Einstein's Theory of Gravity is Wrong. Basic physics and common sense reveals why.

This means that the Big Bang is also wrong, including the supposed shape of the universe and its expansion.

Newton’s law of gravity simplified

“We already know that general relativity must be altered. By predicting points of infinite density – singularities – classical general relativity predicts its own down-fall….When a theory predicts singularities such as infinite density and curvature, it is a sign that the theory must somehow be modified.” (Saint Stephen of the Hawking, A Briefer History of Time, 2005, p. 102)

We have written on this substack why General Relativity is wrong. We can pursue this a little further by looking at the Einstotle’s theory of gravity. It has been mentioned that gravity can bend light. This is not entirely accurate. Newton was closer to the truth. Newton believed that light refraction was due to gravity and other forces which would bend light. This is more apposite (see below). It also disproves General Relativity and the Einstotle’s belief that the aether was simply a ‘gravitational field’ devoid of energy, kinematics, or material (the aether exists, Einstein was wrong).

General Relativity or GTR

In 1915, Einstein developed his GTR, the geometric theory of gravitation that is the current description of gravity in modern physics. This is part of the standard model of science and is taught and emitted by the narrative owners and is found in all textbooks and AI.

GTR states that gravity is a geometric property of spacetime, in which the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present.

That at least is the current refinement. This is not really what the Einstotle actually proposed. The Einstotle had chosen his maths teacher Minkowski’s spacetime model to graphically show the gravitational forces implied in GTR. He wanted an aether of gravity devoid of energy, merging Space with Time into a 4^th dimension where Time now becomes ‘relative’ and in effect disappears as a subjective measurement.

In the GTR model there is a geometric distortion of four-dimensional spacetime by massive objects. The more mass that produces gravity in a body (eg our planet), the more distortion you get. This distortion supposedly changes the trajectories of objects moving through space, near to the body in question, and reorients even the paths of light rays as they pass close by massive bodies.

In simple terms, GTR geometric-model, proposes that massive objects bend the space around them, impacting other objects and forcing them to deviate from their ‘straight lines’.

A simple analogy.

• Within GTR our Sun will be situated along a 4^th dimensional spacetime fabric, weighing down ‘space’ like a bowling ball (Sun) on your bed (‘spacetime’).

• I enter your dark bedroom with a flashlight and shoot a beam of light close by the bowling ball.

• The light beam will follow the edge or lip of the ‘curved spacetime fabric’, forcing the light to bend toward the bowling ball rather than bypass it in a straight line.

In reality this does not happen. It does not happen in a dark bedroom with the bowling ball and my torch, nor anywhere on Earth, nor in space. Your bedroom is not ‘curved’ in space and time. Your bedside clock refutes that, as does the bed itself. What bends light is refraction and Newtonian gravity (more below).

GTR depends on 3 assumptions which will never be verified and which will never be proven and are perforce a-scientific:

• (1) 4D spacetime is real,

• (2) Spacetime is curved,

• (3) Spacetime imparts gravitational energy to massive objects (meaning that the energy of gravity and its wave function is an unknown).

‘The Science’ can now be fiction and not have to prove anything

The Einstotle teaching philosophy at the local academy.

Spacetime Myth

As outlined in several posts, the merger of space with time is a myth and completely unfounded and unproven. This was known in the 1920s (see Herbert Ives’ critique of Einstein’s philosophy on spacetime).

• Time measures the changing positions of objects and sequences of events that occur within space.

• Time exists as an intangible (i.e., not a physical thing) within 3D space.

• Time is subjective.

• Time is a measurement of objects which can be in simultaneous motion, a fact that Relativity does not support (simultaneity is impossible if all activities are ‘relative’).

• Only humans measure.

Time cannot be extracted from space and projected onto a fourth, independent axis with its own set of reference points. Anyone proposing this is not sane.

Any model which includes mathematical measurements of an intangible dimension such as time, cannot possibly be accurate or valid. To believe in spacetime is to believe in at least one direction to which one cannot point. This is a form of insanity.

Likewise space is an absolute of aether. It is not a vacuum of ‘no thing’, or nothing. It is a material rich medium which transfers light, energy, rays, radiation, gravity and other forces and products of energy and motion. It is not empty. To say that space is empty is also insane.

Einstotle ignores the above. He ignores the reality of subjective Time and objective Space in order to ‘relativise’ all relationships between planets and objects. This was done to explain away the thousands of experiments which find no movement of this planet. Within this GTR model there is no coherent explanation of cause and effect (Newtonian physics) because no absolute exists. This means that GTR cannot possibly explain light, light transmission or how gravity by itself could bend light!

The above image is a subdivision of Minkowski-spacetime with respect to an event in four disjoint sets or axes. Time now becomes an axis and pace the big-brains we can time-travel, shifting all the molecules of the universe backward and forward in synchronicity. Time is now relative and ceases to exist in human reality. This is also insane.

Disproof of General Relativity

The inherent flaw in GTR is that a 4D spacetime is just a mathematical illusion. Our own common sense tells us that geometrical spacetime is not real, does not exist, does not curve, and cannot impart gravitational energy from unknown sources for unknown reasons.

