The Experiment That Made Einstein Famous
One hundred years ago, an extraordinary feat of astronomy proved that
the theory of relativity was true
By Andrew Robinson, Feb. 14, 2019, Wall St. Journal

One hundred years ago, at the beginning of 1919, few people outside
Germany had ever heard of Albert Einstein. By the year’s end, however,
he had become a world-wide celebrity and a symbol of human genius.
What made Einstein’s reputation was one of the most important
experiments in 20th-century science: a challenging, incredibly precise
observation of a solar eclipse that proved his general theory of
relativity for the first time.

The special theory of relativity, published by Einstein in 1905,
introduced a new understanding of space and time, including the
equation that linked energy, mass and the speed of light: E = mc². It
was followed 10 years later by his general theory, in which Einstein
extended the concept to include accelerated motion and gravity, based
on a highly sophisticated mathematical conception of “space-time.”

But for all of its later fame, the theory of relativity made no impact
on the general public when first published in 1905. Even some
distinguished scientists rejected it. In 1910, the great physicist
Ernest Rutherford joked that Anglo-Saxons like himself had “too much
sense” to understand such an abstruse theory. To overcome such
skepticism, Einstein had to find a way for his ideas to be
experimentally confirmed.

His solution had to do with the way that light travels through the
cosmos. According to Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity, which had been
generally accepted by physicists since the 17th century, light rays
are attracted by gravitational forces because light is made of tiny
particles that Newton called “corpuscles.” On their journey from a
distant star to our eyes on Earth, the trajectory of these particles
would be very slightly curved or “deflected” by the gravity of the
sun.

Einstein agreed with Newton’s idea, but in 1915-16 he used his general
theory of relativity to recalculate the deflection of light and found
that it would actually be twice the amount predicted by Newton. If the
magnitude of the actual deflection could be measured, it would show
whose theory of gravity was correct, Newton’s or Einstein’s. “The
examination of the correctness or otherwise of this deduction is a
problem of the greatest importance, the early solution of which is to
be expected of astronomers,” wrote Einstein.

The first opportunity to test Einstein’s predictions would come on May
29, 1919, when a total solar eclipse would allow telescopes to observe
starlight as it passed the rim of the darkened solar disc. Exceptional
care would be required, given that Einstein’s calculated deflection
was only 1.7 seconds of arc—that is, a displacement of a mere sixtieth
of a millimeter on a photographic plate.

The opportunity was seized by the British Astronomer Royal, Frank
Dyson, and a leading Cambridge astronomer, Arthur Eddington, who had
become a convinced advocate of general relativity. In 1917, even as
World War I was raging, Dyson persuaded the British government to
budget £1,000 for a team of four astronomers led by Eddington to
observe the coming eclipse. Two would be stationed on Principe, an
island off the coast of West Africa, and the other two in Sobral, a
city in northeastern Brazil.

Both expeditions faced formidable technical problems, from monkeys
interfering with the telescopes to high temperatures (which distorted
the photographs) and cloudy skies. As Eddington, in Principe, recorded
in his diary, “The first 10 photographs show practically no stars. The
last six show a few images which I hope will give us what we need; but
it is very disappointing.” The measurements on one plate agreed with
Einstein’s predicted deflection, and another provided at least some
further confirmation. Eddington sent Dyson a noncommittal telegram:
“Through cloud. Hopeful.”

Once back in England, Eddington developed four more Principe plates.
He detected in them Einstein’s value for the deflection of starlight,
though within a rather large margin of error. Fortunately, the Sobral
plates provided conclusive support for Einstein’s theory.

In November 1919, Eddington presented his conclusions to a joint
meeting of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society in
London. The greatest names in British physics, astronomy and
mathematics attended, though not Einstein himself, who remained in
Berlin. J.J. Thomson, discoverer of the electron and president of the
Royal Society, declared that “this is the most important result
obtained in connection with the theory of gravitation since Newton’s
day. If it is sustained that Einstein’s reasoning holds good…then it
is the result of one of the highest achievements of human thought.”

