Circular illogic. Unproven assumptions. Apriori claims. Made up constants. Contrived metrics to force an answer. No physical proofs. About as anti-science as one will find.
Excellent summary of your previous posts Thanks. I always sensed Einstein was nonsense for the simple reason that I could not even begin to understand it. My policy has always been if you can't understand something after looking closely at it, it is probably meaningless. Einstein was apparently describing the physical nature of the universe and yet what he says incomprehensible to me, nor could I find a book or any person who could explain it. Truth by a consensus of the ignorant. therefore I conclude his theory is not a good one and is probably not true. Here you have shown in a detailed way how his theory is not true. Finally you wrote:
"The fact that for 100 years ‘The Science’ has promoted this junk science to dogmatic narrative to be slavishly followed and venerated does not paint a pretty picture of our society, or our collective intelligence."
I agree with you. But why was this theory elevated to the status of infallible truth? Who elevated it? Why is it impossible to question?
For me it is not just this theory which is wrong, which it clearly is, but most of science full stop. Science is not what we used to think science was - that is, following the evidence - science has become whatever nonsense our true rulers want us to believe in for any reason they want us to believe it. It has become a religion without a creed, ritual, dogma, or cannon that can be anything they want it to be whenever they like.
Poor us. Look what they did to us in covid. They actually managed to get people to voluntarily inject themselves with an untested unknown substance on the back of a fear campaign by pure trust in science alone. Imagine they had a poison that killed people within five years but not immediately. That would mean they had just used their control of 'The Science' to wipe out the human race.
The reason why this issue is buried as deep as possible is because if the earth is not moving then it would have to be in the dead centre of mass of the entire universe. Thats the only unique place in the universe where the earth could be motionless. Otherwise the earth would have to orbit the sun because smaller objects always orbit larger objects.
To be fair to Copernicus, it is infinitely more likely that the Earth is orbiting the sun, but there is no physical law that prevents the converse. If the earth is indeed motionless in the centre of the universe then there is only one conceivable way it could have got there, and that’s if the CREATOR GOD put it there on purpose. Every man and his dog would become aware of this inescapable fact.
Modern astrophysics measurements indicate that the Earth is at the barycentre of the universe. Some posts cover this. Newtonian physics allows for the Earth to be at the centre (future post) especially if the universe is much smaller than we are told. The visibile universe is much smaller than the purported diameter.
George F. R. Ellis, a renowned physicist, has discussed the possibility of a model where the Earth is at the center of the universe. He stated, "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations... For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations... You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds."
The "axis of evil" is a name given to a purported correlation between the plane of the Solar System and aspects of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)
Lawrence Krauss is quoted as follows in a 2006 Edge.org article:[7]
The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.
Several other quotes from famous people. Yes it’s absolutely possible that Earth is indeed in the centre of the universe but it’s infinitely unlikely, just as our very existence itself is infinitely unlikely. The only way it could happen is by purposeful design.
WMAP, JWST, various probes have all revealed the uncomfortable reality that the Earth is in a central position. Krauss as you pointed out, long ago admitted this, while furiously maintaining that it can't be true :)
Moral religious certainty was being buried. Or, at least, moral consensus. Before ethics and politics comes metaphysics. What we think real dictates behavior. European Elites, by the end of C19, saw relative morality as the best way to control people. Elevating Einstein's relativity theory to ultimate truth allowed elites to reduce faith in religious redemption as the justification for good behavior to a relativistic nihilism better for mass consumerism, employment, debt servitude, propaganda acceptance and control in a fast changing industrial society.
Yes part of the technocratic rule by a Church of 'The Science'. There was a battle in the early 20th c between American scientists like Miller and Michelson who were engineers and wanted physical proof; and the Europeans led by Einstotle who wanted to replace all science and physics with maths.
I agree. Once you argue that mathematics is the only reality then any crazy nonsense can become real in order to agree. It is the ultimate upside down show. Now, instead of reality leading our investigation, it is math. If reality gets in the way then reality must be wrong. Reminds me of those fortune tellers who said they could divine the future in the disposition of tea leaves at the bottom of a cup. Hermione Granger, in Harry Potter, is skeptical of Sybill Trelawney's divination classes. She believes that divination is superstition. I would say that pure mathematics is the same. Mathematics ( in this sense) is not science. It has no point of connection to reality, being entirely self referential. Einstein's theory explains nothing; allows no predictions; confirms no observations; leads to no practical methods. It is mathematical pie in the sky. Literally. And this was well understood at the time by real physicists and mathematicians. So why was it elevated to Mount Olympus and why were detractors silenced? Something powerful wants a relativistic cosmology.
" So why was it elevated to Mount Olympus and why were detractors silenced? Something powerful wants a relativistic cosmology."
