Contemporary physics contains laying

1. "Experiment Eddington 1919, reportedly, is "experimental evidence of Einstein's theory". Reason, why light is bending by Sun surface, is not in optics; there is gravitation".
2. Theory of photoelectric effect, made A. Einstein, is reportedly based on experiment.
But: Make experiment. Measurement will show you absolutely other values. You will get values, accordant with Boltzmann-distribution.

Ad 1.
A lot of expedition wanted to repeat it. Result? Zero. Nobody has technology, which would be enough to measure. But 84 year is quit enough. We have to say: Eddington doesn't have better technology then we. His values are not better; there are falsified. People, satisfied with such "experiment" make science the same as anti-science.
Last trial to get values of bending is http://sirrah.troja.mff.cuni.cz/~dond/clanek.html.
Result is the same as all the other: without correct values. That is reason, result is in czech only. I can translate for you, if you wish: result is the same, as all the other. Zero.
Sun wind has optical properties; apart from it, apart from omission of optics, hypothesis no-optics bending of light is not ratify by experiment.
Experiment, which is non-repeatably, is not experiment.

Ad 2.
If you know something about Boltzmann-distribution, then figure of Wkin versus f cannot be relevant. Don't believe? I comply each invitation, to interpret it.
Emil Smejkal

Another anti-einsteinist..? welcome to sciforums (with clear proof..!)

Originally posted by Emil Smejkal
Contemporary physics contains laying

laying - what is that ?

1. "Experiment Eddington 1919, reportedly, is "experimental evidence of Einstein's theory". Reason, why light is bending by Sun surface, is not in optics; there is gravitation".

Astro-physicists daily observing the phenomenon called gravitational lensing.

2. Theory of photoelectric effect, made A. Einstein, is reportedly based on experiment.
But: Make experiment. Measurement will show you absolutely other values. You will get values, accordant with Boltzmann-distribution.

What values you are refering to..? Photoelectric effect is not a classical effect and no classical theory or distribution could explain it.

Ad 1.
A lot of expedition wanted to repeat it. Result? Zero. Nobody has technology, which would be enough to measure. But 84 year is quit enough. We have to say: Eddington doesn't have better technology then we. His values are not better; there are falsified. People, satisfied with such "experiment" make science the same as anti-science.
Last trial to get values of bending is http://sirrah.troja.mff.cuni.cz/~dond/clanek.html.
Result is the same as all the other: without correct values. That is reason, result is in czech only. I can translate for you, if you wish: result is the same, as all the other. Zero.
Sun wind has optical properties; apart from it, apart from omission of optics, hypothesis no-optics bending of light is not ratify by experiment.
Experiment, which is non-repeatably, is not experiment.

1919 - E is the first time but not the last time. Besides how can you explain that solar winds only bend the light..? with reasonable accuracy?

Ad 2.
If you know something about Boltzmann-distribution, then figure of Wkin versus f cannot be relevant. Don't believe? I comply each invitation, to interpret it.

Why do you want to apply Boltzmann-distribution here..?

What the f*** has the boltzmann distribution got to do with the photo electric effect. If anything regarding distributions was to be applied here, then maybe the density of states of an electron gas would be able to be applied, but I fail to see the relevance.

I gathered by your introduction that you specifically came here to promote some research you have been doing, so I have immediatly done away with the niceties.

Hi Everneo and Ryans,

I spoke about laying, and you remark some other. Is laying so unimportant, for you?
Is repeatability of experiments symptom of science?
Is 84 years sufficient for repeat, or no?

Emil Smejkal

What is laying? Sorry if you explained it but it is hard to understand what exactly you are talking about.:)

Like brick laying? Tarmac laying?

He means lying:eek:

Of course gravitational lensing has been but to practical use, so it's a bit hard to deny it

Hi,
I'm sorry, word about "to tell lies", (or "lie, lay, lain) is no my bussines. I mean:
Each evidence in science is repeatably, everybody can it repeat.
Evidence, which is not able be repeat, should not be in science.
Eddington 1919 is not repeatable.
Emil Smejkal

Then howcome astronomers see that the appearant positions of the stars near the sun during a solar eclipse exactly match the light-bending predictions (they can compare the positions "seen" and the real known positions very accurately).

Bye!

Crisp

Holy crap, am I happy to see this thread:

"Contemporary physics contains laying."

All this time, I thought contemporary physicists had a really tough time getting laid. Whew, what a relief!

- Warren

Hi Crisp,
I disagree with your
"Then howcome astronomers see that the appearant positions of the stars near the sun during a solar eclipse exactly match the light-bending predictions (they can compare the positions "seen" and the real known positions very accurately)."
Existence of such astronomers is myth only. Can you tell book or journal with set their measured values?
Other case: Are you able to repeat measurement of photoelectric effect? Is dependency on frequency such, as writes Einstein? Hereto not, is it the similar case, as Eddington 1919?

Emil

Hi,

"Can you tell book or journal with set their measured values? "

Ehrrr... no, but I am not an astronomer. Look up the latest solar eclipse and science related to that. I remember very clearly that several scientific experiments where done to measure the bending of starlight during the eclipse. Where did they publish it ? Astr. Rev. Let ? :)

"Are you able to repeat measurement of photoelectric effect?"

Yes. Buy yourself a photodiode at the local electronics store. Notice how the manual included lists that the response of the diode is frequency dependent. Been there, done that.

Bye!

Crisp

Originally posted by Emil Smejkal
Hi,
I'm sorry, word about "to tell lies", (or "lie, lay, lain) is no my bussines. I mean:
Each evidence in science is repeatably, everybody can it repeat.
Evidence, which is not able be repeat, should not be in science.
Eddington 1919 is not repeatable.
Emil Smejkal


not repeatable? why didnt anyone try this 3 Saros cycles later? I dont know about the appearent movement of that star, but I would suspect this would be repeatable august 5th, 2027?

There have, in fact, been a number of repetitions of the "eclipse" experiment. The most recent was during the total eclipse of 2001.

As far as the photoelectric effect is concerned, that's a standard high school physics experiment now.

I suspect Emil Smejkal got onto a crank web-site and believed it rather than checking on the facts himself.

(The other possibility is that he is a crank himself but I will not assume that without further evidence.)