington, all this changed, and Einstein and his theory became
immediate sensations. The Einstein aura has not abated since.
..............
Other questions were raised, however, about the results of Eddington’s
measurements. Given the poor quality of the data, did they really support Einstein or
not? Was it proper for Eddington to discard the data from the second telescope at the
Sobral site? More recently, some [6] have wondered whether Eddington’s enthusiasm
for the theory of general relativity caused him to select or massage the data to get
the desired result.
.................
The amount
of bending agreed with the prediction of Einstein’s general theory of relativity, but
disagreed with the prediction of Newton’s gravitational theory. The announcement
made Einstein an international celebrity and brought the strange concepts and complex
mathematics of general relativity before the general public.
..............
This failure to “seal the deal” empirically with general relativity may have been
partially responsible for the steady decline of scientific interest in the theory from the
1920s onward. It wasn’t until the 1960s that a renaissance in experimental relativity
occurred, spurred by astronomical discoveries that heralded a central role for the theory
in astrophysics, by advances in precision technology that would provide tools to measure
the minuscule effects predicted by the theory, and by the space program, which would
provide a new platform for many tests.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From this site (Charles Lane Poor, 1927)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1927JRASC..21..225L
******************************************************
"Unfortunately, Einstein does not give the numerical calculations in detail; he gives merely the formula
and the result, stating that by carrying out the calculation;
"According to this, a ray of light going past
the sun undergoes a deflection of 1.70".
This is exactly double the value given in 1911, and this doubling value has given rise to many speculations,
and to many and varied explanations, on the part of the relativists".
An inspection on the formulas, which Einstein used, shows exactly what he did and how he derived the result".
********* END OF QUOTE FROM POOR ************
Charles Lane Poor obituary:
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/112/3/279/2603732
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lane_Poor
Dono.
Oct 2, 2021, 7:55:44 AM10/2/21
to
On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 12:26:21 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz lied:
> Charles Lane Poor obituary:
> https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/112/3/279/2603732
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lane_Poor
You are such a stupid liar, Dick:
"Charles Lane Poor (January 18, 1866 – September 27, 1951) was an American astronomy professor, noted for his opposition to Einstein's theory of relativity. "
> Charles Lane Poor obituary:
> https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/112/3/279/2603732
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lane_Poor
"Charles Lane Poor (January 18, 1866 – September 27, 1951) was an American astronomy professor, noted for his opposition to Einstein's theory of relativity. "
J.C. Bosa
Oct 2, 2021, 10:14:24 AM10/2/21
to
quantum with macro scale. Kiss my ass.
J.C. Bosa
Oct 2, 2021, 10:17:42 AM10/2/21
to
Michael Moroney wrote:
>> and poking them just where it hurts more:
>> relativity and Einstein.
>
> Nothing hurts. I am here for the entertainment that cranks such as
> yourself produce.
kiss my ass, then.
>> and poking them just where it hurts more:
>> relativity and Einstein.
>
> Nothing hurts. I am here for the entertainment that cranks such as
> yourself produce.
Branimir Maksimovic
Oct 2, 2021, 10:51:50 AM10/2/21
to
there is no ?FO"uRTH :P
--
7-77-777
Evil Sinner!
to weak you should be meek, and you should brainfuck stronger
https://github.com/rofl0r/chaos-pp
Branimir Maksimovic
Oct 2, 2021, 10:52:19 AM10/2/21
to
On 2021-10-02, J.C. Bosa <e...@sdf.cs> wrote:
Richard Hertz
Oct 2, 2021, 12:00:54 PM10/2/21
to
IMBECILE REPTILIAN LIFEFORM DONO:
OF COURSE HE WAS ANTIRELATIVITY (GR). I POSTED THE WIKIPEDIA LINK MYSELF, MOT..FU..ER
I'M HONEST, NOT LIKE WHAT YOU ARE, SCUMBAG.
HE WAS A RESPECTED ASTRONOMER. I ALSO POSTED A LINK OF A PRO-GR WITH DOUBTS.
YOU ARE AN INCORRIGIBLE LIAR, DECEIVER AND COPYCAT. NO WONDER THAT YOU HAVE WET DREAMS WITH THE FUCKER.
***********************
> > Charles Lane Poor obituary:
> > https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/112/3/279/2603732
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lane_Poor
OF COURSE HE WAS ANTIRELATIVITY (GR). I POSTED THE WIKIPEDIA LINK MYSELF, MOT..FU..ER
I'M HONEST, NOT LIKE WHAT YOU ARE, SCUMBAG.
HE WAS A RESPECTED ASTRONOMER. I ALSO POSTED A LINK OF A PRO-GR WITH DOUBTS.
YOU ARE AN INCORRIGIBLE LIAR, DECEIVER AND COPYCAT. NO WONDER THAT YOU HAVE WET DREAMS WITH THE FUCKER.
***********************
> > Charles Lane Poor obituary:
> > https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/112/3/279/2603732
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lane_Poor
> "Charles Lane Poor (January 18, 1866 – September 27, 1951) was an American astronomy professor, noted for
> his opposition to Einstein's theory of relativity. "
REPEAT THIS PART:
> his opposition to Einstein's theory of relativity. "
Michael Moroney
Oct 2, 2021, 1:23:26 PM10/2/21
to
On 10/2/2021 12:00 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> IMBECILE REPTILIAN LIFEFORM DONO:
>
> OF COURSE HE WAS ANTIRELATIVITY (GR). I POSTED THE WIKIPEDIA LINK MYSELF, MOT..FU..ER
Liar. You wrote this lie:
> IMBECILE REPTILIAN LIFEFORM DONO:
>
> OF COURSE HE WAS ANTIRELATIVITY (GR). I POSTED THE WIKIPEDIA LINK MYSELF, MOT..FU..ER
Dono.
Oct 2, 2021, 1:38:57 PM10/2/21
to
On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 9:00:54 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz was caught lying:
> > > Charles Lane Poor obituary:
> > > https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/112/3/279/2603732
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lane_Poor
> > "Charles Lane Poor (January 18, 1866 – September 27, 1951) was an American astronomy professor, noted for
> > his opposition to Einstein's theory of relativity. "
> REPEAT THIS PART:
> These are some excerpts from a PRO-RELATIVITY author (so, don't worry), but it contains
> some interesting excerpts.
So, you are proving yourself a liar
> > > Charles Lane Poor obituary:
> > > https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/112/3/279/2603732
> > >
> > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lane_Poor
> > "Charles Lane Poor (January 18, 1866 – September 27, 1951) was an American astronomy professor, noted for
> > his opposition to Einstein's theory of relativity. "
> REPEAT THIS PART:
> These are some excerpts from a PRO-RELATIVITY author (so, don't worry), but it contains
> some interesting excerpts.
Richard Hertz
Oct 2, 2021, 1:41:53 PM10/2/21
to
On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 2:23:26 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
<snip>
<snip>
> Liar. You wrote this lie:
> >> These are some excerpts from a PRO-RELATIVITY author (so, don't worry), but it contains
> some interesting excerpts.
Moroney, once again you prove either your lack of comprehension of texts OR that you grown up AS A IDIOT!
> >> These are some excerpts from a PRO-RELATIVITY author (so, don't worry), but it contains
> some interesting excerpts.
Read again what I posted:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These are some excerpts from a PRO-RELATIVITY author (so, don't worry), but it contains
some interesting excerpts.
The 1919 measurement of the deflection of light
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/0264-9381/32/12/124001/ampdf
bla bla bla bla bla ....... FROM AUTHOR 1!
-----------------------------------------------
NOTE: AT THE END, I INTRODUCE THE 2nd. AUTHOR, ALONG WITH LINKS TO HIS PAPER AND TO WIKIPEDIA!
From this site (Charles Lane Poor, 1927)
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/pdf/1927JRASC..21..225L
******************************************************
"Unfortunately, Einstein does not give the numerical calculations in detail; he gives merely the formula
and the result, stating that by carrying out the calculation;
"According to this, a ray of light going past
the sun undergoes a deflection of 1.70".
This is exactly double the value given in 1911, and this doubling value has given rise to many speculations,
and to many and varied explanations, on the part of the relativists".
An inspection on the formulas, which Einstein used, shows exactly what he did and how he derived the result".
********* END OF QUOTE FROM POOR ************
Charles Lane Poor obituary:
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/112/3/279/2603732
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lane_Poor
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/112/3/279/2603732
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lane_Poor
DO YOU UNDERSTAND NOW, MORONEY? I quoted TWO AUTHORS: The first (unnamed, but you can get it by the link)
is PRO-GR. The 2nd. author (Poor, 1927) is ANTI-GR, and I posted the Wiki link which says it on the first lines!
