.
.
Some real science to remember.
March 22, 2021: On May 29, 1919, the Moon slid in front of the sun and forever altered our understanding of spacetime. It’s known as “Einstein’s Eclipse.” Using his newly-developed theory of relativity, the young German physicist predicted that the sun’s gravity should bend starlight–an effect which could only be seen during a total eclipse. More than 100 years later, Petr Horálek (ESO Photo Ambassador) and Miloslav Druckmüller (Brno University of Technology) have just released a stunning restoration of the photo that proved Einstein right:
The original picture was taken in May 1919 by astronomers Andrew Crommelin and Charles Rundle Davidson, who traveled from the Greenwich Observatory in London to the path of totality in Sobral, Brazil. They were part of a global expedition organized by Sir Arthur Eddington, who wanted to test Einstein’s strange ideas. Glass photographic plates from the expedition were typical of early 20th century astrophotography, colorless…
View original post 406 more words
Tallbloke's Talkshop 
Physicist Dr Edward Dowdye showed how this is NOT true, which IS the real science.
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm
@tallbloke.wordpress.com, name 1 star whose light was bent near the sun; otherwise follow Dr Edward Dowdye (as JB already wrote),
It is a pity that a quality of photo from 1919 has not yet been matched by modern photography…
Because they had 3m telescope, and presently they use at most 1800 mm (1.8 m)…
What I measured on Prof. Druckmuller’s eclipse photographies seems to vindicate light bending, but I need at least three photos of eclipse each with three photos of normal stars with a same camera and equipment to calibrate chip and optics distortion, and so far I have only one such set, when Prof. Druckmuller took few pictures of a comet with a same camera…
(When I asked, he usually has borrowed a camera for eclipse photos and had to return it after the eclipse, so the cameras are not available to take “flat-field” photos…)
(On jpegs I can measure star position distortion with a deci-pixel precision…)
Prof. Druckmuller makes probably best Eclipse photographies, and probably best SDO videos:
http://www.zam.fme.vutbr.cz/~druck/
Just a provisional page with my Eclipse measurement results:
http://semi.gurroa.cz/Astro/EclSummary.html
Interesting. How about this demo?
Einstein’s Light-Bending Concept
https://www.exploratorium.edu/eclipse/video/einsteins-light-bending-concept
Known Einstein rings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_ring#Known_Einstein_rings
Interesting that this topic should come up today since I was reading another interesting article a couple of days ago.
http://voxday.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-einstein-fraud.html
I can remember the closing of the ranks of ‘the keepers of the faith’ in the early 60s when a young engineer had the temerity to question some of Einstein’s work through the letters pages of Wireless World Magazine. In fact his questioning mad me start thinking which lead to finding the Michelson_Morley experiment actually gave a positive result, and so began my questioning of all of Einstein’s work.
OB, for a summary of Einstein’s rings, click on the Return to Home Page of the linked site.
There are several video presentations explaining the phenomenon, among them :
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings.htm
According to Dowdye’s presentation. since the gravitational field of the sun falls off at 1/r^2, the lensing effect should be progressive, just like progressive lenses in front of myopic people. (Ahem) This is NOT observed in telescopes.
AFA the Einstein rings go, this is the same problem Dewey Larsen describes repeatedly in his essay The Case Against the Nuclear Atom (Rutherford observed SOMETHING which everyone ASSUMED was the atomic nucleus); viz, what they think they are seeing is not what is actually there. Those photographs of various rings are all shot straight on. There is no way by the photograph alone to determine if they are ionized plasma rings, which would appear ellipsoid, with the star offset from the midpoint, or the sun outside the ring with sufficient angular displacement.
Now if one should rotate the view point of planetary nebula m2-9, one WOULD observe a ring (or perhaps several), viewing straight on axis.
We’re being fed by academia and mainstream astronomy a bunch Chicken Little malarkey.
