Summarising the failures of Newton and Einstein. $cientism, dogmas and Einstein’s hoax.
The make-believe fantasy world of Einsteinian physics has retarded real science and pushed mechanical proofs to the side; and elevated abstract maths and meaningless word-salads as $cientific truth.
The Hoax
“It turns out that such matter (the ether) exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with “stuff” that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo” (Robert Laughlin, 1993 Nobel prize winner; Laughlin, pp. 120-121)
The ether exists which by itself negates Relativity. It is entirely reasonable and scientifically justifiable to label Einsteinian Relativity as a hoax. Einstein cooked up two theories to explain the mechanics of the universe. The first was called ‘The Special Theory of Relativity’ written in 1905. The second came a decade later in the form of the ‘General Theory of Relativity’. Both are dogmatic gospel within ‘the Science’. Both are wrong. Both have pushed ‘The Science’ into anti-scientific propositions and suppositions, including using both to support the ‘Big Bang’ a paradigm long past its sell date. This post summarises the issues with Relativity and why it is a nonsense and why it explains nothing.
What is ‘Relativity’
Einstein’s Special Theory of Relativity or STR is summarised below. STR is in essence a theory of Space-Time developed in 1905.
Based on 2 postulates:
Laws of physics remain the same for all observers who are in uniform motion to each other (no acceleration exists in STR which makes the theory rather absurd)
Speed of light is independent of the speed of any other object, including its source (ie a constant in a vacuum, meaning absolute nothingness which does not exist in the universe)
Consequences:
Everything is relative (or the relativity of simultaneity)
Time Dilation (the more gravity, the slower the clock rate)
Energy equivalence (ie E=mc2, or energy is equal to the calculation of mass x the speed of light squared, with light as a constant speed)
Used as a buttress for the theory of heliocentricity (Earth is in an orbital and relative motion to the Sun, and our milky way system is in an orbital and relative motion around the center of our galaxy etc)
Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity or GTR was developed in 1915-1916. GTR is simply an expanded generalisation of the relativity postulate found in STR.
1. GTR describes the relationship between gravity and the supposed geometry of space-time, applied to all objects.
a. STR by contrast focuses on the laws of physics being the same for all observers and is applied only to objects moving at a constant speed in a straight line (so not all use cases).
2. GTR is more complex than STR because it includes an ether, gravity and acceleration which are not found in STR.
Why was Relativity created?
The key galvanising factor for Einstein to create Relativity was to explain away the hundreds of 19th century experiments which could find no movement of the Earth. Copernicans believe that the Earth is travelling around the Sun at 30 km / second. No mechanical experiment has ever detected such motion. This little-known fact is the most important and fundamental element of Einsteinian physics. He called himself more of a philosopher than a scientist. Einstein did not perform mechanical experiments. He only created thought experiments and complex mathematics.
To achieve Relativity between objects, Einstein initially needed to amend Newtonian physics and remove all absolutes.
What is wrong with Newton?
Newton’s 3 core laws only work in unaccelerated frames which is not how reality operates; objects are often in motion or in ‘accelerated’ frames with varying levels of velocity. There is also an absolute rest which lies outside Newtonian theory.
The universe, not the Earth, was his ‘absolute’ point of reference, which is unsupported by modern cosmology which has no absolutes. Without an absolute reference Newtonian physics does not work.
Newton believed in a created, static universe held together by the ‘laws of gravity’, yet modern cosmology professes a rapidly accelerating uncreated universe, which lies outside of Newtonian physics.
Gravity is a weak force and cannot explain the structure of planetary motions, planetary relationships with each other, or the structure of the universe.
Newton’s theoretical concept of gravity by itself is not understood, few can explain what it is or how it works (gravitons, shadow forces are attempts at this). It is often used as a ‘catch all’ concept to illustrate an observation (the rock falls to the ground) without explaining why or how it works this way.
Newton’s water bucket experiment, where he tried to prove that all motion (in this case water against the side of a hanging bucket) can be measured against the absolute of space by gravity, was wrong and in fact does not support his own theories.
Electro-magnetism, universal forces, the Coriolis and Euler forces, are left out of Newton’s framework, yet these impact all matter in the universe.