Now, go to tell LIARS to your fucking family members, not me. IDIOT!
Michael Moroney
Oct 2, 2021, 2:35:36 PM10/2/21
to
On 10/2/2021 1:41 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 2:23:26 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Liar. You wrote this lie:
>
>>>> These are some excerpts from a PRO-RELATIVITY author (so, don't worry), but it contains
>> some interesting excerpts.
>
> Moroney, once again you prove either your lack of comprehension of texts OR that you grown up AS A IDIOT!
>
> Read again what I posted:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> These are some excerpts from a PRO-RELATIVITY author (so, don't worry), but it contains
> some interesting excerpts.
SOME excerpts. Meaning more than one. So you post the "pro-relativity"
> On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 2:23:26 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Liar. You wrote this lie:
>
>>>> These are some excerpts from a PRO-RELATIVITY author (so, don't worry), but it contains
>> some interesting excerpts.
>
> Moroney, once again you prove either your lack of comprehension of texts OR that you grown up AS A IDIOT!
>
> Read again what I posted:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> These are some excerpts from a PRO-RELATIVITY author (so, don't worry), but it contains
> some interesting excerpts.
author and then the excerpt from anti-relativity author Poor's.
So you lied.
Richard Hertz
Oct 2, 2021, 3:01:45 PM10/2/21
to
I don't need to lie. Relativists have to do it all the time to survive.
I just find contradictions and falseties and show them here, so people like you can shove the proofs deep into your ....
Anyways, it's funny to fight against a herd of retarded.
Dono.
Oct 2, 2021, 3:18:43 PM10/2/21
to
On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 12:01:45 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 3:35:36 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 10/2/2021 1:41 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > These are some excerpts from a PRO-RELATIVITY author (so, don't worry), but it contains
> > > some interesting excerpts.
> > SOME excerpts. Meaning more than one. So you post the "pro-relativity"
> > author and then the excerpt from anti-relativity author Poor's.
> >
> > So you lied.
> Well, it's useless to continue this discussion with an IDIOT!
>
> I need to lie all the time to survive.
> On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 3:35:36 PM UTC-3, Michael Moroney wrote:
> > On 10/2/2021 1:41 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > > These are some excerpts from a PRO-RELATIVITY author (so, don't worry), but it contains
> > > some interesting excerpts.
> > SOME excerpts. Meaning more than one. So you post the "pro-relativity"
> > author and then the excerpt from anti-relativity author Poor's.
> >
> > So you lied.
> Well, it's useless to continue this discussion with an IDIOT!
>
More like you lie all the time in order to entertain us, village clown
Paul Alsing
Oct 2, 2021, 3:23:49 PM10/2/21
to
On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 12:01:45 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Well, it's useless to continue this discussion with an IDIOT!
This is a very good reason why no one should ever respond to your crap!
JanPB
Oct 2, 2021, 3:41:16 PM10/2/21
to
On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 4:25:08 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
> My last thought on this topic:
relativity, physicists did not really consider Einstein really a top scientist
until the Compton experiment. Also, the Nobel was awarded for his work
on the photoelectric effect, not relativity.
Here is an example of you being both an idiot AND very offensive:
"buy shit" just because you hate Einstein and also "almost without
questioning", again because you have an Einstein Derangement Syndrome.
See a doctor, fix your life, man. This is an illness, it might indicate
something serious going on, medically.
--
Jan
> My last thought on this topic:
>
> Politics and bankers made Einstein famous because they identified with him 100%.
>
> Not difficult to imagine what happened: "Hey, this guy is parroting about a lot of shit and he managed
> that skilled physicists bought his shit, almost without questioning him. He has the values that we endorse,
> so we have to make him member of our club. He can get as a foot on science and the fuckers working in it.
>
> Welcome, Albert. Let me tell you about the privileges of belonging. Do you like to travel?
You are making it all up. While the media and the public got fixated on
> Politics and bankers made Einstein famous because they identified with him 100%.
>
> Not difficult to imagine what happened: "Hey, this guy is parroting about a lot of shit and he managed
> that skilled physicists bought his shit, almost without questioning him. He has the values that we endorse,
> so we have to make him member of our club. He can get as a foot on science and the fuckers working in it.
>
> Welcome, Albert. Let me tell you about the privileges of belonging. Do you like to travel?
relativity, physicists did not really consider Einstein really a top scientist
until the Compton experiment. Also, the Nobel was awarded for his work
on the photoelectric effect, not relativity.
Here is an example of you being both an idiot AND very offensive:
"he managed that skilled physicists bought his shit, almost without
questioning him".
Why do you assume that everyone except you is a moron who can
questioning him".
"buy shit" just because you hate Einstein and also "almost without
questioning", again because you have an Einstein Derangement Syndrome.
See a doctor, fix your life, man. This is an illness, it might indicate
something serious going on, medically.
--
Jan
Richard Hertz
Oct 2, 2021, 4:16:37 PM10/2/21
to
I'm a regular folk who come here to remark your mental deviations, but the irony is that retarded people like you project upon
people like me your craziness. What can I say? Just live and let live, Jan.
Although, I can't help but feeling some pity about people like you. Only a little bit, not so much.
Now, go and read how Eddington forged e
Michael Moroney
Oct 2, 2021, 4:47:21 PM10/2/21
to
On 10/2/2021 3:01 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Well, it's useless to continue this discussion with an IDIOT!
Yes, I know, I shouldn't be arguing with idiots such as yourself.
> Well, it's useless to continue this discussion with an IDIOT!
Michael Moroney
Oct 2, 2021, 5:26:23 PM10/2/21
to
On 10/2/2021 4:16 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 4:41:16 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 4:25:08 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> My last thought on this topic:
>>>
>>> Politics and bankers made Einstein famous because they identified with him 100%.
>>>
>>> Not difficult to imagine what happened: "Hey, this guy is parroting about a lot of shit and he managed
>>> that skilled physicists bought his shit, almost without questioning him. He has the values that we endorse,
>>> so we have to make him member of our club. He can get as a foot on science and the fuckers working in it.
>>>
>>> Welcome, Albert. Let me tell you about the privileges of belonging. Do you like to travel?
>> You are making it all up. While the media and the public got fixated on
>> relativity, physicists did not really consider Einstein really a top scientist
>> until the Compton experiment. Also, the Nobel was awarded for his work
>> on the photoelectric effect, not relativity.
>>
>> Here is an example of you being both an idiot AND very offensive:
>> "he managed that skilled physicists bought his shit, almost without
>> questioning him".
>> Why do you assume that everyone except you is a moron who can
>> "buy shit" just because you hate Einstein and also "almost without
>> questioning", again because you have an Einstein Derangement Syndrome.
>>
>> See a doctor, fix your life, man. This is an illness, it might indicate
>> something serious going on, medically.
>>
>> --
>> Jan
>
> Jan, mental illness is what I consider relativists have, with the time dilation and space bending credence, basis of their cult.
Of course you don't recognize your own Einstein Derangement Syndrome.
> On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 4:41:16 PM UTC-3, JanPB wrote:
>> On Thursday, September 30, 2021 at 4:25:08 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> My last thought on this topic:
>>>
>>> Politics and bankers made Einstein famous because they identified with him 100%.
>>>
>>> Not difficult to imagine what happened: "Hey, this guy is parroting about a lot of shit and he managed
>>> that skilled physicists bought his shit, almost without questioning him. He has the values that we endorse,
>>> so we have to make him member of our club. He can get as a foot on science and the fuckers working in it.
>>>
>>> Welcome, Albert. Let me tell you about the privileges of belonging. Do you like to travel?
>> You are making it all up. While the media and the public got fixated on
>> relativity, physicists did not really consider Einstein really a top scientist
>> until the Compton experiment. Also, the Nobel was awarded for his work
>> on the photoelectric effect, not relativity.
>>
>> Here is an example of you being both an idiot AND very offensive:
>> "he managed that skilled physicists bought his shit, almost without
>> questioning him".
>> Why do you assume that everyone except you is a moron who can
>> "buy shit" just because you hate Einstein and also "almost without
>> questioning", again because you have an Einstein Derangement Syndrome.
>>
>> See a doctor, fix your life, man. This is an illness, it might indicate
>> something serious going on, medically.
>>
>> --
>> Jan
>
> Jan, mental illness is what I consider relativists have, with the time dilation and space bending credence, basis of their cult.
The mentally ill almost never recognize their own illnesses, often
thinking there's something wrong with everyone else but them. Right in
that one sentence are two crank words nearly always part of EDS.
"relativist" and "cult" (when referring to Einstein's actual science,
not religious or personality cults).
> I'm a regular folk who come here to remark your mental deviations, but the irony is that retarded people like you
believing science, except for yourself, a "regular person".