Are we sure that this is a restoration of the original photo? I can’t see that star extremely close to the Sun.
CG: see here…
Highest resolution image of the 1919 solar eclipse
https://www.eso.org/public/images/potw1926a/
[…] Einstein’s Eclipse […]
@oldbrew March 23, 2021 at 7:36 pm:
can I have measurements reported with instruments constructed for and since the 20 July 1969 event, please. Or, was there only one sacred eclipse during the last 150 years?
Astronomy lecturer says:
‘Einstein’s general theory of relativity was wrong. Light/electromagnetic waves are bent by refraction, not gravity.’
He was referring to this:
Sunday, 8 September, 2002
Test for Einstein’s gravity speed theory
Tom Shanks, Professor of Physics at the University of Durham, UK, thinks the experiment is a modern version of Sir Arthur Eddington’s historic eclipse expedition.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/2238452.stm
View at Medium.com
@oldbrew, re: gravity speed
Light bending and gravity speed, who’s confused 😉
Look [ctrl-f] for keywords “proper motions” (stars move around) and “light bending experiment” in this Q&A.
Prof. Ludwig Combrinck agreed I write an article about his experiment and result, but the 1984-ministry canceled the funding (was already announced publicly) after the snitching rats of ResearchGate became aware of the Q&A and consequences for the celebrity-junk-cosmology and consensus pop-unsci-press.
@oldbrew, re: gravity speed
Light bending and gravity speed, who’s confused 😉
Look [ctrl-f] for keywords “proper motions” (stars move around) and “light bending experiment” in this Q&A.
Prof. Ludwig Combrinck agreed I write an article about his experiment and result, but the 1984-ministry canceled the funding (was already announced publicly) after the snitching rats of ResearchGate became aware of the Q&A and consequences for the celebrity-junk-cosmology and consensus pop-unsci-press.
Bending space–time: a commentary on Dyson, Eddington and Davidson (1920) ‘A determination of the deflection of light by the Sun’s gravitational field’ [2015]
‘This commentary was written to celebrate the 350th anniversary of the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.’
From the section: (c) Radio astronomical tests of general relativity
Among the first pairs of quasars to be used for this test were 3C273 and 3C279, both of which lie close to the plane of the ecliptic. In 1995, for example, the deviation of the predicted deflection from the Einstein prediction was found to be (1+γ)/2=0.9996±0.0017. Nowadays, with the use of VLBI for precise geodesy, accuracies at the submilliarc are routine. Even in the direction 90° from the Sun, the deflections amount to 4 milliarcsec, which is easily measurable. As a result, radio quasars all over the sky can be used to measure deflections of stars from the fundamental reference frame. In a 2004 analysis of almost 2 million observations of 541 radio sources made at 87 VLBI sites, the predicted deflections were found to agree with the Einstein prediction at the level (1+γ)/2=0.99992±0.00023. The accuracy of the best VLBI experiments is now better than 100 microarcsec.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4360090/
ESA – Gaia overview
The mission will also study about 500000 distant quasars and will provide stringent new tests of Albert Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity.
http://www.esa.int/Science_Exploration/Space_Science/Gaia_overview
– – –
Gaia operates until 2022.
@oldbrew Re: deflection and quasars, you fell for grant-gobbledygook — no measurement is possible against no backdrop; name 1 backdrop against which 1 quasar was measured. In particular, name point sources which never move (impossible for e.g. cosmic background radiation superstition).
The one of the few things Einstein said was that was correct is -there were two infinite things the universe and human stupidity. He also got it right when he said that the laws of thermodynamics were amongst the most important findings in science and that he believed them. The second law of thermodynamics negates all concepts of AGW and greenhouse gases. If the universe is infinite it can not be expanding. Further with the laws of thermodynamics the big bang could not have formed the universe. The big bang, if there was any, could only have been a localised event and certainly did not start as a singularity. Einstein got his Nobel prize for work on Optics. It appears he was not too good at maths.