Almost immediately, the British proof of a German theory was seen—in
Britain, at least—as a sign of hope for international reconciliation
after World War I. But in defeated Germany, Einstein’s theory of
relativity was regarded with growing and often anti-Semitic suspicion,
culminating in the publication of “A Hundred Authors against Einstein”
in 1931. As Einstein wrote in 1921 to a German colleague, “The English
have behaved much more nobly than our colleagues here.”

Few people, English or otherwise, have ever fully understood general
relativity. Einstein himself was baffled that the theory had elicited
such “passionate resonance” and made him an international celebrity.
But of the theory itself there is no doubt: In the century since 1919,
general relativity has been confirmed again and again by increasingly
accurate astronomical measurements. Today it accounts for both the
amazing accuracy of the Global Positioning System and for our
understanding of the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang,
13.8 billion years ago.

—Mr. Robinson is the author of “Einstein: A Hundred Years of
Relativity” (2015). His new book on Einstein will published later this
year by Yale University Press.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-exp...us-11550158131

On Saturday, 23 February 2019 07:00:50 UTC, wrote:
The Experiment That Made Einstein Famous
One hundred years ago, an extraordinary feat of astronomy proved that
the theory of relativity was true
By Andrew Robinson, Feb. 14, 2019, Wall St. Journal

One hundred years ago, at the beginning of 1919, few people outside
Germany had ever heard of Albert Einstein. By the years end, however,
he had become a world-wide celebrity and a symbol of human genius.
What made Einsteins reputation was one of the most important
experiments in 20th-century science: a challenging, incredibly precise
observation of a solar eclipse that proved his general theory of
relativity for the first time.

The special theory of relativity, published by Einstein in 1905,
introduced a new understanding of space and time, including the
equation that linked energy, mass and the speed of light: E = mc². It
was followed 10 years later by his general theory, in which Einstein
extended the concept to include accelerated motion and gravity, based
on a highly sophisticated mathematical conception of €œspace-time.€�

But for all of its later fame, the theory of relativity made no impact
on the general public when first published in 1905. Even some
distinguished scientists rejected it. In 1910, the great physicist
Ernest Rutherford joked that Anglo-Saxons like himself had €œtoo much
sense€� to understand such an abstruse theory. To overcome such
skepticism, Einstein had to find a way for his ideas to be
experimentally confirmed.

His solution had to do with the way that light travels through the
cosmos. According to Isaac Newtons theory of gravity, which had been
generally accepted by physicists since the 17th century, light rays
are attracted by gravitational forces because light is made of tiny
particles that Newton called €œcorpuscles.€� On their journey from a
distant star to our eyes on Earth, the trajectory of these particles
would be very slightly curved or €œdeflected€� by the gravity of the
sun.

Einstein agreed with Newtons idea, but in 1915-16 he used his general
theory of relativity to recalculate the deflection of light and found
that it would actually be twice the amount predicted by Newton. If the
magnitude of the actual deflection could be measured, it would show
whose theory of gravity was correct, Newtons or Einsteins. €œThe
examination of the correctness or otherwise of this deduction is a
problem of the greatest importance, the early solution of which is to
be expected of astronomers,€� wrote Einstein.

The first opportunity to test Einsteins predictions would come on May
29, 1919, when a total solar eclipse would allow telescopes to observe
starlight as it passed the rim of the darkened solar disc. Exceptional
care would be required, given that Einsteins calculated deflection
was only 1.7 seconds of arc€”that is, a displacement of a mere sixtieth
of a millimeter on a photographic plate.

The opportunity was seized by the British Astronomer Royal, Frank
Dyson, and a leading Cambridge astronomer, Arthur Eddington, who had
become a convinced advocate of general relativity. In 1917, even as
World War I was raging, Dyson persuaded the British government to
budget £1,000 for a team of four astronomers led by Eddington to
observe the coming eclipse. Two would be stationed on Principe, an
island off the coast of West Africa, and the other two in Sobral, a
city in northeastern Brazil.