> project upon
> people like me your craziness.
your own craziness onto physicists and people here responding to you.
Also projecting "mental deviations" on Jan.
Richard Hertz
Oct 2, 2021, 7:59:11 PM10/2/21
to
I'm in tears after reading this article: such passion for the truth, such commitment for his job.
Not that he was at the edge of prison for his "objection of conscience" or that he was under
pressure for the show that he had prepared, prior the expeditions, to publicize their results.
And not that the results were cooked at will. Read the original 45 pages report and learn to cook:
A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field,
from. Observations made at the Total Eclipse of iAay 29, 1919.
By Sir F. W. DYSON, F.R.S., Astronomer Royal, Prof. A. S. EDDINGTON, F.R.S., and Mr. C. DAVIDSON.
https://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/labs/documents/dyson1920.pdf
********************************************************************************************
NOW THE ARTICLE TO PROMOTE EDDINGTON AT A HIGH NEW LEVEL, AFTER 100 YEARS:
ARTHUR EDDINGTON: THE CHAMPION OF RELATIVITY
By Matthew Stanley
Published: 29th May, 2019 at 08:00
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/arthur-eddington-the-champion-of-relativity/
-------------------------------------- Excerpts ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The theory of general relativity was Albert Einstein’s masterpiece. We like to imagine him, alone in his office in November 1915, writing down those equations and changing the Universe forever. But it wasn’t one moment – he had been struggling with theory for a decade – and he wasn’t alone. Einstein needed lots of allies to revolutionise science. Most important was one British astronomer: Arthur Stanley Eddington. His name is usually connected to Einstein because he carried out the expedition that provided the first evidence relativity was true (and made Einstein famous). His contributions to relativity, though, went far beyond that experiment.
When Einstein completed his theory in 1915 Berlin, almost no one knew about it. This was because, deep into the First World War, Germany was blockaded by hundreds of miles of trenches and the Royal Navy. It was nearly impossible for scientific papers to cross the battle lines. And even if they did, British and French scientists had resolved to never engage with “enemy” science again. The horrors of the war meant that German science had become abhorred – how could the scientists who created chemical weapons ever be trusted?
Einstein, a committed pacifist, hated German militarism as much as any of the Allies, though that made little difference. His few contacts outside Germany included friends in the neutral Netherlands, one of whom decided to try to spread relativity in England. By great fortune, that letter was read by Eddington. This was lucky not just because he could understand the complicated mathematics, but because as a Quaker, he was deeply committed to pacifism and internationalism in science.
Eddington decided to dedicate himself to promoting relativity and Einstein (both still largely unknown) as a way to simultaneously advance science and show the importance of it rising above the nationalism of the war. His first task was to learn relativity himself. At this time only a handful of people understood the theory, all of whom had been able to work personally with Einstein. Eddington, on the other side of the blockade, did not have that luxury. He struggled, and with the help of occasional letters from their mutual Dutch friend, mastered it by 1918. He then had to explain it to everyone else.
He gave popular lectures on relativity to excite the public, and wrote the first full treatment of the theory in English, The Report on the Relativity Theory of Gravitation. His efforts had much wider circulation than anything that Einstein had written. Most of the first people who learned about relativity probably did so through Eddington, not Einstein.
Convincing actively anti-German scientists and laypeople would take more than just education, though, and Eddington set his sights on a spectacular confirmation of relativity. Einstein had predicted that, as Eddington put it, light had weight. This could be detected only at a total solar eclipse with the most delicate of measurements.
*********************************
Before he left, Eddington made special efforts to prepare the press for maximum exposure for Einstein after he returned from the expedition with the results. He and Dyson arranged for a series of newspaper articles over the first half of 1919 explaining the significance of relativity, Einstein, and the eclipse, so as to whet the appetite of the reading public and the scientific community. Eddington, a master storyteller, framed the test as being one between Einstein and Newton – would this upstart German dethrone the greatest English thinker of all time?
*******************************
Questions and confirmation
That initial conclusion by Dyson, Eddington, Crommelin and their teams was subsequently confirmed by many further eclipse experiments. Yet Eddington has been accused by some of mishandling the eclipse measurements. Kennefick’s title, No Shadow of a Doubt, is thus both a pun and a declaration of intent to dispel these suspicions. Kennefick discusses the criticisms in some detail. I can add a couple of brief points.
One is that Eddington had to adopt a Plan B when analysing the Príncipe data, after misfortune had forced his hand; but, in my opinion, he did nothing unreasonable.
...............................
Eddington’s preparation with the media paid off handsomely. The Times headline blared “REVOLUTION IN SCIENCE.” Newspapers around the world followed suit with ever-more dramatic coverage. Einstein himself was hard to reach (Berlin was still in revolutionary chaos), and Eddington again was the gateway through which most people learned about relativity. His lectures in Cambridge had to turn away hundreds of people.
Having successfully catapulted Einstein to worldwide fame, Eddington’s next contributions to relativity were more prosaic but no less essential. He wrote some textbooks and taught some classes. For a new theory like relativity to become part of the scientific canon, young scientists needed to be taught how to use it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- End of excerpts -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Not that he was at the edge of prison for his "objection of conscience" or that he was under
pressure for the show that he had prepared, prior the expeditions, to publicize their results.
And not that the results were cooked at will. Read the original 45 pages report and learn to cook:
A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field,
from. Observations made at the Total Eclipse of iAay 29, 1919.
By Sir F. W. DYSON, F.R.S., Astronomer Royal, Prof. A. S. EDDINGTON, F.R.S., and Mr. C. DAVIDSON.
https://w.astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/labs/documents/dyson1920.pdf
********************************************************************************************
NOW THE ARTICLE TO PROMOTE EDDINGTON AT A HIGH NEW LEVEL, AFTER 100 YEARS:
ARTHUR EDDINGTON: THE CHAMPION OF RELATIVITY
By Matthew Stanley
Published: 29th May, 2019 at 08:00
https://www.sciencefocus.com/space/arthur-eddington-the-champion-of-relativity/
-------------------------------------- Excerpts ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The theory of general relativity was Albert Einstein’s masterpiece. We like to imagine him, alone in his office in November 1915, writing down those equations and changing the Universe forever. But it wasn’t one moment – he had been struggling with theory for a decade – and he wasn’t alone. Einstein needed lots of allies to revolutionise science. Most important was one British astronomer: Arthur Stanley Eddington. His name is usually connected to Einstein because he carried out the expedition that provided the first evidence relativity was true (and made Einstein famous). His contributions to relativity, though, went far beyond that experiment.
When Einstein completed his theory in 1915 Berlin, almost no one knew about it. This was because, deep into the First World War, Germany was blockaded by hundreds of miles of trenches and the Royal Navy. It was nearly impossible for scientific papers to cross the battle lines. And even if they did, British and French scientists had resolved to never engage with “enemy” science again. The horrors of the war meant that German science had become abhorred – how could the scientists who created chemical weapons ever be trusted?
Einstein, a committed pacifist, hated German militarism as much as any of the Allies, though that made little difference. His few contacts outside Germany included friends in the neutral Netherlands, one of whom decided to try to spread relativity in England. By great fortune, that letter was read by Eddington. This was lucky not just because he could understand the complicated mathematics, but because as a Quaker, he was deeply committed to pacifism and internationalism in science.
Eddington decided to dedicate himself to promoting relativity and Einstein (both still largely unknown) as a way to simultaneously advance science and show the importance of it rising above the nationalism of the war. His first task was to learn relativity himself. At this time only a handful of people understood the theory, all of whom had been able to work personally with Einstein. Eddington, on the other side of the blockade, did not have that luxury. He struggled, and with the help of occasional letters from their mutual Dutch friend, mastered it by 1918. He then had to explain it to everyone else.
He gave popular lectures on relativity to excite the public, and wrote the first full treatment of the theory in English, The Report on the Relativity Theory of Gravitation. His efforts had much wider circulation than anything that Einstein had written. Most of the first people who learned about relativity probably did so through Eddington, not Einstein.
Convincing actively anti-German scientists and laypeople would take more than just education, though, and Eddington set his sights on a spectacular confirmation of relativity. Einstein had predicted that, as Eddington put it, light had weight. This could be detected only at a total solar eclipse with the most delicate of measurements.
*********************************
Before he left, Eddington made special efforts to prepare the press for maximum exposure for Einstein after he returned from the expedition with the results. He and Dyson arranged for a series of newspaper articles over the first half of 1919 explaining the significance of relativity, Einstein, and the eclipse, so as to whet the appetite of the reading public and the scientific community. Eddington, a master storyteller, framed the test as being one between Einstein and Newton – would this upstart German dethrone the greatest English thinker of all time?
