C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Well yeah i do know, for it has been tested and verified. Mass is linked to gravity.
- Status
C
cassini
Guest
Luke, thanks for your posts. Remember the philosophy of debate is not to convert your opponent - as that would be impossible on forums like this - but to convert the READERS of such debate. I do hope there are outsiders enjoying it. That video you posted is indeed a revelation. I did not know universities do NOT include these experiments that rejected heliocentricism in their curiculum. This is indeed an indication of CONSPIRACY, a betrayal of the integrity of SCIENCE. But then why am I not surprised? It is comforting to see a ‘believer’ just as competent in the physics field as some of our Copernicans seem to be. Personally I do not enter this field as it is outside of my brief but having read it I can identify with some important aspects of the debate dear to me such as the electromagnetic universe. When God said ‘Let there be light’ I do believe He created this electromagnetic heaven. I am currectly investigating some very interesting aspects of this with my brothers, one a PhD Professor of Quantum mathematics.
Keep up the good work, its great to have you on our side.
Keep up the good work, its great to have you on our side.
L
Luke65
Guest
Thanks, brother. And don’t worry, I know who the Boss is.
Only God can convert hearts and enlighten minds. But He will do so by any means possible in order to save His people. And I am a just foot soldier in His army! Let me know if you or your brothers have any ideas on all of this. God bless.
A
Alethios
Guest
Do the 1919 Eclipse Photographs prove General Relativity? An important claim that needs a scientific and historical response…
Einstein desperately needed some physical proof that gravity bent light in the exact proportion his General Relativity theory predicted so that he could give credence to the idea that gravity and acceleration were equivalent phenomena. Although a bending of light by gravity would not necessarily prove General Relativity (since non-Relativistic theories could also explain it), it would at least give it enough plausibility to pass the muster of an adoring public. But the physical evidence attempting to support the contradictions of General Relativity was one of the more biased campaigns of human scientific history. One author writes:
In 1911 Einstein predicted how much the sun’s gravity would deflect nearby starlight and got it wrong by half.
Another from the same magazine writes:
His second prediction, that light from distant stars would be deflected by the warped space-time around the sun, catapulted him to world fame in 1919, when observations of a solar eclipse seemed to confirm his prediction. But as historians have since shown, the 1919 measurements were equivocal at best.
Paul Marmet adds:
*“all the experiments claiming the deflection of light and radio waves by the Sun are subjected to very large systematic errors, which render the results highly unreliable and proving nothing” *
and
“Much of the popularity of Einstein’s general theory of relativity relies on the observations done at Sobral and Principe. We see now that these results were overemphasized and did certainly not consecrate Einstein’s theory.”
In 1913 Einstein employed Erwin Freundlich to detect a bending of starlight near the Sun, but his photographs failed to provide any such evidence. When asked what he would do if the eclipse results were not in his favor, Einstein retorted with one of his more famous quips:
*Then I would have been sorry for the dear Lord; the theory is correct. *
Unless Einstein was joking, this statement shows he had already set in his mind that Relativity was correct before the 1919 eclipse experiments were performed. Eddington also caught this fever. As Stephen Brush states:
*Eddington was already convinced of the truth of Einstein’s theory before making the [eclipse] observations. *
According to C. W. F. Everitt, a detailed reading of the reports on the 1919 eclipse observations leads only to the conclusion that this was a model of how not to do an experiment.It is impossible to avoid the impression that the experimenters approached their work with a determination to prove Einstein right. Only Eddington’s disarming way of spinning a yarn could convince anyone that here was a good check of General Relativity. The results of later eclipse expeditions have been equally disappointing.
Although Einstein and Eddington were so self-assured, many anomalies and suspicions revolve around the May 29, 1919’s eclipse photographs. Along with Eddington were three other celebrated British astronomers: Andrew Crommelin, E. T. Cottingham and C. R. Davidson. Eddington and Cottingham did their observations on Principe Island in West Africa, while Crommelin and Davidson did theirs at Sobral, Brazil.
Charles Lane Poor offers some sobering comments:
*The mathematical formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75 arc-seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sun, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics. Not a single one of the concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space, of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved in Einstein’s prediction of, or formulas for, the deflection of light. *
The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore, been given a fictitious importance. Their results can neither prove nor disprove relativity theory. The actual stellar displacements, if real, do not show the slightest resemblance to the predicted Einstein deflections; they do not agree in direction, in size, or the rate of decrease with distance from the sun.
Einstein had referred to 1.7 seconds of arc in his book on Relativity:
"according to the general theory of relativity, … half of this deflection is produced by the Newtonian field of attraction of the sun, and the other half by the geometrical modification (‘curvature’) of space caused by the sun.
Johann Georg von Soldner had already predicted a bending of light around the Sun of 0.875 arc seconds, all without the use of Relativity. Einstein doubled Soldner’s figure to 1.75’’,claiming that 0.875" was attributable to Newtonian physics, but the remaining 0.875’’ was attributable only to Relativity’s ‘space curvature.’
Paul Marmet notes:
This amount [1.75’’] is twice the one predicted by Einstein in 1908 and in 1911 using Newton’s gravitational law.
…
AMDG
A
Alethios
Guest
Do the 1919 Eclipse Photographs prove General Relativity? An important claim that needs a scientific and historical response…
…
Einstein did not clearly explain which fundamental principle of physics was used in the 1911 paper and giving the erroneous deflection of 0.83 seconds of arc was wrong, so that he had to change his mind and predict a deflection twice as large in 1916. Although Einstein predicted the deflection of starlight at the surface of the sun should be 1.75 seconds of arc, what the reports do not readily reveal is that evidence from the 1919 expedition showing deflections greater or less than 1.75 arc-seconds were rejected as ‘spurious.’ Even though Einstein insisted that
‘great accuracy was necessary in making the adjustments required for the taking of the photographs, and in their subsequent measurement’.
