Fe gravity as it relates to the speed of light

Forgive me I'm bored... I skimmed and didn't see this posted...

Quote from: Erasmus on July 05, 2006, 01:09:40 PM

-- in particular, she will measure it to be g/γ^3, where γ = 1/sqrt(1 - v^2/c^2).

I know nothing about special relativity, but understand the mathematics used. Where does this acceleration come from and where does the equation for Y come from?

I hope I didn't miss this in the thread... 

Start with generic linear transformations for distance and time (ignore y and z directions because they are not relevant):

     t = at' + bx'

     x = mx' + nt'

In the Galilean transformation, a = m = 1, b = 0, and n = v.

Now, take differentials and find velocity, dx/dt (remember they are linear):

     dt = adt' + bdx'

     dx = mdx' + ndt'

     dx/dt = (mdx' + ndt')/(adt' + bdx')

and so

     dx/dt = (mdx'/dt' + n)/(a + bdx'/dt')


Now, here is the key, assume that the speed of light is the same in all inertial frames. Therefore, let c = dx/dt = dx'/dt'

     c = (mc + n)/(a + bc)

Just for kicks, solve for this: m = a + bc - n/c


now, go back to this:

     dx/dt = (mdx'/dt' + n)/(a + bdx'/dt')

Now, let dx'/dt' = 0 , solve for n:

     dx/dt = [m(0) + n]/[a + b(0)]

     dx/dt = n/a

     n = adx/dt
     ==>  n = av



Now, take advantage of the linearity of the system again and the equivalence of inertial frames and get dx'/dt' solved for:

     dx'/dt' = (mdx/dt - n)/ (a - bdx/dt)

now let dx'/dt' = 0

     0 = (mdx/dt - n)/(a - bdx/dt)

Substitute in m:

    0 = [ (a + bc - n/c)dx/dt - n]/ (a - bdx/dt)

Substitue dx/dt = v and n = av, and solve for b:

    0 = [ (a + bc - av/c)v - av]/ (a - bv)

    0 = (a + bc - av/c)v - av

    0 = av + bvc - av^2/c - av

    bvc = -av + av^2/c + av

    b = -a/c + av/c^2 + a/c

    b = av/c^2


Now, for convenience, let β = v/c

So n = aβc, and b = aβ/c







Now we have to find a


Start here with the time transformation: t = at' + bx' and multiply by c:

    ct = act' + bcx'

Now, plug in b = aβ/c. This gives

    ct = act' + aβ/c *cx'

    ct = act' + aβx'

factoring out a gives

    ct = a(ct' + βx')


Now do the distance transformation (subbing in b, n, and m):

    x = (a + a(β/c)c - aβc/c)x' + aβct'

    x = (a + aβ - aβ)x' + aβct'

    x = ax' + aβct'

factoring out a gives

    x = a(x' + βct')



Now, we will substitute t and x into the transformations from the other frame     

    ct' = a(ct - βx)

and

    x' = a(x - βct)


And solve for a:

    Substitute ct = a(ct + βx)

    ct' = a { a[ (ct' + βx') - βx] }

Now substitue x = a(x' + βct'). This gives

    ct' = a { a[ (ct' + βx') - β( a[x' + βct'] ) ] }

Now everything is in terms of ct' and x'. Distributing the a's within the { } gives

    ct' = a [ act' + aβx' - β(ax' + aβct') ]

Distributing the β in the term on the right within the [ ] gives

    ct' = a (act' + aβx' - βax' - aβ^2ct')

    ct' = a (act' - aβ^2ct')

Factoring out the ct' and the a's in the ( ) gives

    ct' = a^2ct' (1 - β^2)

Dividing both sides by ct' gives

    1 = a^2 (1 - β^2)

Solving for a gives

    a = 1/√(1 - β^2)

Considering that β = v/c, we have

    a = 1/√(1 - v^2/c^2)

which is the Lorentz factor

    a = γ = 1/√(1 - v^2/c^2)




So, then you do something similar to find the acceleration Lorentz transformation, but that one is about twice as tedious, so I think I'll go ahead and let you do it... 

oh! and you can't ignore the y and z directions in deriving the acceleration transformations!