*******************************
Questions and confirmation
That initial conclusion by Dyson, Eddington, Crommelin and their teams was subsequently confirmed by many further eclipse experiments. Yet Eddington has been accused by some of mishandling the eclipse measurements. Kennefick’s title, No Shadow of a Doubt, is thus both a pun and a declaration of intent to dispel these suspicions. Kennefick discusses the criticisms in some detail. I can add a couple of brief points.
One is that Eddington had to adopt a Plan B when analysing the Príncipe data, after misfortune had forced his hand; but, in my opinion, he did nothing unreasonable.
...............................
Eddington’s preparation with the media paid off handsomely. The Times headline blared “REVOLUTION IN SCIENCE.” Newspapers around the world followed suit with ever-more dramatic coverage. Einstein himself was hard to reach (Berlin was still in revolutionary chaos), and Eddington again was the gateway through which most people learned about relativity. His lectures in Cambridge had to turn away hundreds of people.
Having successfully catapulted Einstein to worldwide fame, Eddington’s next contributions to relativity were more prosaic but no less essential. He wrote some textbooks and taught some classes. For a new theory like relativity to become part of the scientific canon, young scientists needed to be taught how to use it.
-------------------------------------------------------------------- End of excerpts -------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dono.
Oct 2, 2021, 8:21:26 PM10/2/21
to
On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 4:59:11 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz ate shit:
> I'm in tears after reading this article: such passion for the truth, such commitment for his job.
Eat shit, crank : https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.00343
Richard Hertz
Oct 3, 2021, 12:03:28 AM10/3/21
to
About the post of the reptilian lifeform with nick Dono:
On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 9:21:26 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> Eat shit, crank : https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.00343
1) All the "calculations" were done for distances R/Rs between 2.5 and 5 (Sun radii normalized)
AND "projected" the predicted 1.75" by convenient extrapolation, for R/Rs = 1.0000000
2) This paper should be at vixra, not arxiv. The manipulation of data is quite evident. I put it sorted,
so you can see the dots in Excel (reconfigure axis for the values at 1.)
R/Rs Arcseconds
2,433 0,786
2,446 0,666
2,694 0,664
3,000 0,538
3,058 0,585
3,168 0,584
3,306 0,502
3,395 0,491
3,555 0,344
3,649 0,507
3,676 0,469
3,694 0,537
3,760 0,406
3,802 0,547
3,828 0,354
4,522 0,329
4,566 0,450
4,817 0,369
3) The sources of manipulation are:
3.1 The author himself.
3.2 FORTRAN version of NOVAS, the Naval Observatory Vector Astrometry Software package.
3.3 VizieR catalogue access tool, CDS, Strasbourg, France.
4) I'll give this constant (natural units), so you can calculate your beloved Einstein with your smartphone calculator:
Deflection = 1.75/(R/Rs) arcseconds
5) Read the 1920 book of your second master Eddington the Homo Sapiens, free of charge, from this link. Go to page 53,
"32. Deflection of a Ray of Light" and learn how to develop a formula for light deflection without any trace of GR, only
by using a modification of the formula for speed of light from 1911 paper. Dr. Poor did, and accuse Eddington (another
astronomer, living in the same epoch).
https://ia600904.us.archive.org/22/items/reportontherelat028829mbp/reportontherelat028829mbp.pdf
6) Find another job. You suck as a troll and shill, giant lizard. You didn't answer if you can see colors. Please?
On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 9:21:26 PM UTC-3, Dono. wrote:
> Eat shit, crank : https://arxiv.org/abs/1802.00343
AND "projected" the predicted 1.75" by convenient extrapolation, for R/Rs = 1.0000000
2) This paper should be at vixra, not arxiv. The manipulation of data is quite evident. I put it sorted,
so you can see the dots in Excel (reconfigure axis for the values at 1.)
R/Rs Arcseconds
2,433 0,786
2,446 0,666
2,694 0,664
3,000 0,538
3,058 0,585
3,168 0,584
3,306 0,502
3,395 0,491
3,555 0,344
3,649 0,507
3,676 0,469
3,694 0,537
3,760 0,406
3,802 0,547
3,828 0,354
4,522 0,329
4,566 0,450
4,817 0,369
3) The sources of manipulation are:
3.1 The author himself.
3.2 FORTRAN version of NOVAS, the Naval Observatory Vector Astrometry Software package.
3.3 VizieR catalogue access tool, CDS, Strasbourg, France.
4) I'll give this constant (natural units), so you can calculate your beloved Einstein with your smartphone calculator:
Deflection = 1.75/(R/Rs) arcseconds
5) Read the 1920 book of your second master Eddington the Homo Sapiens, free of charge, from this link. Go to page 53,
"32. Deflection of a Ray of Light" and learn how to develop a formula for light deflection without any trace of GR, only
by using a modification of the formula for speed of light from 1911 paper. Dr. Poor did, and accuse Eddington (another
astronomer, living in the same epoch).
https://ia600904.us.archive.org/22/items/reportontherelat028829mbp/reportontherelat028829mbp.pdf
6) Find another job. You suck as a troll and shill, giant lizard. You didn't answer if you can see colors. Please?
Dono.
Oct 3, 2021, 1:57:17 AM10/3/21
to
On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 9:03:28 PM UTC-7, Richard Hertz emitted yet another brain gart:
Dumbestfuck
The starlight deflection angle is 2r_s/R where R is the closest approach and r_s is the Schwarzschild radius of the Sun. So, the values above are legit, given the fact that R does NOT constitute the radius of the Sun (it doesn't have to be, stars farther from the Sun's circumference are better for the measurements). The paper is about optical measurements, on the other hand, VLBI experiments have reached a precision of 10^-4. Keep eating shit, odious kapo.
The starlight deflection angle is 2r_s/R where R is the closest approach and r_s is the Schwarzschild radius of the Sun. So, the values above are legit, given the fact that R does NOT constitute the radius of the Sun (it doesn't have to be, stars farther from the Sun's circumference are better for the measurements). The paper is about optical measurements, on the other hand, VLBI experiments have reached a precision of 10^-4. Keep eating shit, odious kapo.
Richard Hertz
Oct 3, 2021, 3:21:04 AM10/3/21
to
Once again, the reptilian lifeform keep living the life of an ignorant fanatic, willing to serve his masters
as he's told to do. In this pathetic attempt, the retarded egg's born lifeform choose to cite the last chant
in his credo: "I have to use Schwarzschild cause Einstein is demodeé".
Watch this, fucker: Original 1915 final paper in English and Eddington's 1920 book, about light deflection:
1) For Einstein, https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/211
Volume 6: The Berlin Years: Writings, 1914-1917 (English translation supplement) Page 199
DOC. 30 FOUNDATION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY
******** Excerpt *************************
"Carrying out the calculation, this gives
B = 2α/Δ = κM/2πΔ (74)
According to this, a ray of light going past the sun undergoes a deflexion of 1.7"; and a ray going past
the planet Jupiter a deflexion of about .02". "
******* End excerpt **********************
2) For Eddington's 1920 book "Report on the Relativity Theory of Gravitation", page 70:
******** Excerpt *************************
"Thus a ray of light travelling from -∞ to +∞ and passing at a distance R from a particle of mass m
experiences a total deflection
α = 4m/R (32.8)
For a star seen close to the limb of the sun, by (31.1) m = 147 Km, and R=sun's radius =697,000 km.
Hence
α = 1".74
It is curious to notice the occurrence of the factor 2 (mass=2m) in the dynamical analogy."
******* End excerpt **********************
SEE, RETARDED? No Schwarzschild here, at any of the two original documents. It would come 50 years after,
in your fucking mind and the one of those REWRITING HISTORY. Shove your Schwarzschild radius deep into your .......
Both fuckers, Einstein and Eddington, were playing around with variable speed of light based on Huygens index.
Einstein provided ZERO development of the formula, while Eddington tried HIS DERIVATION to verify Einstein. At
any case, the variable speed of light IS NOT ISOTROPIC and depends on the direction!
Also, ZERO use of Riemann and of CURVATURE OF SPACE. They both managed to COOK 1911 derivation.
Einstein α(1911) = 2.k.M/(Δ.c²) = 0.83 seconds of arc.
Einstein α(1915) = 4.k.M/(Δ.c²) = 1.7"
Eddington α(1919) = 4m/R = 1".74 (Eddington m = k.M/c²)
And both selected to change the coordinates, in polar form, to accommodate results.
