Is Einstein Wrong: Difference between revisions
Imported from text file |
Imported from text file |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
==Abstract== | ==Abstract== | ||
Forum, V71, N6, pp. 705-716 (June 1924). A Professor of Celestial Mechanics maintains thay Einstein's theory of relativity has not been proved, unless we accept on faith the special pleadings and assumptions of his followers. He calls attention to the wide divergence between stellar positions predicted by Einstein and the actual positions observed at the time of eclipses, and he argues that Newton's conclusions can be equally well vindicated if Newtonians permit themselves similar liberties in explaining away embarrassing facts. | Forum, V71, N6, pp. 705-716 (June 1924). A Professor of Celestial Mechanics maintains thay Einstein's theory of relativity has not been proved, unless we accept on faith the special pleadings and assumptions of his followers. He calls attention to the wide divergence between stellar positions predicted by Einstein and the actual positions observed at the time of eclipses, and he argues that Newton's conclusions can be equally well vindicated if Newtonians permit themselves similar liberties in explaining away embarrassing facts. | ||
[[Category:Relativity]] | [[Category:Scientific Paper|einstein wrong]] | ||
[[Category:Relativity|einstein wrong]] | |||
Latest revision as of 21:39, 1 January 2017
| Scientific Paper | |
|---|---|
| Title | Is Einstein Wrong |
| Read in full | Link to paper |
| Author(s) | Charles Lane Poor |
| Keywords | {{{keywords}}} |
| Published | 1924 |
| No. of pages | 12 |
Read the full paper here
Abstract
Forum, V71, N6, pp. 705-716 (June 1924). A Professor of Celestial Mechanics maintains thay Einstein's theory of relativity has not been proved, unless we accept on faith the special pleadings and assumptions of his followers. He calls attention to the wide divergence between stellar positions predicted by Einstein and the actual positions observed at the time of eclipses, and he argues that Newton's conclusions can be equally well vindicated if Newtonians permit themselves similar liberties in explaining away embarrassing facts.