🚀 go-pugleaf

<Eric Baird> wrote in message 
news:gmvsq39nurfqldtouqnr7d2hsufcf4krgs@4ax.com...
| On Tue, 5 Feb 2008 23:34:41 -0800 (PST), Pentcho Valev
| <pvalev@yahoo.com> wrote:
|
| 
 >http://philipball.blogspot.com/2007/09/arthur-eddington-was-innocent-this-is.html
| >"With the technology then available, measuring the bending of
| >starlight was very challenging. And contrary to popular belief,
| >Newtonian physics did not predict that light would remain undeflected
| >- Einstein himself pointed out in 1911 that Newtonian gravity should
| >cause some deviation too. So the matter was not that of an all-or-
| >nothing shift in stars' positions, but hinged on the exact numbers."
| >
| >However Budding Young Einsteins are taught in a different way:
| >
| >http://pirsa.org/speaker/Lee_Smolin
| >Lee Smolin - ISSYP Keynote Session
| >Speaker(s): Lee Smolin
| >Abstract:
| >Date: 01/08/2007 - 1:00 pm
| >
| 
 >http://streamer.perimeterinstitute.ca/mediasite/viewer/?peid=5f32739a-624d-4ec8-9ecc-4d44d3d16fe9
| >Lee Smolin: "Newton's theory predicts that light goes in straight
| >lines and therefore if the star passes behind the sun, we can't see
| >it. Einstein's theory predicts that light is bent...."
| >
| >Pentcho Valev
| >pvalev@yahoo.com
|
|
| Okay, agreed, Smolin got that badly wrong. <sigh>
|
|
| Newton light-bending refs:
| :   Principia, vol.1, Prop XCVI (etc.).
| :   Opticks, "Queries"
|
| The sad thing here is that Newton's two main publications both
| contradict the myth, they're both currently in print in paperback,
| they're probably in every uni library, and many physicists //still//
| can't be bothered to check their data against a primary source.
|
| The irony is that physicists tend to believe that fact-checking in
| their community is quite excellent. So they get complacent,  and
| things that really should get picked up and emphatically corrected
| often don't. Everyone just trusts that certain common statements
| /must/ be true, or else they wouldn't be in print.
|
| So, because people believe that fact-checking is obviously so much
| better in physics than in the other hard sciences, it's often a lot
| worse.
|
| In fact, it's often absolutely appalling.
|

'we establish by definition that the "time" required by
light to travel from A to B equals the "time" it requires
to travel from B to A' because I SAY SO. -- Rabbi Albert Einstein

Ok, Einstein got that gleefully wrong. <sigh>
Did you mention that in your book?