Quoting Eddington (page 53):
"Since it is inconvenient to have the velocity of light varying
with direction, we shall slightly alter our co-ordinates. Set
r = r₁ + m (32.4)
Then, neglecting squares of m/r₁
r² = r₁² . (1 + 2m/r) "
*********
AND THE COOK IS DONE, NO SCHWARZSCHILD NEEDED. COME TO DINNER!
as he's told to do. In this pathetic attempt, the retarded egg's born lifeform choose to cite the last chant
in his credo: "I have to use Schwarzschild cause Einstein is demodeé".
Watch this, fucker: Original 1915 final paper in English and Eddington's 1920 book, about light deflection:
1) For Einstein, https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol6-trans/211
Volume 6: The Berlin Years: Writings, 1914-1917 (English translation supplement) Page 199
DOC. 30 FOUNDATION OF GENERAL RELATIVITY
******** Excerpt *************************
"Carrying out the calculation, this gives
B = 2α/Δ = κM/2πΔ (74)
According to this, a ray of light going past the sun undergoes a deflexion of 1.7"; and a ray going past
the planet Jupiter a deflexion of about .02". "
******* End excerpt **********************
2) For Eddington's 1920 book "Report on the Relativity Theory of Gravitation", page 70:
******** Excerpt *************************
"Thus a ray of light travelling from -∞ to +∞ and passing at a distance R from a particle of mass m
experiences a total deflection
α = 4m/R (32.8)
For a star seen close to the limb of the sun, by (31.1) m = 147 Km, and R=sun's radius =697,000 km.
Hence
α = 1".74
It is curious to notice the occurrence of the factor 2 (mass=2m) in the dynamical analogy."
******* End excerpt **********************
SEE, RETARDED? No Schwarzschild here, at any of the two original documents. It would come 50 years after,
in your fucking mind and the one of those REWRITING HISTORY. Shove your Schwarzschild radius deep into your .......
Both fuckers, Einstein and Eddington, were playing around with variable speed of light based on Huygens index.
Einstein provided ZERO development of the formula, while Eddington tried HIS DERIVATION to verify Einstein. At
any case, the variable speed of light IS NOT ISOTROPIC and depends on the direction!
Also, ZERO use of Riemann and of CURVATURE OF SPACE. They both managed to COOK 1911 derivation.
Einstein α(1911) = 2.k.M/(Δ.c²) = 0.83 seconds of arc.
Einstein α(1915) = 4.k.M/(Δ.c²) = 1.7"
Eddington α(1919) = 4m/R = 1".74 (Eddington m = k.M/c²)
And both selected to change the coordinates, in polar form, to accommodate results.
Quoting Eddington (page 53):
"Since it is inconvenient to have the velocity of light varying
with direction, we shall slightly alter our co-ordinates. Set
r = r₁ + m (32.4)
Then, neglecting squares of m/r₁
r² = r₁² . (1 + 2m/r) "
*********
AND THE COOK IS DONE, NO SCHWARZSCHILD NEEDED. COME TO DINNER!
Paul B. Andersen
Oct 3, 2021, 4:28:20 AM10/3/21
to
Den 01.10.2021 18:04, skrev Richard Hertz:
> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 5:40:46 AM UTC-3, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> He did that in 1911, when he plagiarized von Soldner 100% with the newtonian value of 0.85",
>>> which made him a laughing stock for everyone, as with the other 2 points in his paper.
>
>> It's well known that Einstein's 1911 paper is wrong.
>> But I hardly think that anybody laughed at it, because nobody knew it was wrong before Einstein
>> gave the correct solution in 1915.
>
> Nor even Eddington between 1915 and 1919, Paul. And because of that, you'll find (if search in depth)
> it's very curious that Eddington had the WRITTEN WORD from Einstein's 1915 GRT of a deflection of
> 1.7" while the EQUATION showed the 1911 value of 0.85". And this persisted until corrections in 1920.
Any particular reason why you snipped the following ?
GR's predictions for deflection of EM-radiation have
proven to be in accordance with the measured values
within the precision of the measurements.
HERE ARE SOME OF THE EXPERIMENTAL EVIDENCE:
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Hipparcos.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Shapiro_2004.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/GravDeflection.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/Fomalont.pdf
https://paulba.no/paper/PPN_gamma_Cassini_2.pdf
Your opinion about Einstein is of little interest.
And what errors Einstein might have done in his
life doesn't change the fact that no experiment
has falsified GR. A lot of experiments have confirmed GR.
https://paulba.no/paper/index.html
The hallmark of a crank is that he trust his own belief
more than the experimental evidence that prove him wrong.
What do you do?
Eddington's 1919 measurements are now of historical interest only.
>
> Finally, what REALLY did Eddington measured?
>
Eddington's measurements are now of historical interest only.
GR's predictions for deflection of EM-radiation are
thoroughly tested and are correct.
Your opinion is irrelevant.
Experimental evidence is what matters in physics.
GOT IT?
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/
Maciej Wozniak
Oct 3, 2021, 4:31:44 AM10/3/21
to
On Sunday, 3 October 2021 at 10:28:20 UTC+2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
> GR's predictions for deflection of EM-radiation are
> thoroughly tested and are correct.
In the meantime in the real world, however, GPS clocks
> GR's predictions for deflection of EM-radiation are
> thoroughly tested and are correct.
keep measuring t'=t, just like all serious clocks always
did.
> Your opinion is irrelevant.
> Experimental evidence is what matters in physics.
that experimental evidence is what matters in physics.
Will you, poor lying trash?
Odd Bodkin
Oct 3, 2021, 8:55:26 AM10/3/21
to
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 3:24:37 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> As for me, I have no illusions about being a “supreme thinker”. I’m a
>> woodworker. I’ve read some physics. (Not just histories and biographies,
>> real physics.) I try not to talk about things I know little about. Unlike
>> some people who think they’re being funny.
>
> Bodkin, I read not only biographies and history of many people at many fields and time,
> which is just a HOBBY.
>
> Meanwhile, I've study physics (2 years, and left it puking)
I wonder why. It could be that you didn’t find it applied enough, and so
rightfully reoriented to engineering where your values align more. It could
be that you found it incomprehensible, which left you with an unhappy
nausea at the prospect of not doing well at something. It could be that a
lot of it conflicted with your intuitions and so you just elected to
disbelieve it, in which case you are unswayed by experiment and poorly
suited for science at all.
> and engineering (EE + 2 Master degrees),
> worked in research, design and construction of several systems and
> devices, many of them state
> of the art by the time (also heavy stuff in defense systems), as well as
> MANY complex devices
> since I was 14 y.o. I've read more books and articles than anyone here
> living twice their age.
>
> But, except in the above paragraph, I'm not going around showing off nor
> I have websites where
> I would post my work, because I DON'T NEED IT. I don't like people who
> promote themselves with
> their personal propaganda. My work spoke by itself, and I had due
> recognition for it in its time.
>
> We are playing a game here, and there is no prize.
Well, correction. YOU are playing a game. Others are here for other reasons
and aren’t particularly interested in what amuses you.
> It's just another hobby for me, but many here act
> as IF their lives depend on the sustainability of their "forbidden to challenge" credence.
>
> Well, I find it funny, not tragic. And I have a good time enervating
> their belief with credible sources
> (which I always reference with a link, for fact-check), and poking them
> critics that this forum is only
> for relativity (1905 and 1915). So I followed those rules, but 95% don't
> like it. I'm sorry but.......
>
Mocking for the sake of mocking itself just isn’t very productive, and
generally casts a bad light on you, just like it’s true for the drunk that
shows up at a baseball game purely to yell at the umpire.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
> On Friday, October 1, 2021 at 3:24:37 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> As for me, I have no illusions about being a “supreme thinker”. I’m a
>> woodworker. I’ve read some physics. (Not just histories and biographies,
>> real physics.) I try not to talk about things I know little about. Unlike
>> some people who think they’re being funny.
>
> Bodkin, I read not only biographies and history of many people at many fields and time,
> which is just a HOBBY.
>
> Meanwhile, I've study physics (2 years, and left it puking)
I wonder why. It could be that you didn’t find it applied enough, and so
rightfully reoriented to engineering where your values align more. It could
be that you found it incomprehensible, which left you with an unhappy
nausea at the prospect of not doing well at something. It could be that a
lot of it conflicted with your intuitions and so you just elected to
disbelieve it, in which case you are unswayed by experiment and poorly
suited for science at all.
> and engineering (EE + 2 Master degrees),
> worked in research, design and construction of several systems and
> devices, many of them state
> of the art by the time (also heavy stuff in defense systems), as well as
> MANY complex devices
> since I was 14 y.o. I've read more books and articles than anyone here
> living twice their age.
>
> But, except in the above paragraph, I'm not going around showing off nor
> I have websites where
> I would post my work, because I DON'T NEED IT. I don't like people who
> promote themselves with
> their personal propaganda. My work spoke by itself, and I had due
> recognition for it in its time.