Both expeditions faced formidable technical problems, from monkeys
interfering with the telescopes to high temperatures (which distorted
the photographs) and cloudy skies. As Eddington, in Principe, recorded
in his diary, €œThe first 10 photographs show practically no stars.. The
last six show a few images which I hope will give us what we need; but
it is very disappointing.€� The measurements on one plate agreed with
Einsteins predicted deflection, and another provided at least some
further confirmation. Eddington sent Dyson a noncommittal telegram:
€œThrough cloud. Hopeful.€�

Once back in England, Eddington developed four more Principe plates.
He detected in them Einsteins value for the deflection of starlight,
though within a rather large margin of error. Fortunately, the Sobral
plates provided conclusive support for Einsteins theory.

In November 1919, Eddington presented his conclusions to a joint
meeting of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society in
London. The greatest names in British physics, astronomy and
mathematics attended, though not Einstein himself, who remained in
Berlin. J.J. Thomson, discoverer of the electron and president of the
Royal Society, declared that €œthis is the most important result
obtained in connection with the theory of gravitation since Newtons
day. If it is sustained that Einsteins reasoning holds good€¦then it
is the result of one of the highest achievements of human thought.€�

Almost immediately, the British proof of a German theory was seen€”in
Britain, at least€”as a sign of hope for international reconciliation
after World War I. But in defeated Germany, Einsteins theory of
relativity was regarded with growing and often anti-Semitic suspicion,
culminating in the publication of €œA Hundred Authors against Einstein€�
in 1931. As Einstein wrote in 1921 to a German colleague, €œThe English
have behaved much more nobly than our colleagues here.€�

Few people, English or otherwise, have ever fully understood general
relativity. Einstein himself was baffled that the theory had elicited
such €œpassionate resonance€� and made him an international celebrity.
But of the theory itself there is no doubt: In the century since 1919,
general relativity has been confirmed again and again by increasingly
accurate astronomical measurements. Today it accounts for both the
amazing accuracy of the Global Positioning System and for our
understanding of the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang,
13.8 billion years ago.

€”Mr. Robinson is the author of €œEinstein: A Hundred Years of
Relativity€� (2015). His new book on Einstein will published later this
year by Yale University Press.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-exp...us-11550158131

I take issue with this. Within two years, he was awarded the Nobel prize in Physics.

'The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect." '

Although relativity is what made newspaper headlines, the photo-electric research was immensely important and must have been very well-known among physicists around the world before 1919. His paper on that was published in 1905. Millikan won the 1923 Nobel for research which must have been aware of Einstein's 1905 paper.

On 23/02/2019 08:44, polygonum_on_google wrote:
On Saturday, 23 February 2019 07:00:50 UTC, wrote:
snip

Few people, English or otherwise, have ever fully understood
general relativity. Einstein himself was baffled that the theory
had elicited such €œpassionate resonance€� and made him an
international celebrity. But of the theory itself there is no
doubt: In the century since 1919, general relativity has been
confirmed again and again by increasingly accurate astronomical
measurements. Today it accounts for both the amazing accuracy of
the Global Positioning System and for our understanding of the
evolution of the universe since the Big Bang, 13.8 billion years
ago.

€”Mr. Robinson is the author of €œEinstein: A Hundred Years of
Relativity€� (2015). His new book on Einstein will published later
this year by Yale University Press.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-exp...us-11550158131


I take issue with this. Within two years, he was awarded the Nobel
prize in Physics.

'The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein "for
his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery
of the law of the photoelectric effect."'

Although relativity is what made newspaper headlines, the
photo-electric research was immensely important and must have been
very well-known among physicists around the world before 1919. His
paper on that was published in 1905. Millikan won the 1923 Nobel for
research which must have been aware of Einstein's 1905 paper.



I take issue with "In the century since 1919, general relativity has
been confirmed again and again by increasingly accurate astronomical
measurements."


It should be "In the century since 1919, general relativity has failed
to be refuted again and again by increasingly accurate astronomical
measurements."


--
"When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign,
that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."

Jonathan Swift.

On 23/02/2019 10:26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

I take issue with "In the century since 1919, general relativity has
been confirmed again and again by increasingly accurate astronomical
measurements."

It should be "In the century since 1919, general relativity has failed
to be refuted again and again by increasingly accurate astronomical
measurements."

Yes, this is the correct way to formulate it, as any proper scientist
will confirm.

