Earlierst general relativity eclipse experiment alternate history discussion hp gas kushaiguda phone number


If you take Maxwell’s equations, and assume the invariance of the velocity of light to all observers, you end up with Special Relativity. This is how Einstein developed SR in his first paper, he started with Maxwell’s equations, and asked what needed to happen to keep them valid under all conditions — in other words, to make them universally applicable. Special Relativity is really just the completion of what Maxwell originally created. This is one reason why SR is considered part of Classical Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics, on the other hand, was something entirely new.

As for General Relativity, it has electricity electricity music notes become increasingly evident that it is merely a close approximation to physical reality. I don’t know what form the true theory of gravity will take, although I do like Verlinde’s Entropic Gravity. So far, it appears to explain in a very natural way many (and perhaps all) of the increasingly numerous anomalous observations at various scales, that GR cannot explain without recourse to magical elves (AKA Dark Matter and Dark Energy).

A theory of this kind is worked out in greater detail in Clerk Maxwell’s Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism. It is there shown that, if we assume that the medium is in a state of stress, consisting of tension along the lines of force and pressure in all directions at right angles to the lines of force, the tension and the pressure being equal in numerical value and proportional to the square of the intensity of the field at the given point, the observed electrostatic and electromagnetic forces will be completely accounted for.

The force of gravitation … differs from the electric and magnetic forces in this respect, that the bodies between which it acts cannot be divided into two opposite kinds, one positive and the other negative, but are in respect of gravitation all of the gas and electric credit union same kind, and that the force between them is in every case attractive. To account for such a force by means of stress in an intervening medium, on the plan adopted for electric and magnetic forces, we must assume a stress of an opposite kind from that already mentioned. We must suppose that there is a pressure in the direction of the lines of force, combined with a tension in all directions at right angles to the lines of force. Such a state of stress would, no doubt, account for the observed effects of gravitation. We have not, however, been able hitherto to imagine any physical cause for such a state of stress.

Another theory of the mechanism of gravitation, that of Le Sage, who attributes it to the impact of ultramundane corpuscules, has been already discussed in the article ATOM, supra, p. 46.​He did die soon after (1878), but if his 1864 paper electricity worksheets ks1 and 1875 article are representative of his actual views–and this might not be the case, but I’ve seen nothing to suggest they aren’t–then Maxwell not only did not advance toward STR, but in some sense made negative progress, by having a strange sort of ‘double aether’ for gravity.

Click to expand…Here’s an exercise for and alternate history of QM: wave optics must reduce to geometrical (ray) optics, ray optics are essentially the ancient particle (corpuscular) theory of light. In phase space, Fermat’s principle of least time for light rays plays the same role as Hamilton’s principle of least action for particles, with the eikonal (light) corresponding to the abbreviated action (particles).

The de Broglie relations of QM fall out taking this analogy seriously; in an alternate timeline that b games 2 someone had the unnatural idea to try describing particles with waves because the Hamiltonian formalism works well for both, the de Broglie relations and the Schrödinger equation are derivable without knowing any lick of experimental support for QM. So, what? Is QM really just the completion of the Hamiltonian (or Lagrangian) formulations of classical mechanics? Well, not really (still need Born rule), but if we’re making uncharitable enough comparisons, there is nothing new under the sun. Pretty much nothing ever has sprung up from an intellectual vacuum.

Not so fast. How good are your measurements? Did you account for temperature variations warping your photographic plates and telescope equipment (the Sobral expedition almost had all their results ruined gas 69 by mirror warping)? The effects of the atmosphere on light? Anyone who’s seen a hot road or been in a desert would have seen very dramatic mirages; this is smaller, but when you’re looking looking for under 1 differences, that’s going to a very important concern. Did you account for those effects between observations under different days and weather? What about changing conditions in the eclipse itself? What about any other systematic errors? (Eddington’s main equipment recorded 0.93 deflection, by the way, but he had 1 electricity unit in kwh good reason to believe contamination problems with it. The 1.61 result was from his smaller backup telescope.)

So how good are your measurements? If you can’t reasonably conclude better than 0.8 error, your result completely worthless. Eddington’s analysis was ±0.4. So hypothetically sans GTR already predicting otherwise, this less than 2σ disagreement with Newton–which is barely interesting enough to publish even under the notoriously loose medical science standards, much less those of physics.

As it happened, Sobral had better luck than the Príncipe and produced better evidence, so the overall picture wasn’t as bleak as this. But the point is that having a factor of two sometimes just isn’t good enough to tell things apart, especially in the context of this particular question where you don’t have a competing alternative that’s already very compelling to snatch up the reins. Even with Sobral, you’d have to think long and hard about whether you’ve sufficiently accounts for sources of error and if so, whether statistics based on a few stars are really all that meaningful.

If there weren’t already recognized problems with how to square Newtonian gravitation and gas and bloating special relativity, I think it would have taken a long time and many expeditions before the accumulated evidence was compelling enough to make most physicists pay serious attention. And rightly so–people paid more attention than they would have otherwise because the results simultaneously confirmed GTR’s predictions, which solved many other problems besides, not just because they went against Newton.