Author Topic: THE EARTHMOVERS (Read 107848 times)

cassini · « **Reply #495 on:** October 16, 2014, 12:20:21 PM »

O.K., here above Asimov shows us that the ‘progress’ of modern cosmology is ideologically based and not empirically founded. He does this by telling us they rejected perfectly valid interpretations of two empirical tests showing the earth does not orbit the sun, two readings that they could not falsify. He then admits it took a ‘scientific revolution’ to solve their problem for them. Such ‘revolutions,’ the Illuminati know, are best brought about by individuals in whom the public would be conditioned to accept as men of ‘great genius.’

'The enemies of society are bent on persuading us that mankind is evolving and progressing and that the intellectual capacities of the human being are steadily increasing. This deification of the modern man, and what is being attempted is no less than that, is greatly assisted if the last century or so is shown to have produced intellectuals of unprecedented capacity, capable of opening the eyes of the world to truths which had remained hidden in all previous centuries of his history. The second generality is that it is much easier to impose false beliefs on the world if they are personalised. If a theory is put forward without reference to the person who originated it, there will be a tendency for it to be judged on its merits and then, if it clearly has no merits, for it to be rejected. This is far from being the case if a theory - however ludicrously opposed to common sense - is put forward by a man of universally acknowledged genius. Now the tendency will be for the theory to be examined with respect, if it cannot be understood this will be ascribed to the incapacity of the person examining the theory; if it appears manifestly illogical it will be assumed that the originator has grasped a logic that is beyond the reach of lesser mortals. In short it will gradually become accepted on no better grounds than the authority of the person who has advanced it.’----N. Martin Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, Briton’s Library, 1985, p.5. The structure of this chapter is based on Martin Gwynne’s essay.

An example of this we have already seen with Isaac Newton and his Principia, a collection of ideas and mathematics that were incomprehensible yet hailed by the Royal Society of London and others as providing laws and definitive proof for heliocentricism. But when their Copernican revolution failed the empirical tests with Airy and M&M, it was time to produce another such genius to get the earth moving again. In Albert Einstein they found their man with his Special Theory of Relativity (1905) and his General Theory of Relativity (1915)

‘Most great works in physics have come from those who combine miraculous physical intuition with sound mathematical skills. The former is far more important than the latter.’ --- McEvoy and Zarate: Introducing Steven Hawking, Icon Books, 1997, p.31.

Who then was the miracle worker called in to convince the world that the M&M experiment really didn’t provide evidence for a stationary earth? After much consideration the powers that be - those who decide how mankind should think about themselves and the universe they live in, those who throughout history have implemented their Egyptian, hermetic, Pythagorean, cabbalistic, Gnostic, and masonic cosmic worldview; settled on Albert Einstein (1879-1955), a school dropout who once worked in a patent office. Were it not for the need to get the earth moving again, it is probable the world would never have heard of Albert Einstein. Using this man they achieved their goal, for today Einstein’s reputation as a genius knows no bounds, his name now synonymous with the idea of genuine superior brainpower.

‘No modern book dealing in any generality with astronomy, physics or mathematics could omit his name; the splitting of the atom which in the middle of the twentieth century altered the whole concept of warfare is intimately associated with his name; no discussion of the forces and personalities most responsible for the shape of modern civilisation could fail to give him prominent mention; probably no day passes without his name appearing frequently in newspaper articles and in television programmes; statues have been erected to him in capital cities; he was the recipient of the Nobel Prize [1921] [ Not for his relativity theories, but for his work on the photoelectric effect]; in 1979 the centenary of his birth was commemorated all over the Western world [including the Vatican of course] with celebrations and exhibitions at which he was universally proclaimed as a man who had placed his stamp upon the science of the twentieth century and who would be considered one of the greatest thinkers of all time.’ --- W. C. Dampier: A History of Science, p.476, quoted by M. Gwynne

So, who was this man whose pickled smallish brain now languishes in a jar in Texas USA? Albert Einstein was born in 1879 to non-practising Jєωιѕн parents in Ulm, in southwest Germany. At the age of six he entered a Catholic primary school where he received a Catholic religious education. Meanwhile, Albert’s parents paid a relative to teach him the fundamentals of Judaism. According to Max Jammer, as a young boy, Albert Einstein extracted from Catholicism and Judaism elements common to both and that this excited in him a fervent religious sentiment including a desire to live a life pleasing to God. He spent several years living in what he later called a religious paradise. (Max Jammer; Einstein and Religion, Princeton University Press, 2000.
Einstein’s brief encounter with the old Jєωιѕн-Christian line of thought ended at the age of twelve when he was introduced to popular books on science, mathematics and geometry. One of these, we are told, Immanuel Kant’s Critique of Pure Reason, had a profound affect on his thinking. As a programmed Copernican, uniformitarian and evolutionist, Einstein concluded that the Bible must be mythical, and like others around him at the time decided he too must get into this new cosmic-religion business. He then became a devoted fan of Benedict de Spinoza, the 17th century Jєωιѕн philosopher who advocated a ‘god’ of nature rather than a personal God. ‘Neither intellect nor will appertain to God’s nature,’ taught Spinoza, and that the appropriate object of religious devotion is the harmony of the universe. Thus emerged Einstein’s cosmic religiosity, and while he never propounded his beliefs up front, he was always delighted to respond to frequently asked questions by journalists etc., about his religious beliefs. While he declared that he believed in ‘the god of Spinoza,’ he never disputed the usefulness of conventional religion.
Because of innumerable books on Albert Einstein and his contribution to both faith and science, we are told many things about the man. One such publication, Einstein in Love: A Scientific Romance (Denis Overbye: Einstein in Love, Bloomsbury, 2001.), inspired such headlines as ‘Einstein: genius and dirty old man’ because it exposes the many human failings of Einstein, calling him ‘a philanderer [adulterer], a draft dodger and a hustler whose long-suffering wife Mileva Maric (a Serbian physics student who co-authored some of his scientific theories but got no credit for them) mortgaged her happiness for his.’ ( Alan Wilks: Irish Independent, Sat. 26 May 2001.) According to Overbye; ‘by the time they divorced she was a paranoid wreck. To him, she began as one of his rechnenpferde (literally, “calculating horses” who did the mathematical proofs of his theories) and became “the employee I can’t fire.”’ Einstein’s use of people, we read, was not the thoughtless self-indulgence of a spoiled brat. His calculation was almost mathematical if you will pardon the pun. When he became engaged to Mileva he continued to send his laundry to an earlier girlfriend. An affair with his 42-year-old cousin – which prompted his divorce – turned into an infatuation with her 20-year-old daughter. By then, however, his attraction had deserted him and the girl turned him down. His personal habits, like his reluctance to bathe and telling dirty jokes accompanied by a “seal-like laugh” may have influenced her aomewhat. Wilkes however, in keeping with Einstein’s popularity in the world, puts aside morals as secondary and ends his review with praise: ‘Overbye, who is a scientist himself, also offers a beautiful exposition of the achievements of Einstein the scientist and thinker.’ It seems that no matter what, homo consensus will always be led to believe that Albert Einstein’s relativist theories contributed something useful to human knowledge, and it is for this that even a ‘dirty old man’ can be revered among the greats of history. Einstein has appeared on many world postage stamps, and more books about him continue to be published. His most poignant achievement however was posthumous, being named TIME magazine’s ‘Person of the Century.’ This distinction, we know, goes to the one that had the greatest influence on the 20th century, whether for good or evil. Now consider the impact Stalin or Hitler had on the last century and maybe you will see just how important the powers that be place on the art of earthmoving and sun fixing. Consider this view in the light of Einstein’s theories having been rubbished and falsified throughout the century, and you should be alarmed.