You would be surprsied at how few scientists with even quitre good
degrees fromm Oxbridge would say that "confirnation of a theory is
strong eveidence that it is true"


Even Quine, who ought to know better, starts of by assuming things he
should not.

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 23/02/2019 10:26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

I take issue with "In the century since 1919, general relativity has
been confirmed again and again by increasingly accurate astronomical
measurements."

It should be "In the century since 1919, general relativity has failed
to be refuted again and again by increasingly accurate astronomical
measurements."

Yes, this is the correct way to formulate it, as any proper scientist
will confirm.


I'm sure Jim Al-Khalili will be mortified. (His "Black Holes, Wormholes
and Time Machines" has "general relativity has been confirmed by
experimental evidence time and time again".)


--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 23/02/2019 11:16, Robin wrote:
On 23/02/2019 10:26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

I take issue with "In the century since 1919, general relativity has
been confirmed again and again by increasingly accurate astronomical
measurements."

It should be "In the century since 1919, general relativity has
failed to be refuted again and again by increasingly accurate
astronomical measurements."

Yes, this is the correct way to formulate it, as any proper scientist
will confirm.


I'm sure Jim Al-Khalili will be mortified.Â* (His "Black Holes, Wormholes
and Time Machines" has "general relativity has been confirmed by
experimental evidence time and time again".)


Exactly my point. Even scientists with ****ing PHds really dont
understand what science *is*.

Ecen some philsophers of science, like Quine don't.

"Our talk of external* things, our very notion of things, is just a
conceptual apparatus that helps us foresee** and control the triggering
of our sensory receptors*** in the light of previous** triggering of our
sensory receptors. The triggering, first and last, is all we have to go on"

* He assumes that things are external without saying to what.
** he assumes time is independent of perception.
*** he seems to assume receptors are physical without defining what
physical is.

and so on.

Science is taught as FACT. It is not fact. It is a model, a map of
experience that is *not inconsistent* with the experience, if first we
can agree on what that experience is of.

Many scientific theories may fit the same facts.



--
"Corbyn talks about equality, justice, opportunity, health care, peace,
community, compassion, investment, security, housing...."
"What kind of person is not interested in those things?"

"Jeremy Corbyn?"

On 23/02/2019 12:04, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 23/02/2019 11:16, Robin wrote:
On 23/02/2019 10:26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

I take issue with "In the century since 1919, general relativity has
been confirmed again and again by increasingly accurate astronomical
measurements."

It should be "In the century since 1919, general relativity has
failed to be refuted again and again by increasingly accurate
astronomical measurements."

Yes, this is the correct way to formulate it, as any proper scientist
will confirm.


I'm sure Jim Al-Khalili will be mortified.Â* (His "Black Holes,
Wormholes and Time Machines" has "general relativity has been
confirmed by experimental evidence time and time again".)


Exactly my point. Even scientists with ****ing PHds really dont
understand what science *is*.


Or just possibly scientists tend to know full well that a theory is
never proved but also know that:

(a) "confirm" can in context mean "support" and "corroborate" (as any
decent dictionary will confirm),

(b) scientists with even the meanest intellects read "confirm" in
context accordingly - ie as shorthand for "support rather than conflict
with", "confirm the predictions of..." etc (which is why journals such
as Nature have no problem with authors using it)

(c) it doesn't pay to be a precious pedant even when writing for fellow
scientists, and is just counter-productive pomposity when writing for
the general public.



--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On 23/02/2019 13:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/02/2019 11:16, Robin wrote:

I'm sure Jim Al-Khalili will be mortified.Â* (His "Black Holes,
Wormholes and Time Machines" has "general relativity has been
confirmed by experimental evidence time and time again".)

Who is Jim writing for?



