http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20..._innocent.html
"Arthur Eddington was innocent!"

http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses
"Relativité: les preuves étaient fausses"

http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...-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."

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...out-relativity
"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (you’re 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 Einstein’s death in 1955,
scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
action."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev***yahoo.com

"Pentcho Valev" <pvalev***yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5af65e1b-a415-45d4-bafb-88d83abdf712***59g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20..._innocent.html
"Arthur Eddington was innocent!"

http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses
"Relativité: les preuves étaient fausses"

http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...-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."

http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...out-relativity
"The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (you’re 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 Einstein’s death in 1955,
scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
action."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev***yahoo.com

----------------------------------------
I don't trust that magazine. I never have and I never will. Its a popular
science magazine and not a respected journal. Just look at this comment

" Who invented relativity? Bzzzt—wrong. Galileo hit on the idea in 1639,
when he showed that a falling object behaves the same way on a moving ship
as it does in a motionless building"

A good example of why I don't trust this magazine. Einstein created
relativity, not Galileo. There is a difference between the two theories
because the Galileo's only applied to the laws of physics as they were known
at the time, i.e. just mechanics. Electrodynamics didn't exist at the time
and therefore it said nothing about them. Later when EM came along it seemed
like that there was an absolute frame and hence the ether was born. Einstein
to the rescue and postulated that all the laws of physics, not just
mechanics, remained unchanged.

Pete

On Jun 22, 7:36***am, "Pmb" <peter.m.br...***somewhere.net> wrote:
> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20..._innocent.html
> "Arthur Eddington was innocent!"
>
> http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses
> "Relativité: les preuves étaient fausses"
>
> http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...-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."
>
> http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...out-relativity
> "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (you’re 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 Einstein’s death in 1955,
> scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
> action."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...***yahoo.com
>
> ----------------------------------------
> I don't trust that magazine. I never have and ***I never will. Its a popular
> science magazine and not a respected journal. Just look at this comment
>
> " Who invented relativity? Bzzzt—wrong. Galileo hit on the idea in 1639,
> when he showed that a falling object behaves the same way on a moving ship
> as it does in a motionless building"
>
> A good example of why I don't trust this magazine. Einstein created
> relativity, not Galileo. There is a difference between the two theories
> because the Galileo's only applied to the laws of physics as they were known
> at the time, i.e. just mechanics. Electrodynamics didn't exist at the time
> and therefore it said nothing about them. Later when EM came along it seemed
> like that there was an absolute frame and hence the ether was born. Einstein
> to the rescue and postulated that all the laws of physics, not just
> mechanics, remained unchanged.
>
> Pete

Zombie trust magazine not. Zombie trust Divine Albert. Divine Albert
clever very clever. Divine Albert tell zombie about principle of
relativity:

http://www.bartleby.com/173/7.html
Divine Albert: "The velocity W of the man relative to the embankment
is here replaced by the velocity of light relative to the embankment.
w is the required velocity of light with respect to the carriage, and
we have w = c - v. The velocity of propagation of a ray of light
relative to the carriage thus comes out smaller than c. But this
result comes into conflict with the principle of relativity set forth
in Section V. For, like every other general law of nature, the law of
the transmission of light in vacuo must, according to the principle of
relativity, be the same for the railway carriage as reference-body as
when the rails are the body of reference. But, from our above
consideration, this would appear to be impossible. If every ray of
light is propagated relative to the embankment with the velocity c,
then for this reason it would appear that another law of propagation
of light must necessarily hold with respect to the carriage—a result
contradictory to the principle of relativity."