cassini · « **Reply #496 on:** October 16, 2014, 12:57:16 PM »

‘The obstinate truth about Einstein is that in mathematics he was no more than competent and that among the so-called discoveries presented to the world under his name one can search in vain for one that was original. Had Einstein not been selected, for reasons that had nothing to do with intellectual ability, to act out a role which was deemed necessary for the furtherance of the war against God and civilisation, his claim to immortal fame would have been that of a talented and not-undistinguished physicist… If we allow the very utmost in his favour it is demonstrable that he would have been less well-known still than Reimann, Minkowski, Thomson, Fitzgerald, Maxwell, Lorentz, Lamor, Planck Poincare, Hilbert, Ricci, Levi-Civita, Bohr, Schroedinger and Heisenberg, all of whom were approximate contemporaries of Einstein’s, all of whom were more competent and original in the areas of science which have made Einstein’s name immortal, and none of whom will be known even as names to most readers who do not have a specialist knowledge of mathematics and physics.’ ---N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.5.

The fact is that Einstein, like Isaac Newton, never used a telescope in his life. His theories were not based on any direct observation of the universe but from ideas in his head about things others had presented. He discovered nothing empirical, and hadn’t an original ‘thought’ incorporated into the work he is acclaimed for. The thing is that the powers that be allowed him to capitalise on the theories and work of others, no matter their usefulness or uselessness.

So what is Einstein really, really famous for? Why E=mc² of course, the concept that matter is energy and energy is matter, the formula supposedly used to split atoms, make atomic bombs and run nuclear power-stations etc. Is this his brainchild? The answer is no, it is not. It was first created in 1881 by J.J. Thompson in the form: e=¾mc² in respect of a charged spherical conductor moving in a straight line. In 1900 Poincare suggested that electromagnetic energy might possess mass density in relation to energy density, such that E=mc² where E is energy and m is mass.

‘According to Einstein (and to Poincare who originated the idea) E=mc² represents the energy of a particle at rest. Mass and energy, the theory goes, are mutually convertible. Every material object, including the piece of paper you are looking at now, contains dormant energy; and such dormant energy is equal to the mass of the object times the square of the speed of light. In a single ounce of coal or sand, for instance, there resides (according to the supposition) energy equivalent to that obtainable by burning approximately one hundred tons of coal. (See Sir E. T. Whittaker: A History of Aether and Electricity, Vol.2, p.51.) Einstein first reproduced this formula of Poincare’s (without acknowledgement) in 1905 in a paper separate to his paper on Special Theory published in the same year. In what he described as a ‘thought experiment’ (a term that was to become famous), he imagined an atom that decayed radioactivity by emitting radiation, gamma rays. Having achieved this feat of imagination he then argued in incomprehensible fashion that the atom that was left after the decay must be less massive than the original atom; and that the amount of mass (m) that was lost was just equal to the total energy (E) carried away by the radiation divided by the square of the velocity of light ©. Or, put in his own words: “If a body gives off energy E in the form of radiation its mass diminishes by E/c².”
This is in effect the statement that all energy of whatever sort (he had decided and decreed - as though he were omniscient God - that the fact that his calculations were only in respect of energy given off in the form of light “evidently makes no difference” )(The 1905 Einstein paper, published in Annalen der Physik.) had mass. Better was to come. Two years later, “led by aesthetic reasons” he came to the “stupendous realization” that the reverse must also hold (See B. Hoffman and H. Dukas: Einstein, p.81 and p.38 respectively.) – a piece of reasoning every bit as sound as a deduction that because all dogs are animals, then all animals are dogs. – And; that all mass of whatever sort must have (or be?) energy, and that E=mc² expressed their equivalence.
Let us try to keep calm, and let me say no more than that Einstein’s, or rather Poincare’s concoction is completely unverified. No, I shall go further, and say that there is no possible reason for saying that mass and energy are in any way equivalent or mutually transferable, nor that the speed of light (or for that matter, the square of the speed of light) can have any bearing on the matter. As I implied in the first section of this footnote, the equation is more like a magic spell than a mathematical formula. Also, while emphasising that I am neither a mathematician nor a physicist, I add that no one has ever demonstrated to me that it would have made the slightest practical difference if Poincare had said that E=mc or mc³ rather than mc².’ ---N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.38.