I think he was aiming for sales to anyone from researchers through
students to general science enthusiasts

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

Yes we all got taught this at School. why post it here?
Brian

--
----- --
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please
Note this Signature is meaningless.!
"polygonum_on_google" wrote in message
...
On Saturday, 23 February 2019 07:00:50 UTC, wrote:
The Experiment That Made Einstein Famous
One hundred years ago, an extraordinary feat of astronomy proved that
the theory of relativity was true
By Andrew Robinson, Feb. 14, 2019, Wall St. Journal

One hundred years ago, at the beginning of 1919, few people outside
Germany had ever heard of Albert Einstein. By the year's end, however,
he had become a world-wide celebrity and a symbol of human genius.
What made Einstein's reputation was one of the most important
experiments in 20th-century science: a challenging, incredibly precise
observation of a solar eclipse that proved his general theory of
relativity for the first time.

The special theory of relativity, published by Einstein in 1905,
introduced a new understanding of space and time, including the
equation that linked energy, mass and the speed of light: E = mc². It
was followed 10 years later by his general theory, in which Einstein
extended the concept to include accelerated motion and gravity, based
on a highly sophisticated mathematical conception of "space-time."

But for all of its later fame, the theory of relativity made no impact
on the general public when first published in 1905. Even some
distinguished scientists rejected it. In 1910, the great physicist
Ernest Rutherford joked that Anglo-Saxons like himself had "too much
sense" to understand such an abstruse theory. To overcome such
skepticism, Einstein had to find a way for his ideas to be
experimentally confirmed.

His solution had to do with the way that light travels through the
cosmos. According to Isaac Newton's theory of gravity, which had been
generally accepted by physicists since the 17th century, light rays
are attracted by gravitational forces because light is made of tiny
particles that Newton called "corpuscles." On their journey from a
distant star to our eyes on Earth, the trajectory of these particles
would be very slightly curved or "deflected" by the gravity of the
sun.

Einstein agreed with Newton's idea, but in 1915-16 he used his general
theory of relativity to recalculate the deflection of light and found
that it would actually be twice the amount predicted by Newton. If the
magnitude of the actual deflection could be measured, it would show
whose theory of gravity was correct, Newton's or Einstein's. "The
examination of the correctness or otherwise of this deduction is a
problem of the greatest importance, the early solution of which is to
be expected of astronomers," wrote Einstein.

The first opportunity to test Einstein's predictions would come on May
29, 1919, when a total solar eclipse would allow telescopes to observe
starlight as it passed the rim of the darkened solar disc. Exceptional
care would be required, given that Einstein's calculated deflection
was only 1.7 seconds of arc-that is, a displacement of a mere sixtieth
of a millimeter on a photographic plate.

The opportunity was seized by the British Astronomer Royal, Frank
Dyson, and a leading Cambridge astronomer, Arthur Eddington, who had
become a convinced advocate of general relativity. In 1917, even as
World War I was raging, Dyson persuaded the British government to
budget £1,000 for a team of four astronomers led by Eddington to
observe the coming eclipse. Two would be stationed on Principe, an
island off the coast of West Africa, and the other two in Sobral, a
city in northeastern Brazil.

Both expeditions faced formidable technical problems, from monkeys
interfering with the telescopes to high temperatures (which distorted
the photographs) and cloudy skies. As Eddington, in Principe, recorded
in his diary, "The first 10 photographs show practically no stars. The
last six show a few images which I hope will give us what we need; but
it is very disappointing." The measurements on one plate agreed with
Einstein's predicted deflection, and another provided at least some
further confirmation. Eddington sent Dyson a noncommittal telegram:
"Through cloud. Hopeful."

Once back in England, Eddington developed four more Principe plates.
He detected in them Einstein's value for the deflection of starlight,
though within a rather large margin of error. Fortunately, the Sobral
plates provided conclusive support for Einstein's theory.

In November 1919, Eddington presented his conclusions to a joint
meeting of the Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society in
London. The greatest names in British physics, astronomy and
mathematics attended, though not Einstein himself, who remained in
Berlin. J.J. Thomson, discoverer of the electron and president of the
Royal Society, declared that "this is the most important result
obtained in connection with the theory of gravitation since Newton's
day. If it is sustained that Einstein's reasoning holds good.then it
is the result of one of the highest achievements of human thought."

Almost immediately, the British proof of a German theory was seen-in
Britain, at least-as a sign of hope for international reconciliation
after World War I. But in defeated Germany, Einstein's theory of
relativity was regarded with growing and often anti-Semitic suspicion,
culminating in the publication of "A Hundred Authors against Einstein"
in 1931. As Einstein wrote in 1921 to a German colleague, "The English
have behaved much more nobly than our colleagues here."

