Einstein’s own apostasy. Einstein admitted we live in a 3 dimensional universe.

Like so much of 'The Science', Relativity is a theory looking for proof, and when proof is not found; it creates its own reality and dogma, despite its founder's theologically confusion.

Einstein was a Jewish philosopher, abstract thinker, and mathematical contriver. He was not a scientist, physicist, or a practical engineer.

“Albert Einstein got it wrong. Not once, not twice, but countless times. He made subtle blunders, he made outright goofs, his oversights were glaring. Error infiltrated every aspect of his thinking. He was wrong about the universe, wrong about its contents, wrong about the inner workings of atoms…In 1911 Einstein predicted [by Relativity] how much the sun’s gravity would deflect nearby starlight and got it wrong by half.

He rigged the equations of general relativity to explain why the cosmos was standing still when it wasn’t. Beginning in the mid-1920s, he churned out faulty unified field theories at a prodigious rate. American physicist Wolfgang Pauli complained that Einstein’s ‘tenacious energy guarantees us on the average one theory per annum,’ each of which ‘is usually considered by its author to be the ‘definitive solution’.“ ^{(physicist Karen Wright)}

Apostle to the Sheep and Gentiles

Einstein, or Einstotle, was a philosopher. He was not a scientist. He was not an engineer. He was not a practical builder of anything. You can’t even call him a physicist, given he never worked on ‘physical matter’ or mechanical projects. He was an abstract, abstruse Jewish-cosmological philosopher, who had some skills with calculus, and as the quote above states, ‘rigged’ his maths to prove his philosophy.

Einstotle’s math skills were pretty advanced but probably no more refined than the skills that many a university graduate in maths today possesses. If they were curious enough, current graduates could find the tautological errors in Einstein’s tensor calculus models. I can help them, working with tensor calculus as I do in building AI models. Most of these clever students never bother to inquire and just assume that the Einstotle was ‘right’. He was wrong on just about everything.

“Einstein has become such an icon that it sounds sacrilegious to suggest he was wrong…But if most laypeople are scandalized by claims that Einstein may have been wrong, most theoretical physicists would be much more startled if he had been right.”²

Modern physics and ‘science’ know full well that Einstein was wrong on almost every important issue.

Fraud and Philosophy

In a previous post we discussed the fraudulent claim that in 1919 Relativity promoter, Sir Arthur Eddington had affirmed that light aberration was satisfied by Relativity’s calculations. A future post will discuss this in more detail and why this fraud was so important for the mass acceptance of Einstotle’s philosophy. Predictably, this false claim become the dogmatic gospel that Einstein’s ‘curved space’, or the merger of space and time, was thereby ‘proven’. Overnight all modern science was turned upside down.

The Einstotle went further. Einstein claimed that nothing in the universe can be straight. He asserted that a disc whirling at high speed would be shorter around its rim and thus upset the value of π and all the rest of Euclidean geometry. The impact of his theory was overwhelming. Reality was now optional, we could time travel, ride moon beams, and prove that the mountain crashed into the train.

Previously we had briefly discussed Willem de Sitter, a Relativist who in the 1920s made a thorough use of Einstein’s equations and demonstrated that the Einstotle’s ‘curved’ universe could not be proven and was unlikely to be remotely valid. De Sitter consulted with Einstein and showed him the mathematical proofs. In 1932 Einstein and de Sitter co-wrote an article, which included the statement: “We must conclude that at the present time it is possible to represent the facts without assuming a curvature of three dimensional space.”³ The Science News Letter of April 2, 1932 stated:

“Einstein and De Sitter Return to Euclidean Idea of Cosmos: Prof. Albert Einstein, father of relativity, says that space may be and probably is the sort of uncurved, three-dimensional space that Euclid imagined and countless generations of schoolboys have learned…Prof. Willem de Sitter, Dutch astronomer, who had built his own shape of universe on Einsteinian foundations, joins with Prof. Einstein in espousing space which is on the average Euclidean….This joint announcement… is sure to cause a furor in the world of science.…In the Euclidean universe now re-enthroned, light travels in straight lines and goes on and on forever and ever.”

So, there you have it. The great Einstein repudiates his own dead-end theory. I am sure this is taught in all universities. We live in a Euclidean 3-dimensional universe. In related news 2+2 =4, up is not down, and a male sexual organ is not a female sexual organ. Imagine that.

Hubble’s hoary myth

In 1936, four years after Einstotle apostasied from his own religion, famous astronomer and violent Relativist Edwin Hubble wrote:

“….if redshifts are not primarily due to velocity shifts…there is no evidence of expansion, no trace of curvature, no restriction of the time scale.”⁴

Thanks Edwin. Hubble is most famous for proposing that a ‘redshift’ of light means a ‘longer age’ from a ‘receding’ object. This is of course untrue. Redshifts have nothing to do with ‘long ages’, or a recession at speed, it is simply a spectrum of light and many examples of Redshift clearly demonstrate a young not an old ‘age’.

Hubble’s complaint above also relates to the modern nonsense about ‘Dark Matter’, which is likely just another term for the ‘aether’, a word and a real medium and concept which cannot be named. Akin to calling a Muslim rapist of white girls in the UK, an ‘Asian’.

Aether, Gravity and 'Axioms': problems for Relativity and modern cosmology.

The main reason the majority of ‘modern scientists’ desperately cling to the ‘Dark Matter’ myth, and its imaginary brother ‘Dark Energy’, is that without these false constructs or constants, Einstein’s field equations will not work. It is as simple as that. If Einstein’s field equations are invalid, so is the Big Bang which relies on Einstein’s gravitational ‘theorem’ as the foundation for its claims.

