Charles Lane Poor; ‘Gravity versus Relativity’, 1922. Relativity's claim that gravity is not a force....Einstein the mendacious confusionist.
100 years later, Poor's complaints are still true. Relativity resolves precisely nothing and adds chaos and fantasy to the Euclidean universe. Einstein's 'proofs' are frauds.
“The Relativity Theory, as announced by Einstein, shatters our fundamental ideas in regard to space and time, destroys the basis upon which has been built the entire edifice of modern science, and substitutes a nebulous conception of varying standards and shifting unrealities.
And this radical, this destroying theory has been accepted as lightly and as easily as one accepts a correction to the estimated height of a mountain in Asia, or to the source of a river in equatorial Africa.”
(Physicist, experimenter, Charles Lane Poor, p.1 1922)
Poor was an experimental physicist and practical hands-on engineer. In the 1920s he lamented the easy acceptance of philosophical nonsense by the ‘mass’ regarding ‘Relativity’. ‘Mass delusion’, mass conformity, mass psychosis. The mass acceptance of Relativity is due to marketing and propaganda.
The complainant
Physicist Charles Lane Poor was one of many intelligent people in the 1920s, who was deeply fatigued by the Relativistic fantasy worlds created by Einstein and his cult. Poor’s 1922 work, "Gravitation versus Relativity," cuts a swathe through Relativity’s gravitational assertions. Poor explains in non-technical language, basic principles of gravity, while critically examining the astronomical evidence used to support Einstein's theory of Relativity. Poor discovered that there was no astronomical evidence to support any of Einstein’s gravitational claims. The same is still true today.
Shocking. Not. But of course no one has ever heard of this.
Einstotle’s Relativity Gravitation
The Special Theory of Relativity disavows an aether and says nothing about gravity. The General theory reinstates a gravitation-only aether and establishes a gravitational field. Einstein’s ‘theory’ on gravity can be summarised:
“The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events.”1
Einstein’s aether is not an aether of materiality. It is a ‘field’ of gravitational fluctuation. No gravitational force exists. It is a wave phenomena. In Relativity’s fantasy world, space and time are merged into a 4th dimension. Within this dimension, gravity from unseen forces will vibrate or flow within the ‘imponderable’ aether generating fluctuations. This theory adds precisely no value to understanding how you are fixed to your chair, or why the milk in your cat’s bowl doesn’t rise up and float away.
In Relativity, gravity is not a force. It is a wave through the ‘curved’ 4th dimension. A critic might ask what exactly is curved if there is no matter in space? How do you curve nothing? Or, if gravity is not a force why do I fall from the top of a tall building to the ground below? Surely pace Einstein, I must be able to fly and float?
In any event this is their story, ‘proven’ by their maths.
Relativity’s ‘Mathematics’
Poor points out that the blind acceptance of Einsteins’ maths as being confirmed and correct and which possessed syntactic and semantic validity, was also a chimera (see Gödel’s 'Incompleteness Theory'). Mathematicians who investigated the equations found errors and tautologies.
“…eminent French mathematicians, especially Painlevé, who has shown that a number of different formulas can be derived in the manner of Einstein, that many different and inconsistent conclusions can be drawn from the fundamental premises of relativity.”
Poor states that Painlevé proved that the Einstein formulas are not the only formulas to be derived from the premises or postulates, that there is almost an infinity of other possible formulas which can be developed (Poincaré found the same, and a future post will discuss Einstein’s field equations). One such possibility is the use of ordinary Euclidean space and the constancy of rigid bodies. Other formulas lead to the conclusion that bodies expand instead of contracting, still others that they expand at right angles to the direction of motion etc.
There is not ‘one’ standard derivation of Relativity but an infinite number of outputs which in many cases contradicts the theory itself. Many mathematicians such Painlevé portray Relativists as fantasists, drawing conclusions from pure imagination. There is no science here.
Solar Spectrum Lines
Einsteinian mathematics proves nothing. Neither does Relativity’s corrupted interpretations of observational data. As Poor complains:
“Einstein has claimed that the observations of Gerber and Bachem at Bonn, on the cyanogen lines in the solar spectrum place the reality of the relativity displacement (due to Relativity’s gravitational theorem) almost beyond doubt, and in these observations he sees clear experimental confirmation of his entire theory. It has been noted, however, that the bands or lines of the solar spectrum are subject to displacements due to other causes, to motions of the earth and sun, to motions of the solar atmosphere, and to differences of pressure. These displacements may be much larger than the predicted Einstein effect.”
