🚀 go-pugleaf

http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/feb2010/2010-02-20-01.html
Lord Martin Rees: "It is important that people have the utmost
confidence in the science of climate change."

Is it equally important that people have the utmost confidence in
today's cosmology, Dr. Rees?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6057362/Give-scientists-the-freedom-to-be-wrong.html
Lord Martin Rees: "Over the past week, two stories in the press have
suggested that scientists have been very wrong about some very big
issues. First, a new paper seemed to suggest that dark energy the
mysterious force that makes up three quarters of the universe, and is
pushing the galaxies further apart might not even exist."

Should people have the utmost confidence in your claim that "time
dilation entails no inconsistency or paradox", Dr. Rees?

http://www.firstscience.com/site/articles/blackholes.asp
Lord Martin Rees: "According to Einstein, the speed of a clock depends
on where you are and how you're moving. If your subjective clock ran
very slowly compared to the cosmic clock, you could travel "fast
forward" into the future. This would happen if you were moving at a
velocity close to the speed of light. Furthermore, strong gravity
would distort time; clocks on a neutron star would run 20 or 30
percent slower. (...) This elasticity in the rate of passage of time
may seem counter to our intuition. But such intuition is acquired from
our everyday environment (and perhaps, even more, that of our remote
ancestors), which has offered us no experience of such effects. Few of
us have travelled faster than a millionth of the speed of light (the
speed of a jet airliner); we live on a planet where the pull of
gravity is 1000 billion times weaker than on a neutron star. But time
dilation entails no inconsistency or paradox."

Pentcho Valev wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/7197787/Lords-fear-public-is-losing-confidence-in-climate-change-science.html
"Fifteen Lords, including the former head of BP Lord Browne of
Madingley and the current President of the Royal Society Lord Rees of
Ludlow, are concerned the public is losing confidence in the science
after the so-called 'glaciergate' and 'climategate' scandals."

Dr. Rees, 9 years ago you were concerned about relativity-gate. More
precisely, you declared that "among the ideas facing revision is
Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same":

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/519406/posts
"A GROUP of astronomers and cosmologists has warned that the laws
thought to govern the universe, including Albert Einstein's theory of
relativity, must be rewritten. The group, which includes Professor
Stephen Hawking and Sir Martin Rees, the astronomer royal, say such
laws may only work for our universe but not in others that are now
also thought to exist. "It is becoming increasingly likely that the
rules we had thought were fundamental through time and space are
actually just bylaws for our bit of it," said Rees, whose new book,
Our Cosmic Habitat, is published next month. "Creation is emerging as
even stranger than we thought." Among the ideas facing revision is
Einstein's belief that the speed of light must always be the same -
186,000 miles a second in a vacuum. There is growing evidence that
light moved much faster during the early stages of our universe. Rees,
Hawking and others are so concerned at the impact of such ideas that
they recently organised a private conference in Cambridge for more
than 30 leading cosmologists."

I think relativity-gate is much more fundamental than glacier-gate and
climate-gate so you may wish to return to your 9-years old concern.
This will help:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2005/apr/17/spaceexploration.comment
"And on 6 November, 1919, at a Royal Society meeting, the astronomer
Sir Arthur Eddington revealed that observations, taken during a solar
eclipse, showed that starlight was being deflected by the sun's
gravitational field in a way that fitted Einstein's General Theory of
Relativity. 'Revolution in science. New theory of the Universe.
Newtonian ideas overthrown,' the Times announced the next day on its
front page. Einstein became a global superstar - thanks to the Royal
Society."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg16321935.300-ode-to-albert.html
New Scientist: Ode to Albert
"Enter another piece of luck for Einstein. We now know that the light-
bending effect was actually too small for Eddington to have discerned
at that time. Had Eddington not been so receptive to Einstein's
theory, he might not have reached such strong conclusions so soon, and
the world would have had to wait for more accurate eclipse
measurements to confirm general relativity."

http://www.amazon.com/Brief-History-Time-Stephen-Hawking/dp/0553380168
Stephen Hawking: "Einsteins prediction of light deflection could not
be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in
progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition,
observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed
deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a
German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of
reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic,
therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that
expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were
trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck ["sheere
luck" is a euphemism for "sheer fraud"], or a case of knowing the
result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science."

