🚀 go-pugleaf

Some Einsteinians know nothing about Master of the universe Stephen
Hawking's discovery - that Michelson and Morley refuted John Michell -
and publish awful things (should be kicked out of Einsteiniana
immediately):

http://www.springerlink.com/content/r3q22q7284331087/
Schwarzschild Radius Before General Relativity: Why Does Michell-
Laplace Argument Provide the Correct Answer?
Giovanni Preti
Abstract  A famous Newtonian argument by Michell and Laplace,
regarding the existence of “dark bodies” and dating back to the end of
the 18th century, is able to provide an exact general-relativistic
result, namely the exact formula for the Schwarzschild radius. Since
general relativity was formulated more than a century after this
argument had been issued, it looks quite surprising that such a
correct prediction could have been possible. Far from being merely a
fortuitous coincidence (as one might justifiably be induced to think),
this fact can find a reasonable explanation once the question is
approached the other way round, i.e. from the general-relativistic
point of view. By reexamining Laplace’s proof from this point of view,
we discuss here the reasons why Michell-Laplace argument can be so
“unexpectedly" correct in its general-relativistic prediction.

Pentcho Valev wrote:

It seems Einsteiniana's revolution involves abandoning Divine Albert's
Divine Theory and establishing a new, truly eternal this time, money-
spinner:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian/2009/oct/24/michael-green-new-lucasian-professor
Michael Green: Master of the universe. Michael Green is the new
Lucasian chair of mathematics at Cambridge following in the footsteps
of Newton and Hawking. (...) Furthermore, string theory, Green
contends, "isn't simply something that will, once tested, be either
verified or disproved. It's become much more than that".

By the way, why does any Lucasian chair of mathematics at Cambridge
become "Master of the universe"?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/02/stephen.hawking
Master of his universe. When Rachel Cooke was granted an interview
with Stephen Hawking, she was told that he only had time to answer six
questions. So what would you ask the scientist with one of the most
acute brains of his generation? (...) The Department of Applied
Mathematics and Theoretical Physics at Cambridge University, where
Hawking is the Lucasian professor of mathematics, a post once held by
Isaac Newton... The two-part series Stephen Hawking: Master of the
Universe starts on Channel 4 on Monday 3 March

I think I know why Hawking is Master of the universe - he discovered
that Michelson and Morley refuted John Michell:

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=64&Itemid=66
Stephen Hawking: "Interestingly enough, Laplace himself wrote a paper
in 1799 on how some stars could have a gravitational field so strong
that light could not escape, but would be dragged back onto the star.
He even calculated that a star of the same density as the Sun, but two
hundred and fifty times the size, would have this property. But
although Laplace may not have realised it, the same idea had been put
forward 16 years earlier by a Cambridge man, John Mitchell, in a paper
in the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society. Both Mitchell
and Laplace thought of light as consisting of particles, rather like
cannon balls, that could be slowed down by gravity, and made to fall
back on the star. But a famous experiment, carried out by two
Americans, Michelson and Morley in 1887, showed that light always
travelled at a speed of one hundred and eighty six thousand miles a
second, no matter where it came from. How then could gravity slow down
light, and make it fall back."

Yet I have no idea why Michael Green is Master of the universe -
perhaps the enormous power automatically goes to any Lucasian
professor of mathematics at Cambridge, even if he had not discovered
that Michelson and Morley refuted John Michell.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com