We can state that real science accounts for variables, both dependent and independent. There are many standard classical scientific explanations for solar spectrum aberration. You don’t need Relativity to explain any of it. If we have phenomena which can be explained by any number of mathematical formulas, forces, or physical effects, it cannot be ‘proof’ of a single theory. This is absurd.
Poor goes further and points out the fraud enacted by various astronomers who applied corrective maths from the Mount Wilson Observatory observational data to align to Relativity’s purported explanations, “As a matter of fact, these three sets of observations, taken together, do not show the slightest trace of the relativity effect; they are radically discordant and can only be made to show the desired result by arbitrary and contradictory corrections.” So data fraud is now science.
Failed Tests
Poor rightly states that the only tests prior to 1920 to assess the General Theory of Relativity’s gravitational theorem failed. The tests measuring the effect of gravitational waves on sunlight aberration were selected by Einstein himself in 1911 and 1919. The theory was off by 20% and 50% from the observed phenomena. This was declared by Einstein and the ‘science media’ to be a roaring success and proof of Relativity. As Poor laments, even by 1922, Relativity was declared a ‘law’ and so the burden of proof passed from the Einsteinians to their critics. This is anti-science.
As Poor observed:
“…there has been apparently a complete reversal of ordinary scientific methods. As a new theory, as a hypothesis seeking acceptance, it would seem that the burden of proof should rest upon Relativity: that its advocates should conclusively prove the necessity and the sufficient of their hypothesis.”
With ‘The Science’ the burden of proof is never with ‘The Science’. It lies with the critic. Regarding the fraudulent assertion that Relativity ‘resolved’ the perihelion of Mercury issue, Poor declares,
“…they (Relativity’s tortured maths) account for only one of the numerous discordances in planetary motions, for only a portion of the supposed light deflections; they are not necessary, for all the discordances in the motions of the planets, including that of mercury, can readily be accounted for by simple gravitational methods, and the light deflections, if real can be equally well explained on other grounds.”
Einstein’s explanation of Mercury’s precession was based on Gerber’s Newtonian calculation which explains the same, dating from 1887. Einstein’s calculations were approximate. They also introduce other errors in the motion of Venus for example. The observed motions of Mercury and Venus can be easily explained by Newtonian laws of gravity and masses of matter, and their related formulas. Further, based on observations by Newcomb and Leverrier, it is well known that other forces act on Mercury (Coriolis, Euler), which are not a part of Relativity. Einstotle’s theorems therefore explain nothing.
Michelson Morley
Poor well understood that the MM experiment of 1887 (and thousands of other light experiments) did not find the Earth’s motion, but did find an aether wind or drift. He knew this spelled Relativity’s doom.
“…if it should develop that there is a measurable ether-drift, then the entire fabric of the relativity theory would collapse like a house of cards. For this reason the repetitions of the Michelson-Morley experiment recently made at Cleveland and at Mount Wilson are of especial importance: they indicate…that there may be a measurable ether-drift.”
Poor relates the work of Miller and Morley at Mount Wilson, where there is one of the world’s great observatories (where Hubble for example acquired his observational data to propose a redshifting of light which ‘proved’ the Big Bang, it does nothing of the sort of course).
“The suggestion was then made that the earth drags the aether, and while there is no ‘drift’ at the surface of the earth, it might be perceptible at an elevation above the general surface. The experiment was again performed…at the Mount Wilson Observatory in March and April, 1921, where the elevation is nearly 6,000 feet.
The results indicated an effect such as would be produced by a true ether-drift, of about one tenth of the expected amount, but there was also present a periodic effect of half the frequency which could not be explained.
The interferometer had been mounted on a steel bass, and in order to eliminate the possibility of magnetic disturbance, a new apparatus with concrete bas and aluminium supports for the mirrors was constructed. Observations were made in November and December 1921, the results being substantially the same as in April.”
Dayton Miller performed some 300.000 experiments, thousands of them at high altitude and found no movement of the Earth. Einstotle knew about Miller and admitted that if Miller’s results were valid, Relativity was dead. For ‘media’ consumption Einstein slandered Miller and suggested that Miller, who unlike Einstein performed experiments, was ignorant about heat transfer or the impact of elevation (or temperature), on equipment.
This is rich. Einstein the thin armed pampered philosopher was giving advice to a man who built the most complex light interferometer equipment in history and performed what must be, the greatest number of experiments in history, generating the highest quantity of collected data ever achieved by a single scientist in history. Miller knew what he was doing and took all precautions and controls imaginable.
Where are Einstein’s experiments?
As Poor writes, Miller’s experiments indicate that an aether is dragged along by the rough surface of the Earth and that you can only measure the true drift, or even the movement of the Earth, from the troposphere. Miller like Newton, and unlike the triumphalist Relativists, was always cautious, describing his results as indications only and not laws or immutable facts.