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar/20-things-you-didn.t-know-about-relativity
"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (youre looking at it
on this very page). Eminent British physicist Arthur Eddington
declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame
and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems that Eddington fudged
the results, throwing out photos that showed the wrong outcome. No
wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einsteins death in 1955,
scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
action."

http://www.upd.aas.org/had/meetings/2010Abstracts.html
Open Questions Regarding the 1925 Measurement of the Gravitational
Redshift of Sirius B
Jay B. Holberg Univ. of Arizona.
"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt.
Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the Einstein shift in
Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams 1925
published results agreed remarkably well with Eddingtons estimate.
Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of
General Relativity (after Mercurys anomalous perihelion advance and
the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been
known for some time that both Eddingtons estimate and Adams
measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by
a factor of four."

http://alasource.blogs.nouvelobs.com/archive/2009/01/26/l-erreur-d-einstein-la-deuxieme.html
"D'abord il [Einstein] fait une hypothèse fausse (facile à dire
aujourd'hui !) dans son équation de départ qui décrit les relations
étroites entre géométrie de l'espace et contenu de matière de cet
espace. Avec cette hypothèse il tente de calculer l'avance du
périhélie de Mercure. Cette petite anomalie (à l'époque) du mouvement
de la planète était un mystère. Einstein et Besso aboutissent
finalement sur un nombre aberrant et s'aperçoivent qu'en fait le
résultat est cent fois trop grand à cause d'une erreur dans la masse
du soleil... Mais, même corrigé, le résultat reste loin des
observations. Pourtant le physicien ne rejeta pas son idée. "Nous
voyons là que si les critères de Popper étaient toujours respectés, la
théorie aurait dû être abandonnée", constate, ironique, Etienne Klein.
Un coup de main d'un autre ami, Grossmann, sortira Einstein de la
difficulté et sa nouvelle équation s'avéra bonne. En quelques jours,
il trouve la bonne réponse pour l'avance du périhélie de Mercure..."

http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/gdes_theories/einstein.html
"Le deuxième test classique donne en revanche des inquiétudes.
Historiquement, pourtant, l'explication de l'avance du périhélie de
Mercure, proposé par Einstein lui-même, donna ses lettres de noblesse
à la relativité générale. Il s'agissait de comprendra pourquoi le
périhélie de Mercure ( le point de son orbite le plus proche du
soleil ) se déplaçait de 574 s d'arc par siècle. Certes, sur ces 574
s, 531 s'expliquaient par les perturbations gravitationnels dues aux
autres planètes. Mais restait 43 s, le fameux effet "périhélique "
inexpliqué par les lois de Newton. Le calcul relativiste d'Einstein
donna 42,98 s ! L'accord et si parfait qu'il ne laisse la place à
aucune discussion. Or depuis 1966, le soleil est soupçonné ne pas être
rigoureusement sphérique mais légèrement aplati à l'équateur. Une très
légère dissymétries qui suffirait à faire avancer le périhélie de
quelques secondes d'arc. Du coup, la preuve se transformerait en
réfutation puisque les 42,88 s du calcul d'Einstein ne pourrait pas
expliquer le mouvement réel de Mercure."

http://astronomy.ifrance.com/pages/gdes_theories/einstein.html
"Arthur Eddington , le premier en 1924, calculâtes théoriquement un
décalage 0,007% attendu la surface de Sirius mais avec des données
fausses à l'époque sur la masse et le rayon de l'étoile. L'année
suivante, Walter Adams mesurerait exactement ces 0.007%. Il s'avère
aujourd'hui que ces mesures , qui constituèrent pendant quarante ans
une "preuves" de la relativité, étaient largement "arrangée" tant
était grand le désir de vérifier la théorie d'Enstein. La véritable
valeur fut mesurée en 1965. Elle est de 0.03% car Sirius est plus
petite , et sont champ de gravitation est plus fort que ne le pensait
Eddington."

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 à une théorie non
vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves,
issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas.
Elles reposaient en partie sur des manipulations peu avouables visant
à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées
d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées."

http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/index.php/2008/05/26/390-histoire-des-sciences-les-preuves-de-la-relativite
"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!)

Pentcho Valev
pvalev@yahoo.com