Few people, English or otherwise, have ever fully understood general
relativity. Einstein himself was baffled that the theory had elicited
such "passionate resonance" and made him an international celebrity.
But of the theory itself there is no doubt: In the century since 1919,
general relativity has been confirmed again and again by increasingly
accurate astronomical measurements. Today it accounts for both the
amazing accuracy of the Global Positioning System and for our
understanding of the evolution of the universe since the Big Bang,
13.8 billion years ago.

-Mr. Robinson is the author of "Einstein: A Hundred Years of
Relativity" (2015). His new book on Einstein will published later this
year by Yale University Press.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-exp...us-11550158131

I take issue with this. Within two years, he was awarded the Nobel prize in
Physics.

'The Nobel Prize in Physics 1921 was awarded to Albert Einstein "for his
services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law
of the photoelectric effect." '

Although relativity is what made newspaper headlines, the photo-electric
research was immensely important and must have been very well-known among
physicists around the world before 1919. His paper on that was published in
1905. Millikan won the 1923 Nobel for research which must have been aware of
Einstein's 1905 paper.

On 23/02/2019 15:21, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Robin
wrote:

(c) it doesn't pay to be a precious pedant even when writing for
fellow scientists, and is just counter-productive pomposity when
writing for the general public.

No. It can give people the idea that Science can be proved or even, in
the foolish words of the UN SecGen, "settled". Writing for the general
public (and ignorant journos) is when it *is* important to be careful.

Well said. And too many fairly reputable scientists do the same thing,
when they venture into politics and policy.

Changing the subject, when I was on jury duty I realised that I didn't
really know what "reasonable doubt" meant (it typically has a circular
definition). On doing a little research it seems the consensus is around
the 90 or 95% confidence level, much the same as the idea it's good
enough to publish at better than 95% confidence. While I am
fundamentally opposed to capital punishment, I'd be prepared to convict
but certainly not at that confidence level. Something more like the 5
(or is it 6?) sigma level used for acceptance of fundamental particles
like the Higgs Boson.

On 23/02/2019 13:41, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/02/2019 11:16, Robin wrote:
On 23/02/2019 10:26, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

I take issue with "In the century since 1919, general relativity
has been confirmed again and again by increasingly accurate
astronomical measurements."

It should be "In the century since 1919, general relativity has
failed to be refuted again and again by increasingly accurate
astronomical measurements."

Yes, this is the correct way to formulate it, as any proper scientist
will confirm.


I'm sure Jim Al-Khalili will be mortified.Â* (His "Black Holes,
Wormholes and Time Machines" has "general relativity has been
confirmed by experimental evidence time and time again".)

Who is Jim writing for?

Exactly my point. Even scientists with ****ing PHds really dont
understand what science *is*.

Ecen some philsophers of science, like Quine don't.

"Our talk of external* things, our very notion of things, is just a
conceptual apparatus that helps us foresee** and control the
triggering of our sensory receptors*** in the light of previous**
triggering of our sensory receptors. The triggering, first and last,
is all we have to go on"

* He assumes that things are external without saying to what.
** he assumes time is independent of perception.
*** he seems to assume receptors are physical without defining what
physical is.

and so on.

Science is taught as FACT. It is not fact. It is a model, a map of
experience that is *not inconsistent* with the experience, if first we
can agree on what that experience is of.

Many scientific theories may fit the same facts.

Well you need to be a bit careful there. Probably hypotheses, rather
than theories.

And in practice it matters not a lot if we use a theory that is known
to be an approximation, if it works well enough in the realm in which
it should be used, Newton's Theory of Gravitation being the prime
example. We still calculate all orbits for planetary probes using
Newton, as far as I'm aware. But equally, we should be aware that
General Relativity gives better answers in some circumstances, such as
close to a large mass like a star, or even worse a super-massive black
hole.

But as you say, that what both Newton and Einstein provide us with are
*models* only. Einstein is also known to be incomplete as it ignores
quantum effects.