FE are doing here exactly what they try and do in all other threads, and that is confuse the issues with totally bogus data in the hope people will give up, and they do. I wait with baited breath for them to do it here.

Cant hide blue/red shift unless they invent yet another new term like "Light Auto-decelotrometry". By now, Earth/ the universe is going at 99.9(9999... etc) light speed, and light in the universe is still going at 1.0c, and hitting us from other suns/stars that are accellerating with us, in order to stay in our frame of reference, and we still measure the SAME red/blue shift as they did 100 years ago, as everything is moving at linear speeds, with no accelleration.

FE are doing here exactly what they try and do in all other threads, and that is confuse the issues with totally bogus data in the hope people will give up, and they do. I wait with baited breath for them to do it here.

Cant hide blue/red shift unless they invent yet another new term like "Light Auto-decelotrometry". By now, Earth/ the universe is going at 99.9(9999... etc) light speed, and light in the universe is still going at 1.0c, and hitting us from other suns/stars that are accellerating with us, in order to stay in our frame of reference, and we still measure the SAME red/blue shift as they did 100 years ago, as everything is moving at linear speeds, with no accelleration.

I'm not sure what your point is.

FE are doing here exactly what they try and do in all other threads, and that is confuse the issues with totally bogus data in the hope people will give up, and they do. I wait with baited breath for them to do it here.

Cant hide blue/red shift unless they invent yet another new term like "Light Auto-decelotrometry". By now, Earth/ the universe is going at 99.9(9999... etc) light speed, and light in the universe is still going at 1.0c, and hitting us from other suns/stars that are accellerating with us, in order to stay in our frame of reference, and we still measure the SAME red/blue shift as they did 100 years ago, as everything is moving at linear speeds, with no accelleration.

congratulations you just disproved relativity's.
Seriously though relativity deals with that problem. I can explain it for you if you want.

congratulations you just disproved relativity's.
Seriously though relativity deals with that problem. I can explain it for you if you want.
[/quote]

No I didnt. I do await your made-up explanation though. Might be funny.

congratulations you just disproved relativity's.
Seriously though relativity deals with that problem. I can explain it for you if you want.

No I didn't. I do await your made-up explanation though. Might be funny.
[/quote]
red/blue shift is caused by differences in speed between the object that emits the photon and the thing that absorbs the photon. because we are accelerating at the same rate the difference between our speed and the speed of the sun when the photon left the surface of the sun would be the same.
Let say you are in a ship accelerating and you are looking at the light on top of the ceiling. You say you would have different blue shifts at different speeds.  However relativity says that it would be constant as long as the acceleration is constant. I mean that both objects are accelerating at the same pace not that one is accelerating and one is staying constant. In fact the blue shift should be the same as if you were in a gravity field that causes that acceleration. Otherwise you would be able to tell how fast you were going compared to space which relativity say is impossible, you would also be able to tell the difference between being in a box that is accelerating and a box that is on the surface of a planet that is generating gravity, which relativity says is impossible.

By now, Earth/ the universe is going at 99.9(9999... etc) light speed,

.999...9c with respect to what?

Quote from: Taurondir on April 07, 2009, 09:49:10 PM

By now, Earth/ the universe is going at 99.9(9999... etc) light speed,

.999...9c with respect to what?

Perhaps the source of the UA that we are accelerating away from. 

Quote from: Taurondir on April 07, 2009, 09:49:10 PM

By now, Earth/ the universe is going at 99.9(9999... etc) light speed,

.999...9c with respect to what?

I assume the velocity we started at.

Flawed. You can't do analogies right. Why make the car travel in a circle when the earth is traveling straight? And just because Alice jumped off doesn't mean now the earth can slow down. Say 1 person jumped off every hour: now we have reference that guarantees constant acceleration.

