🚀 go-pugleaf

On Wed, 25 Mar 2009 02:41:09 -0700 (PDT), Pentcho Valev <pvalev@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-fausses
>RELATIVITE: LES PREUVES ETAIENT FAUSSES
>"Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans � une th�orie non
>v�rifi�e. Car, nous le savons aujourdhui, les premi�res preuves,
>issues notamment dune c�l�bre �clipse de 1919, nen �taient pas. Elles
>reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant �
>obtenir un r�sultat connu � lavance, et sur des mesures entach�es
>dincertitudes, quand il ne sagissait pas de fraudes caract�ris�es."
>
>http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/index.php/2008/05/26/390-histoire-des-sciences-les-preuves-de-la-relativite
>"Au d�but du XX�me si�cle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique
>Arthur Eddington avaient tant � coeur de v�rifier la th�orie de la
>relativit� qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs exp�riences
>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)?

Good one Pencho.....when he fudged his equation to match the sun's supposed
bending he stuffed it up for the Pound Rebka result.

>Pentcho Valev
>pvalev@yahoo.com



Harry Wilson. ASTC,BSc,DSc(T)

www.users.bigpond.com/hewn/index.htm.

.....