Quantum mechanics and the atomic and sub-atomic world is completely unsupported by Newtonian mechanics, and Newton’s laws make profoundly false predictions at the atomic scale, such as atoms having zero size and solids having huge heat capacities at zero temperatures that they do not, in fact, possess.
Newton was a Copernican, but never provided proof that heliocentricity was valid, he simply accepted the philosophy and premises of heliocentricity. Not best practices.
What are the issues with Einstein’s physics?
Einstein: “I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error. Otherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.” (Letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 in Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 400).
Einstein to astronomer Erwin Freundlich in 1913: “If the speed of light is in the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false” (ibid., p. 207).
The silliness of Einstein’s theories can be summarised by his own example. I am on a train travelling at 300 mph and we roll past a station, and you are on the platform watching us go by. We crash into a mountain 500 metres beyond the platform. You say, ‘the train has crashed into the mountain’. Einstein would say, ‘no, the observer on the train looking back at the platform has every right to maintain that the mountain has crashed into the train’. We can therefore relativise and temporise the event based on ‘the observer’ and where they are. It is a load of waffle and rubbish unsupported by physical reality.
The issues with Relativity are legion, some are given below.
Dependent on Newton: Einstein’s theories are based on Newtonian physics which has been invalidated by modern advances in quantum physics and electro-magnetism and plasma. By default, Einstein’s own theories are invalidated.
Dependent on heliocentricity: As with Newton, Einstein never bothered to prove the theory of heliocentricity, he just accepted it as a fact. However, Einstein’s own theories (based philosophically on Mach and the Mach principle), his own maths, his own writings and speeches and the observed data, all clearly present that there is no difference between heliocentricity or the Tychonic model (or indeed other models), in explaining cosmological phenomena. Einstein’s theories therefore cannot be used as ‘proof’ of heliocentricity or much else. That is tautological.
The 2 key postulates are invalid: The 2 main postulates of Relativity are wrong.
1) The laws of physics are invariant (identical) in all inertial frames of reference (that is, frames of reference with no acceleration, meaning there is a relativity of motion between 2 objects, absence of an absolute standard of rest, that is, of an ether)
2) Light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body (empty space is assumed to be a vacuum)
Both have been disproven. There is an absolute standard of rest, there is an ether, space is not a vacuum, and the speed of light varies. End of Relativity.
Absolutes: Einstein’s Relativity does not allow for absolutes. So, he dismissed Newton’s absolute reference of space and inserted the non-absolutes of constant motion or Relativity. Without space as an absolute, Newton’s laws and theories do not work. Either Einstein is right, or Newton is right, but both cannot be right. You can’t appeal to ‘Relativity’ when it suits your theories, than revert back to ‘absolutes’ when you need a helping hand.
Relative motion measurement is wrong: Einstein failed to understand that all photons travel at C (speed of light which we know can vary through the ether), through the same inertial reference frame (inertial meaning the existing motion of the object) and not just relative to observers. His constant speed of light is therefore wrong, which nullifies his equations.
Relative motion vs Absolute rest: Einstein never proved his assumption of ‘relative’ motion, a concept which is incorrect. The Doppler effect (measuring the relative motion between a source and observer), means that we can measure the difference between acceleration and deceleration, and between motion and rest. Just because Einstein never bothered to measure absolute rest, does not mean that absolute rest does not exist.
Maths are not mechanically based: Einstein’s equations are based on Maxwell’s abstractions and the Lorentz equations, both of which suffer from problems and lack of proof, as well as a paucity of understanding given their complexity. If the Lorentz equations are wrong (and this is where Einstein gets his object and time dilation maths), then Einsteinian maths are wrong.
Quantum Mechanics: Einstein tried but failed to align Relativity with the world of quantum mechanics, now superseded by Plancktons and other sub-atomic particles. Einstein knew that Relativity was doomed by the sub-atomic world. End of Relativity.
Protons, Plasma: Dirac’s and Andersen’s experiments in the 1930s disproved Einstein. The existence of positrons, plasma, the ether and the structure of the subatomic world cannot be explained by Relativity.
Ether: Newton believed in the ether-materiality of space. In Einstein’s 1905 STR the ether is removed to explain the failures of 19th century experiments which could find no movement of the Earth. The ether of course, does exist. By itself the ether disproves STR.