One of many Einstein stamps

cassini · « **Reply #497 on:** October 16, 2014, 02:14:43 PM »

Now without going into a summary of the nuclear business, suffice to say that within nuclear power stations it is not about taking atoms from pieces of paper, grains of sand or lumps of coal and extracting energy from them in the form of electricity. Nuclear physics began in 1934, in Rome, when Enrico Fermi and Emilio Segre began experiments with a rare radioactive element called uranium. Without realising fully what they had done, they ‘shot neutrons into the uranium nucleus and split the atom.’ Now shooting neutrons into an atom of Einstein’s hat or his pipe would not, we assure you, have resulted in producing energy. The mystery lies in the already active material. In 1939 physicists Hahn and Strassmann discovered how to release larger amounts of energy by this process. Almost the only connection Einstein had with nuclear fission came after a series of meetings with the famous physicist Neils Bohr who suggested he send that famous letter to President Roosevelt in August 1939 advising him of the feasibility of the development of an atomic bomb before America’s enemies did it. With Einstein’s name before him Roosevelt acted on this advice. ‘In the fields of nuclear engineering and physics Einstein had no expertise at all.’

‘The greatest mathematician of Einstein’s day was David Hilbert, without any doubt; and after him Poincare, Minkowski, Ricci, and Levi-Civita. Einstein made no contribution whatever to mathematics as such unless one counts his summation convention for not writing some signs of summation – a notational convention without which we should know precisely as much but which does save a little chalk in lectures.’ --- Quote from a letter written to Gwynne by a doctor of mathematics at Reading University who preferred to remain anonymous, and as is reflected in an article in the Economist of Feb 5, 1977.

So, we may well ask, what exactly did Einstein initiate? ( Gwynne tells us it was J.H. Poincare and H.A. Lorentz who first (in 1899) proposed absolute motion was undetectable in principle. Later in 1916, when his General Theory of Relativity was announced (he even got the name Relativity from J.H. Poincare) a host of other scientists’ ideas appeared as his own. Indeed it was Poincare, not Einstein, who first asserted that no velocity could exceed that of the speed of light. The idea of ‘curved space,’ again credited to Einstein, was previously proposed by Friederick Riemann in 1854. It was Hermann Minkowaki who in 1907, eight years before Einstein's General Theory, introduced a fourth dimension into cosmology called space-time. Einstein then regurgitated the Fitzgerald-Lorentz Contraction as his own. He then proposed clocks in motion run slower to other clocks in motion or not in motion at all. Sir Joseph Larmor first mooted this idea some time earlier. The idea of crinkles in space belonged to W.K. Clifford. This then is how the great man was ‘miraculously’ inspired with all his revolutionary ideas.)

‘He contributed to the theoretical work in quantum mechanics, photo-electricity and statistical mechanics.’ Given however, that such workings; like those of an atom, exist in an invisible world, nobody can say for certain if such theories are correct or not. Thus Einstein’s can hardly be credited with something real. No doubt in answer to these comments, ‘experts’ in these fields will assure you all of the above contribute to real scientific progress as we know it.

‘The truth is that Einstein was no more than a puppet. The theories of the mathematicians and physicists from whom he plagiarised may have been devoid of common sense, but at least they tended to be internally consistent and capable of standing up to mathematical scrutiny. Einstein’s theories did not even meet that test. His life’s work was a hotchpotch of plagiarisms that were in total not only defective in logic but also so full of interior error that, as Lynch, Dingle Essen and others showed, any mathematician brave enough to investigate them critically cannot fail to destroy them. And let me repeat that he plagiarised. His contributions to thought were not only childish; they were not even his.’ ---N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.40.

Between 1904 and 1919, the so-called ‘Theory of Relativity’ was undoubtedly the theory of Hendrik Lorentz (1853-1928). Einstein’s ‘Special Theory of Relativity’ was at that time merely an obscure form of Lorentz’s idea and known only to a few physicists. This anonymity was to change in 1919 however, four years after Albert published his General Theory of Relativity. That was the year that the Royal Society of London and the Royal Astronomical Society found and spent large sums of money sending some of their most distinguished members around the earth to conduct tests for Einstein’s recently published General Theory. With the Royal Earthmovers now aboard, such ‘proofs’ were now assured.

‘As though by magic, from the “Relativity Theory of Lorentz” (known to a mere handful of specialists) to “Einstein’s Special Relativity Theory” (known by name, though little else, to everyone).’ ---H. Dingle: Science at the Crossroad, Brian & O’Keeffe, London, 1972, p.176.

Professor Dingle, who was at the time a demonstrator and lecturer in physics at the Imperial College, witnessed this incredible sudden and undeserved transformation of titleholder.

‘No sooner did the news leak out that Einstein was coming to America than he was deluged with cabled invitations from presidents of academic institutions to lecture, and visit, and receive academic honours.’ --- B. Hoffmann and H. Dukas: Einstein, p144.

Now praise from fellow boffins is one thing, but with Einstein it went further:

‘On 2nd April 1921, as the boat was docking, reporters besieged him on shipboard. The mayor of New York City gave him an official welcome as if he were an American war hero. President Harding invited him to the White House…In October Einstein left for a visit to Japan. Where ever he went enthusiastic crowds gathered spontaneously to catch a glimpse of him. He was even received by the Emperor. The newspapers vied with one another to report his activities in both factual and fictional detail. He was showered with honours and gifts.’ --- B. Hoffmann and H. Dukas: Einstein, p.150.

To be continued:

cassini · « **Reply #498 on:** October 17, 2014, 03:44:17 PM »

In 1929 Einstein pronounced that he had solved the problems involved in writing down field equations for his simplified field theory, the long sought after theory of everything, trying to show a link between the theory of gravity and electromagnetism. On the day the third of a series of nine articles on the theory was published, the New York Times printed an English translation of the lot, and hailed it as ‘an outstanding advance in science.’ Soon however, this ‘outstanding scientific advance’ was found to be so full of errors and contradictions that even the Relativist revolutionists could not obscure its nonsense and Einstein had to abandon it.

Einstein’s 50th birthday was a universal event. In 1952, on the death of Chaim Weizmann, Einstein was asked to succeed him as President of the State of Israel. When Einstein died in 1955 the world mourned his passing. Through the sponsorship of the earthmoving Masters, the man had been elevated to the status of a god. Today, the world is never too far removed from Einstein. He is lauded by both Church and State who refer us to his opinions and make sure his memory appears in newspapers, journals, and on television on a regular basis. It would be hard to find a week go by without some reminder of him and his contribution to modern ‘knowledge.’ He was truly a man for our gullible times. Of particular interest to this synthesis is that on Sept 28, 1979, the 100th anniversary of Einstein’s birth the following happened.

