Technology5 mins ago
Einstien Was Largely Unknown 100 Years Ago.......
17 Answers
https:/
A stunning prediction and verification.
A stunning prediction and verification.
Answers
1 to 17 of 17
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ToraToraTora. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
14 years after he published it. There are learned articles as to why he was wrong.
https:/
https:/
how did you arrive at that conclusion? I said that I cannot read the article. He may have had problems in QM but the gravity work was pretty well proven correct 100 years ago, that is the point of this post. Why are you trolling this ? I read what I can in your link which tells me nothing about why the author thinks Einstein was wrong on the subject of gravityy bending light unless I subscribe to read on. I assumed you posted the article as a Na na nana post but I cannot read what you intend me to read. do you have another link perhaps?
I lurve the two icons of St Nige gurning at each other
Einsteen as someone spells him WAS known of course
Photoelectric effect
stronger light - more electrons of the same energy
rather than electrons going faster
that is quantummy, innit?
An' he gets his nobel prize for the photoelectric effect - because - - - the nobel cttee can understand it
Eddington - ( david tennant ) was told that only three people in the world understood Einsteen and commented
hmmm I am trying to think of the third person
ter-daaah
Remember some old bagga went up to Max Planck he of the quantum theory and said - oh mr Planck how did you get all the old professors to accept your new theory
and planck said - - they died
Einsteen as someone spells him WAS known of course
Photoelectric effect
stronger light - more electrons of the same energy
rather than electrons going faster
that is quantummy, innit?
An' he gets his nobel prize for the photoelectric effect - because - - - the nobel cttee can understand it
Eddington - ( david tennant ) was told that only three people in the world understood Einsteen and commented
hmmm I am trying to think of the third person
ter-daaah
Remember some old bagga went up to Max Planck he of the quantum theory and said - oh mr Planck how did you get all the old professors to accept your new theory
and planck said - - they died
you know - - THEM !
planck quantum theory wasnt swallowed whole by the German physicists - there was a lot of resistance to the idea that certain things cd only take certain values or their multiples
Kuhn, paradigm shifts - that guy - around page 144 of his book
our introduction to quanta in 1965 was:
if you are a factory mgr and you only have five pound notes to pay people....
The whole class kinda looked at each other in disbelief.
planck quantum theory wasnt swallowed whole by the German physicists - there was a lot of resistance to the idea that certain things cd only take certain values or their multiples
Kuhn, paradigm shifts - that guy - around page 144 of his book
our introduction to quanta in 1965 was:
if you are a factory mgr and you only have five pound notes to pay people....
The whole class kinda looked at each other in disbelief.
I'm not 'trolling' anything. I'm merely challenging your assertion that Einstien's prediction wasn't 'stunning' in light of recent evidence.
Anyway, I'll try (politely) again......
Do you not think that in light of new evidence (hopefully you can read the new link)
https:/
that his prediction wasn't really 'stunning'?
This article points out 5 errors
http://
I'll admit, it explains an awful lot about how things work but as we delve into things like 'entanglement', not everything holds up. His cosmological constant is by his own admission his biggest mistake.
Anyway, I'll try (politely) again......
Do you not think that in light of new evidence (hopefully you can read the new link)
https:/
that his prediction wasn't really 'stunning'?
This article points out 5 errors
http://
I'll admit, it explains an awful lot about how things work but as we delve into things like 'entanglement', not everything holds up. His cosmological constant is by his own admission his biggest mistake.
Everyone is 'unknown' at some point.
Anyone who doesn't initially have issues with quantum theory probably hasn't grasped enough to see the issues. One needs to flip one's mindset to acknowledge that our common sense "understanding" of reality is blinkered and misses out all that doesn't seem relevant to explain sufficiently for our survival.
But returning to relativity, great insight, and impressive work finding the details and forming the general explanation.
Anyone who doesn't initially have issues with quantum theory probably hasn't grasped enough to see the issues. One needs to flip one's mindset to acknowledge that our common sense "understanding" of reality is blinkered and misses out all that doesn't seem relevant to explain sufficiently for our survival.
But returning to relativity, great insight, and impressive work finding the details and forming the general explanation.
oh yes !
or no !
you can deffo stun and be wrong - newton springs to mind
what about Fou-fou ? Jean Michel Laplace - who predicted light could be blocked from a sufficiently large planet ( first edn ) and then said O christ ( 3 rd)
PROBABLY because between edns 1 and 3, light had been shown not to be particulate but wavy...
wasnt Kelvin wrong about something?
Physics is now just measuring the tenth decimal place .... 1896
and Curie - Radium eez not harmful ....
or no !
you can deffo stun and be wrong - newton springs to mind
what about Fou-fou ? Jean Michel Laplace - who predicted light could be blocked from a sufficiently large planet ( first edn ) and then said O christ ( 3 rd)
PROBABLY because between edns 1 and 3, light had been shown not to be particulate but wavy...
wasnt Kelvin wrong about something?
Physics is now just measuring the tenth decimal place .... 1896
and Curie - Radium eez not harmful ....
I'm talking about gravity bending light, which is the subject of my link in the OP. Show me where that is wrong. PS I still have to subscribe in your first link at 17:12. Your second link does not conclude that he was wrong about gravity bending light. Yes I still think it is still a stunning piece of thought later verified by observation.
https:/
Which is the paper that is at the core of ZM's article. I'm reading it now. No comments until then, although I do wish to point out that General Relativity came three/four years before Eddington's experiment, rather than 14. Also I think the argument Feigenbaum has with Einstein is philosophical, rather than scientific: there is no doubt that the predictions of relativity are correct, having been robustly tested for the last century and passing with flying colours.
Which is the paper that is at the core of ZM's article. I'm reading it now. No comments until then, although I do wish to point out that General Relativity came three/four years before Eddington's experiment, rather than 14. Also I think the argument Feigenbaum has with Einstein is philosophical, rather than scientific: there is no doubt that the predictions of relativity are correct, having been robustly tested for the last century and passing with flying colours.
1 to 17 of 17
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles44 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles81 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles85 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles94 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles99 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.