Zombie sing "Divine Einstein". Zombie go into convulsions.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev***yahoo.com

On 22 Jun, 06:16, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20...ton_was_innoce...
> "Arthur Eddington was innocent!"
>
> http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...ves-taient-fau...
> "Relativité: les preuves étaient fausses"
>
> http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...0-histoire-des...
> "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."
>
> http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar....t-know-about-...
> "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (you’re 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 Einstein’s death in 1955,
> scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
> action."
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...***yahoo.com

The magazine article dealt with EEddigton's experiment. The deflection
predicted by GR is in fact twice that of simple Newtonian theory. The
GR predictions are correct. There are other things not mentioned. The
precession of the orbit of Mercury, confirmed by the astonishing
accuracy of modern orbital calculations. There is GPS, there is the
energy loss of orbiting pulsars. None of this was mentioned.

Interestingly the focus of the article was on cosmology. The speeding
up of the Universe is indeed an astonishing result. It is based on
type 2 supernovae (note the way the plural is formed - more later).
That is supernovae produced by the accretion of matter in a double
star system. The amount of energy released is a pecise quantity.

BTW - In my day people learnt French. Today there is Google Translate
which works well for French and Spanish (pretty much identical
grammatically), despite my strictuires on Arabic. Kurtzweil says that
no one who worked on the project spoke Arabic. It seems Latin neither.
Few people in the words of Chaucer speak "Stratford at y bow", and
nobody understands the Prioress' medallion "Amor vincit omnia". the
plural of nova is novae (first conjugation feminine).


- Ian Parker

On Jun 22, 10:03***pm, Ian Parker <ianpark...***gmail.com> wrote:
> On 22 Jun, 06:16, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
> > http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...out-relativity
> > "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (you’re 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 Einstein’s death in 1955,
> > scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
> > action."
>
> > Pentcho Valev
> > pva...***yahoo.com
>
> The magazine article dealt with EEddigton's experiment. The deflection
> predicted by GR is in fact twice that of simple Newtonian theory. The
> GR predictions are correct.

Are the GR predictions consistent with Einstein's 1911 equation
c'=c(1+V/c^2)? If not, how does the speed of light vary with the
gravitational potential?

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the
calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of
Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
speed of light c0 is measured."

http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp "The first confirmation of a
long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
REDSHIFT FACTOR."

> There are other things not mentioned. The
> precession of the orbit of Mercury, confirmed by the astonishing
> accuracy of modern orbital calculations.

Did you understand the subtle problem with the form of the sun
explained by Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud in this interview:

http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...-la-relativite

Pentcho Valev
pvalev***yahoo.com

On Jun 22, 12:30***pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 10:03***pm, Ian Parker <ianpark...***gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 22 Jun, 06:16, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar....t-know-about-....
> > > "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (you’re 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 Einstein’s death in 1955,
> > > scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
> > > action."
>
> > > Pentcho Valev
> > > pva...***yahoo.com
>
> > The magazine article dealt with EEddigton's experiment. The deflection
> > predicted by GR is in fact twice that of simple Newtonian theory. The
> > GR predictions are correct.
>
> Are the GR predictions consistent with Einstein's 1911 equation
> c'=c(1+V/c^2)? If not, how does the speed of light vary with the
> gravitational potential?
>
> http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
> "So, it is absolutely true that the speed of light is _not_ constant
> in a gravitational field [which, by the equivalence principle, applies
> as well to accelerating (non-inertial) frames of reference]. If this
> were not so, there would be no bending of light by the gravitational
> field of stars....Indeed, this is exactly how Einstein did the
> calculation in: 'On the Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of
> Light,' Annalen der Physik, 35, 1911. which predated the full formal
> development of general relativity by about four years. This paper is
> widely available in English. You can find a copy beginning on page 99
> of the Dover book 'The Principle of Relativity.' You will find in
> section 3 of that paper, Einstein's derivation of the (variable) speed
> of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is,
> c' = c0 ( 1 + V / c^2 )
> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
> speed of light c0 is measured."
>
> http://www.blazelabs.com/f-g-gcont.asp"The first confirmation of a
> long range variation in the speed of light travelling in space came in
> 1964. Irwin Shapiro, it seems, was the first to make use of a
> previously forgotten facet of general relativity theory -- that the
> speed of light is reduced when it passes through a gravitational
> field....Faced with this evidence, Einstein stated:"In the second
> place our result shows that, according to the general theory of
> relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in
> vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the
> special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently
> referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of
> light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light
> varies with position."......Today we find that since the Special
> Theory of Relativity unfortunately became part of the so called
> mainstream science, it is considered a sacrilege to even suggest that
> the speed of light be anything other than a constant. This is somewhat
> surprising since even Einstein himself suggested in a paper "On the
> Influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light," Annalen der
> Physik, 35, 1911, that the speed of light might vary with the
> gravitational potential. Indeed, the variation of the speed of light
> in a vacuum or space is explicitly shown in Einstein's calculation for
> the angle at which light should bend upon the influence of gravity.
> One can find his calculation in his paper. The result is c'=c(1+V/c^2)
> where V is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the
> measurement is taken. 1+V/c^2 is also known as the GRAVITATIONAL
> REDSHIFT FACTOR."
>
> > There are other things not mentioned. The
> > precession of the orbit of Mercury, confirmed by the astonishing
> > accuracy of modern orbital calculations.
>
> Did you understand the subtle problem with the form of the sun
> explained by Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud in this interview:
>
> http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...0-histoire-des...
>
> Pentcho Valev
> pva...***yahoo.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Albert Einstein and Sir Arhur Eddington shared the same belief in the
eternal constancy of the speed of light.