‘[On this day] Pope John Paul II celebrated the anniversary of Einstein’s birth with a convocation of physicists, a congress addressed by an Agnostic, an expert in quantum physics, in the very room where Galileo was condemned. The Pope chose that room to have that activity there – to honour Einstein, to honour physics and even to honour science [and to announce the setting up of the commission to vindicate Galileo].’ --- Interview with Monsignor Lorenzo Albacete, priest and physicist, Professor of Theology at St Joseph’s University, New York.

Most readers may well perceive that they might have to skip through this chapter on Einstein and his theories without being able to understand much of it. At least this is how most of our group felt when we first began our investigations (see ‘Proofs for Relativity’ later). To our utter astonishment however, as Martin Gwynne assures his readers, the basic premise of Einstein’s postulations are easily understood by anyone willing to give it a little concentration. Once we break through that psychological barrier we can then see the wider picture and will no longer be intimidated when the modern cosmologist tries to browbeat us intellectually by telling us it only appears simple because we mere mortals just do not appreciate how Einstein made the complex mathematics appear simple.

‘The third and most important reason [to study this chapter well] is that he [Einstein and his theories of relativity] provides another opportunity to show up the fallacy of the general belief that modern science, in every field but perhaps especially in mathematics and physics, is so complicated that it cannot be understood by the non-specialist, and that the layman has no choice but to rely on the words of experts with superior intelligence and training. Stripped of its disguises, which as with other science and elite professions are mostly jargon and bluff, Relativity, whether Special Theory [STR] or General Theory [GTR], involves no major challenge to the intellect in order to be understood. Relativity is not merely nonsense, it is simple nonsense; and the only difficulty in seeing this lies in bringing oneself to believe it possible that anything so generally accepted by so many intelligent people really can be such obvious nonsense.’ ---N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.7.

To begin, let us return to an earth stopped in its tracks by the Airy and M&M experiments. At that time, we are told, we find a man named Albert Einstein brooding over all the ‘inconsistencies’ in the new physics of the time, thinking up, by ‘thought experiments,’ ways to get out of its numerous paradoxes.

‘Perhaps the strangest feature of all, and the most unfortunate to the development of science, is the use of the thought-experiment. The expression itself is a contradiction in terms, since such an experiment is a search for new knowledge that cannot be confirmed, although it might be predicted, by a process of logical thought. A thought-experiment on the other hand cannot provide new knowledge, and if it gives a result that is contrary to the theoretical knowledge and assumptions on which it is based then a mistake must have been made.’ ----From the Introduction to Dr. Louis Essen’s: The Special Theory of Relativity – A Critical Analysis, Oxford Press, 1971.

‘The German-born physicist Albert Einstein supplied that [an explanation for the M&M failure] in 1905 [STR or “On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies”]. He began with the assumption that the speed of light in a vacuum would always be the same, regardless of the mot¬ion of the light source relative to the observer. This is what Michelson and Morley observed, but Einstein maintained that he was unaware of the M&M results when he worked out his theory.’ ----I. Asimov: Chronology of Science & Discovery, p.389.

‘In later years he [Einstein] could not recall whether he was aware of the details of the Michelson and Morely experiment before he published his theory.’ --- Modern Physics, 3rd ed., Paul Tipler and Ralph Llewellyn. pp14

‘It is well known that Einstein at different times and occasions, for understandably different reasons, gave different answers to questions about the occurrences that had prompted him to his views on motion, rest, and space-time. “By his own account the experimental results that had influenced him were the observations on stellar aberration and Fizeau’s measurements on the speed of light in moving water. ‘They were enough,’ he is reported to have said in 1950.”’ --- Walter van der Kamp: De Labore Solis, Canada, 1988, p.43.

The phenomenon of aberration of starlight, we recall, was tested by the Airy experiment and showed its ‘ether’ result to be constant with a geocentric universe. Given the M&M experiment was directly related to the Airy test and interpretations, it was odd for Einstein to say he was ignorant of the M&M test and results when he compiled his special theory of relativity.

For yet another record of the history of Einstein’s revolution, Gwynne refers us to an article that appeared in 1977 in the London Economist. ‘Surprised though the reader may be to find the theories so comprehensible and even more surprised though he may be at the article’s frankness, all the most important elements are included’:

‘The famous Michelson/Morley experiment in 1887, though designed to establish the velocity of the earth with respect to the luminiferous ether, failed to find any velocity. Such problems were the concern of an outstanding band of physicists at the turn of the century. Poincare and Lorentz both postulated theories of relativity, but Einstein’s was the most revolutionary. Also, it was based on the minimum of both experimental evidence and mathematics.
Einstein began with two assumptions for his special theory. One was that absolute motion and absolute rest could not be detected by any experiment. The other was that light travelled in a vacuum at a constant velocity, regardless of the motion of its source. He then showed that the position and time of an event could only be established relative to an arbitrarily chosen frame of reference. Thus, from the earth, the moon appears to be moving and the earth at rest, but to the man on the moon it appears that the moon is static and the earth moving.
So far so innocuous. But Einstein drew some surprising conclusions. One is that, as the speed of an object increases, relative to the observer, its length decreases and it gains mass: if you propel a one-foot ruler and a one-pound weight at 163,000 miles a second, the ruler will measure six inches and the weight will have a mass of two pounds. If that sounds nutty, then wait for more. As the speed increases, time slows down. This so-called time dilation can be illustrated by a tale of twins [or two clocks]. One stays on earth, while the other hurtles into space at extraordinary speed: the stay at home twin gets older faster. Furthermore, In Einstein’s relativist universe, space and time are interchangeable. The further an astronomer looks out into space, the further back he is looking at time. He is a Wellsian time-traveller, or, as T.S. Eliot put it, “All time is eternally present.”
The general theory of Relativity, which Einstein published in 1915, proved no less sensational. It is about the gravitational effect of the huge objects that make up the universe. According to Einstein, gravity curves space, which he says is finite but unbounded. The traveller heading off into space would describe a gigantic circle and eventually come back to where he started from.’ ---‘Einstein Challenged’: an article in The Economist, Feb.5, 1977.