Flawed. You can't do analogies right. Why make the car travel in a circle when the earth is traveling straight? And just because Alice jumped off doesn't mean now the earth can slow down. Say 1 person jumped off every hour: now we have reference that guarantees constant acceleration.

Do not bump a three year old thread with no reference to what in the 22 previous pages you might happen to be referring to. There are plenty of more recent posts in the forum that deal with whatever difficulty you are having understanding relativity.

Quote from: Taurondir on April 07, 2009, 09:49:10 PM

FE are doing here exactly what they try and do in all other threads, and that is confuse the issues with totally bogus data in the hope people will give up, and they do. I wait with baited breath for them to do it here.

Cant hide blue/red shift unless they invent yet another new term like "Light Auto-decelotrometry". By now, Earth/ the universe is going at 99.9(9999... etc) light speed, and light in the universe is still going at 1.0c, and hitting us from other suns/stars that are accellerating with us, in order to stay in our frame of reference, and we still measure the SAME red/blue shift as they did 100 years ago, as everything is moving at linear speeds, with no accelleration.

I'm not sure what your point is.

And there lies the problem.  If you never understand all the areas where a FE concept spirals out of control there is no way for someone to explain it is there?

Like explaining what the color orange looks like to someone that is color blind.  Good luck Taurondir.

I'm open to constructive criticism, but I don't see the issue here outside of someone's misunderstanding of relativity.

I wouldn't call it an issue per say.

Taurondir is basically screwed.

He succinctly summed up a glaring issue with the accellerating planet theory that would be essentially impossible to explain away without creating a brand new theory.

FYI his 99.999999999999% is relative to the speed of light, period, ignoring frames of reference as they not required for his argument about red/blue shift or to word it differently they do not change his argument, to word it yet another way still, fine, pick any frame of reference you want, wait a year out from there, we are now 99.99etc.% of the speed of light to whatever frame of reference you previously picked that is not specifically this accellerating planet itself (with the exception of another planetary body accellerating at the exact same magnitude and vector).

The response to this is "I don't get why it matters".

Thus, in a nutshell, Taurondir isn't going to get very far.  You can proove anything, but if the person you are explaining it to responds with "what's your point"?  Where else is there to go from there?  It is a fundamental problem.  You can't explain to someone where their model falls apart if they don't understand where their model falls apart.  If they did understand where their model fell apart you wouldn't have to explain it to them.

Catch 22

"FYI his 99.999999999999% is relative to the speed of light, period, ignoring frames of reference as they not required for his argument about red/blue shift or to word it differently they do not change his argument, to word it yet another way still, fine, pick any frame of reference you want, wait a year out from there, we are now 99.99etc.% of the speed of light to whatever frame of reference you previously picked that is not specifically this accellerating planet itself (with the exception of another planetary body accellerating at the exact same magnitude and vector)."

Lemme try this from one more angle, if you are always accellerating at a rate sufficient to achieve velocity close to the speed of light within a relatively short time span, then where you originally take a frame of reference to be unless it is always where you are now or on a location with identical accelleration characteristics, no longer matters as it is trivialized by your constant accelleration for purposes of his argument.

Off the top of my head I'm not sure how else to put it.  If that still doesn't make sense then I'm not sure what else to say.

Observers on earth always observe light at traveling at c. The visible universe appears to be accelerating at the same rate as the earth; hence universal acceleration/accelerator (UA). An object that was not accelerating relative to the earth would also observe light traveling at c and the earth traveling at some speed subliminal velocity approaching c with time. To this outside observer, the earth (were it luminous) and the rest of the heavens would exhibit ever decreasing red-shift. To the observer on the earth no shift is observed from celestial light. 

Ah, forgive my misunderstanding then.  I was unaware that the relative accelleration was theoretically being applied to the entire universe in the same vector and magnitude (relatively speaking).

In that case, yes, you are right.  There would be no observable change in the red/blue effect.


