Einstien Was Largely Unknown 100 Years Ago.......

[ToraToraTora]

https://news.sky.com/story/a-century-ago-today-this-experiment-proved-einsteins-general-theory-of-relativity-11730146
A stunning prediction and verification.

[Zacs-Master]

14 years after he published it. There are learned articles as to why he was wrong.
https://www.newscientist.com/round-up/challenging-einstein/

[ToraToraTora]

sorry can't read the full article without signing up. I know he did have a issue with quantum mechanics, "god does not play dice" etc. TBF though even the great Feynman is reputed to have said: ""If you think you understand quantum mechanics, you don't understand quantum mechanics".

[Zacs-Master]

You agree then, not quite so 'stunning'?

[ToraToraTora]

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?

[Peter Pedant]

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

[JF85]

Who?

[Peter Pedant]

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.

[Zacs-Master]

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://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026801-500-why-einstein-was-wrong-about-relativity/
that his prediction wasn't really 'stunning'?

This article points out 5 errors
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2018/09/5-times-einstein-was-wrong (the marriage one is a bit silly).

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.

[Old_Geezer]

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.

[Peter Pedant]

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 ....

[Peter Pedant]

Isnt this part of a larger question:

someone who writes a play
isnt necessarily the best person to direct or produce it?

[ToraToraTora]

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.

[jim360]

https://arxiv.org/pdf/0806.1234.pdf

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.

[ToraToraTora]

jim:"there is no doubt that the predictions of relativity are correct, having been robustly tested for the last century and passing with flying colours. " - indeed jim, sadly it seems some, including ZM believe otherwise.

[nailit]

Ive got a headache just glancing at the links, never mind trying to read through them!
I'll stick to driving a van in the daytime and telling Theland why killing is wrong in the evening. :-)

(There are some seriously educated folk knocking around on AB if they understand this stuff)….

[Zacs-Master]

Beg pardon. I didn’t realise we were only discussing the bending of light....etc....etc.

[ToraToraTora]

that's what the link is about, 100 years since it was proved by observation. That is what I've been talking about the whole time.