‘And that, good reader,’ says Martin Gwynne, ‘is all you need to know. It is all Aristotle would have needed to know… Aristotle would have seen at a glance that the theories had no connection whatever with observation and, if possible, less connection with common sense; and no further time would have been wasted.’ [/size]

cassini · « **Reply #499 on:** October 17, 2014, 03:52:20 PM »

‘There is in fact no need to be shy. Whenever a new outrage to commonsense is rammed down the throats of the public as a beautiful new truth, the early stages of the indoctrination always seem to be accompanied by protests from men of intelligence, of sufficient qualifications to give their views authority, and of some residual integrity… It was so when Galileo tried to propagate Copernicanism; and has been so with Relativity, in connection with which the list of dissidents, though unpublished, is long and distinguished.’ ----N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.10.

The perception is that all his peers applauded Einstein’s theories, and that time has vindicated and proven them true. In fact, as Gwynne shows, there were many who openly opposed the theories. Outstanding among these was Charles Lane Poor, Professor of Celestial Mechanics at Columbia University and author of many standard textbooks on astronomy. He remarked:

‘The Relativity theory strikes directly at our fundamental concepts as to the structure of the universe; its conclusions are startling and completely upsetting to our most common-sense way at looking at the universe. To have such a theory accepted, it would seem that the evidence in its favour must be overwhelming, that the experiments cited by its supporters must be clear-cut and admit no other solution. The burden of proof should be on the relativists, and it should be clearly shown in each case of experiment, cited by him, that the relativity theory is necessary and sufficient explanation; it should be established beyond no reasonable doubt, not only that the phenomena can be explained by the relativity theory, but that no other hypothesis or theory can equally well account for the observed facts.’ ---- Charles Lane Poor: Gravitation v Relativity, 1922, p.55.

Now that is a sound criterion for the scientific method. Let us, however, isolate a crucial point in Poor’s objection reproduced above. Note that, like the rest of them, Charles Lane Poor accepted that the earth moved; a theory peppered with one-sided interpretations. Is this not a classic example of double standards? Elsewhere, Herbert Dingle records that Lord Rutherford - who himself was proposing the theory that an atom, which is so small that one cannot be seen even to establish proof of their existence, was a miniature solar system – as saying ‘that any Anglo-Saxon would have the sense to see that the theory of relativity is nonsense,’ ignoring all Einstein had to say on the matter thereafter.
Dr Arthur Lynch, another distinguished mathematician, in his book, The Case Against Einstein (1932), quotes M. Bouasse, Professor of Physics at the University of Toulouse, as speaking of the ‘insanities of the Relativists.’
In 1971, yet another mathematician, Dr Louis Essen, wrote a devastating analysis that included the statement that Einstein’s relativity theories were not physical theories, but a number of sometimes contradicting assumptions. Be suspicious then, as to how Einstein’s absurdities became the ruling paradigm in a discipline that considers itself in the category of ‘rocket-science.’ Einstein’s relativity however, postulated that there was nothing at ‘absolute rest’ against which ‘absolute motion’ can be measured. He, surely aware of the M&M experiment result and the need to avoid a geocentric conclusion, stated there is no stationary ether, or anything against which movement could be detected.

‘In previous editions of this work it was possible to write about ether as a matter on which there was a more than usual amount of general consent, but the writings of Einstein (the present writer is not one of the happy six persons who understand his theory) have upset a good deal of what was but a short time ago looked upon almost as an established fact.’ ---C.A. S. Windle: The Church and Science, p.54.

‘Six persons,’ surely Sir Bertram Windle exaggerates? Now when an achiever of a M.A., M.D., Sc.D., I.L.D., Ph.D., F.R.S., K.S.G., cannot understand where ether has gone, then we lay folk must ask why. To admit the existence of ether would of course, have made Einstein’s theories impossible. Ether might provide a standard at rest in space against which motion might be judged absolutely, and that is what Einstein’s relativity totally rejects.

EINSTEIN’S SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

‘As we embark on our investigations, I emphasise most strongly, as is made necessary by the fact that our age has a greater ability to ignore common sense than that of Aristotle; that we must not be shy and we must not be hypnotised by the mystique which surrounds the subject. Although the theory of Relativity is generally believed to be so abstruse that only a select body of experts can understand it, the man who, as I shall now show, was in his day probably the greatest living expert on the subject – Professor Herbert Dingle – said that this was quite false. “The theory itself is quite simple, but has been unnecessarily enveloped in a cloak of metaphysical obscurity which has really nothing to do with it.” Herbert Dingle: Science at the Crossroads, Brian & O’Keeffe, London, p.16. ' N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.10.

With this in mind, let us see the main features of Einstein’s STR.

To be continued

cassini · « **Reply #500 on:** October 19, 2014, 10:32:34 AM »

EINSTEIN’S SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

‘As we embark on our investigations, I emphasise most strongly, as is made necessary by the fact that our age has a greater ability to ignore common sense than that of Aristotle; that we must not be shy and we must not be hypnotised by the mystique which surrounds the subject. Although the theory of Relativity is generally believed to be so abstruse that only a select body of experts can understand it, the man who, as I shall now show, was in his day probably the greatest living expert on the subject – Professor Herbert Dingle – said that this was quite false. “The theory itself is quite simple, but has been unnecessarily enveloped in a cloak of metaphysical obscurity which has really nothing to do with it.” (Herbert Dingle: Science at the Crossroads, Brian & O’Keeffe, London, p.16.) ’ ---N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.10.

With this in mind, let us see the main features of Einstein’s STR.

(1) Motion and Rest

‘Einstein began with two assumptions for his STR. The first was that absolute motion and absolute rest could not be detected by any experiment.’ Now at that time (1905) there was already one experiment that challenged Einstein’s theory, the 1887 Michelson-Morley test. It, if we recall, although the expected 30kps was not found, did detect interference the equivalent of a motion of 3.5 to 5kps. So, why was this smaller interference ignored and how did Einstein’s Special Theory survive such a contradiction? The answers are very simple, one, to avoid the conclusion that the earth does not orbit the sun at 30kps, and two, because the Earthmovers needed the STR to distract attention away from a possible geocentric conclusion. Thus emerged what we call the null/nil fraud.

