Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #594341

Re: Why No One Believed Einstein - by Matthew Wills

Show all headers | View raw

On Saturday, August 20, 2016 at 12:48:35 PM UTC-7, Dr. Jai Maharaj wrote:
> WHY NO ONE BELIEVED EINSTEIN
> 
> By Matthew Wills
> JSTOR Daily, jstor.org
> Friday, August 19, 2016
> 
> With hindsight, it seems as though scientific
> breakthroughs sweep quickly to universal acceptance. A
> paper is published and everybody says, "Eureka!" But
> that's not necessarily the case. Sometimes scientists
> have too much invested in the status quo to accept a new
> way of looking at things. This was certainly true when
> Albert Einstein's 1905 paper on "special relativity"
> first challenged the British conception of ether.
> Einstein argued that space and time were bound up
> together (something he would elaborate on in his theory
> of general relativity of 1915, adding gravity to the mix
> of space/time), a complicated idea that contradicted the
> long-held belief in something called ether.
> 
> In the 19th century, ether (not to be confused with the
> once-popular anesthetic diethyl ether) was the medium
> that scientists believed filled space. It might be
> considered the first "dark matter," an undetectable
> something theory said should be out there, the
> explanation for a number of problems having to do with
> electricity, the movement of light, even the whole
> concept of "nothing." It was, according to one early-
> 20th-century physicist, "accepted as a necessity by all
> modern physicists." But as Einstein's theory noted, there
> was no experimental confirmation for the substance. There
> was no proof it existed, other than that the scientific
> establishment had accepted the concept. As Stanley
> Goldberg reminds us, British physicists had a
> "theoretical commitment to the ether."
> http://www.jstor.org/stable/27757305?mag=why-no-one-believed-einstein
> For instance, Lord Kelvin argued in 1907 that ether must
> be an "elastic, compressible, non-gravitational solid."
> However, in the end it didn't conceptually work well enough.
> 
> This article continues at:
> 
> http://daily.jstor.org/why-no-one-believed-einstein/
> 
> Jai Maharaj, Jyotishi
> Om Shanti
> 
> http://bit.do/jaimaharaj

Einstein not getting a Nobel for GR and SR is amazing.He got his Nobel in the QM realm WOW that must have amazed him,and Bohr. He could still get one even long dead.Do you know bwhat for? I do  TreBert

Back to sci.physics | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: Why No One Believed Einstein - by Matthew Wills "reber g=emc^2" <herbertglazier0@gmail.com> - 2016-08-23 11:30 -0700
  Re: Why No One Believed Einstein - by Matthew Wills "hanson" <hanson@quick.net> - 2016-08-23 13:10 -0700

csiph-web