Though from this light, how would it make sense for the stars to change position in cycles relative to earth if everything is experiencing the same relative accelleration?  That would suggest (relative to us) that their vector would have an additional massively strong spiraling to its accelleration in order to keep the same (average) trajectory?  If you are one of the FE'rs that believes in the infinite plane model it can not be explained by the earth observer's plan tilting?

I do not subscribe to the infinite plane theory despite it's elegance.

Celestial objects move about barycenters in addition to their acceleration "up".

Given the distance from us to the celestial objects being considerable with respect to the cycling actions that would have to take place to adjust their viewable position from earth.  I would think that kind of dramatic movement about a barycenter would cause far too much inertial stress from centripetal and counter accelleration and tear them apart?

If this is getting too far off topic forgive me and feel free to point where this has already been explained elsewhere.

The celestial objects are much closer than orthodoxy's cosmology places them.  Further, I don't see the stresses anything like the imaginings of the orthodoxy which places the earth revolving, first about its own axis at more than 1000 miles an hour, then off-axis about the sun at a fanciful rate over 67,000 miles an hour, which is itself traveling around a galaxy at a rate more than 550,000 mph, while the galaxy itself rotates about a local at an even greater rate, which moves about a "super cluster". I'd love to see a plot of the corkscrew motion our poor planet must be inscribing through space. It's "staggering" that one can stand without falling.

Nah,

I'd have to run the math on the difference in distance.  How far does your model place the stars away from us?


In regard to the strains on our own planet, it's all about the amount of centripetal accelleration generated.  If you consider that, then the ammount generated to us at the earth's surface is pretty trivial despite the high speed (magnitude) because the relative vector change is so small.

Take a model of the globe, put string with weights at the end and spin it slow enough to rotate 1 time per day.  Nothing is going to happen remotely exciting.

Ditto with it's orbital pattern.


Now having said that,

if the pattern that the stars must follow to reflect what is viewed from earth's surface are of sufficient distance away, then the magnitude and vector change they would have to experience would be litterally tearing them to shreds.

solmyre, where did you learn physics?

You wrote:

Take a model of the globe, put string with weights at the end and spin it slow enough to rotate 1 time per day.  Nothing is going to happen remotely exciting.


From Galileo Was Wrong:

If we look more closely at the overall relationship of the Earth to the atmosphere (in addition to the Coriolis forces), the air patterns we see on the Earth today do not correspond to a rotating Earth. They correspond to a fixed Earth.

Atmospheric circulation:

The conventional model

Global air circulation can be explained in a two-step model. The first starts with three simplifying assumptions:

The Earth is not rotating in space.
The Earth’s surface is composed of similar materials.
Solar heating and loss of infrared radiation cause a temperature gradient of hot air at the equator and cold air at the poles, forcing warm air away from the equator toward the poles.

The velocity should exponentially increase with altitude at the equator from 0 to 1054 mph.

Based on the conventional Hadley cycle and Coriolis force model:


If there is a jet stream anywhere it should be east-to-west, at the equator, but it is not.

There is a Northern hemisphere mid-latitude west-to-east jet stream, but that is the wrong location and the wrong direction.

There is a Southern high-latitude east-to-west jet stream, which is the wrong location.

The highest steady winds at altitude anywhere seem to be about 50 knots, way below the rotational predictions.

Hence, it seems that the Earth is not rotating, but variable winds are caused by thermal and pressure gradients. Rotation only seems to be discussed in theory regarding the secondary Coriolis side effect, not the main feature, that is, the transition from an accelerated to an inertial frame. Remember, the Coriolis force is not unique to a rotating Earth; the same inertial forces would be present if the universe rotated around an immobile Earth. Mach’s principle is still in effect, as always.

But how can inertial winds of 1054 mph not play a significant role in a predictive model of terrestrial air patterns? It seems that no matter which choice for the atmosphere one takes – that it turns with or does not turn with the Earth – it defies either logic or observation.