‘As a test of relativity, however, the slightest apparent shift in the fringe would be of great moment…The results [of the M&M test] were seen as a ‘cloud’ in the otherwise clear sky of physics. Numerous explanations were put forward in an attempt to show how the existence of aether was compatible with the null result…. As they [Michelson/Morley/Miller] completed this work, Einstein’s papers were becoming recognised for what they were and setting the scene for the reinterpretation of the ‘null’ result as one of the most significant findings of experimental physics.’ ---Harry Collins and Trevor Pinch: The Golem, Cambridge University Press, 1993, p.38.

Collins and Pinch go on to confirm that a null interpreted as a nil was the foundation for Einstein’s papers. Einstein could then declare ether did not exist and postulate absolute motion and absolute rest cannot be detected by any experiment. Nearly a hundred years later the null/nil illusion is still bandied about here and there by revered physicists. Here is one version of the nil interpretation of null many millions will have read:

‘In 1887 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley carried out a very careful experiment at the Case School for Applied Science in Cleveland. They compared the speed of light in the direction of the earth’s motion with that at right angles to the earth’s motion. To their surprise, they found they were exactly the same!’ --- Stephen Hawking. A Brief History of Time: From the Big Bang to Black Holes, Bantam Books, 1988, p.20.

In 1914, nine years after Einstein’s STR with its dependence on no ether came yet another empirical indication that ether may well exist.

‘M. G. Sagnac, a French scientist, mounted a light source, a set of mirrors and an interferometer on a spinning disc. He showed that the time for a light signal to traverse a closed path, in a plane perpendicular to the axis of rotation of the disc, differed according to whether the signal travelled with or against the direction of spin. W.M. Macek & D.T.M. Davis (1963) confirmed the Sagnac effect to great accuracy, by repeating the experiment using ring lasers.' ---A.G. Kelly: A New Theory on the Behaviour of Light, The Institution of engineers of Ireland, Feb. 1996, p.3.

Thanks to Einstein then, ether does not exist in modern science. According to his theories of relativity it does not exist. But according to the results of experiments ether probably does exist. Here we have what they call in modern physics a ‘paradox.’ In other words, there can be two truths, one necessary for Einstein’s theories of relativity and earthmoving, the other to keep modern physicists in their jobs. And as if this was not enough to send Einstein’s theories packing, Al Kelly tells us of another experimental falsification.

‘The A. Michelson & H.G. Gale test (1925) measured the effect of the rotation of the Earth on the behaviour of light. That test will be shown to conform with the Sagnac test, where the cross-section of the Earth, at the latitude of the tests, is considered to be a spinning disc. Recent ring-laser tests on a stationary circuit by H.R. Bilger et al, (1995), have also confirmed the M&G results with great accuracy.’ Kelly: A New Theory… p.4.

Here we have to disagree with Dr Kelly. We say such results do not necessarily confirm a rotation of the earth but only in the biased thinking of an entrenched Earthmover. The resistance found, could be caused by an inertial effect of a spinning universe turning around a static earth for example. But Kelly too had a theory of his own to sell, he wanted to keep his heliocentric cake and eat it.

‘In this paper, a theory is put forward that conforms to all of these tests. This theory states that light, generated upon the Earth, adopts to the orbital movement of the Earth, but not to the daily spin upon its axis.’ – Kelly: A New Theory… p.4.

Mr Kelly (RIP) - who simply could not entertain the possibility that the M&M experiment could be interpreted geocentrically with an inertial field moving east to west around the earth, offers us a relativity goose having thrown out the relativity gander. Now while certainly falsifying Einstein out of empirical sight, Kelly’s own theory was as speculative as the one he was falsifying.

‘As the interferometer experiments came to be seen as a test of relativity, rather than measures of the velocity of the earth, [things] appeared less than complete.’ ---H. Collins and T. Pinch: The Golem, p.39.

So, in the early 1920s Miller - now obsessed with the quest to resolve this problem - rebuilt the interferometer, and in September 1924 ‘found a persistent positive displacement’ and concluded, ‘the effects were shown to be real and systematic, beyond further question.’ Nevertheless, on and on went Miller, taking readings at different dates and various heights and at different venues. In 1925 Miller claimed that he had found an interference fringe of 10kps. This was still, of course, far short of the 30kps needed. Because of Miller’s credentials and prize-winning work, his ‘disproof’ of relativity again set the cat among the pigeons. Michelson - now a hero for ‘pre-demonstrating’ Einstein’s theory in 1887, years before Einstein proposed it - didn’t like the idea of Miller undermining his new found fame and so decided to show everyone once again that when he says null, he means nil. He went to the trouble of building an even bigger interferometer, ran a number of tests, one on top of Mount Wilson in 1930, and announced he still found a null/nil result. Miller’s reply came in 1933 when he published a paper insisting that the case for ether had been demonstrated. The Relativists denied Miller his proof and counter-claimed they had proof that no ether exists and thus the speed of light is constant. Miller, without doubt, had the better case for many reasons.
Next to try his hand was Auguste Piccard, a Swiss physicist. He found an interference fringe of one and a half kilometres per second. Shankland et al (1955) list thirteen tests up to 1930, all concurring with the original 1887 test. In 1964, using infrared masers, Charles Townes tested to an accurate .9 kilometres per second, the smallest fringe on record. In hindsight then, not one test designed to detect ether showed a nil result, and not one test showed the 30kms expected. This suggests ether exists but that the earth is not passing through it at 67,000mps as it supposedly orbits the sun. The small interference that is always detected could well be explained by the ether revolving around the earth each day.
As it turned out, it really didn’t matter what they found, for as we have said before, the integrity of science means nothing to these fraudsters. The Earthmovers needed Einstein to keep the earth moving and that’s how it was, and this is no secret.

‘The sheer momentum of the new way in which physics was done – the culture of life in the physics community – meant that [all the interferometer results] were irrelevant. We have travelled a long way from the notion that the M&M experiment proved the theory of relativity. We have reached the point where the theory of relativity had rendered the M&M experiment important as a sustaining myth, rather than a set of results… The null results passed from anomaly to ‘finding’ as the theory of relativity gained adherents… The meaning of an experimental result does not, then, depend only upon the care with which it is designed and carried out, it depends upon what people are ready to believe.’
--- H. Collins and T. Pinch: The Golem, p.42.