Poor discovered that Eddington discarded 85% of the data from the eclipse photographs taken at Sobral, Brazil, due to ‘accidental error. The truth is that the displacements of the stars were in every conceivable direction, some in the exact opposite position predicted by Relativity.
At a meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1919, Ludwik Silberstein revealed that the displacements were not radial as Einstein’s theory claims, often deflecting
from the radial direction by as much as 35º, leading Silberstein to conclude:
*‘If we had not the prejudice of Einstein’s theory we should not say that the figures strongly indicated a radial law of displacement.’ *
As noted, only 15% of the displacements were consistent with Einstein’s prediction. After providing the reader with Table III from the official report of the expeditions, Poor reveals the numerous discrepancies:
*This table shows that, on the average, the observed deflection, as given by the British astronomers, differs by 19% from the calculated Einstein value [1.75]. *
Under the title: ‘Radial Displacement of Individual Stars,’ the following information was given in the Report authored by Dyson, Eddington and Davidson and presented to the Royal Astronomical Society:
Star ID…Calculation…Observation
11…0.32 …0.20
10…0.32…0.32
6…0.40…0.56
5…0.53…0.54
4…0.75…0.84
2…0.85…0.97
3…0.88… …1.02
In the cases of two stars, the agreement between theory and observation is very nearly perfect, the observed value being only 3% in error: in other cases, however, the differences range from 11% to 60% [and] the rate of decrease from star to star is radically different from that predicted. The difference between the deflection of the star nearest the sun and that of the farthest star should be, according to Einstein, 0.56’’; while the observed or measured difference was 0.82’’, practically 50% out of the way. The diagrams in the report show clearly that the observed displacements of the stars do not agree in direction with the predicted Einstein effect. This point was nowhere mentioned in the Report, which took up only the amount of the radial component of the actual displacement. But, after the measurements of the plates became available for study, several investigators called attention to this fact of a radial disagreement in direction between the observed and predicted displacements - in the case of the star furthest from the sun to 37°. Thus, even the seven best plates out of thirty-three, which showed star images, give inconsistent results: the observed shifts in the star images, if real, do not coincide with the Einstein effect either in amount or direction.
It has been claimed by many that the differences between the observed and predicted shifts are no greater than should be expected.
Now this very question was investigated by Dr. Henry Norris Russell, of Princeton University, a most ardent upholder of relativity theory (Gravitation versus Relativity, pp. 218-219).He studied these star displacements with a view of determining whether the departures from Einstein’s predicted effects are real or not, and, if real,of finding some possible explanation for them. As a result of an exhaustive examination of them, he concludes that these differences between the observed and predicted displacements, these non-Einstein displacements, as he calls them, are real, and cannot be attributed to mere accidental errors of observation and measurement. Dr.Russell assumes that the most probable source of these proven non-Einstein deflections is to be found in instrumental errors: in an alteration in the shape of the mirror, caused by the heat of the sun. But one point is perfectly clear. If it be admitted that the heat of the sun so distorted the mirror of the apparatus as to cause errors of 20%, in some cases of 50%, of the measured displacement, then the entire set of plates is worthless for proving the existence or non-existence of the ‘Einstein effect.’
…
AMDG
…
Einstein did not clearly explain which fundamental principle of physics was used in the 1911 paper and giving the erroneous deflection of 0.83 seconds of arc was wrong, so that he had to change his mind and predict a deflection twice as large in 1916. Although Einstein predicted the deflection of starlight at the surface of the sun should be 1.75 seconds of arc, what the reports do not readily reveal is that evidence from the 1919 expedition showing deflections greater or less than 1.75 arc-seconds were rejected as ‘spurious.’ Even though Einstein insisted that
‘great accuracy was necessary in making the adjustments required for the taking of the photographs, and in their subsequent measurement’.
Poor discovered that Eddington discarded 85% of the data from the eclipse photographs taken at Sobral, Brazil, due to ‘accidental error. The truth is that the displacements of the stars were in every conceivable direction, some in the exact opposite position predicted by Relativity.
At a meeting of the Royal Astronomical Society in 1919, Ludwik Silberstein revealed that the displacements were not radial as Einstein’s theory claims, often deflecting
from the radial direction by as much as 35º, leading Silberstein to conclude:
*‘If we had not the prejudice of Einstein’s theory we should not say that the figures strongly indicated a radial law of displacement.’ *
As noted, only 15% of the displacements were consistent with Einstein’s prediction. After providing the reader with Table III from the official report of the expeditions, Poor reveals the numerous discrepancies:
*This table shows that, on the average, the observed deflection, as given by the British astronomers, differs by 19% from the calculated Einstein value [1.75]. *
Under the title: ‘Radial Displacement of Individual Stars,’ the following information was given in the Report authored by Dyson, Eddington and Davidson and presented to the Royal Astronomical Society:
Star ID…Calculation…Observation
11…0.32 …0.20
10…0.32…0.32
6…0.40…0.56
5…0.53…0.54
4…0.75…0.84
2…0.85…0.97
3…0.88… …1.02
In the cases of two stars, the agreement between theory and observation is very nearly perfect, the observed value being only 3% in error: in other cases, however, the differences range from 11% to 60% [and] the rate of decrease from star to star is radically different from that predicted. The difference between the deflection of the star nearest the sun and that of the farthest star should be, according to Einstein, 0.56’’; while the observed or measured difference was 0.82’’, practically 50% out of the way. The diagrams in the report show clearly that the observed displacements of the stars do not agree in direction with the predicted Einstein effect. This point was nowhere mentioned in the Report, which took up only the amount of the radial component of the actual displacement. But, after the measurements of the plates became available for study, several investigators called attention to this fact of a radial disagreement in direction between the observed and predicted displacements - in the case of the star furthest from the sun to 37°. Thus, even the seven best plates out of thirty-three, which showed star images, give inconsistent results: the observed shifts in the star images, if real, do not coincide with the Einstein effect either in amount or direction.