>
> We are playing a game here, and there is no prize.
Well, correction. YOU are playing a game. Others are here for other reasons
and aren’t particularly interested in what amuses you.
> It's just another hobby for me, but many here act
> as IF their lives depend on the sustainability of their "forbidden to challenge" credence.
>
> Well, I find it funny, not tragic. And I have a good time enervating
> their belief with credible sources
> (which I always reference with a link, for fact-check), and poking them
> just where it hurts more:
> relativity and Einstein.
>
> I tried to amplify the scope of my mocks to other fields, only to receive
> relativity and Einstein.
>
> critics that this forum is only
> for relativity (1905 and 1915). So I followed those rules, but 95% don't
> like it. I'm sorry but.......
>
Mocking for the sake of mocking itself just isn’t very productive, and
generally casts a bad light on you, just like it’s true for the drunk that
shows up at a baseball game purely to yell at the umpire.
--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Dono.
Oct 3, 2021, 10:33:50 AM10/3/21
to
On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 12:21:04 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz babbled:
> in his credo: "I have to use Schwarzschild cause Einstein is demodeé".
>
Schwarzschild and Einstein are part of the same theory: GR. Keep eating shit, Dick.
> in his credo: "I have to use Schwarzschild cause Einstein is demodeé".
>
Maciej Wozniak
Oct 3, 2021, 11:41:43 AM10/3/21
to
t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did. Keep eating shit, Dono.
Richard Hertz
Oct 3, 2021, 2:12:29 PM10/3/21
to
On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 9:55:26 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
<snip>
> > Meanwhile, I've study physics (2 years, and left it puking)
> I wonder why. It could be that you didn’t find it applied enough, and so
> rightfully reoriented to engineering where your values align more. It could
> be that you found it incomprehensible, which left you with an unhappy
> nausea at the prospect of not doing well at something. It could be that a
> lot of it conflicted with your intuitions and so you just elected to
> disbelieve it, in which case you are unswayed by experiment and poorly
> suited for science at all.
I was rather advanced for 1st. year topics and had my first rows discussing
Lorentz world with my professors, I continued to studying relativity by my own,
which I kept doing with GR and Newton's gravitation law in my 2nd. year. I had
several "friendly discussions" with relativistic oriented professors, who tried to
teach me about the relevance of relativity in the modern world (this was 1971).
Being almost 17 and with prospects of being 19 when getting my degree, I investigated
about what was for me pursuing a career in physics in that epoch. I was allowed to visit
research facilities at places surrounding college (very advanced, by the way) and
I had chances to talk with junior and senior researchers. The general idea was
that you HAD TO adhere SR to keep going, as well as to become an expert on FORTRAN
to move on with publications, but you wasn't allowed to contest any established dogma
by then, if you wanted to keep your job (and your pitiful salary). No wide reasoning at all,
and a "shut up and calculate" and "publish or perish" dogmas.
I dropped physics and began Electronic Engineering, which was advancing 1,000 times
faster that physics by then, and where NOTHING was forbidden. A pure world of R&D,
plus practical applications in society.
Modern physics and astronomy would be still in 1920 if it weren't for the guidance
and support that electronic instrumentation (plus computers) brought to them.
Also, we were changing the world from analog to digital at EVERY field.
I found much more satisfaction doing R&D in electronics than what I could have got in physics.
> Mocking for the sake of mocking itself just isn’t very productive, and
> generally casts a bad light on you, just like it’s true for the drunk that
> shows up at a baseball game purely to yell at the umpire.
To mock something requires that you know the "behind the scene" reality, as well as
a good body of knowledge (plus intelligence). Also, it requires that you are not bounded
to any real project anymore. Then, you can analyze your life, your surroundings, the histories
behind and have a "non-biased macrovision" of the entire world: science, technology,
politics, society, war and peace, secrets not told to everyone, history of the world since 3,000 BC, etc.
Then, a common pattern emerge in your head, and you realize that history repeats in cycles, with
some "aggiornements" like modification of social contracts, the evolution of middle class, etc.
And, above all, POWER.
I defined once, long time ago, the equation for POWER:
POWER = (Money you have) x (network of 1st.degree contacts you have) /(immorality you profess)
or P = M.C/I (M and C between 0 and 100 and I between 0.01 and 99.9999. Normalize M with GNP)
Apply it to you, Gates, Jobs, Tesla, Edison, Einstein, the Queen of England, Bezzo, Soros,
Maxwell, Planck, Churchill, Reagan, Putin, etc., and tell me how it works.
Also read (again, if not) "The farce of physics".
Then tell me why I shouldn't laugh at: Gell-Man, Guth, Oppenheimer, Einstein, Susskind, Rubin, to name a few.
<snip>
> > Meanwhile, I've study physics (2 years, and left it puking)
> I wonder why. It could be that you didn’t find it applied enough, and so
> rightfully reoriented to engineering where your values align more. It could
> be that you found it incomprehensible, which left you with an unhappy
> nausea at the prospect of not doing well at something. It could be that a
> lot of it conflicted with your intuitions and so you just elected to
> disbelieve it, in which case you are unswayed by experiment and poorly
> suited for science at all.
Lorentz world with my professors, I continued to studying relativity by my own,
which I kept doing with GR and Newton's gravitation law in my 2nd. year. I had
several "friendly discussions" with relativistic oriented professors, who tried to
teach me about the relevance of relativity in the modern world (this was 1971).
Being almost 17 and with prospects of being 19 when getting my degree, I investigated
about what was for me pursuing a career in physics in that epoch. I was allowed to visit
research facilities at places surrounding college (very advanced, by the way) and
I had chances to talk with junior and senior researchers. The general idea was
that you HAD TO adhere SR to keep going, as well as to become an expert on FORTRAN
to move on with publications, but you wasn't allowed to contest any established dogma
by then, if you wanted to keep your job (and your pitiful salary). No wide reasoning at all,
and a "shut up and calculate" and "publish or perish" dogmas.
I dropped physics and began Electronic Engineering, which was advancing 1,000 times
faster that physics by then, and where NOTHING was forbidden. A pure world of R&D,
plus practical applications in society.
Modern physics and astronomy would be still in 1920 if it weren't for the guidance
and support that electronic instrumentation (plus computers) brought to them.
Also, we were changing the world from analog to digital at EVERY field.
I found much more satisfaction doing R&D in electronics than what I could have got in physics.
> Mocking for the sake of mocking itself just isn’t very productive, and
> generally casts a bad light on you, just like it’s true for the drunk that
> shows up at a baseball game purely to yell at the umpire.
a good body of knowledge (plus intelligence). Also, it requires that you are not bounded
to any real project anymore. Then, you can analyze your life, your surroundings, the histories
behind and have a "non-biased macrovision" of the entire world: science, technology,
politics, society, war and peace, secrets not told to everyone, history of the world since 3,000 BC, etc.
Then, a common pattern emerge in your head, and you realize that history repeats in cycles, with
some "aggiornements" like modification of social contracts, the evolution of middle class, etc.
And, above all, POWER.
I defined once, long time ago, the equation for POWER:
POWER = (Money you have) x (network of 1st.degree contacts you have) /(immorality you profess)
or P = M.C/I (M and C between 0 and 100 and I between 0.01 and 99.9999. Normalize M with GNP)
Apply it to you, Gates, Jobs, Tesla, Edison, Einstein, the Queen of England, Bezzo, Soros,
Maxwell, Planck, Churchill, Reagan, Putin, etc., and tell me how it works.
Also read (again, if not) "The farce of physics".
Then tell me why I shouldn't laugh at: Gell-Man, Guth, Oppenheimer, Einstein, Susskind, Rubin, to name a few.
Odd Bodkin
Oct 3, 2021, 2:34:14 PM10/3/21
to
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 9:55:26 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Meanwhile, I've study physics (2 years, and left it puking)
>
>> I wonder why. It could be that you didn’t find it applied enough, and so
>> rightfully reoriented to engineering where your values align more. It could
>> be that you found it incomprehensible, which left you with an unhappy
>> nausea at the prospect of not doing well at something. It could be that a
>> lot of it conflicted with your intuitions and so you just elected to
>> disbelieve it, in which case you are unswayed by experiment and poorly
>> suited for science at all.
>
> I was rather advanced for 1st. year topics and had my first rows discussing
> Lorentz world with my professors, I continued to studying relativity by my own,
> which I kept doing with GR and Newton's gravitation law in my 2nd. year. I had
> several "friendly discussions" with relativistic oriented professors, who tried to
> teach me about the relevance of relativity in the modern world (this was 1971).