Euclidean geometry is just mathematics. It describes the properties and relations of points, lines, and surfaces and allows us to calculate the relative locations of objects on a 3-D grid. It is an abstract tool, a way to conceptualise what we observe in nature or what we want to build in reality. Calculus is the merger of algebra and geometry. It can be a useful tool to explain Newtonian concepts around motion and gravity. But calculus, like geometry, is still just a tool, a framework, a set of maths which may, or may not be correct.

Geometry and calculus cannot be the cause of anything. These are mathematical abstractions which try to explain phenomena. They cannot be forces, nor a dimension as proposed by Relativity.

Einstotle’s theories fail and fail badly, because they assume that the physical force of gravity is caused by an abstraction (geometry, calculus) that has no physical existence – i.e., that no thing (nothing) is the cause of something (a physical force).

It is impossible, nay insane, to extract nonphysical time from physical space and project it onto a separate axis with its own independent set of reference points describing something that supposedly exists independently of 3 dimensional space.

Anyone believing that a geometrical equation can extract time and project it onto a 4^th axis with independent reference points is mentally unwell. Algebraically we would represent this as 3xD + 0xD = 4xD – clearly an impossibility. Spacetime does not exist, does not curve, and cannot impart gravitational energy to things which do exist.

Einstotle at the academy having fun with the students.

Solar Eclipse of 1919

A future post will discuss the solar eclipse of 1919, which ‘proved’ Relativity, except that it didn’t. There was a solar eclipse on May 29th 1919. Experiments and observations by the cult of Relativity, were conducted off the coasts of Brazil and Africa to explain solar aberration or how starlight deviation was due to the Sun’s gravity as the light travelled to Earth. It was conducted to prove that Einstein’s maths in assessing the aberrations were more accurate than Newton’s.

First, the conclusions ‘confirming’ Einstein were based on data fraud (a future post covers this fact). Second, it does not prove Relativity whatsoever, given that other explanations based on simpler Newtonian dynamics existed. Third, the underlying premise as stated above is quite inane. Geometrical 4^th dimension gravity does not exist and can bend nothing. Therefore the theory, regardless of mathematical ‘predictions’ means nothing. Fourth, the actual ‘bend’ of the light was so miniscule it is insignificant and is probably down to experimental error (Hawking stated this).

When astrophysicists measure light, they use arcseconds. An arcsecond is 1/3,600 of a degree, or the angle made by the hypotenuse of a right-angled triangle one inch high and 1.9 miles long. This is an incredibly tiny deviation from which to estimate accurate deflections from the images of stars located 151 light years away, which was purportedly done in 1919, during an eclipse, by Relativists and the disciples of Einstein (no conflict of interest there!).

Off the coast of Africa, in 1919, during the eclipse, Relativity-priest Eddington and his deacons allegedly found a 1.795 arcsecond reading for solar light aberration, consistent with Einstein's prediction and double that of Newton’s maths. It means nothing. To put this deflection into perspective, a deviation of 1.79 arcseconds represents 1.79/1,800 = 0.01 per cent. A hundredth of one per cent apparent deflection from images 151 ‘light years’ away could be due entirely to experimental error or fraud. Newton was therefore wrong by .005%. It is meaningless.

In his Brief History of Time, Stephen Hawking says of the 1919 deflection results: “Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get." Hawking was reporting the widespread view that the errors in the data were as big as the effect they were trying to prove. This event was however the ‘big proof’ that Relativity was science-gospel and could not be refuted or denied. It was broadcast in the global ‘media’ that it confirmed Einstein and Relativity. A cult was born. An apostle annointed. This single fraud is why Relativity was accepted.

Refraction

Newton’s gravity is a force of attraction between two mass-bearing objects. Light has zero mass at rest, though it does have mass in transit. Light is never at rest, so it is wrong to say that photons have no mass. Of course they do. This fact was denied by the Einstotle, who always maintained that photons have no mass! (see why E=Mc2 is wrong).

Newton knew that light bends as it passes from air (low density) into water (high density) and described this phenomenon as light falling "much the way particles fall under gravity." The Einstotle knew nothing about this.

Photons or light particles with a mass will be affected by real gravity attraction not the 4^th dimensional chimera of Einstein. But just as important will be the refraction from the large objects. Newton in his optics research understood that such refraction results in a slightly curved trajectory. This is because the photosphere (luminous medium of space) immediately surrounding the Sun is denser than the space through which distant light beams travel. This also comports with common sense and our knowledge of space (the aether), objects and mass.

Refraction of light passing close by stars is commonly observed but misnamed as gravitational lensing. A gravitational lens is marketed as a distribution of matter between a distant light source and an observer that bends the light as it travels toward the observer. This is wrong. The distribution of matter does exist within the aether (denied by Relativity and modern science) and within this aether there is indeed differences between regions based on density (water and materiality).

Gravity impacts light and the mass of photons in flight, but more importantly, there is the bending of light from mass attraction and refraction as light travels from less dense areas of space through denser regions and back out into less dense photospheres. Newton was right. Relativity adds no value in explaining light refraction.