Copernicanism is in the main a philosophy. Since 1543 until Bessel in the 19th century (the fraud of parallax), no proof was offered. The maths supporting Keplerianism is more complicated than that of Ptolemy (though the opposite is preached). Relativity is fundamental to Copernicanism and the Big Bang. The BB's framework is based on the Einstotle's theory of gravity which is of course unproven and incorrect. If the BB is wrong the entire philosophy underlying 'the science' is at great risk. They will fight until the bitter end to protect their divine right to rule.
Your astute analysis, that Relativity is not understandable in layman's terms, reeks of irony when considering Einstein's oft repeated quote: "If you can't explain it so a child can understand it, then you must not understand it yourself" (or something very close to those words). When I was working alongside physicists and mathematicians in my early career, I lacked the confidence to ask them the hard questions regarding the aether and the screwy Einsteinian explanations for gravitational force. Once again though, my old favorite EE professor was correct when he assured us we would enter the professional world better equipped to understand and solve real life problems than the scientists and mathematicians we might have to work for.
Thanks for the comment. Totally agree. If the maths and theory cannot be explained in simple terms that a layman can understand the theory is bunk. Einstein admitted we live in a 3 dimensional Euclidean universe. This is far easier to model and understand. He knew there was no need, and no proof for his 4 dimensions and abstract, tautological constructs. Your friends in your early career would never have been able to answer your questions with honesty or evidence. They would pull out their 'science' Pravda and repeat their talking points. We call this the 'age of science...' It is a bad comedy in many respects with evil repercussions.
So there’s actual sketchy gravity math to “validate” the sketchy bowling ball on the rubber sheet gravity demonstration. I was almost thrown out of physics class as a young EE student for pointing out the tautological nuttiness of the rubber sheet demonstration. But I was only a mediocre math student, so it was easy for them to shut me up. But how did so many physicists cave to this con as it was introduced to the world?
Good question. Empathy as well for your experience. Simply put those who teach Relativity do not understand its construction. Those who desire a phd, tenure or a publication are happy to believe. It is a cult. Many thousands have objected but were given the Dingle, Miller or the '100 Authors' treatment. Censored, attacked, set to fire. The Rona plandemic censor complex has a long history. Comply or be denied a club membership.
Excellent summary of your previous posts Thanks. I always sensed Einstein was nonsense for the simple reason that I could not even begin to understand it. My policy has always been if you can't understand something after looking closely at it, it is probably meaningless. Einstein was apparently describing the physical nature of the universe and yet what he says incomprehensible to me, nor could I find a book or any person who could explain it. Truth by a consensus of the ignorant. therefore I conclude his theory is not a good one and is probably not true. Here you have shown in a detailed way how his theory is not true. Finally you wrote:
"The fact that for 100 years ‘The Science’ has promoted this junk science to dogmatic narrative to be slavishly followed and venerated does not paint a pretty picture of our society, or our collective intelligence."
I agree with you. But why was this theory elevated to the status of infallible truth? Who elevated it? Why is it impossible to question?
For me it is not just this theory which is wrong, which it clearly is, but most of science full stop. Science is not what we used to think science was - that is, following the evidence - science has become whatever nonsense our true rulers want us to believe in for any reason they want us to believe it. It has become a religion without a creed, ritual, dogma, or cannon that can be anything they want it to be whenever they like.
Poor us. Look what they did to us in covid. They actually managed to get people to voluntarily inject themselves with an untested unknown substance on the back of a fear campaign by pure trust in science alone. Imagine they had a poison that killed people within five years but not immediately. That would mean they had just used their control of 'The Science' to wipe out the human race.
The reason why this issue is buried as deep as possible is because if the earth is not moving then it would have to be in the dead centre of mass of the entire universe. Thats the only unique place in the universe where the earth could be motionless. Otherwise the earth would have to orbit the sun because smaller objects always orbit larger objects.
To be fair to Copernicus, it is infinitely more likely that the Earth is orbiting the sun, but there is no physical law that prevents the converse. If the earth is indeed motionless in the centre of the universe then there is only one conceivable way it could have got there, and that’s if the CREATOR GOD put it there on purpose. Every man and his dog would become aware of this inescapable fact.
Modern astrophysics measurements indicate that the Earth is at the barycentre of the universe. Some posts cover this. Newtonian physics allows for the Earth to be at the centre (future post) especially if the universe is much smaller than we are told. The visibile universe is much smaller than the purported diameter.
George F. R. Ellis, a renowned physicist, has discussed the possibility of a model where the Earth is at the center of the universe. He stated, "People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations... For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its center, and you cannot disprove it based on observations... You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds."
The "axis of evil" is a name given to a purported correlation between the plane of the Solar System and aspects of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)
Lawrence Krauss is quoted as follows in a 2006 Edge.org article:[7]
The new results are either telling us that all of science is wrong and we're the center of the universe, or maybe the data is simply incorrect, or maybe it's telling us there's something weird about the microwave background results and that maybe, maybe there's something wrong with our theories on the larger scales.