It has been claimed by many that the differences between the observed and predicted shifts are no greater than should be expected.
Now this very question was investigated by Dr. Henry Norris Russell, of Princeton University, a most ardent upholder of relativity theory (Gravitation versus Relativity, pp. 218-219).He studied these star displacements with a view of determining whether the departures from Einstein’s predicted effects are real or not, and, if real,of finding some possible explanation for them. As a result of an exhaustive examination of them, he concludes that these differences between the observed and predicted displacements, these non-Einstein displacements, as he calls them, are real, and cannot be attributed to mere accidental errors of observation and measurement. Dr.Russell assumes that the most probable source of these proven non-Einstein deflections is to be found in instrumental errors: in an alteration in the shape of the mirror, caused by the heat of the sun. But one point is perfectly clear. If it be admitted that the heat of the sun so distorted the mirror of the apparatus as to cause errors of 20%, in some cases of 50%, of the measured displacement, then the entire set of plates is worthless for proving the existence or non-existence of the ‘Einstein effect.’
…
AMDG
Y
yankee_doodle
Guest
this thread is too funny 
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
I know. I didn’t think you could get much crazier than those that deny evolution, but this takes it to a whole new level.this thread is too funny
These people actually believe that Andromeda is traveling at approx 4562500000 times the speed of light!
P
Prodigal_Son
Guest
I’m just entering this conversation. Could you please reassure me that you think that the earth is in orbit around the sun, at least in *relative *motion?
Aquinas, whom you seem to have great respect for, said that “Authority is the weakest form of proof.” I do not criticize your questioning mainstream science, but to say that you should “bet the opposite” seems to indicate that (Christian) science should begin with bias.And why do I usually reject the theories of mainstream science? “We cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” The underlying motive of mainstream science is to remove the Creator from His Creation, so they will never come to a knowledge of the truth. And so if mainstream science says one thing… I bet opposite! It’s a winning strategy.
If I am on a train going 60 MPH and I throw a ball straight up in the air, does it land 10 yards behind me?
Amen.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
Ok, simple question. If the Earth is at the center of the solar system, then why is it that planets like distances can vary so drastically? I.E. When we are at one side of the sun and they are at the other. The distance between Earth and Mars depends on the positions of the two planets in their orbits. It can be as small as about 33,900,000 miles (54,500,000 kilometers) or as large as about 249,000,000 miles (401,300,000 kilometers). If they are in a fixed medium we would expect them to be at approx the same distance with respect to us all the time, like the sun. Also why do they loop? I.E. when we over take them in orbit.
T
tjm190
Guest
Also: we know large asteroids have hit Earth in the past- logically, these must have moved the Earth at least slightly, yes? So how can an object, which has obviously moved, be said to be the immovable center?
A
Alethios
Guest
Do the 1919 Eclipse Photographs prove General Relativity? An important claim that needs a scientific and historical response…
The possibility of accounting, in a perfectly normal way, for the observed light deflections has been dismissed by the relativist in a few words as a matter scarcely worth mentioning. While it is certain that the rays suffer some refraction in passing through the solar envelope, it is claimed by most astrophysicists that the effect is so small as to be negligible in comparison with the observed deflections. This idea is so firmly fixed that the possibility of explaining any portion of the deflections by refraction was dismissed by the British astronomers in their Report with a scant phrase or two.
The entire question depends upon the possibility of the solar envelope having density large enough to bend a ray of light by the required amount, and this in turn upon what that density really is. It can readily be shown by the ordinary formulas of optics that a lens of matter of a density of about 1/140th that of air at standard pressure and temperature would deflect a ray of light by about 1’’, the amount observed in the case of the star nearest the sun.
While there is a very open question as to the amount of refraction which would be caused by a medium of varying density, there is on the other hand practically no question as to the direction in which the bending will take place. This is purely a matter of geometry, and depends upon the fundamental law, that the incident ray, the normal to the surface, and the refracted ray, all lie in the same plane.In the case of the photographs taken at Sobral during the eclipse of May 29, 1919 an approximate solution can be made with great simplicity. For, assuming the solar envelope to be an ellipsoid of revolution with its axis coinciding with that of the sun, the axis of figure would be practically at right angles to the line of sight.
Poor then adds three tables which show the contrasting results between Einstein’s relativity and Poor’s refractive index of the solar envelope and residual matter.
Regarding Table IV of the perihelia of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, using the sum of squares to gauge the accuracy of the results, Einstein’s theory comes in at a whopping 473 off the observed values, while Poor’s is only 14. Regarding Table VI of the stars’ Computed Departures from Radiality, Einstein’s theory deviates by 2,489 from observed values, while Poor’s only by 410.