If we are on a rotating Earth with air subject only to gravity (i.e., the atmosphere is not coupled or bound by any forces to turn with the Earth), then we would experience tremendous wind problems, in which the spinning Earth encounters the full weight of the atmosphere. (NB: The atmosphere weighs more than 4 million billion tons.) The minor thermal differences between poles and equator would be wiped out by the blast of west-to-east air, that is, the collision of free air and the spinning Earth.

Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.



solmyre, you should have studied this subject more thoroughly...


http://www.realityreviewed.com/Restoring%20forces.htm

Restoring Forces Paradox by Dr. Neville Jones, one of the most superb arguments for the fact that the Earth is actually stationary.


Here are Dr. Neville Jones' conclusions:

The World either rotates or it doesn't.

If the World rotates, then its atmosphere must rotate, because we do not experience lethal windspeeds as a function of latitude. In this case, a restoring force is necessary to explain periods of local atmospheric calm. This field would have an effect on all material objects and would seriously restrict our daily motion in all but an eastwardly direction.

If the World does not rotate, then its atmosphere cannot rotate, and successive periods of local calm are caused in this case simply by decreasing kinetic energy (and linear momentum) of the air molecules as the magnitudes of their velocities are reduced by collisions. This requires the absence of any rotational field and also the absence of even a non-rotating vector field (which would make itself apparent via atmospheric damping).

Unlike the field of gravity, there exists no evidence to support the idea of a restoring vector field.

Since there is no restoring field, the World and its associated atmosphere cannot be rotating about an axis. Observations of daily celestial motion in this case show that the universe must be geocentric, or else geobounded.



And you haven't done your homework on the Coriolis force paradox...

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg953747.html#msg953747

G.B. Airy experiment, stellar parallax/aberration:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=30499.msg1231580#msg1231580

And your ignorance, solmyre, does not stop here.

Obviously, you have never heard of the greatest physics experiment performed in the 19th century...

This is the very best proof that the Earth does not rotate around its own axis, on the contrary, it is stationary. It also proves the existence of an energy layer (let us call it aether) confirming Newton's ideas on the circulating ether.


"Airy's failure" (Reference - Proc. Roy. Soc. London v 20 p 35). Telescopes have to be very slightly tilted to get the starlight going down the axis of the tube because of the earth's "speed around the sun".

Airy filled a telescope with water that greatly slowed down the speed of the light inside the telescope and found that he did not have to change the angle of the telescope. This showed that the starlight was already coming in at the original measured angle so that no change was needed. This demonstrated that it was the stars moving relative to a stationary earth and not the fast orbiting earth moving relative to the comparatively stationary stars. If it was the telescope moving he would have had to change the angle.

(Imagine the telescope like a tube, sloped so that the light from one star hits the bottom of the tube. Even if the starlight is slowed down inside the tube (using water), it will still hit the bottom of the tube because its direction is already determined. If it were the tube that was moving, slowing down the starlight would mean that the angle of the tube would have to change for the light to hit the bottom of the tube.)


Airy's experiment proved that the starlight was already coming into the earth at an angle, being carried along by the rotating aether.


More details on the G.B. Airy experiment:

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php/topic,30499.msg1231580.html#msg1231580

Dayton Miller ether drift results


http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm]http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm


"The effect [of ether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect." Dayton Miller (1928, p.399)

"My opinion about Miller's experiments is the following. ... Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."

Albert Einstein, in a letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July 1925 (from copy in Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem.) See citations below for Silberstein 1925 and Einstein 1926.


"I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards."

Albert Einstein, in a letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 (in Clark 1971, p.328)






Dayton Miller's light-beam interferometer, at 4.3 meters across, was the largest and most sensitive of this type of apparatus ever constructed, with a mirror-reflected round-trip light-beam path of 64 meters. It was used in a definitive set of ether-drift experiments on Mt. Wilson, 1925-1926. Protective insulation is removed in this photograph, and windows were present all around the shelter at the level of the interferometer light-path.


Dayton Miller's 1933 paper in Reviews of Modern Physics details the positive results from over 20 years of experimental research into the question of ether-drift, and remains the most definitive body of work on the subject of light-beam interferometry.