Several other quotes from famous people. Yes it’s absolutely possible that Earth is indeed in the centre of the universe but it’s infinitely unlikely, just as our very existence itself is infinitely unlikely. The only way it could happen is by purposeful design.
Interesting post, thanks. Indeed. Axis of Evil. Discussed that here as well https://unstabbinated.substack.com/p/wilkinson-microwave-anisotropy-probe?utm_source=publication-search
WMAP, JWST, various probes have all revealed the uncomfortable reality that the Earth is in a central position. Krauss as you pointed out, long ago admitted this, while furiously maintaining that it can't be true :)
I keep coming back to the question… What truth was being frantically buried beneath the pile of manure they called “Relativity?”
Moral religious certainty was being buried. Or, at least, moral consensus. Before ethics and politics comes metaphysics. What we think real dictates behavior. European Elites, by the end of C19, saw relative morality as the best way to control people. Elevating Einstein's relativity theory to ultimate truth allowed elites to reduce faith in religious redemption as the justification for good behavior to a relativistic nihilism better for mass consumerism, employment, debt servitude, propaganda acceptance and control in a fast changing industrial society.
Yes part of the technocratic rule by a Church of 'The Science'. There was a battle in the early 20th c between American scientists like Miller and Michelson who were engineers and wanted physical proof; and the Europeans led by Einstotle who wanted to replace all science and physics with maths.
I agree. Once you argue that mathematics is the only reality then any crazy nonsense can become real in order to agree. It is the ultimate upside down show. Now, instead of reality leading our investigation, it is math. If reality gets in the way then reality must be wrong. Reminds me of those fortune tellers who said they could divine the future in the disposition of tea leaves at the bottom of a cup. Hermione Granger, in Harry Potter, is skeptical of Sybill Trelawney's divination classes. She believes that divination is superstition. I would say that pure mathematics is the same. Mathematics ( in this sense) is not science. It has no point of connection to reality, being entirely self referential. Einstein's theory explains nothing; allows no predictions; confirms no observations; leads to no practical methods. It is mathematical pie in the sky. Literally. And this was well understood at the time by real physicists and mathematicians. So why was it elevated to Mount Olympus and why were detractors silenced? Something powerful wants a relativistic cosmology.
" So why was it elevated to Mount Olympus and why were detractors silenced? Something powerful wants a relativistic cosmology."
Copernicanism is in the main a philosophy. Since 1543 until Bessel in the 19th century (the fraud of parallax), no proof was offered. The maths supporting Keplerianism is more complicated than that of Ptolemy (though the opposite is preached). Relativity is fundamental to Copernicanism and the Big Bang. The BB's framework is based on the Einstotle's theory of gravity which is of course unproven and incorrect. If the BB is wrong the entire philosophy underlying 'the science' is at great risk. They will fight until the bitter end to protect their divine right to rule.
Light experiments found no movement of this planet.
They still don't :)
The planet might move and dance, it is very hard to mechanically prove.
Relativity was the only explanation as many posts outline.
Your astute analysis, that Relativity is not understandable in layman's terms, reeks of irony when considering Einstein's oft repeated quote: "If you can't explain it so a child can understand it, then you must not understand it yourself" (or something very close to those words). When I was working alongside physicists and mathematicians in my early career, I lacked the confidence to ask them the hard questions regarding the aether and the screwy Einsteinian explanations for gravitational force. Once again though, my old favorite EE professor was correct when he assured us we would enter the professional world better equipped to understand and solve real life problems than the scientists and mathematicians we might have to work for.
Thanks for the comment. Totally agree. If the maths and theory cannot be explained in simple terms that a layman can understand the theory is bunk. Einstein admitted we live in a 3 dimensional Euclidean universe. This is far easier to model and understand. He knew there was no need, and no proof for his 4 dimensions and abstract, tautological constructs. Your friends in your early career would never have been able to answer your questions with honesty or evidence. They would pull out their 'science' Pravda and repeat their talking points. We call this the 'age of science...' It is a bad comedy in many respects with evil repercussions.
So there’s actual sketchy gravity math to “validate” the sketchy bowling ball on the rubber sheet gravity demonstration. I was almost thrown out of physics class as a young EE student for pointing out the tautological nuttiness of the rubber sheet demonstration. But I was only a mediocre math student, so it was easy for them to shut me up. But how did so many physicists cave to this con as it was introduced to the world?
Good question. Empathy as well for your experience. Simply put those who teach Relativity do not understand its construction. Those who desire a phd, tenure or a publication are happy to believe. It is a cult. Many thousands have objected but were given the Dingle, Miller or the '100 Authors' treatment. Censored, attacked, set to fire. The Rona plandemic censor complex has a long history. Comply or be denied a club membership.