Mitch Raemsch

On Jun 21, 10:36 pm, "Pmb" wrote:
> "Pentcho Valev" <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:

> > http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar....t-know-about-....
> > "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (you’re 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 Einstein’s death in 1955,
> > scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
> > action."

> I don't trust that magazine. I never have and I never will. Its a popular
> science magazine and not a respected journal. Just look at this comment

I don’t trust you, and I will never trust you. <shrug>

> " Who invented relativity? Bzzzt—wrong. Galileo hit on the idea in 1639,
> when he showed that a falling object behaves the same way on a moving ship
> as it does in a motionless building"
>
> A good example of why I don't trust this magazine. Einstein created
> relativity, not Galileo.

This is a fine example of an Einstein worshipper always in denial of
truth and always happy to lick up Einstein’s diarrhea. <shrug>

> There is a difference between the two theories
> because the Galileo's only applied to the laws of physics as they were known
> at the time, i.e. just mechanics.

And then as usual, Einstein Dingleberries have to come up with utter
bullsh*t to justify Einstein worshipping. <shrug>

> Electrodynamics didn't exist at the time
> and therefore it said nothing about them. Later when EM came along it seemed
> like that there was an absolute frame and hence the ether was born.

This is more bullsh*t.

> Einstein
> to the rescue and postulated that all the laws of physics, not just
> mechanics, remained unchanged.

Einstein again. He came to spray more diarrhea on everything, and
Einstein Dingleberrries just love to lick up the last drop.

Amen!

On Jun 22, 1:03 pm, Ian Parker wrote:
> On 22 Jun, 06:16, Pentcho Valev wrote:

> >http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar....t-know-about-...
> > "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (you’re 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 Einstein’s death in 1955,
> > scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
> > action."

> The magazine article dealt with EEddigton's experiment.

Eddington the nitwit was merely a God maker. <shrug>

> The deflection
> predicted by GR is in fact twice that of simple Newtonian theory. The
> GR predictions are correct.

Only the solar eclipse experiments address photon deflection. Shapiro
type experiments address photon delay. Although related, they are not
the same. If Eddington’s experiment was fouled, to this day, there is
still no experiment done to show photon deflection is indeed twice the
Newtonian prediction.

> There are other things not mentioned. The
> precession of the orbit of Mercury, confirmed by the astonishing
> accuracy of modern orbital calculations.

Astonishing? What is the error bar on 43” per century?

Einstein first fudged the result before the field equations were even
obtained. Then, Einstein did not have the Schwarzschild metric to
work with. Yes, Einstein Dingleberries would exult at Einstein’s
fudging. Are there any folks out there who would rightfully point out
Einstein’s fudging?