While Miller had a rough time convincing some of his contemporaries about the reality of his ether-measurements, he clearly could not be ignored in this regard. As a graduate of physics from Princeton University, President of the American Physical Society and Acoustical Society of America, Chairman of the Division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council, Chairman of the Physics Department of Case School of Applied Science (today Case Western Reserve University), and Member of the National Academy of Sciences well known for his work in acoustics, Miller was no "outsider". While he was alive, he produced a series of papers presenting solid data on the existence of a measurable ether-drift, and he successfully defended his findings to not a small number of critics, including Einstein. His work employed light-beam interferometers of the same type used by Michelson-Morley, but of a more sensitive construction, with a significantly longer light-beam path. He periodically took the device high atop Mt. Wilson (above 6,000' elevation), where Earth-entrained ether-theory predicted the ether would move at a faster speed than close to sea-level. While he was alive, Miller's work could not be fundamentally undermined by the critics.


In his 1933 paper, Miller published the most comprehensive summary of his work, and the large quantity of data which supported his conclusions. A total of over 200,000 individual readings were made, from over 12,000 individual turns of the interferometer, undertaken at different months of the year, starting in 1902 with Edward Morley at Case School in Cleveland, and ending in 1926 with his Mt. Wilson experiments. These data do not include many rigorous control experiments undertaken at Case School Physics Department from 1922 to 1924. More than half of Miller's readings were made at Mt. Wilson using the most sophisticated and controlled procedures, with the most telling set of experiments in 1925 and 1926. By contrast, we can mention here, the original Michelson-Morley experiment of 1887 involved only six hours of data collection over four days (July 8, 9, 11 and 12 of 1887), with a grand total of only 36 turns of their interferometer. Even so, as shown below, Michelson-Morley originally obtained a slight positive result which has been systematically ignored or misrepresented by modern physics. As stated by Michelson-Morley:

"...the relative velocity of the earth and the ether is probably less than one-sixth the earth's orbital velocity, and certainly less than one-fourth. ... The experiment will therefore be repeated at intervals of three months, and thus all uncertainty will be avoided." (Michelson-Morley 1887)

Unfortunately, and in spite of all claims to the contrary, Michelson-Morley never undertook those additional experiments at the different seasonal configurations, to "avoid all uncertainty". However, Miller did.




Dayton Miller discovered, through carefully performed experiments, the existence of the telluric currents.


Einstein's Special Relativity theory demanded that the Michelson-Morley experiments must have been null!  The aether was not acceptable.  DeMeo reports (January 2001) that he has now found evidence that Einstein was more directly involved than he had thought.  Much new material has been added to his original paper, which concentrated on Shankland's 1955 report, written in consultation with Einstein.  (Shankland had been an assistant to Miller in 1932-3.)

As Miller said, in an article in a local paper:

The trouble with Professor Einstein is that he knows nothing about my results. ... He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature. (Cleveland Plain Dealer January 27, 1926.)

It was evidently a power struggle between the two, the odds tipped in favour of Einstein by the media-enhanced "victory" of his General Relativity theory after the 1919 eclipse.



And now, the most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm (scroll down to the section: With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states...)


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html



HOW EINSTEIN MODIFIED HIS FORMULA RELATING TO MERCURY'S ORBIT IN ORDER TO FIT THE RESULTS:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm (scroll down to The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look...)

And now, the most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html

As I read the first sentences of this article, this is what I found:

What is particularly clear is that it is probable that Eddington fudged the data to make it conform to Einsteins work on general relativity.

So, who faked the data, Eddington or Einstein? And who convinced all scientists from 1919 to 2012 to fake the data once and again and again? Every time there is a total solar eclipse there are at least a few astronomers repeating what Eddington did, and everyone can gain fame and fortune by finding an anomaly. Why are all of them faking the data and staying in anonymity?