In regard to Longitude of Node and Inclination, Poor’s results come within 84% and 80%, respectively, when compared to Newcomb’s observational figures published in 1895.
As N. Martin Gwynne notes:
*The reader will doubtless not be surprised to learn that the predictions resulting from Poor’s formula were many, many times more accurate than those produced by Relativity Theory. Moreover the same explanation (the assumption of the self-same solar atmosphere), enabled him also to predict correctly the perihelion of Mercury and without being thrown into confusion by the perihelia of the other planets. *
The same assumption, in other words, gave as satisfactory an answer as could be desired in two radically different investigations.
In light of Poor’s devastating analysis, Sir John Maddox, editor of Nature, wrote:
*They [Crommelin and Eddington] were bent on measuring the deflection of light.What is not so well documented is that the measurements in 1919 were not particularly accurate. *
G. Burniston Brown adds:
Initially stars did appear to bend as they should, as required by Einstein, but then the unexpected happened: several stars were then observed to bend in a direction transverse to the expected direction and still others to bend in a direction opposite to that predicted by relativity.
Scientific American, obtaining their report directly from Crommelin’s own words, shows that even the photograph used for the tally had a significant margin of error:
*The resulting shift at the limb is 1.98’’, with a probable error of 0.12’’. It will be seen that this result agrees very closely with Einstein’s predicted value of 1.75’’.
Eddington’s experimental results from Principe Island, West Africa are dubious at best. *
On the day of the eclipse, May 29, 1919, the team was greeted with heavy rain. According to Clark, events occurred with a lick and a promise:
Not until 1:30 P.M., when the eclipse had already begun, did the party get its first glimpse of the sun.
As he records it:
But one plate that I measured gave a result agreeing with Einstein, from which he then exclaims, *
AMDG
The possibility of accounting, in a perfectly normal way, for the observed light deflections has been dismissed by the relativist in a few words as a matter scarcely worth mentioning. While it is certain that the rays suffer some refraction in passing through the solar envelope, it is claimed by most astrophysicists that the effect is so small as to be negligible in comparison with the observed deflections. This idea is so firmly fixed that the possibility of explaining any portion of the deflections by refraction was dismissed by the British astronomers in their Report with a scant phrase or two.
The entire question depends upon the possibility of the solar envelope having density large enough to bend a ray of light by the required amount, and this in turn upon what that density really is. It can readily be shown by the ordinary formulas of optics that a lens of matter of a density of about 1/140th that of air at standard pressure and temperature would deflect a ray of light by about 1’’, the amount observed in the case of the star nearest the sun.
While there is a very open question as to the amount of refraction which would be caused by a medium of varying density, there is on the other hand practically no question as to the direction in which the bending will take place. This is purely a matter of geometry, and depends upon the fundamental law, that the incident ray, the normal to the surface, and the refracted ray, all lie in the same plane.In the case of the photographs taken at Sobral during the eclipse of May 29, 1919 an approximate solution can be made with great simplicity. For, assuming the solar envelope to be an ellipsoid of revolution with its axis coinciding with that of the sun, the axis of figure would be practically at right angles to the line of sight.
Poor then adds three tables which show the contrasting results between Einstein’s relativity and Poor’s refractive index of the solar envelope and residual matter.
Regarding Table IV of the perihelia of Mercury, Venus, Earth and Mars, using the sum of squares to gauge the accuracy of the results, Einstein’s theory comes in at a whopping 473 off the observed values, while Poor’s is only 14. Regarding Table VI of the stars’ Computed Departures from Radiality, Einstein’s theory deviates by 2,489 from observed values, while Poor’s only by 410.
In regard to Longitude of Node and Inclination, Poor’s results come within 84% and 80%, respectively, when compared to Newcomb’s observational figures published in 1895.
As N. Martin Gwynne notes:
*The reader will doubtless not be surprised to learn that the predictions resulting from Poor’s formula were many, many times more accurate than those produced by Relativity Theory. Moreover the same explanation (the assumption of the self-same solar atmosphere), enabled him also to predict correctly the perihelion of Mercury and without being thrown into confusion by the perihelia of the other planets. *
The same assumption, in other words, gave as satisfactory an answer as could be desired in two radically different investigations.
In light of Poor’s devastating analysis, Sir John Maddox, editor of Nature, wrote:
*They [Crommelin and Eddington] were bent on measuring the deflection of light.What is not so well documented is that the measurements in 1919 were not particularly accurate. *
G. Burniston Brown adds:
Initially stars did appear to bend as they should, as required by Einstein, but then the unexpected happened: several stars were then observed to bend in a direction transverse to the expected direction and still others to bend in a direction opposite to that predicted by relativity.
Scientific American, obtaining their report directly from Crommelin’s own words, shows that even the photograph used for the tally had a significant margin of error:
*The resulting shift at the limb is 1.98’’, with a probable error of 0.12’’. It will be seen that this result agrees very closely with Einstein’s predicted value of 1.75’’.
Eddington’s experimental results from Principe Island, West Africa are dubious at best. *
On the day of the eclipse, May 29, 1919, the team was greeted with heavy rain. According to Clark, events occurred with a lick and a promise:
Not until 1:30 P.M., when the eclipse had already begun, did the party get its first glimpse of the sun.
‘We had to carry out our programme of photographs on faith,’
wrote Eddington in his diary.
‘I did not see the eclipse, being too busy changing plates, except for one glance to make sure it had begun and another halfway through to see how much cloud there was. We took sixteen photographs. They are all good of the sun, showing a very remarkable prominence; but the cloud has interfered with the star images. The last six photographs show a few images which I hope will give us what we need.’
wrote Eddington in his diary.