>
> Being almost 17 and with prospects of being 19 when getting my degree, I investigated
> about what was for me pursuing a career in physics in that epoch. I was allowed to visit
> research facilities at places surrounding college (very advanced, by the way) and
> I had chances to talk with junior and senior researchers. The general idea was
> that you HAD TO adhere SR to keep going, as well as to become an expert on FORTRAN
> to move on with publications, but you wasn't allowed to contest any established dogma
> by then, if you wanted to keep your job (and your pitiful salary).
This right there points to the crappy education you received. No more needs
> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 9:55:26 AM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Meanwhile, I've study physics (2 years, and left it puking)
>
>> I wonder why. It could be that you didn’t find it applied enough, and so
>> rightfully reoriented to engineering where your values align more. It could
>> be that you found it incomprehensible, which left you with an unhappy
>> nausea at the prospect of not doing well at something. It could be that a
>> lot of it conflicted with your intuitions and so you just elected to
>> disbelieve it, in which case you are unswayed by experiment and poorly
>> suited for science at all.
>
> I was rather advanced for 1st. year topics and had my first rows discussing
> Lorentz world with my professors, I continued to studying relativity by my own,
> which I kept doing with GR and Newton's gravitation law in my 2nd. year. I had
> several "friendly discussions" with relativistic oriented professors, who tried to
> teach me about the relevance of relativity in the modern world (this was 1971).
>
> Being almost 17 and with prospects of being 19 when getting my degree, I investigated
> about what was for me pursuing a career in physics in that epoch. I was allowed to visit
> research facilities at places surrounding college (very advanced, by the way) and
> I had chances to talk with junior and senior researchers. The general idea was
> that you HAD TO adhere SR to keep going, as well as to become an expert on FORTRAN
> to move on with publications, but you wasn't allowed to contest any established dogma
> by then, if you wanted to keep your job (and your pitiful salary).
to be said about you. Anybody who gets told that as part of science
education is not receiving a science education. No wonder you became an
engineer.
> No wide reasoning at all,
> and a "shut up and calculate" and "publish or perish" dogmas.
>
> I dropped physics and began Electronic Engineering, which was advancing 1,000 times
> faster that physics by then, and where NOTHING was forbidden. A pure world of R&D,
> plus practical applications in society.
>
> Modern physics and astronomy would be still in 1920 if it weren't for the guidance
> and support that electronic instrumentation (plus computers) brought to them.
> Also, we were changing the world from analog to digital at EVERY field.
> I found much more satisfaction doing R&D in electronics than what I could
> have got in physics.
>
>
>> Mocking for the sake of mocking itself just isn’t very productive, and
>> generally casts a bad light on you, just like it’s true for the drunk that
>> shows up at a baseball game purely to yell at the umpire.
>
> To mock something requires that you know the "behind the scene" reality,
about, for its own sake. You flatter yourself while at the same time
looking like a bit of an idiot and more than a little of a boor.
> as well as
> a good body of knowledge (plus intelligence). Also, it requires that you are not bounded
> to any real project anymore. Then, you can analyze your life, your
> surroundings, the histories
> behind and have a "non-biased macrovision" of the entire world: science, technology,
> politics, society, war and peace, secrets not told to everyone, history
> of the world since 3,000 BC, etc.
>
> Then, a common pattern emerge in your head, and you realize that history
> repeats in cycles, with
> some "aggiornements" like modification of social contracts, the evolution
> of middle class, etc.
>
> And, above all, POWER.
>
> I defined once, long time ago, the equation for POWER:
>
> POWER = (Money you have) x (network of 1st.degree contacts you have)
> /(immorality you profess)
>
> or P = M.C/I (M and C between 0 and 100 and I between 0.01 and
> 99.9999. Normalize M with GNP)
>
>
> Apply it to you, Gates, Jobs, Tesla, Edison, Einstein, the Queen of England, Bezzo, Soros,
> Maxwell, Planck, Churchill, Reagan, Putin, etc., and tell me how it works.
>
> Also read (again, if not) "The farce of physics".
>
> Then tell me why I shouldn't laugh at: Gell-Man, Guth, Oppenheimer,
> Einstein, Susskind, Rubin, to name a few.
>
>
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables
Richard Hertz
Oct 3, 2021, 3:11:35 PM10/3/21
to
> > Being almost 17 and with prospects of being 19 when getting my degree, I investigated
> > about what was for me pursuing a career in physics in that epoch. I was allowed to visit
> > research facilities at places surrounding college (very advanced, by the way) and
> > I had chances to talk with junior and senior researchers. The general idea was
> > that you HAD TO adhere SR to keep going, as well as to become an expert on FORTRAN
> > to move on with publications, but you wasn't allowed to contest any established dogma
> > by then, if you wanted to keep your job (and your pitiful salary).
> This right there points to the crappy education you received. No more needs
> to be said about you. Anybody who gets told that as part of science
> education is not receiving a science education. No wonder you became an engineer.
Bodkin, you can't talk about education because you're just a parrot without a bit of creativity.
> > about what was for me pursuing a career in physics in that epoch. I was allowed to visit
> > research facilities at places surrounding college (very advanced, by the way) and
> > I had chances to talk with junior and senior researchers. The general idea was
> > that you HAD TO adhere SR to keep going, as well as to become an expert on FORTRAN
> > to move on with publications, but you wasn't allowed to contest any established dogma
> > by then, if you wanted to keep your job (and your pitiful salary).
> This right there points to the crappy education you received. No more needs
> to be said about you. Anybody who gets told that as part of science
> education is not receiving a science education. No wonder you became an engineer.
Instead you can talk about crap, because you are full of it living your impersonation and
disturbed understanding of things around you.
> > To mock something requires that you know the "behind the scene" reality,
> No it doesn’t. You prove that everyday, mocking that which you know nothing
> about, for its own sake. You flatter yourself while at the same time
> looking like a bit of an idiot and more than a little of a boor.
every fucking theme. The Supreme Thinker, as I told you, who can read minds,
judge anyone with ABSOLUTE, unquestionable right and far reaching wisdom.
You are just a pathetic clown with a clear agenda, impersonating a full-time idiot
(as already told to you), while doing your shift here. You are as fake as a 3$ bill.
Odd Bodkin
Oct 3, 2021, 3:28:12 PM10/3/21
to
Richard Hertz <hert...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 3:34:14 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Being almost 17 and with prospects of being 19 when getting my degree, I investigated
>>> about what was for me pursuing a career in physics in that epoch. I was allowed to visit
>>> research facilities at places surrounding college (very advanced, by the way) and
>>> I had chances to talk with junior and senior researchers. The general idea was
>>> that you HAD TO adhere SR to keep going, as well as to become an expert on FORTRAN
>>> to move on with publications, but you wasn't allowed to contest any established dogma
>>> by then, if you wanted to keep your job (and your pitiful salary).
>
>> This right there points to the crappy education you received. No more needs
>> to be said about you. Anybody who gets told that as part of science
>> education is not receiving a science education. No wonder you became an engineer.
>
> Bodkin, you can't talk about education because you're just a parrot
> without a bit of creativity.
Sure I can. It’s OBVIOUS from your own description what a crappy physics
> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 3:34:14 PM UTC-3, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>>> Being almost 17 and with prospects of being 19 when getting my degree, I investigated
>>> about what was for me pursuing a career in physics in that epoch. I was allowed to visit
>>> research facilities at places surrounding college (very advanced, by the way) and
>>> I had chances to talk with junior and senior researchers. The general idea was
>>> that you HAD TO adhere SR to keep going, as well as to become an expert on FORTRAN
>>> to move on with publications, but you wasn't allowed to contest any established dogma
>>> by then, if you wanted to keep your job (and your pitiful salary).
>
>> This right there points to the crappy education you received. No more needs
>> to be said about you. Anybody who gets told that as part of science
>> education is not receiving a science education. No wonder you became an engineer.
>
> Bodkin, you can't talk about education because you're just a parrot
> without a bit of creativity.
education you got.
> Instead you can talk about crap, because you are full of it living your impersonation and
> disturbed understanding of things around you.
>
>
>>> To mock something requires that you know the "behind the scene" reality,
>
>> No it doesn’t. You prove that everyday, mocking that which you know nothing
>> about, for its own sake. You flatter yourself while at the same time
>> looking like a bit of an idiot and more than a little of a boor.
>
> Instead you, maker of fine toys, tools, tables, are entitled to be opinionated in
> every fucking theme. The Supreme Thinker, as I told you, who can read minds,
> judge anyone with ABSOLUTE, unquestionable right and far reaching wisdom.
>
> You are just a pathetic clown with a clear agenda, impersonating a full-time idiot
> (as already told to you), while doing your shift here. You are as fake as a 3$ bill.
your evidence/rationale.