As we said in the preface of this book:

‘They will do this [defend the Copernican fraud] with an arrogance we can easily predict, for things like logic, records, facts, demonstrations etc., and, as you will see for yourself later, the very ‘scientific method’ they claim to adhere to, will mean nothing to them, as though such things never really mattered at all.’ --- THE EARTHMOVERS.

cassini · « **Reply #501 on:** October 19, 2014, 10:39:12 AM »

(2) Light as a Constant

Einstein made three assumptions about light in his Special theory of Relativity.

(1) That the speed of light taken over limited distances on earth is the same as those of vast distances in space. But, given, for example, that the atmosphere contains air and differing amounts of moisture (water), and that the ‘vacuum’ of space contains areas of gas etc., there are grounds to reject the idea.

(2) That there is no greater velocity than the speed of light through a vacuum. Here Einstein shows us the new ‘science-as-religion’ in vogue; that is, asking others to submit to an act of blind faith in what is probably impossible to know or verify.

(3) That the speed of light is a constant, independent of any speed that its source or recipient might have. That is to say, whether we approach or recede from a light source, no matter at what velocity, it will always measure at absolute © i.e., 186,000 mps. Asimov puts it saying the Special Theory contends that ‘the speed of light in a vacuum has an absolute speed limit.’ Now this means that the speed of light of 186,000mps can never be greater, even if it is placed on something we know to be travelling even up to the speed of light. So, to Einstein, the following equations of the speed of light are valid:
20mps + 186,000mps = 186,000mps and not 186,020mps.
Also, take any other figure, say 67,000mps, and we get:
67,000mps + 186,000mps = 186,000mps.

Such figures, any sane person must agree, without evidence, could more likely be found in a book like Alice in Wonderland. Nevertheless, by appealing to Einstein’s null/nil assessment of the M&M experiment, the theory lives.

(3) Length and Mass

The next ingredients of the special theory of relativity is that length and mass decrease and increase respectively at the speed of light. Recall the origin of this idea came from Fitzgerald’s and Lorentz’s ad hoc nonsense that also tried to account for the unwanted results of the M&M 1887 test results.

Now lest anyone think we exaggerate when calling the special theory of relativity tripe, or that we presented it in an exaggerated or inaccurate manner; let me now quote from Special Relativity, the University Mathematical Texts by W. Rindler. The contents of such books as these are not common knowledge so remain within the confines of various physics departments, well clear of the psychiatric department for obvious reasons, as anyone could see if they read it carefully. First the introduction:

‘The first edition of Professor Rindler’s book [1939] was welcomed as a clear and concise introduction to the ideas of special relativity… An important feature is the provision of many original exercises, with hints and answers.’

Let us now take a look at one such STR question asked of students taken directly from this book:

No, there is no misprint in this scan of the question as illustrated. Yes, the question poses that a man carrying a 20 ft. long pole runs into a room 10 ft. long and closes the door behind him. It then asks how it could be done in a room only 5 ft. long (Hint: can you spot absolute nonsense when you see it). Surely you can now see Einstein’s STR for what it really is, an illusion, and wonder at the power that these Earthmovers have wielded for so long, a power that can get university professors to put a man with a 20 ft. pole into a 10 ft. room and then ask their students to show them how the same man with a 20 ft. pole can get into a 5 ft. room and close the door behind him, without anybody laughing that is. But more than that, this power can present this nonsense as the premise for thousands of cosmologists and physicists to build up their belief system as to how the universe began and now operates. Answer this question, they tell their students, and find the mind of God.

cassini · « **Reply #502 on:** October 19, 2014, 10:53:18 AM »

(4) Time and Place

Now we move on to the standard place and time relativity of the STR, where, for example, the theory could, supposedly, be understood to send men back into the future, or is it forward into the past, theoretically of course:

‘Its [the STR] philosophical implications arise from its impact on our understanding of the nature of space and time. To an astronomer on earth, an event in his observatory may appear to be simultaneous with an event, observed through his telescope, on Jupiter. However, two consequences of special relativity are that the information cannot travel faster than the speed of light and the velocity of light is the same for all frames of reference. Therefore the event in the observatory must have occurred 35 minutes after the event on Jupiter (the time taken for light to travel the 630 million km from Jupiter). But to an observer on Jupiter, the event on Jupiter would have appeared to have occurred 35 minutes before the event on earth. The implications for all this for time order and causality has exercised both physicists and philosophers for the last 70 years.’ --- Encyclopaedia of Science.

In that case let us give our two-pence worth. First we must not confuse an image with an event; the two are not the same. In reality, as with two people on the phone far enough apart to cause a time-delay from one to the other; both exist in the same time-reality. Put a man on Jupiter and get him to set off an atomic bomb, all that results is that - if the speed of light through a vacuum is accurate – it takes 35 minutes for that light image, not light event, to reach the man on the earth. As with the two on the phone, the men on Earth and Jupiter share the same time-reality.
While we are at it there is another space-time invention that needs correcting in a geocentric framework. Using the unverified stellar parallax trigonometry to declare the distance of near stars up to 500 light-years away, they then measured far-stars by means of brightness according to their colour spectrum. It seems they have worked out a way to guess at the distances of far stars that is probably no more scientifically accurate as their assumed stellar-parallax distances. Anyway, they have, they say, brightness to put some stars at 5 billion light-years away. From this, they further say, that star is 5 billion years old. On this they base the age of the universe at 5 billion years old.
Well now, two can speculate where certainty cannot be attained by true science. According to Genesis, man was created on an earth where starlight was already visible. Given everything was created together, the age of the stars, the earth and mankind is the same. Now science has determined the speed of light is not infinite, and like the man on earth and Jupiter, there is a time delay from an event to receiving an image of that event. Now there are supernovae, star explosions that we see on earth. Given creation took place no more than 6-10,000 years ago, none of those stars exploded more than 6-10,000 years ago, so no star in the heavens is more than 6-10,000 light-years distance. Now go try to prove us wrong.