‘I did not see the eclipse, being too busy changing plates, except for one glance to make sure it had begun and another halfway through to see how much cloud there was. We took sixteen photographs. They are all good of the sun, showing a very remarkable prominence; but the cloud has interfered with the star images. The last six photographs show a few images which I hope will give us what we need.’
One might think that the mission would have been aborted, considering the minimal number of samples Eddington managed to put together. Of the six salvageable photographs, Eddington admits, seemingly without the slightest shame, that he based his conclusion on only one of the six salvageable photographic plates, while he rejected the other plates that did not give the results he expected.As he records it:
But one plate that I measured gave a result agreeing with Einstein, from which he then exclaims, *
‘it was the greatest moment of [my] life.’ *
But even Relativists admit it is absolutely crucial to obtain as many photographs with as many star images as possible. To this end, of course, it helps to have a clear sky.AMDG
A
Alethios
Guest
Do the 1919 Eclipse Photographs prove General Relativity? An important claim that needs a scientific and historical response…
When compared to a June 30, 1973 expedition led by Burton F. Jones that hoped to gather over 1,000 star images, this makes Eddington’s adventure into a virtual sham. The results of the 1973 eclipse showed 0.95 ± 0.11 arc seconds times Einstein’s figure of 1.75. With such a wide deviation, not surprisingly, the 1973 expedition was called the swan song for this type of experiment.
The photographic plate considered as successful measured a displacement of 1.61’’ ± 0.30’’. So even in the plate he depended on to prove Relativity, it is only the margin of error (0.30’’) Eddington granted to himself for the final calculations that brought the result within respectable range of Einstein’s 1.75’’ prediction. If Eddington had taken the minus side of the margin of error, the result would have been a dismal 1.31’’ and no confirmation of Relativity could be extracted from it. In any case, the other five plates that Eddington discarded measured 0.93’’ or less. In proper scientific procedure, it is the five measuring 0.93’’ or less which would serve as the control and the 1.61’’ as the anomaly, but Eddington conveniently reversed that protocol. It just so happens that a deflection of 0.93’’ is almost identical to the prediction of Newtonian physics and very far from Einsteinian physics.
That the public could be bamboozled in 1919 into believing that Relativity was proven by one mere photograph, which in itself was interpreted with obvious bias, and in the midst of five others that clearly nullified the theory, shows the influence Eddington carried in that day, as well as the utter mystique of the Relativity theory. The questionable tactics that occurred in the 1919 eclipse expeditions also occurred in 1922 efforts in Australia. After putting the evidence of their photographs on a graph, the results show 44 data points below the curve and only 25 points above, which means that whoever created the graph did not choose the proper median curve, apparently in order to give the impression that the results conformed with Relativity theory. As Arthur Lynch writes:
*The results of the observations are shown on a chart, by a series of dots, and by tracing connections between these dots it is possible to obtain a curve from which the law of deviation is inferred. But the actual charts show only an irregular group of dots, through which, if it be possible to draw a curve that seems to confirm the theory of Relativity, it is equally possible to draw a curve which runs counter to the theory.Neither curve has any justification. *
Sir Edmund Whittaker, who was no enemy of Relativity, nevertheless stated in 1952:
While it must not be regarded as impossible that the consequences of Einstein’s theory may ultimately be reconciled with the results of observations, it must be said that at the present time there is a discordance.
B. F. Jones says
*“About 160 stars were measured on each plate”. *
But his paper reveals that, no matter how careful the experiments were conducted, they were not able to get the Einstein figure of 1.75. Jones shows low readings from a PDS microphotometer of 1.49 ± 0.20 ‘’ to a high of 1.89 ± 0.18 ‘’, concluding at the end of the paper that 1.66 ± 0.18 arcsec is the final averaged result.
F.Schmeidler of Munich University Observatory did a similar plot of the 92 stars from the 1922 photos, a plot which showed the same helter-skelter results.
In addition to Eddington’s poor photography, his calculation of the deflections is contingent upon determining the star’s distance from the limb of the sun. For example, a star which is close to the limb will be deflected about 1.75’’, but a star twice the distance from the limb will be deflected half as much. Hence, determining how close a star is to the limb of the sun is absolutely crucial. Obviously, Eddington did not have nearly enough evidence to begin a calculation as sensitive as this one.
Despite these discrepancies, American astronomer W. W. Campbell made an announcement in 1923 that Einstein’s predictions had been confirmed by the 1922 results.
Astronomer Robert Dicke (who, contra Relativity, revealed that Mercury’s perihelion was due in part to the sun’s oblateness), writes:
Owing to the short duration of the eclipse and the consequent absence of repetitions of the observation, there has always been considerable doubt about the freedom of the final results from systematic errors.Furthermore, the results derived from past solar eclipses have scattered a great deal. The accuracy of the gravitational deflection of light determined from total eclipses is probably no better than 20 per cent.
Dicke’s chart shows six eclipse tests between 1919 and 1952, each with several results. Beginning with the 1919 eclipse, the results are as follows in
seconds of arc:
Trial 1: 1.87-2.12
Trial 2: 2.00-2.25
Trial 3: 2.05-2.30
Trial 4: 1.87-2.05
Trial 5: 1.27-1.87
Only Trial 5 comes within range of Einstein’s 1.75 prediction, and that is only because 1.75" comes between the lower and upper limit of the actual deflections.
