tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post3692079090167468020..comments2024-02-28T02:22:20.886-08:00Comments on homunculus: Philip Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09986655706443117158noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-20469551054488560782009-05-18T02:24:00.000-07:002009-05-18T02:24:00.000-07:00Dear, as a layman I have the following question on...Dear, as a layman I have the following question on "Confirmation of Gravitational Bending of Light during 1919 Total Solar Eclipse (and subsequently) ". According to me, since bending is due to solar mass, it would always be there, at all time, eclipse or not. And since the position of the Sun is not changing (gravitationally) wrt to stars in 6 months (or long long time), why it was expected to change with and without Eclipse?<br /><br />It is only the Earth (negligible role gravity wise) that is changing position! Changing Location of observer on Earth is not central to bending. <br /><br />Hope some simple explanation exists.<br /><br />ThanksNewthinkerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00965280885669241000noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-26741618.post-69291669182785887652007-09-21T16:23:00.000-07:002007-09-21T16:23:00.000-07:00I'm glad you're interested in history. However, y...I'm glad you're interested in history. However, you seem unaware of recent work in the history of mathematics which is important in understanding Einstein as an advocate of natural mathematics. Above all, I recommend you read Garciadiego on Russell. Here is a comment on some of this work:<BR/><BR/><BR/>Ryskamp, John Henry, "Paradox, Natural Mathematics, Relativity and Twentieth-Century Ideas" (May 19, 2007). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=897085John Ryskamphttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06154989992538796409noreply@blogger.com