Light bends, not space

Back to Einstotle. What GTR is stating is that gravity is the result of the mass of an object bending space, in the non-existent 4th space-time dimension. This is not what we see in reality as just written above. GTR believes that objects ‘fall’ because the space in which they are in, is bent. This is incredibly illogical. Consider what this philosophical gibberish is trying to convince you of:

• (a) an object does not exert any direct gravitational pull on anything around it, but

• (b) the mass of this object directly influences the shape of (fictional) spacetime, and

• (c) spacetime in turn exerts the gravitational pull-on nearby objects!

None of the above are valid and none comport with Newtonian proofs. As with most things Einsteinian, the above is illogical and tautological. Non-existent spacetime somehow generates a gravitational ‘pull’ on nearby objects. How does that explain why my capacious backend stays glued to my chair, or why the Earth does not fall into the Sun?

Gravity

Back to reality. Your own common sense tells you that 2 objects are attracted to each other in proportion to their masses and in inverse (opposite) proportion to the square of the distance between them. This is basic Newton. This means that the further away the objects are, the less attraction there must be. At a certain point the gravitational pull is negligible or zero.

Gravity, based on Newtonian mechanics, is a local phenomenon.

In any given galaxy, stars are separated from each other by huge distances that preclude any real force of gravity acting between them. Your common sense understands this, because if this was not true, the stars would naturally come together, ‘clump’ and form a single superstar, assuming that the collisions did not destroy all matter.

Further, gravity is a weak force, estimated to be 6.674 × 10⁻¹¹ m³ kg⁻¹ s⁻². This is incredibly small. By way of analogy the Earth's gravity is like a powerful magnet, pulling you down with a strong force, but the gravity between two everyday objects on the planet is akin to a very, very weak static cling. The attraction is there, but it's so insignificant that you cannot feel it. This is why the buttocks cling to the chair.

From this we can claim using your own common sense:

· Stars within a galaxy are too far apart to exert a noticeable gravitational pull on each other (there might be some attraction but at these incredible distances it cannot be that great),

· There is no way that the entire galaxy (as a unit) could have a collective gravitational pull on anything outside of itself,

· To estimate the total mass of any galaxy is redundant, because there is zero gravitational pull on anything else,

· This means that no matter how many galaxies with zero external gravitational pull you add together, the total gravity pulling on any other part of the Universe is still zero.

What does this mean for GTR?

Common sense tells us that it is impossible for the gravity of any star, galaxy, or collection of galaxies to have any influence on the shape of ‘spacetime’. First, this is not how local gravity operates and second, spacetime is a mathematical fiction; it does not exist, has no shape, and does not curve. This means that the universe has no shape. It also means both GTR and the Big Bang are false.

The untenable Big Bang theory maintains that the spherical universe is forever expanding at an unbelievable rate of speed, with all planets, orbs, systems and galaxies, moving and spinning at incredible velocities. We can now say with confidence that the Big Bang theory, which contravenes the proven laws of gravity and is premised on flawed GTR is also wrong.

Bottom Line - Shapeless

The interpretation of the flawed GTR as outlined in this post has led ‘The Science’ to the erroneous conclusion that spacetime can roughly be interpreted to be spherical in shape, with the curvature of the hypothetical four-dimensional spacetime continuum defined at every point by the matter at that point and the state of that matter.

What gives the universe a ‘spherical’ shape would be a ‘collective gravity’. We have seen above why this is absurd, false and is anti-science.

Based on how reality and gravity operate, it is impossible for the universe to have any specific shape. There is no shape, no boundaries, and no edge. An edge assumes that something exists on the ‘other side’. There is no other side in the universe and no need for a fence or dividing line.

If the universe has no shape, then that non-shape cannot be increasing in size. This also means that the universe is not expanding. Individual galaxies may be getting larger, but collectively they are not expanding outwards.

As other posts on here have outlined James Web Telescopic and WMAP data indicate that the universe might not be expanding, might be much smaller than we are told and might be pulsating and oscillating along a single wave. Galaxies are also approaching our own (eg M90), this is called ‘Blueshifting’ and nullifies GTR though ‘The Science’ claims the opposite of course! Future posts will discuss this.

It is unfortunate that students and the general public are misled about gravity and the nature of light and our universe. We are moving backwards, not forwards in our knowledge. We are also retarding debate and blocking valid lines of inquiry and investigation by the slavish devotion to Einstein’s theories of Relativity.

All hail.

Scientism and the Special Theory of Relativity. Part One (a), A layman’s overview of STR and an introduction of its potential defects.

A brief history of ‘Relativity’, why, who, how and Einstein’s open plagiarism.

==

Popov, L., 2013, “Newtonian-Machian analysis of Neo-tychonian model of planetary motions,” Eur. J. Phys., 34, 383

Ostlie, D. A., and Carrol, B. W., 2007, An Introduction to Modern Stellar Astrophysics, 2^nd ed., San Francisco: Addison Wesley

Barbour, J., 2010, “The definition of Mach’s principle,” arXiv:1007.3368

Parry Moon and Domina Spencer, “Binary Stars and the Velocity of Light,” Journal of the Optical Society of America, Vol. 43, No. 8, August 1953, p. 635)