AMDG
When compared to a June 30, 1973 expedition led by Burton F. Jones that hoped to gather over 1,000 star images, this makes Eddington’s adventure into a virtual sham. The results of the 1973 eclipse showed 0.95 ± 0.11 arc seconds times Einstein’s figure of 1.75. With such a wide deviation, not surprisingly, the 1973 expedition was called the swan song for this type of experiment.
The photographic plate considered as successful measured a displacement of 1.61’’ ± 0.30’’. So even in the plate he depended on to prove Relativity, it is only the margin of error (0.30’’) Eddington granted to himself for the final calculations that brought the result within respectable range of Einstein’s 1.75’’ prediction. If Eddington had taken the minus side of the margin of error, the result would have been a dismal 1.31’’ and no confirmation of Relativity could be extracted from it. In any case, the other five plates that Eddington discarded measured 0.93’’ or less. In proper scientific procedure, it is the five measuring 0.93’’ or less which would serve as the control and the 1.61’’ as the anomaly, but Eddington conveniently reversed that protocol. It just so happens that a deflection of 0.93’’ is almost identical to the prediction of Newtonian physics and very far from Einsteinian physics.
That the public could be bamboozled in 1919 into believing that Relativity was proven by one mere photograph, which in itself was interpreted with obvious bias, and in the midst of five others that clearly nullified the theory, shows the influence Eddington carried in that day, as well as the utter mystique of the Relativity theory. The questionable tactics that occurred in the 1919 eclipse expeditions also occurred in 1922 efforts in Australia. After putting the evidence of their photographs on a graph, the results show 44 data points below the curve and only 25 points above, which means that whoever created the graph did not choose the proper median curve, apparently in order to give the impression that the results conformed with Relativity theory. As Arthur Lynch writes:
*The results of the observations are shown on a chart, by a series of dots, and by tracing connections between these dots it is possible to obtain a curve from which the law of deviation is inferred. But the actual charts show only an irregular group of dots, through which, if it be possible to draw a curve that seems to confirm the theory of Relativity, it is equally possible to draw a curve which runs counter to the theory.Neither curve has any justification. *
Sir Edmund Whittaker, who was no enemy of Relativity, nevertheless stated in 1952:
While it must not be regarded as impossible that the consequences of Einstein’s theory may ultimately be reconciled with the results of observations, it must be said that at the present time there is a discordance.
B. F. Jones says
*“About 160 stars were measured on each plate”. *
But his paper reveals that, no matter how careful the experiments were conducted, they were not able to get the Einstein figure of 1.75. Jones shows low readings from a PDS microphotometer of 1.49 ± 0.20 ‘’ to a high of 1.89 ± 0.18 ‘’, concluding at the end of the paper that 1.66 ± 0.18 arcsec is the final averaged result.
F.Schmeidler of Munich University Observatory did a similar plot of the 92 stars from the 1922 photos, a plot which showed the same helter-skelter results.
In addition to Eddington’s poor photography, his calculation of the deflections is contingent upon determining the star’s distance from the limb of the sun. For example, a star which is close to the limb will be deflected about 1.75’’, but a star twice the distance from the limb will be deflected half as much. Hence, determining how close a star is to the limb of the sun is absolutely crucial. Obviously, Eddington did not have nearly enough evidence to begin a calculation as sensitive as this one.
Despite these discrepancies, American astronomer W. W. Campbell made an announcement in 1923 that Einstein’s predictions had been confirmed by the 1922 results.
Astronomer Robert Dicke (who, contra Relativity, revealed that Mercury’s perihelion was due in part to the sun’s oblateness), writes:
Owing to the short duration of the eclipse and the consequent absence of repetitions of the observation, there has always been considerable doubt about the freedom of the final results from systematic errors.Furthermore, the results derived from past solar eclipses have scattered a great deal. The accuracy of the gravitational deflection of light determined from total eclipses is probably no better than 20 per cent.
Dicke’s chart shows six eclipse tests between 1919 and 1952, each with several results. Beginning with the 1919 eclipse, the results are as follows in
seconds of arc:
Trial 1: 1.87-2.12
Trial 2: 2.00-2.25
Trial 3: 2.05-2.30
Trial 4: 1.87-2.05
Trial 5: 1.27-1.87
Only Trial 5 comes within range of Einstein’s 1.75 prediction, and that is only because 1.75" comes between the lower and upper limit of the actual deflections.
AMDG
A
Alethios
Guest
Do the 1919 Eclipse Photographs prove General Relativity? An important claim that needs a scientific and historical response…
As Guggenheimer stated in 1925:
An examination of the various tables of the deflections observed shows that many of them are far away from the quantities predicted. The quantity approximating the predicted one [1.75 arc sec.] is obtained by averaging a selected few of the observations.
The 1922 eclipse (Australia):
Trial 1: 1.37-2.17
Trial 2: 1.62-1.80
Trial 3: 1.15-2.37
Trial 4: 1.95-2.35
Trial 5: 1.62-2.05
The 1929 eclipse (Sumatra):
Trial 1: 1.62-1.87 and 2.12-2.37
Trial 2: 1.80-2.20
Trial 3: 1.85-2.05
The 1936 eclipse (One in USSR and two in Japan):
Trial 1: 2.40-2.95
Trial 2: 2.30-3.10
Trial 3: 1.25-2.30
The 1947 eclipse (Brazil):
Trial 1: 1.70-2.25
Trial 2: 1.85-2.60
The 1952 eclipse (Sudan):
Trial 1: 1.60-1.80
Trial 2: 1.20-1.50
It is interesting to note that supporters of General Relativity will record the results of these eclipse photographs in such a way as to make them appear to be very close to Einstein’s prediction of 1.75’’. For example, in Trial 1 from Australia, the data shows a range from 1.37’’ to 2.17’’, which means that there were many data points, some above and some below the median line. But when the same event is recorded in Relativity textbooks the figure given is 1.77’’ ± 0.40’’, since 1.77 is between 1.37" and 2.17". In other words, there may have been no results showing a 1.77’’ deflection, but the author merely took the average of the high (2.17’’) and low (1.37’’) data and recorded it as 1.77’’, since that figure is close to Einstein’s prediction of 1.75’’. In addition, the reader is expected to assume that the ± 0.40’’ margin of error has no effect on the conclusion.