Relativity Ether: Einstein reinserted the ether back into his 1916 GTR, coyly describing it as a ‘relativistic ether’ of no great ‘mass’ or bodily materiality. Physics does not work without the concept of an ether and space is full of neutrinos, positrons, radiative energy, and atomic sized particles. This also negates Relativity and reopens the thousands of failed experiments which found no movement of the Earth.
GPS systems: Geolocation positioning systems prove that an entrained ether around the Earth exists.
Gravity: STR in 1905 had nothing to say about gravity which by itself dismisses the theory. GTR discusses gravity and in contradistinction to Newton, includes a gravitational frame-dependent force which means that there is always a real gravitational influence of the distant galaxies against matter on the Earth. This contradicts Newtonian ‘laws’ and STR.
Object dilation: According to Einstein, as objects move and accelerate their shape changes and elongates. This has proven to be a nonsense and untrue.
The clock paradox: Relativity is based on ‘observers’ on moving objects assessing velocity and acceleration between 2 objects. The problem is which clock is slowest or fastest and compared to what reference? How can both clocks be slow or fast? See Herbert Dingle’s unanswered complaint (one of the foremost advocates of Relativity for 30 years). One clock has to be the ‘reference point’ but which one and why? Further, any observed time-dilation effect in atomic clocks is more likely to be caused by a physical effect of the ether-wind on electron’s orbits inside the clocks. This paradox refutes both STR and GTR.
E=mC2 is wrong: Einstein’s interpretation of ‘equivalency’ between matter and energy is wrong. He did not understand kinetic energy, photon mass, and the fact that photon mass cannot be converted to energy. The equation itself is incorrect and this has enormous repercussions for all of science and cosmology.
Speed of light: The speed of light is purportedly a constant ‘in vacuo’ of 186.000 miles per hour. Space is not a vacuum and many experiments have proved that the speed of light can vary greatly depending on the medium and the objects (eg Sagnac’s experiments). If the speed of light is wrong, Relativity is wrong.
Water bucket: When Einstein’s relativistic mathematics is applied to Newton’s water bucket, it shows both an additional force that has no analogue to the Newtonian centrifugal force, as well as a Coriolis force that is five times the strength as the Newtonian Coriolis. It therefore disproves both Newtonian laws and Relativity.
Space-Time curvature: James Web Telescope data and other cosmological investigations suggest that the universe is a flat disc. Planck probes (2018) hint at a slight curvature of 4% within a closed universe (anathema to the Bangers). Either way ‘The Science’ loses. A slight curvature would support time-dilation, but it is not enough to give credence to the Minkowski-Einstein theory of a distinctly curved space which is merged with time. It also would end long ages on the Earth where clocks run much slower due to gravity, against clocks in space or in comparison to objects moving at the speed of light.
Einstein concocted the space-time dimension to explain Newton’s water bucket issue and the apparent force acting on objects from a distance. Namely, if space-time is curved, the gravitational attraction or force from the curvature will force the water up the side of the bucket. This is however refuted by universal forces such as the Coriolis (see water bucket above).
Time dilation: Relativity states that gravity will speed up clocks. A twin flying at the speed of light in space will age more slowly than his twin on gravity-bound Earth. This is probably the only truly interesting insight from Einstein, but it remains completely unproven. If true, it would, rather ironically, completely demolish the claims for a long age of the Earth. Given that reality, don’t expect ‘The Science’ to be too interested in time-dilation.
Dayton Miller: This American physicist performed 300.000 experiments over 20 years which disproved the Earth’s movement and the constant speed of light. Einstein knew of Dayton and admitted that if Dayton was right, his own theories and were utterly wrong. ‘The Science’ has never answered nor refuted Miller’s work which is the most extensive and detailed set of experiments in history trying to find the Earth’s movement.
In my untutored opinion, Miller is one of the most important ‘whistle blowers’ in history. The fact that few if any know of Miller is a testimony to the censorial-inquisitorial culture of ‘The Science’ and the reality of disappearing people, experiments, evidence and truth from the record. Transparency, truth seeking, open science and all that.
Bottom Line
This post offered a long list of what is wrong with both Newtonian and Einsteinian dogma. Einsteinian Relativity is largely disproven. The entire foundation of Einstein’s fantasy world was the religio-philosophical imperative of defending heliocentricity, the Copernican principle and addressing the shortcomings of Newtonian gravity. The driving impetus behind Relativity was to disprove hundreds of experiments which could not find the movement of the Earth.