Quote from: levee on October 08, 2012, 04:47:38 AM

And now, the most extraordinary proofs on HOW EINSTEIN FAKED HIS 1919/1922 DATA FOR THE SO CALLED EINSTEIN SHIFT:

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html

As I read the first sentences of this article, this is what I found:

Quote

What is particularly clear is that it is probable that Eddington fudged the data to make it conform to Einsteins work on general relativity.

So, who faked the data, Eddington or Einstein? And who convinced all scientists from 1919 to 2012 to fake the data once and again and again? Every time there is a total solar eclipse there are at least a few astronomers repeating what Eddington did, and everyone can gain fame and fortune by finding an anomaly. Why are all of them faking the data and staying in anonymity?

That sent a chill down my spine.

Here is the entire story of the fake data of the 1919/1922 eclipses.


With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article states:

In 1917, after more than two years of war, England enacted conscription for all able-bodied men. Eddington, who was 34, was eligible for draft. But as a devout Quaker, he was a conscientious objector; and it was generally known and expected that he would claim deferment from military service on that ground. Now the climate of opinion in England during the war was very adverse with respect to conscientious objectors: it was, in fact, a social disgrace to be even associated with one. And the stalwarts of Cambridge of those days Larmor (of the Larmor precession), Newall, and others felt that Cambridge University would be disgraced by having one of its distinguished members a declared conscientious objector.

They therefore tried through the Home Office to have Eddington deferred on the grounds that he was a most distinguished scientist and that it was not in the long-range interests of Britain to have him serve in the army... In any event, at Dyson's intervention as the Astronomer Royal, he had close connections with the Admiralty Eddington was deferred with the express stipulation that if the war should have ended by 1919, he should lead one of two expeditions that were being planned for the express purpose of verifying Einstein's prediction with regard to the gravitational deflection of light... The Times of London for November 7, 1919, carried two headlines: "The Glorious Dead, Armistice Observance. All Trains in the Country to Stop," and "Revolution in Science. Newtonian Ideas Overthrown."


Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper  titled "The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem," and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.


So now we find that the legend of Albert Einstein as the world's greatest scientist was based on the Mathematical Magic of Trimming and Cooking of the eclipse data to present the illusion that Einstein's general relativity theory was correct in order to prevent Cambridge University from being disgraced because one of its distinguished members was close to being declared a "conscientious objector"!


Many more details here:


http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html


http://web.archive.org/web/20070202201854/http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html

Conversely, if we are on a rotating Earth and somehow this atmosphere is turning with us, what is the coupling mechanism that enables it to do so? It must have some link to provide the torque to continue the coordinated rotation of the Earth with its wrapper of air. Would not a co-turning atmosphere and Earth mean nothing else could move the air? Otherwise, is not the air was acting as a solid, not a gas? No one has proposed a mechanism for this connection of the supposedly spinning Earth to the supposedly spinning air that is so strong that the atmosphere is forced to spin along with Earth, though otherwise it is free to move anywhere that gravity permits! We easily demonstrate the air’s freedom every time we walk through it or breathe it. Yet, we are told, the air obediently follows the Earth as it twirls through the heavens.

I always thought this had to do with air pressure and viscous friction.  As to why the atmosphere can move with the Earth at an incredible rate of speed and we can move against the atmosphere relatively easily, I think a good example would be a semi truck pulling a pool of water.  This water could be traveling at 60mph, but if we jumped in we could swim through it with ease as we're going the same speed.

Here is the entire story of the fake data of the 1919/1922 eclipses.

Who cares about the 1919 and 1922 eclipses? The measurements have been repeated every few years by several independent groups of astronomers who have much better equipment than Eddington. And none of them have denounced Relativity, even though they would earn Nobel prizes for demonstrating that Relativity is wrong.

I have heard stories about Eddington being wrong, possibly with his maths after the measurements, but science has no interest in the battle of personalities. If we give the most implacable critics every benefit of doubt and declare every observation by Eddington invalid we still have no way to dismiss the dozens of repetitions that have been made of the observations, in general with better equipment than Eddington ever had.