Misner, Thorne and Wheeler quote Dicke’s results as follows:
*The analyses [of the experimental data] scatter from a deflection at the limb of the sun of 1.43 seconds of arc to 2.7 seconds [compared to a general relativistic value of 1.75 seconds].
The scatter would not be too bad if one could believe that the technique was free of systematic errors. It appears that one must consider this observation uncertain to at least 10 percent, and perhaps as much as 20 percent. *
This result corresponds to an uncertainty of 20 to 40 percent.
In brief, no one has obtained 1.75", not even Arthur Eddington. For a given radius of the star from the sun (viz., 6.956 × 10^10 cm), General Relativity is locked into one precise numerical value, 1.75 seconds of arc. If it is higher or lower, General Relativity is disqualified. In 1960,H. Von Klüber had already outlined why such tests were futile for Relativity. Among the difficulties are
For example, in the 1936 Sternberg graph it shows eleven star rays bent away from the sun and fifteen towards it, thus revealing 42% of the deflections were in the opposite direction of Einstein’s prediction. In addition, the three points on the upper left show a much sharper upturn to the deflection pattern than what is represented by the dotted line. Similarly, in the 1936 Sendai graph, there are no points of less than four solar radii that would justify drawing the hyperbola with a sharp upward slope. Other eclipse results show the same problems. In the 1947 Yerkes I graph, nineteen light rays are bent away from the sun and twenty-eight toward, showing the same ~ 41% deviating from Einstein’s prediction. In addition, the hyperbola of the graph is deceptive, since there are in reality only fourteen points above the line and twenty four below, and thus it is not representative of the mean curve.
Undaunted, modern scientists were still determined to prove Relativity. Another eclipse test was performed in 1973 but with even more dismal results. In this graph, the General Relativity prediction represented by the sharp rise in the hyperbola is hardly justifiable, since the two shaded points indicate the largest errors on the graph. On a statistical basis, a straight line intersecting the sun’s limb at ~ .7 arc seconds is more likely.
We should not be surprised at these inaccuracies. As Alan MacRobert, senior editor of Sky and Telescope, notes:
Rare is the night (at most sites) when any telescope, no matter how large its aperture or perfect its optics, can resolve details finer than 1 second of arc. More typical at ordinary locations is 2 or 3 arc-second seeing, or worse.
While the eclipse experiments were fading, Relativists then began a series of experiments using light from quasars and radio waves near the sun. But again, the primary factor limiting the accuracy was the solar corona, the hot, turbulent gas of ionized hydrogen at 2 million degrees that extends out to several solar radii from the sun.Regarding the sun’s corona, other physicists address the additional claim by Relativists concerning the Viking space probe. In words that disclose the evidential poverty of General Relativity to explain the results, Marmet and Couture conclude:
*“all the experiments claiming the deflection of light and radio waves by the sun are subjected to very large systematic errors, which render the results highly unreliable and apparently incorrect”. *
AMDG
As Guggenheimer stated in 1925:
An examination of the various tables of the deflections observed shows that many of them are far away from the quantities predicted. The quantity approximating the predicted one [1.75 arc sec.] is obtained by averaging a selected few of the observations.
The 1922 eclipse (Australia):
Trial 1: 1.37-2.17
Trial 2: 1.62-1.80
Trial 3: 1.15-2.37
Trial 4: 1.95-2.35
Trial 5: 1.62-2.05
The 1929 eclipse (Sumatra):
Trial 1: 1.62-1.87 and 2.12-2.37
Trial 2: 1.80-2.20
Trial 3: 1.85-2.05
The 1936 eclipse (One in USSR and two in Japan):
Trial 1: 2.40-2.95
Trial 2: 2.30-3.10
Trial 3: 1.25-2.30
The 1947 eclipse (Brazil):
Trial 1: 1.70-2.25
Trial 2: 1.85-2.60
The 1952 eclipse (Sudan):
Trial 1: 1.60-1.80
Trial 2: 1.20-1.50
It is interesting to note that supporters of General Relativity will record the results of these eclipse photographs in such a way as to make them appear to be very close to Einstein’s prediction of 1.75’’. For example, in Trial 1 from Australia, the data shows a range from 1.37’’ to 2.17’’, which means that there were many data points, some above and some below the median line. But when the same event is recorded in Relativity textbooks the figure given is 1.77’’ ± 0.40’’, since 1.77 is between 1.37" and 2.17". In other words, there may have been no results showing a 1.77’’ deflection, but the author merely took the average of the high (2.17’’) and low (1.37’’) data and recorded it as 1.77’’, since that figure is close to Einstein’s prediction of 1.75’’. In addition, the reader is expected to assume that the ± 0.40’’ margin of error has no effect on the conclusion.