It is an obvious truism to state that the continued propagation of Relativity as unvarnished truth, reveals the entire exercise to nothing more than $cientism writ large; a hoax, a charade of charlatanism which attempts to defend a philosophical enterprise. Sadly, the mistakes and fantasies of Einstein, perpetuated by his acolytes has led real science to a dead end. Jettisoning the failed paradigm of modern physics and cosmology, premised on this falsity, but saturated as it is with money, power, egos, awards and vested interests was never going to be an easy task, but one that will eventually come to pass.
Some Sources
(links above to other posts which contain many more)
Relativity and space physics
· “Relativity: The Special and General Theory" by Albert Einstein
· Albert Einstein speech, May, 1920 Leyden address
· Albert Einstein, “Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Körper,” Annalen der Physik, 4th series, 17, Sept. 26, 1905
· Albert Einstein, “Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt,” Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, Aperion, 2000, p. 2
· Edwin F. Taylor and John Archibald Wheeler, “Spacetime Physics
· Leonard Susskind and Art Friedman, "Special Relativity and Classical Field Theory: The Theoretical Minimum"
· Peter Collier, "A Most Incomprehensible Thing: Notes Towards a Very Gentle Introduction to the Mathematics of Relativity"
· João Magueijo, "Faster Than the Speed of Light: The Story of a Scientific Speculation
· “The Einstein Theory of Relativity A Concise Statement” (2012), By H. A. (Hendrik Antoon) Lorentz
· Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down, 2005
· Arthur Eddington, Space, Time and Gravitation
· Henri Poincaré, “Le Principe de relativité et ses consequences dans la physique moderne,” Archives de sciences physiques et naturalles, 29,
Background
· C. Møller, The Theory of Relativity, 1958
· Dennis Sciama, The Unity of the Universe, 2012
· Andre K. T. Assis, Relational Mechanics, 1999
· Robert Laughlin, A Different Universe, 2005
· R. Cahill, “The Einstein Postulates: 1905-2005: A Critical Review of the Evidence,” in Einstein and Poincaré
· George Musser, “Was Einstein Right?” Scientific American, Sept. 2004, p. 89
· Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe, 2005
· James Trefil, “The Accidental Universe,” Science Digest, June 1984
· V. L. Ginzburg, Key Problems of Physics and Astronomy, Moscow, Mir Publishers, 1976
· Stephen Hawking, A Briefer History of Time, 2006
· Stephen Hawking (b), Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays, Bantam, 1994; A Briefer History of Time, pp. 104-123
· John Wilford, Computer Defies Einstein’s Theory, New York Times, March 10, 1991
· B. Hendrik, G. Casimir, Proc. Kon. Ned. Akad. Wetensch. B51, 793, 1948
· B. Haish, A. Rueda, and H.E. Puthoff, Physical Review A, 49, 678, 1994
· Stephen Mooney, “From the Cause of Gravity to the Revolution of Science,” Apeiron, vol. 6, no. 1-2, pp. 138-141, 1999
· Roger Penrose, The Road to Reality: A Complete Guide to the Laws of the Universe, New York, Alfred Knoph, 2005
· Alan Kostelecký, “The Search for Relativity Violations, “Scientific American, September 2004, p. 96
· Ian Redmount and W.-M. Suen, “Is Quantum Spacetime Foam Unstable?” Rapid Communication, Physical Review D, 47, 2163, 1993
On the Aether:
· Ludwik Kostro, “Einstein and the Ether”, 2000
· Josef Tsau, Discovery of Aether and its Science, 2005
· Galina Granek’s “Einstein’s Ether: Why Did Einstein Come Back to the Ether?” Apeiron, vol. 8, no. 3, July 2001; and
· “Einstein’s Ether: Rotational Motion of the Earth,” Apeiron, vol. 8, no. 2, April 2001
· Ludwik Kostro, “Einstein and the Ether” Electronics and Wireless World, 94:238-239 (1988)
· E. Gehrcke, “Die Gegensätze zwischen der Äthertheorie und Relativitätstheorie und ihre experimentale Prüfung,” ZftP, 4, 1923, Nr. 9
Thanks for a great post. Our world of lies goes way back. See it, laugh, ignore it, and live free. Sciencestein and Stateismstein have no chance. Lol!