In other words, leading experimental engineer and physicist Dayton Miller was a real scientist unlike Einstein.
Einstein’s Fizeau-fraud
Further, regarding the aether, Einstein was deeply disturbed by Fizeau’s complex water-based experiment, which failed to find the Earth’s motion in space. Einstein said this had a profound impact on his approach to ‘science’, or more accurately, his philosophical doctrines. As Einstein was wont to do, he intentionally misinterpreted what Fizeau found to support his Relativity philosophy. This was noticed by Poor. Poor picks out the 2 equations used by Einstein in his treatment of Fizeau’s shocking failure:
W = v + w (A)
W = v + w / 1 + (vw / c2) (B)
v = velocity of the water in the tube; w = velocity of light in a motionless fluid; c = speed of light
Einstein declares that equation A supposedly indicates the theory of classical mechanics (Newton) to explain the relations between water and light, and B is the Relativity interpretation of the same. Einstein then proceeds to show that B more nearly represents the results of Fizeau’s observations. This is of course mendacity.
Equation A has nothing to do with classical physics. Einstein sets up a straw man.
As Poor states, this equation is found precisely nowhere and has nothing to do with Fizeau’s experiment. What equation A is saying is that the velocity of light in the moving water is equal to the sum of the velocities of light in air and of the water in the tube. This was never claimed by anyone. You would need to add the refraction index of water for example.
Further, Einstein’s claims that B is accurate, is simply a deception.
To bring B into accord with Fizeau, Einstein was obliged to make approximations, and to neglect certain terms of his own formula. By means of such gymnastics he eventually puts his equation into: W = w + v (1 – (1/n2)). N is the index of the refraction of water, equal to light speed divided by the velocity of light in a motionless fluid. This is the same equation that was used by Fizeau. Yet he denies such additions to the never heard of straw man he uses as equation A.
This is simply an outlandish fraud but so typical of Einstein and his cult. Not only is Einstein’s maths a fiction and deception, but he never understands nor explains the most important thing that Fizeau found: no movement of the Earth and indications of an aether.
Compare Relativity to Newton
By 1665 Newton had formed his law of gravity and attraction. He used the moon and measurements of its orbit to either confirm or deny his theories. He found that the practical measurement of the moon’s orbit revealed a 15% or so variance in his calculations, versus that of the observed motion. Newton discarded his gravity theory.
Some 20 years later, Edmund Halley urged Newton to correct his formulations based on updated data. He did so and was able to show that his theory of gravity comported with the actual motion of the moon. It was in the 1680s that Newton felt confident enough to circulate his ideas on gravity - 20 years after he had completed the original theorem.
This is science.
There is absolutely nothing similar with the claims by Einstein’s cult around Relativity or their ‘gravitational theorem’. The Relativity cult can be wrong by 15%, 50% or 100% and the declamations are still the same – ‘it proves Relativity!’
A belief in Relativity stems from the well-funded indoctrination by marketing and repetitive propaganda, not from science.
Bottom Line
In the 1920s Poor challenged the prevailing acceptance of Einstein's theory, arguing against its core tenets and interpretations of experimental findings. He offered alternative explanations for observed phenomena, basing his arguments in classical Newtonian physics and traditional astronomical observations. Poor's work reflects the reality that most informed scientists in 1920s were opposed to Einstein's fantastical and ridiculous theories, in which teleologically, there is no absolute time, nor absolute reality.
In particular, Poor dispenses with the non-existent proofs for Einstein’s gravitational theory including its tautological maths; solar spectrum aberration, and Mercury’s perihelion. There was and there still is no proof for Einstein’s GTR gravitational theorem which lies nestled in a 4th space-time dimension which does not exist and which offends the physical world of 3 dimensions. 100 years later Poor’s complaints remain unanswered.
But no one is taught any of this. Open science, critical thinking, evidential proofs and all that.
All hail.
==
1 A. Pais, Subtle is the Lord, Oxford, 1982, 2005, p. 313.
Charles Lane Poor, ‘Gravity versus Relativity’, 1922.
I'm waiting for your work on the existence of DNA. As unique substance or molecule or whatever. Wheather exists as the way it said to be and functions the way it is said to be. Was it a discovery or invention, is that a settled science (body of knowledge) or another layer of deception or blunder or fiction (mythology). And it's uses in virology.
Valuable writing. The Argentine polymath Mario Crocco was often critiquing Einstein and time as 'dimension. As I previously mentioned I think you are using 'pace' to mean 'following'. It's the opposite!