Infinite Energy Magazine
The Eclipse Data of 1919: The Greatest Hoax in 20th Century Science
by Richard Moody, Jr.
[We present here the short abstract and a section of the Introduction for this paper in Issue 87.]
Prior to 1919, general relativity was an obscure theory by a rising star in physics, Albert Einstein. Based on the perceived need to test this complex and intriguing concept, it was held as gospel that sunlight passing by the sun should be bent by the gravitational attraction of the sun, something known to Sir Isaac Newton and modified by Einstein. According to prevailing wisdom, this should be observable during a total solar eclipse when the shielding of the sun’s light permitted the observation of light from distant stars being “bent” around the sun.
Arthur Eddington traveled to Principe, Africa with the express purpose of proving Einstein right. Prior to that, he was an advocate for Einstein, due, in part, to the fact that both men shared the same political beliefs, Pacifism. In his zeal to be both peacemaker and kingmaker (Eddington wanted to be known as the man who discovered Einstein), Eddington engaged in corruption and derogation of the scientific data, the scientific method, and much of the scientific community. To this day, this completely manufactured data set is quoted by prominent scientists and the organs of publication. It surpasses the Piltdown Fraud—an attempt by a “charlatan” to fool anthropologists into thinking they had found the “missing” link—as the greatest hoax of twentieth and twenty-first century science.
Hero worship may seem harmless to some, but in the case of Einstein it has had disastrous consequences for the scientific community. Let us start with perhaps the worst cover-up and brewing scandal science has seen in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. I am referring to the Hoax of 1919, otherwise known as the eclipse data from 1919, hereinafter called the “Eclipse.” Einstein’s dubious science led other scientists to disgrace themselves for the express purpose of proving Einstein right about general relativity. It is almost unimaginable to ponder just how bad “reputable” scientists are when it comes to understanding the limitations of scientific instruments, the limits of the physical conditions under which data is collected, and a complete lack of understanding of the logic behind the various predictions for the deflection of light. These scientists don’t appear to understand what the scientific method is or how to apply it.
Strong models are like crude filters, readily admitting data consistent with the theory and systematically rejecting data inconsistent with the theory. This results in a feedback loop between the corrupted and derogated data to the strong model. They reinforce each other. This has been the case for general relativity. It went from an obscure concept from a somewhat obscure scientist, to the reigning paradigm overnight, dominating thinking in theoretical physics over the past half century. “Strong models corrupt weak men and women. . .The desire to conform, is almost as strong as the desire to create.”1 Strong models discourage free and independent thought. Where wealth, power and prestige come into play, they serve as a club to beat back promising alternatives. General relativity is just such a model.
I have previously drawn the analogy between strong models and the queen bee syndrome.1 What is the first official act of any queen bee when she recognizes what she is? To immediately kill off any potential rivals. This is how strong models operate. Consider this observation from Ian McCausland: “In spite of the fact that the experimental evidence for relativity seems to have been very flimsy in 1919, Einstein’s enormous fame has remained intact. . .It is suggested that the announcement of the eclipse observations in 1919 was not a triumph of science as it is often portrayed, but rather an obstacle to objective consideration of alternatives.”2 According to the late Sir John Maddox, former editor of Nature,3 the results from the Eclipse were not particularly accurate and the subsequent eclipse observations are no better. . .
References (cited herein):
1. Moody, R. Jr. 2007. “Beyond Plate Tectonics: Plate Dynamics,” Infinite Energy, 13, 74, 12-24, www.infinite-energy.com/images/pdfs/moody.pdf.
2. McCausland, I. 1999. “Anomalies in the History of Relativity,” J. Scientific Exploration, 13, 2, 271-290, www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_13_2_mccausland.pdf.
3. Maddox, J. 1995. “More Precise Solar-Limb Light-Bending,” Nature, 377, 11.