Paul Alsing
Oct 3, 2021, 8:24:51 PM10/3/21
to
On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 8:41:43 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
> And in the meantime in the real world, GPS clocks keep measuring
> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
No, t = t0/(1-v2/c2)1/2
> And in the meantime in the real world, GPS clocks keep measuring
> t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
https://www.phy.olemiss.edu/HEP/QuarkNet/time.html
Dono.
Oct 3, 2021, 8:44:54 PM10/3/21
to
On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 11:12:29 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz admitted to being a cretin:
> I was rather advanced for 1st. year topics and had my first rows discussing
> Lorentz world with my professors, I continued to studying relativity by my own,
> which I kept doing with GR and Newton's gravitation law in my 2nd. year. I had
> several "friendly discussions" with relativistic oriented professors, who tried to
> teach me about the relevance of relativity in the modern world (this was 1971).
>
> Being almost 17 and with prospects of being 19 when getting my degree, I investigated
> about what was for me pursuing a career in physics in that epoch.
So, at 17 you were already nuts. Congratulations! I told you that you were born a cretin, you are a cretin and your only consolation is that you will die a cretin.
> I was rather advanced for 1st. year topics and had my first rows discussing
> Lorentz world with my professors, I continued to studying relativity by my own,
> which I kept doing with GR and Newton's gravitation law in my 2nd. year. I had
> several "friendly discussions" with relativistic oriented professors, who tried to
> teach me about the relevance of relativity in the modern world (this was 1971).
>
> Being almost 17 and with prospects of being 19 when getting my degree, I investigated
> about what was for me pursuing a career in physics in that epoch.
Maciej Wozniak
Oct 4, 2021, 1:26:09 AM10/4/21
to
On Monday, 4 October 2021 at 02:24:51 UTC+2, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 8:41:43 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > And in the meantime in the real world, GPS clocks keep measuring
> > t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
> No, t = t0/(1-v2/c2)1/2
Paul, poor idiot, even if these clocks were "proper" as your Shit
> On Sunday, October 3, 2021 at 8:41:43 AM UTC-7, maluw...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > And in the meantime in the real world, GPS clocks keep measuring
> > t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
> No, t = t0/(1-v2/c2)1/2
taught, they wouldn't. And, of course nobody is going to ever
apply your proper idiocies, even most of your fellow idiots don't
want them.
Richard Hertz
Oct 4, 2021, 2:02:38 AM10/4/21
to
He has an Apple watch. That's why.
Maciej Wozniak
Oct 4, 2021, 2:49:39 AM10/4/21
to
On Monday, 4 October 2021 at 08:02:38 UTC+2, Richard Hertz wrote:
> He has an Apple watch. That's why.
He's living in his gedankenwelt. That's why.
> He has an Apple watch. That's why.
Even according to The Shit - the formulas he's insisting
on can be applied only in inertial frames (i.e. nowhere, and
for sure not in GPS satellites).
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn
Oct 4, 2021, 4:34:47 PM10/4/21
to
Branimir Maksimovic wrote:
> On 2021-10-02, J.C. Bosa <e...@sdf.cs> wrote:
>> Dono. wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 12:26:21 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz lied:
>>>> Charles Lane Poor obituary:
>>>> https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/112/3/279/2603732
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lane_Poor
>>>
>>> You are such a stupid liar, Dick:
>>> "Charles Lane Poor (January 18, 1866 – September 27, 1951) was an
>>> American astronomy professor, noted for his opposition to Einstein's
>>> theory of relativity. "
>>
>> so what? Give me a fucking break. The problem relativity has is mixing
^^^^^^
>> quantum with macro scale. Kiss my ass.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> missing link? Either are both wrong, or both right or one mistakes,
> there is no ?FO"uRTH :P
JFTR: The theories of relativity are *classical* theories (like Newtonian
mechanics). They do NOT “[mix] quantum with macro scale”. That is utter
nonsense.
There are special-relativistic quantum field theories (QFTs) like quantum
electrodynamics (QED), but that does not inherently make relativity a
quantum-mechanical concept.
One must not confuse author and work. Yes, Einstein *also* provided the
foundation for quantum theory in 1905 by his quantum-theoretical explanation
of the photoelectric effect (which was named as the particular reason why he
received the Nobel Prize in Physics 1921), but that was in a *different*
paper (*before* the papers on special relativity). He published *four*
groundbreaking papers in 1905 – one on how to prove from statistics the
existence of molecules, one to explain the photoelectric effect, and two on
special relativity; in that order –, which is why it is called his «annus
mirabilis» (wonder year).
Before the Dirac equation in 1928, nobody had any idea how to correctly
apply special relativity to quantum mechanics. QED then was only
sufficiently developed in the 1940s and 1950s (by Richard Feynman and
others).
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
> On 2021-10-02, J.C. Bosa <e...@sdf.cs> wrote:
>> Dono. wrote:
>>> On Saturday, October 2, 2021 at 12:26:21 AM UTC-7, Richard Hertz lied:
>>>> Charles Lane Poor obituary:
>>>> https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article/112/3/279/2603732
>>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Lane_Poor
>>>
>>> You are such a stupid liar, Dick:
>>> "Charles Lane Poor (January 18, 1866 – September 27, 1951) was an
>>> American astronomy professor, noted for his opposition to Einstein's
>>> theory of relativity. "
>>
>> so what? Give me a fucking break. The problem relativity has is mixing
^^^^^^
>> quantum with macro scale. Kiss my ass.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> missing link? Either are both wrong, or both right or one mistakes,
> there is no ?FO"uRTH :P
JFTR: The theories of relativity are *classical* theories (like Newtonian
mechanics). They do NOT “[mix] quantum with macro scale”. That is utter
nonsense.
There are special-relativistic quantum field theories (QFTs) like quantum
electrodynamics (QED), but that does not inherently make relativity a
quantum-mechanical concept.
One must not confuse author and work. Yes, Einstein *also* provided the
foundation for quantum theory in 1905 by his quantum-theoretical explanation
of the photoelectric effect (which was named as the particular reason why he
received the Nobel Prize in Physics 1921), but that was in a *different*
paper (*before* the papers on special relativity). He published *four*
groundbreaking papers in 1905 – one on how to prove from statistics the
existence of molecules, one to explain the photoelectric effect, and two on
special relativity; in that order –, which is why it is called his «annus
mirabilis» (wonder year).
Before the Dirac equation in 1928, nobody had any idea how to correctly
apply special relativity to quantum mechanics. QED then was only
sufficiently developed in the 1940s and 1950s (by Richard Feynman and
others).
PointedEars
--
“Science is empirical: knowing the answer means nothing;
testing your knowledge means everything.”
—Dr. Lawrence M. Krauss, theoretical physicist,
in “A Universe from Nothing” (2009)
Dustan Babic
Oct 4, 2021, 5:55:28 PM10/4/21
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> so what? Give me a fucking break. The problem relativity has is
mixing
^^^^^^
>>> quantum with macro scale. Kiss my ass.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> missing link? Either are both wrong, or both right or one mistakes,
>> there is no ?FO"uRTH
>
>>> so what? Give me a fucking break. The problem relativity has is
mixing
^^^^^^
>>> quantum with macro scale. Kiss my ass.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> missing link? Either are both wrong, or both right or one mistakes,
>> there is no ?FO"uRTH
>
> JFTR: The theories of relativity are *classical* theories (like
> Newtonian mechanics). They do NOT “[mix] quantum with macro scale”.
> That is utter nonsense.
idiot, you dont undrestand a thing.
> Newtonian mechanics). They do NOT “[mix] quantum with macro scale”.
> That is utter nonsense.
Dustan Babic
Oct 4, 2021, 6:01:27 PM10/4/21
to
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>>> so what? Give me a fucking break. The problem relativity has is mixing
>
^^^^^^
>>> quantum with macro scale. Kiss my ass.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> missing link? Either are both wrong, or both right or one mistakes,
>> there is no ?FO"uRTH
>
>>> so what? Give me a fucking break. The problem relativity has is mixing
>
^^^^^^
>>> quantum with macro scale. Kiss my ass.
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> missing link? Either are both wrong, or both right or one mistakes,
>> there is no ?FO"uRTH
>
> JFTR: The theories of relativity are *classical* theories (like
> Newtonian mechanics). They do NOT “[mix] quantum with macro scale”.
> That is utter nonsense.
light is quantum, stupid.
> Newtonian mechanics). They do NOT “[mix] quantum with macro scale”.
> That is utter nonsense.
Maciej Wozniak
Oct 5, 2021, 2:04:33 AM10/5/21
to
keep indicating t'=t, just like all serious clocks always did.
0 new messages