As one physicist and author admits:

“Dark matter is needed if one assumes Einstein’s field equations to be valid. However, there is no single observational hint at particles which could make up this dark matter. As a consequence, there are attempts to describe the same effects by a modification of the gravitational field equations, e.g. of Yukawa form, or by a modification of the dynamics of particles, like the MOND ansatz, recently formulated in a relativistic frame. Due to the lack of direct detection of Dark Matter particles, all those attempts are on the same footing.”⁵

Dark matter does not exist, unless they mean the aether. But it is ‘needed’ to get the equations to work. Remember as well, that the Einstotle in 1950 doubted that ‘continuous fields’ existed in space, meaning that his gravitational theory was both unproven and probably wrong. Future posts will delve into the Einstotle’s field theories and explain why they are wrong.

Blessed are you who understand naught about my theories, or maths, yet still believe that I am the way, the truth, the light.

Bent theories

We discussed the physicist, inventor of television distribution and Relativity critic Herbert Ives in previous posts. In 1939, Ives suggested that the bending of starlight near the Sun is a result of the slowing down of light in gravitational fields, not because of a warping of space-time. This was not new and had been surmised since the time of Newton’s published theory in the early 18^th century.

As a beam of light passes the Sun, the part of the beam that is nearer to the Sun will be slower than the part of the beam further away. This is common sense. Optical experiments dating back to the 13^th century had concluded that lens refraction slows down light speed. The Sun and its gravity will act in the same as a lens and refract the light beam.⁶

The Doppler effect does not prove heliocentricity and Redshifting could indicate a young, not an old age.

Quantum issues

Relativity can never be reconciled with Quantum Mechanics, which has had some success at the micro-level, in explaining particles, molecules and the creation of matter and anti-matter or positrons. In fact, not only is there no reconciliation of the two theories, they obliterate one another.

“Bell’s reasoning and Aspect’s experiments show that the kind of universe Einstein envisioned may exist in the mind, but not in reality…we now see that the data rule out this kind of thinking; the data rule out this kind of universe.”⁷

We discussed how Bell’s Theorem destroys Relativity. This is just one out of literally thousands of disproofs. Even hard-core Relativity marketers like physicists Charles Misner, Kip Thorne and John Wheeler (authoritative names in modern physics), finally conclude that Relativity is junk and that the spacetime merger does not exist:

“The uncertainty principle [of Quantum Mechanics] thus deprives one of any way whatsoever to predict, or even to give meaning to, “the deterministic classical history of space evolving in time.”⁸

We can see calibrated refutations of Einstotle’s theorems in Schlipp’s 1949 compendium Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist, which found serious anomalies in Relativity but was of course ignored and is never taught. Neither is Herbert Dingle, the foremost Relativity expert for over 20 years, who apostasied in the 1950s, and became one of the most trenchant and unanswered critics. Dingle is never taught either, he is anathema.

In the 12th century Peter Abelard wrote ‘Sic et Non’, a compendium of church teachings which contradicted each other. Peter Lombard corrected Abelard’s proof and expounded on the apparent contradictions. No such introspection exists within the Church of Relativity. No Abelard’s or Lombard’s are permitted to examine the evidence or emit heretical analyses.

Bottom Line

The purpose of this post was to elaborate on other articles posted here, which show the absolute confusion of the philosopher Einstein. His theories were just mathematical contrivances searching for proof. The reason Relativity was accepted was that it satisfied 4 principles:

1. Mathematically explained why the thousands of light interference experiments could find no motion of this planet (you cannot mechanically measure ‘relative’ motions if you are in the ‘frame’ or in this case, on the Earth, and you moving against another moving object).

2. Mathematically described why a ‘ponderable’ aether of classical physics was unnecessary which negates most of pre-19^th century physics and gives rise to the idea of ‘scientific progress’ by nullifying what preceded the ‘modern era’.

3. Could theoretically explain the infinitesimally small errors of classical physics in determining Mercury’s perihelion, or in the calculation solar light aberrations.

4. Philosophically satisfied the ‘Copernican principle’ and the utter irrelevancy of this planet and humans within the great cosmos, whilst de facto confirming Big Bangism and the religion of materialism.

The above are never taught as the underlying drivers for accepting Relativity. The propaganda is that Saint Einstotle of the Relativity religion came to us in a blaze of divine light, a dove hovering above, and a great voice from beyond proclaiming, ‘here is my son, and with him I am well pleased, just do what he says’.

All hail.

==

¹ Karen Wright, Discover contributing editor, “The Master’s Mistakes,” September 2004. nb Aristotle was called the Master by medieval theologians….nothing much changes does it.

² Scientific American, “Was Einstein Right?” by George Musser, September 2004, p. 88. Continuing, he writes: “…when the general theory of relativity…meets quantum mechanics…it is relativity that must give way. Einstein’s masterpiece, though not strictly ‘wrong,’ will ultimately be exposed as mere approximation.”

³ Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Washington, 18, 1932, pp. 213-214.

⁴ Astrophysical Journal 84, 517, 1936, p. 553.

⁵ C. Lämmerzahl, O. Preuss and H. Dittus, “Is the Physics within the Solar System Really Understood,” ZARM, University of Bremen, Germany; Max Planck Institute for Solar System Research, Germany, April 12, 2006, p. 2.

⁶ Jour. of the Optical Society of Amer., 29:183-187, 1939.

⁷ Brian Greene, The Fabric of the Cosmos: Space, Time and the Texture of Reality, 2004, pp. 120-121. Although Greene is quoted, let’s note that string theory is more nonsensical than Relativity.

⁸ Gravitation, 1973, 25^th print, pp. 1182-83.