🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mar 25, 4:41 am, Pentcho Valev <pva...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mar 24, 2:26 am, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote in
> sci.physics.relativity:
>
>
>
> > On Mar 23, 4:18 pm, hw@..(Dr. Henri Wilson) wrote:
>
> > > On Mon, 23 Mar 2009 23:33:51 -0000, "Androcles" <Headmas...@Hogwarts.physics>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > >"Dr. Henri Wilson" <hw@..> wrote in message
> > > >news:ck3gs49ng1oq1ibl146j29is59vsqd1a9h@4ax.com...
> > > >>I don't believe any of the experiments claiming measurement the bending of
> > > >> light by the sun has been at all accurate. The reason I say this is that
> > > >> the
> > > >> movement of a star's image as it is seen to approach the sun's edge
> > > >> progressively slows, stops then reverses, making it impossible to tell how
> > > >> close the light rays are passing by the actual edge..and that is a crucial
> > > >> factor. Eddington's experiment was just a publicity stunt and a farce.
>
> > > >> Gravitational bending of light and lensing are a natural consequence of
> > > >> Newtonian theory. Light is accelerated by gravity just like anything else.
> > > >> It
> > > >> is also slowed by interaction with the solar wind and the sun's
> > > >> atmosphere.
>
> > > >Most of it is the Coriolis effect.
> > > >It take 8 minutes for light to travel from the Sun to Earth.
> > > >In that time Earth travels 8 * 360/(1year * 365 days * 24 hours * 60
> > > >minutes) =
> > > >  0.0055 degrees or 0.33 arc minutes or 20 arc seconds from a straight
> > > >line connecting the Earth, Sun and a distant star. Eddington was a dork.
> > > >http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/fw/gifs/coriolis.mov
>
> > > Yes, the whole past procedure appears to be flawed. But Eddington and Einstein
> > > knew there were thousands of little eric geeses around who would lap up
> > > anything that resembled science fiction.
>
> > Then look at the more recent observations. You do know there have been
> > recent observations...right?
>
> Earlier observations were fraud but recent are not....right? That is,
> it was fraud that converted Albert the Plagiarist into Divine Albert
> whereas recent observations just confirmed the Divinity....right?
>
> http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement/relativit-les-preuves-taient-fau...
> RELATIVITE: LES PREUVES ETAIENT FAUSSES
> "Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non
> vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourdhui, les premières preuves,
> issues notamment dune célèbre éclipse de 1919, nen étaient pas. Elles
> reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant à
> obtenir un résultat connu à lavance, et sur des mesures entachées
> dincertitudes, quand il ne sagissait pas de fraudes caractérisées."
>
> http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/index.php/2008/05/26/390-histoire-des...
> "Au début du XXème siècle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique
> Arthur Eddington avaient tant à coeur de vérifier la théorie de la
> relativité qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs expériences
> soient probantes."
> (ECOUTEZ!)
>
> > > Nothing wrong with gravitational lensing though. It is plainly Newtonian.
>
> > Except it is wrong by a factor of two.
>
> Which equation is consistent with the gravitational redshift factor
> 1+V/c^2 experimentally confirmed by Pound and Rebka: Einstein's 1911
> equation c'=c(1+V/c^2) given by Newton's emission theory of light, or
> Einstein's 1915 "improved" equation c'=c(1+2V/c^2)?
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...@yahoo.com

Why all this argle-bargle over relativity when cybernetics is the
answer to our problems?