"Sam Wormley" <
swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
. Melvin Barnes <
melv...@hotmail.com>wrote:
>
Koobee Wublee <
koobee...@gmail.com> wrote:
May 29 marked the anniversary date for Eddington’s dishonest
scientific ventures. In 1919, he was able to conclude a twice amount
to Newtonian prediction of corpuscle deflection where light corpuscles
are treated as classical particles (per Andro’s and Wilson’s belief).
Examining Eddington’s instrumentations, the accuracies are just not
there for him to conclude with the said accuracies. Koobee Wublee is
not going to dwell on these expeditions of Eddington’s but would like
to revisit if indeed GR, namely the Schwarzschild metric, does offer
the said twice amount over Newtonian prediction. So, hold on to your
hat. <shrug>
Say the Newtonian deflected amount is one nibble. Just what made
Einstein the nitwit, the plagiarist, and the liar conclude two nibbles
of deflection? Well, the nitwit argued that curved space would give
one nibble while gravitational time dilation would yield another one
--- thus two nibbles total. <shrug>
Imagine if there is no gravitational time dilation. Can a photon
traveling near the sun be observed to shift in position? If either
the photon or the observer is located well under the influence of
curved space, this will indeed be the case. However, if the photon
starts out and ends well outside of (flat space) the influence of
curved space, would the observed position still shift to indicate a
bending in the photon’s path? <shrug>
Koobee Wublee’s gut feeling is saying no and has mathematics to prove
that no such bending would take place if anyone is interested. Curved
space is like a lens with gradient index of refraction. The photon
will bend one way during the inbound trip (because space is getting
more and more curved) but unbends itself during the outbound trip
(because space is getting more and more flat). The result is no such
anomaly. <shrug>
However, introducing gravitational time dilation, it behaves more like
a force. Thus, a photon will bend with gravitational time dilation,
and the total amount of bending should just be one nibble rather than
two as erroneously calculated by the self-styled physicists in the
past 100 years. <shrug>
Oops! Bad science or bad mathematics? <shrug>
>
>Melvin Barnes wrote:
This bother me as well. The curvature of space around the Sun must be so
insignificant small, according to applied Relativity. I have no idea how
they postulate a star observation behind the Sun. Not being overlapped /
overshadowed by the light from the Sun, strange.
>>
A total eclipse does not help whatsoever since the light from the Sun, the
photons emitted omnidirectional, IS/ARE STILL THERE. A Moon will not take
those away, the Moon cannot cancel anything, except the small part where
it shadows.
>
Sam wrote:
Photons like any thing else are following the "straight line" in the
curved spacetime near the sun. The observation was made during an
eclipse, so as not to overwhelm the expose of the photographic plates.
>
hanson wrote:
Sam, by SRian definition, NOTHING moves in spacetime.
Not particles, not stars, not photons. Einstein realized that
SR/GR was a USELESS crock o'shit, already 60+ years ago,
when
___ Einstein became a RELATIVITY DENIER ____
<
http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-denied-his-SR-and-GR>
>
Here is more from & about Einstein, the plagiarist,
who STOLE E=mc² from Pretto, Hasenoehrl and others,
and publicly apologized for his thievery in 1907.
>
<
http://tinyurl.com/E-mc2-existed-before-Einstein> (1)
<
http://tinyurl.com/How-Einstein-stole-E-mc-2> (1)
<
http://tinyurl.com/Kwublee-views-Einsteins-Theft> (1)
<
http://tinyurl.com/Zio-Politics-with-Relativity> (2)
<
http://tinyurl.com/Alberts-Zio-Politics-w-SR-GR> (2)
<
http://tinyurl.com/Einsteins-1905-is-Mileva-Maric>
<
http://tinyurl.com/Einstein-wife-beater-arrested>
>
This is not Einsein bashing, Sam. You yourself posted
a while back that:
"Sam Wormley" <
swor...@gmail.com> wrote:
Young Scientists Encourage the Public to Demand Peer Review
<
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2013/02/27/young-scientists-encourage-the-public-to-demand-peer-review-2/>
wherein it says:
"It seems that more and more policy makers, advocacy groups,
advertisers and media pundits are making claims based on science:
this kind of potion is good for your health, that chemical is bad for
the environment, this new technology can reduce crime. How is the
public supposed to know what to believe?
>>
The peer review system can help cut through the uncertainty and
obfuscation. Yet few members of the public other than scientists
know what peer review is or how it can be used."
>
hanson wrote:
ahahaha.. Good one, Sam. Yeah, you bet that it will
"cut thru the uncertainty and obfuscation" when you
cosider that, according to Michael Brooks' link:
<
http://tinyurl.com/Michael-Brooks-Free-Radicals> :
>
"1/3 (33+%) of all scientists are on drugs and loaded
while on the job and that 2/3rds (66+%) of all scientists
volunteered & admitted that they cheat & commit
fraud in/for & during their investigations."
>
Your young scientists have great role models, like
Francis Crick, Nobel laureate for the DNA, who
admitted to have been high on LSD when he conjured
up the Double Helix... or like other well known lodos
and druggies such as LSD-guru Timothy Leary and
the classic one, Cocaine Freak Freud,... all of'em
being
great examples for your young scientists to learn how
"peer review is or how it can be used", making it even
reminiscent of Obama's wealth redistribution gig....
with a new twist...
>
Thanks for the laughs, Sam... ahahahanson
>
PS:
Sam, when an invention or discovery has merit
it'll stand on its own feet. For Gedanken farts and
parroting by Einstein Dingleberries, the insider's
peer review cabal does look after its own spawns,
just like its done in religion and politics...