Tim. Its mot just that they are incomplete or slightly innaccurate, they
might be totally utterly WRONG.

Think 'The Matrix'


--
Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On 23/02/2019 15:21, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Robin
wrote:

(c) it doesn't pay to be a precious pedant even when writing for
fellow scientists, and is just counter-productive pomposity when
writing for the general public.

No. It can give people the idea that Science can be proved or even, in
the foolish words of the UN SecGen, "settled". Writing for the general
public (and ignorant journos) is when it *is* important to be careful.


Yup!


--
Its easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled.
Mark Twain

On 23/02/2019 22:25, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 23/02/2019 13:41, Tim Streater wrote:

But as you say, that what both Newton and Einstein provide us with are
*models* only. Einstein is also known to be incomplete as it ignores
quantum effects.

Tim. Its not just that they are incomplete or slightly innaccurate,
they might be totally utterly WRONG.

Think 'The Matrix'

:-)

Y'know what worries me? It's that "God", what ever that may mean,
magicked it all into existence at some point. The end result (so far)
is us and we're looking into it and looking for what the rules are. And
it started off working with just simple rules, but the more we looked
into it, the more complex the rules had to become in order for what
worked previously by magic to work consistently by reality. And that
"God" is just ahead of us in creating new layers, worked by new rules,
and we keep having to delve deeper and deeper. So we started off with
billiard ball atoms, and that worked until people started probing and
so "God" had to come up with structure and components for the atoms,
with inner parts and layers.


Substitute 'your own mind' for 'god' and thats a pretty reasonable
metaphysics,. God is unnecessary.


Take galaxies, f'rinstance. If "God" just created these as-is, it was
too bad for him that we started measuring velocities of the stars as
they whizz round the galaxies and Oops! the distribution of stellar
velocities means the galaxies will fly apart quite soon unless we
invoke something completely new like dark matter and dark energy to
hold it all together, gravitationally. And WTF is that, eh?


Wait till you hit the quantum world.

Where all our analogue equations break down because the world seems to
be made of digital bits - quanta - and the linear equations no longer
apply, and, worse, it might just be that the world isn't there if no one
is observing it....



By the way, Eienstein's photioolelctric paper was really the start of
quantium physics and Einstein hated it.

So yes, the theories we love today may be dust in 100 years.

It is possible to have more than one theory fit the facts.

Some years back we invited some dyed in the wool born again Christians
to dinner. And they explained it all. The world was in fact 6000 years
old, the bible was the one true fact that God had given to us to explain
it all, and amything that was in it like dinosaur bones or distant
galaxies was put there by Satan to test our Faith.

It was irrefutable. No way could anyone prove it to be false. Instead
of 12 billion years since some natural Big Bang, it was 6000 years since
a supeernatiral and massive piece of construction. Designed (like my
house) to look way older than it really was...

Mutatis mutandis, the end result of either hypotheis would be te same
expereince of the owrld as indeed woul a hypotehos that in fact there is
no time, and no world, it is all in fact just *false memory*.

You think you just read this post, but you didnt, you just have a *false
memory* of doing it,...

Was it Benny Noakes in 'Stand on Zanzibar' who was constantly muttering
to himself as he watched the world in a drug induced haze on the global
monitoring system he had built "Christ... what an imagination I've got"...

That of curse was the real point of Occam's Razor - not that the
simplest theory is the more likely to be true, but rather since we
couldn't actually tell if any theory was true, it was pargmatic to use
the simplest one possible.

So we dont worry about the deep childhood psychoses and manifest
parental underminings that create the strong desire to be part of the
biggest nanny state possible, we just call them Remoaning Lefty****s.
It's simple, it is pragmatic and its just as accurate and far more
efficient.

--
€œBut what a weak barrier is truth when it stands in the way of an
hypothesis!€�

Mary Wollstonecraft

On 23 Feb 2019 at 10:26:55, Tim Streater wrote:

--
Lady Astor: "Winston, you are drunk!"
Churchill: "And you, madam, are ugly. But I shall be sober in the morning."

Your quotations are as accurate as the rest of your ramblings.
That quote referred to Bessie Braddock.
The Lady Astor story is about poison.