Misner, Thorne and Wheeler quote Dicke’s results as follows:
*The analyses [of the experimental data] scatter from a deflection at the limb of the sun of 1.43 seconds of arc to 2.7 seconds [compared to a general relativistic value of 1.75 seconds].
The scatter would not be too bad if one could believe that the technique was free of systematic errors. It appears that one must consider this observation uncertain to at least 10 percent, and perhaps as much as 20 percent. *
This result corresponds to an uncertainty of 20 to 40 percent.
In brief, no one has obtained 1.75", not even Arthur Eddington. For a given radius of the star from the sun (viz., 6.956 × 10^10 cm), General Relativity is locked into one precise numerical value, 1.75 seconds of arc. If it is higher or lower, General Relativity is disqualified. In 1960,H. Von Klüber had already outlined why such tests were futile for Relativity. Among the difficulties are
- the refraction of light in the sun’s corona;
- distortions in the optics caused by temperature changes during the eclipse;
- changes in scale between the eclipse and the control photographs;
- distortions in photographic emulsion while drying;
- errors in measuring the images on the photographs.
For example, in the 1936 Sternberg graph it shows eleven star rays bent away from the sun and fifteen towards it, thus revealing 42% of the deflections were in the opposite direction of Einstein’s prediction. In addition, the three points on the upper left show a much sharper upturn to the deflection pattern than what is represented by the dotted line. Similarly, in the 1936 Sendai graph, there are no points of less than four solar radii that would justify drawing the hyperbola with a sharp upward slope. Other eclipse results show the same problems. In the 1947 Yerkes I graph, nineteen light rays are bent away from the sun and twenty-eight toward, showing the same ~ 41% deviating from Einstein’s prediction. In addition, the hyperbola of the graph is deceptive, since there are in reality only fourteen points above the line and twenty four below, and thus it is not representative of the mean curve.
Undaunted, modern scientists were still determined to prove Relativity. Another eclipse test was performed in 1973 but with even more dismal results. In this graph, the General Relativity prediction represented by the sharp rise in the hyperbola is hardly justifiable, since the two shaded points indicate the largest errors on the graph. On a statistical basis, a straight line intersecting the sun’s limb at ~ .7 arc seconds is more likely.
We should not be surprised at these inaccuracies. As Alan MacRobert, senior editor of Sky and Telescope, notes:
Rare is the night (at most sites) when any telescope, no matter how large its aperture or perfect its optics, can resolve details finer than 1 second of arc. More typical at ordinary locations is 2 or 3 arc-second seeing, or worse.
While the eclipse experiments were fading, Relativists then began a series of experiments using light from quasars and radio waves near the sun. But again, the primary factor limiting the accuracy was the solar corona, the hot, turbulent gas of ionized hydrogen at 2 million degrees that extends out to several solar radii from the sun.Regarding the sun’s corona, other physicists address the additional claim by Relativists concerning the Viking space probe. In words that disclose the evidential poverty of General Relativity to explain the results, Marmet and Couture conclude:
*“all the experiments claiming the deflection of light and radio waves by the sun are subjected to very large systematic errors, which render the results highly unreliable and apparently incorrect”. *
AMDG
H
hecd2
Guest
All of these huge number of verbose posts on the 1919 observations are a complete waste of time, because the bending of electromagnetic radiation by the sun has been measured enormously more accurately since 1919. VLBA measurements agree with the GR prediction within 0.002% with an accuracy of +/-0.003%.
Alec
evolutionpages.com
L
Luke65
Guest
I didn’t start with a bias. I believed everything mainstream science fed me. I had the authority of Catholic schools telling me it was so, so don’t worry about what the Bible says and put my faith in “science”. So I did, except that I thought man was a unique creation because I didn’t see any ape-men running around this planet - just human beings and everything else with an immeasurable gap in between. But then I studied the issues. And I prayed to God to lead me to the truth, and He did. And so, I can see clearly now the rain has come!Aquinas, whom you seem to have great respect for, said that “Authority is the weakest form of proof.” I do not criticize your questioning mainstream science, but to say that you should “bet the opposite” seems to indicate that (Christian) science should begin with bias.
And what if you’re on top of the train? Pretty strong wind, eh? That’s the correct analogy - unless you’re inside Earth!
T
thunderballs75
Guest
A geocentric universe is a ridiculous idea. Do you guys seriously think that the entire Sun goes around the earth, every day, in 24 hours? Absolutely absurd.
C
Charles_Darwin
Guest
They think the entire cosmos does, lmao. Now that IS absurd.
B
buffalo
Guest
Is this an argument from incredulity?
L
Luke_K
Guest
I just found this thread, and it’s quite a shock to me that some people still believe in a geocentric universe. :ehh:
I mean, you might as well throw out all of cosmology and physics for the past several hundred years if you believe that. And completely ignore all other solar systems observed in the universe. And abandon all of our God-given faculties of rational observation and faith in divinely ordained physical laws.
Although, I guess you could arbitrarily choose any point in the solar system as the “center,” but it makes things so much more mathematically simple, astro-historically cohesive, and physcially sensible to place the sun at the center.
L
Luke65
Guest
Thanks for explaining that to us. What is it you think? That we don’t know how absurd it is that this whole vast and glorious universe should rotate around lil’ old Earth? Why, the only thing I’ve ever heard more ridiculous than that, that I believe, is that the Creator of this whole vast and glorious universe can be found right here on Earth, at your local Catholic Church, in a little piece of bread.
“I praise you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and learned, and revealed them to little children. Yes, Father, for this was your good pleasure.” (Luke 10:21)
- Status