Since Schwarzschild’ original metric did not yield the expected
advance in Mercury’s perihelion, Hilbert has to discover one that does
which is now called the Schwarzschild metric. Only with the method
that Paul Gerber came up with that the Schwarzschild metric reveals
the divine number of 43” per century. Is his method valid?

> There is GPS,

With acquisition of only 3 satellites as first proposed by physicists,
GPS did require GR. However, when engineers worked on GPS, being
smarter than physicists, once the acquisition of 4 satellites is
implemented, GR is no longer required. Besides, gravitational time
dilation is proportional to the first order with the Newtonian
mechanics anyway. <shrug>

Does GR explain why gravitational time dilation? NO!

Does GR’s gravitational time dilation agree with SR’s time dilation?
NO! Gravitational time dilation manifests redshift in light while
transverse Doppler manifests blue shift, and both time flows are
dilated.

> there is the
> energy loss of orbiting pulsars.

That is so after assuming energy being not conserved. The geodesic
equation associated with time flow does also yield the same
conservation of energy. Thus, this is not conclusive.

> None of this was mentioned.

There is no need to mention others when Eddington the nitwit and the
God maker is playing with the darkside of science.

> Interestingly the focus of the article was on cosmology. The speeding
> up of the Universe is indeed an astonishing result. It is based on
> type 2 supernovae (note the way the plural is formed - more later).
> That is supernovae produced by the accretion of matter in a double
> star system. The amount of energy released is a pecise quantity.

Yes, that is also assumed that Chandrasekhar’s application of quantum
mechanics to Cosmology is valid. <shrug>

On Jun 22, 7:16***am, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20..._innocent.html
> "ArthurEddingtonwas innocent!"
>
> http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses
> "Relativité: les preuves étaient fausses"
>
> http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...-la-relativite
> "Au début du XXème siècle, des scientifiques comme le Britannique
> ArthurEddingtonavaient tant à coeur de vérifier la théorie de la
> relativité qu'ils ont tout mis en oeuvre pour que leurs expériences
> soient probantes."
>
> http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...out-relativity
> "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (you’re looking at it
> on this very page). Eminent British physicist ArthurEddington
> declared general relativity a success, catapulting Einstein into fame
> and onto coffee mugs. In retrospect, it seems thatEddingtonfudged
> the results, throwing out photos that showed the “wrong” outcome. No
> wonder nobody noticed: At the time of Einstein’s death in 1955,
> scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
> action."

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1372828/posts
"British astronomer A. Eddington... "believed" in Relativity and
wished to make it more acceptable. Eclipse photos showing the shifting
of star images by the gravitational influence of the eclipsed sun
might do the job. On the day of the eclipse, Principe was bedevilled
by clouds, and only 2 photographic plates were deemed marginally
acceptable. At Sobral, 18 poor plates and 8 better plates were
obtained. The problem was that the 18 poor plates yielded a deflection
of starlight much smaller than predicted by Relativity, while the 8
better plates produced a much higher value. By adding the 2 plates
from Principe to the mix, Eddington managed to come up with a number
close to that required by the Theory of Relativity. It was not the
clear-cut victory for Einstein that the textbooks proclaim...
Eddington let ideology affect his conclusion. Even today, the results
from the 1919 eclipse are still proclaimed to be proof of Relativity."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev***yahoo.com

