Inicio > Mis eListas > debunker > Mensajes

 Índice de Mensajes 
 Mensajes 2551 al 2565 
Illu el 11/09/01 Eva Bobr
RV: RE: Otra Para César Va
Anomalies in the H illu min
Anomalies in the H illu min
Anomalies in the H illu min
Urinoterapia Guzmán
Re: Re: Confirmar David Sa
Re: Cómodo anonima Hernán T
Re: Anomalies in t Fernando
Último comentario frajalo
Re: Presentación y illu min
RE: Último comenta illu min
Presentación y alg frajalo
Re: Último comenta Mamiblu
Re: Último comenta illu min
 << 15 ant. | 15 sig. >>
Página principal    Mensajes | Enviar Mensaje | Ficheros | Datos | Encuestas | Eventos | Mis Preferencias

Mostrando mensaje 2559     < Anterior | Siguiente >
Responder a este mensaje
Asunto:[debunker] Anomalies in the History of Relativity-08
Fecha:Sabado, 17 de Noviembre, 2001  06:17:51 (-0500)
Autor:illu minati <illu03>

menters to try to obtain the “right” answers from their
observations, as suggested in the above quotation from
Sciama (1969). For example, Collins and Pinch (1993) have
commented on the measurements of the red-shift predicted
by general relativity as follows:
The experimental observations, conducted both before and
after 1919. were even more inconclusive. Yet after the inter-
pretation of the eclipse observations had come firmly down on
the side of Einstein, scientists suddenly began to see confir-
mation of the red-shift prediction where before they had seen
only confusion.

Another unfortunate result of the announcement of the
success of the eclipse observations has been an enormous
hero-worship of Albert Einstein; Pais’ statement that he was
canonized has now been outmatched by Miller (1996, p. 90),
who states that he was deified. A result of this deification is
that the greatest scorn of the scientific community is
reserved for those who would try to criticize either of
Einstein’s theories of relativity or to suggest alternative the-
ories and many mainstream scientific journals reject papers
critical of either theory without review. The attitude of most
journals is well-described by Davies (1980) in the first sen-
tence of his article “Why Pick on Einstein?”:
Most editors of scientific journals make special provision for cop-
ing with the huge influx of papers and letters, many bearing pri-
vate addresses in California, purporting to disprove or improve
Albert Einstein’s monumental work on the theory of relativity.

The assessment of scientific theories, and criticisms of them,
should be based on the merits of each case, rather than on
the addresses from which they come.
Although Maddox (1995) describes more modern ways of
measuring the deflection of radiation by a gravitational field,
he appears to be willing to consider the possibility that gen-
eral relativity may not be the last word; the last paragraph of
his article is as follows:
The crying need remains what it has been for the past two
decades, that of marrying together general relativity and quan-
tum mechanics. As things are, they are like chalk and cheese.
It will be a great surprise if general relativity survives that mar-
riage unchanged.

As pointed out by Earman and Glymour (1980), it was
Eddington’s belief that confirmation of Einstein’s prediction
had a beneficial effect on scientific relations between England
and Germany, and it is fair to ask whether that beneficial
effect was sufficient to justify the announcement of the results
is being decisively in favor of Einstein’s theory when they
vere not. It is also fair to ask, today, whether continued belief
n the decisiveness of the results as announced in November
919 is beneficial to science and scientific objectivity, or
ihether scientific progress would be improved by a more
pen acknowledgment of the inaccuracies and uncertainties
1 the observations. Even if it is argued that Einstein’s general
ieory has been supported by subsequent experimental obser-
~tions, that does not alter the fact that, at an extremely
important scientific meeting which had enormously far-
aching consequences, the audience was misinformed by
riinent scientists about the phenomenon that was the main
eme of the meeting. That historical fact is not wiped out by
ty subsequent experimental results, whatever they may be.
Because of the euphoric veneration of Einstein and rela-
tivity in November 1919, the objectivity with which sci-
ence is supposed to act has been compromised, and the
search for better theories has been inhibited. Canonization,
deification, and claims of personal communication from
Nature, should have no place in science. If the findings of the
eclipse expeditions had been announced as being inconclu-
sive instead of decisive in 1919, general relativity would have
had to compete with other possible theories, such as
Gerber’s, to explain certain astronomical observations, and a
better theory might eventually have been found. In the
author’s opinion, the confident announcement of the deci-
sive confirmation of Einstein’s general theory in November
1919 was not a triumph of science, as it is often portrayed,
but one of the most unfortunate events in the history of
twentieth century science.
The author is grateful to Dr. Paul Marmet, Department of
Physics, University of Ottawa, for bringing to his attention
the work of Paul Gerber.

Bertotti, B., Brill, D., and Krotkov, R. 1962. “Experiments on
Gravitation,” in Witten, L. (Ed.) Gravitation:An Introduction to Current
Research, John Wiley, New York, pp. 1-48.
Bondi, H. 1960. The Universe at Large, Anchor Books, New York.
Calder, N. 1979. Einstein’s Universe, Penguin, Harmondsworth,
Campbell, WW. 1923. “The Total Eclipse of the Sun,” September
21, 1922, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 35, 11.
Chandrasekhar, S. 1987. Truth and Beauty: Aesthetics and
Motivations in Science, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Chandrasekhar, S. 1990. Relativistic Astrophysics, (Selected Papers:
S. Chandrasekhar, Vol. 5), University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Clark, R.W. 1971. Einstein: The Life and Times, World
Publishing Company, New York.
Cohen, l.B. 1985. Revolution in Science, Belknap Press of
Harvard University Press.
Collins, H. and Pinch, T. 1993. The Golem: What Everyone Should
Know About Science, Cambridge University Press.
Davies, P. 1980. “Why Pick on Einstein?” New Scientist, 87, 463.
Douglas, A.V. 1957. The Life of Arthur Stanley Eddington,
Nelson, London.
Dyson, F.W. 1917. “On the Opportunity Afforded by the Eclipse of
1919 May 29 of Verifying Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation,” Monthly
Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 77, 445.
Dyson, F.W., Eddington, A.S., and Davidson, C.A. 1920.
“Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun’s
Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse
of May 29, 1919,” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London, Series A, 220, 291.
Earman, J. and Glymour, C. 1980. “Relativity and Eclipses:
The British Eclipse Expeditions of 1919 and Their Predecessors,”
Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11, 49.
Eddington, A.S. 1920. Space, Time, and Gravitation: An Outline of
the General Relativity Theory, Cambridge University Press.
Eddington, A.S. 1939-1941. “Sir Frank Watson Dyson,”
Obituary Notices of Fellows of the Royal Society, 3, 159-172.
Einstein, A. 1905. “On the Electrodynamics of Moving
Bodies,” in Lorentz et al. (1923), pp. 37-65.
Einstein, A. 1916. “The Foundation of the General Theory of
Relativity,” in Lorentz et al. (1923), pp. 111-164.
Einstein, A. 1918. “Bemerkung zu E. Gehrckes Notiz “Uber
den Ather,” Verhandlungen der Deutschen Physikalischen
Gesellschaft, 20, 261.
Einstein, A. 1920. “My Answer to the Anti-Relativistic
Company, Inc.,” Berliner Tageblatt und Handels-Zeitung, August 27.

Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at