On Jul 15, 5:13***pm, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jun 22, 7:16***am, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > http://blogs.nature.com/news/blog/20...innocent..html
> > "ArthurEddingtonwas innocent!"
>
> > http://www.cieletespace.fr/evenement...taient-fausses
> > "Relativité: les preuves étaient fausses"
>
> > http://www.cieletespaceradio.fr/inde...-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."
>
> > http://discovermagazine.com/2008/mar...out-relativity
> > "The eclipse experiment finally happened in 1919 (you’re 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 Einstein’s death in 1955,
> > scientists still had almost no evidence of general relativity in
> > action."
>
> http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1372828/posts
> "British astronomer A. Eddington... "believed" in Relativity and
> wished to make it more acceptable. Eclipse photos showing the shifting
> of star images by the gravitational influence of the eclipsed sun
> might do the job. On the day of the eclipse, Principe was bedevilled
> by clouds, and only 2 photographic plates were deemed marginally
> acceptable. At Sobral, 18 poor plates and 8 better plates were
> obtained. The problem was that the 18 poor plates yielded a deflection
> of starlight much smaller than predicted by Relativity, while the 8
> better plates produced a much higher value. By adding the 2 plates
> from Principe to the mix, Eddington managed to come up with a number
> close to that required by the Theory of Relativity. It was not the
> clear-cut victory for Einstein that the textbooks proclaim...
> Eddington let ideology affect his conclusion. Even today, the results
> from the 1919 eclipse are still proclaimed to be proof of Relativity."

Another interpretation of the fraud (Einsteinians know no limits):

http://www.newscientist.com/article/...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."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev***yahoo.com

On Jul 22, 9:20***am, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
> Another interpretation of the fraud (Einsteinians know no limits):
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/...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."

The money-spinner or superimposed frauds:

http://community.livejournal.com/ohn.../25536604.html
"The BBC have released some info about the forthcoming DAVID TENNANT
project, Einstein And Eddington. It is due to be broadcast on BBC2 in
the Autumn. David Tennant and Andy Serkis star in this drama set amid
the chaos and uncertainty of the First World War. Einstein And
Eddington chronicles the interlinked stories of two extraordinary men
striving for a greater truth while refusing to be constrained by
national boundaries. Albert Einstein (Serkis) spent years working on
his General Theory of Relativity, which threatened to overturn two
centuries of Newtonian certainty and the foundations of British
science. Arthur Eddington (Tennant) was a prominent British
astrophysicist who, as a Quaker, believed that "truth knows no
boundaries" and bravely championed Einstein’s theories while Britain
rejected anything German. In 1919, Eddington undertook an expedition
to Africa to photograph light bending round the sun during an eclipse.
These photographs not only proved the theory to be correct, but turned
Einstein into a worldwide superstar."

Pentcho Valev
pvalev***yahoo.com

On Jul 22, 11:58***am, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 9:20***am, Pentcho Valev <pva...***yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Another interpretation of the fraud (Einsteinians know no limits):
>
> > http://www.newscientist.com/article/...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."
>
> The money-spinner or superimposed frauds:
>
> http://community.livejournal.com/ohn.../25536604.html
> "The BBC have released some info about the forthcoming DAVID TENNANT
> project, Einstein And Eddington. It is due to be broadcast on BBC2 in
> the Autumn. David Tennant and Andy Serkis star in this drama set amid
> the chaos and uncertainty of the First World War. Einstein And
> Eddington chronicles the interlinked stories of two extraordinary men
> striving for a greater truth while refusing to be constrained by
> national boundaries. Albert Einstein (Serkis) spent years working on
> his General Theory of Relativity, which threatened to overturn two
> centuries of Newtonian certainty and the foundations of British
> science. Arthur Eddington (Tennant) was a prominent British
> astrophysicist who, as a Quaker, believed that "truth knows no
> boundaries" and bravely championed Einstein’s theories while Britain
> rejected anything German. In 1919, Eddington undertook an expedition
> to Africa to photograph light bending round the sun during an eclipse.
> These photographs not only proved the theory to be correct, but turned
> Einstein into a worldwide superstar."

Very clever Arthur Eddington quite subconsciously pushes the results
in the direction he thinks they should go:

http://fora.tv/2008/02/21/Prof__Ian_...Einstein_Right
Prof. Ian Morison on Proving Einstein Right

Pay also some attention to what very clever Einsteinians do when they
have a long car and a short garage.

Pentcho Valev
pvalev***yahoo.com