(5) Time Dilation Factor

The next intellectual excrement of the special theory of relativity is the so-called time dilation theory. As the speed increases, time slows down. ‘This can be illustrated by a tale of twins [or two clocks]. One stays on earth, while the other hurtles into space at extraordinary speed: the stay at home twin gets older faster.’ Of all the falsifications of Einstein’s theories none make a better story than the uncovering of this absurdity. It began in 1972 with the publication of Professor Herbert Dingle’s new book ‘Science at the Crossroads.’ Now the thing is that this same professor was for many years one of Einstein’s most devout pupils. On page 105 of his Crossroads he writes: ‘To the best of my knowledge there is no one living who can give objective evidence that he is more competent in the subject than I am.’ Way back in 1922, three years after Einstein’s relativity theories, Dingle published the first book on the subject called Relativity for All. For fifty years he is associated with all the big-name relativist physicists of the era such as Einstein himself, Eddington, Tolman, Whittaker, Born, Shroedinger and Bridgman. Dingle’s ‘The Special Theory of Relativity’ became the standard textbook on the subject, and could be found in use in most universities of America and Europe. Indeed, it was he that provided one of the two articles on relativity in Encyclopaedia Britannica. But Dingle then saw his error.

‘Far from being too profound for the ordinary reader to be expected to understand it, the point at issue is of the most extreme simplicity.’

The gist of Dingle’s long if simple explanation is that Einstein’s relativity theory also requires that at great speed each of two measuring rods must be shorter than each other: two masses must attain weights greater than each other: two clocks must work faster than each other: and two twins must age more slowly than each other. Yes, relativity requires us to accept that, in the case of the twins, for example, where one twin is blasted off into space at the speed of light and the other remains on earth; it makes no difference mathematically which twin ages the slower, for, with Einstein’s theory of light-speed, there is no difference between rest and motion. Thus for the theory to be viable, both twins must get younger (and older) than the other.

‘Unless this [anomaly] is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A – which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false.’ ---H. Dingle: Science at the Crossroad, p.45.

Sir Arthur Eddington, who played an important part in promoting Einstein’s general theory of relativity, once wrote:

‘Beyond even the imagination of Dean Swift; Gulliver regarded the Lilliputians as a race of dwarfs; and the Lilliputians regarded Gulliver as a giant. That is natural. If the Lilliputians had appeared dwarfs to Gulliver, and Gulliver had appeared a dwarf to the Lilliputians – but no; that is too absurd for fiction, and is an idea only to be found in the sober pages of [earthmoving] science.’ ---A.S. Eddington: Space, Time and Gravitation, ch.1, quoted by Gwynne, op. cit., p.15

For thirteen years Dingle challenged the Relativists to rebut his falsification of Einstein’s relativity. Knowing they were on a beating to nothing, the fellows of the Royal Society; the scientific journals in England and America, and even the popular press with the sole exception of The Listener (1969), “ignored, evaded, suppressed and indeed treated in every possible way except that of answering it by the whole scientific world.” (H. Dingle: Science at the Crossroad, p15.) Dingle continues his story, recalling the words of the Rev. W.J. Platt, who, having read his story in The Listener sent the following to The Times, which, not surprisingly, they refused to publish:

‘Professor Dingle, who, is recognised as a leading authority on Einstein’s special relativity theory on which physicists acknowledge that they rely, has advanced what he claims to be a fatal criticism of that theory. On such a matter the layman is, of course, not qualified to speak. He is, however, entitled to an assurance that the scientific world remains true to its principle of answering or accepting informed criticism. This appears to be not only, as it has always been, a moral duty of scientists, but in these days, when the experiments perform are of such enormous potential danger, a necessity. According to the uncontradicted assertion in the Listener of October 30th last, however the President of the Royal Society failed to giver an assurance that scientific integrity is still preserved. If earlier statements in the correspondence are true, he could hardly, of course, do so.
May I give a few of these statements? (1) Some of the most eminent workers in modern physics have admitted privately that they either do not understand the theory or regard it as nonsensical: nevertheless, they continue to teach it to students and to use it in high energy experiments. (2) It is stated that the Royal Society has declared privately that Professor Dingle’s fallacy is ‘too elementary even to be instructive,’ but the Society has not stated what that fallacy is, and the journal Nature, which had previously published the criticism without eliciting a refutation of it, has refused to publish a letter from Professor Dingle, asking that the Royal Society shall state the fallacy.’ --- H. Dingle: Science at the Crossroad, p.91.

Enough of this, for obviously the Rev. Platt did not know how ‘science’ has been orchestrated since Isaac Newton’s time. At that lecture at Trinity College in Dublin in 1996, and we were there, engineer Kelly read a paper that, while speculative itself, did show the STR had been empirically falsified many times. Nevertheless, within the audience there were professors who were employed by that same university to teach this nonsense to students. Within minutes of Kelly’s unassailable thesis, these same Relativists were up on their feet telling all and sundry that Kelly ‘really didn’t fully comprehend’ the theory he had just falsified. We have no doubt the next day Kelly’s debunking synthesis was history and the STR was being taught to a new batch of physics students in that same world-renowned university in whose lecture hall the Special Theory was seen for what it really is, patent intellectual nonsense, mathematical magic.

The Clock Fraud

To be continued

cassini · « **Reply #503 on:** October 19, 2014, 12:39:35 PM »

The Clock Fraud

‘Experiments carrying atomic clocks around the earth on jumbo jets have verified this scenario [relativity].’ --- Pratchett, Stewart and Cohen

‘The clock in the aircraft flying towards the west records more time than the twin travelling in the opposite direction.’ --- Stephen Hawking.

Now look up Paul Davies’s How to Build a Time Machine and one will find the same old story about the supposed verification of the Special Theory attained in 1971 when they placed clocks in aeroplanes and pitted them against each another. Elsewhere we find assertions that the Special Theory has been proven many times in a laboratory, but the truth is something else:

‘Tests that purported to confirm the requirement of Special relativity, that moving macroscopic clocks run slow, were carried out by Hefele & Keating by flying atomic clocks in opposite directions around the earth. These tests have been shown to be seriously flawed and to provide no such evidence (Kelly 1995). That paper relied on estimates derived from the graphs published in 1972 by Hafele and Keating. [ J.C. Hafele and R.E. Keating 1972, Science 177 166-170.
] The original test results, contained in an internal report (Hafele, 1971) have now been obtained direct from the United States Naval Observatory (USNO). These confirm that the conclusions in Kelly (1995) are correct. Hafele, in that report stated: “Most people (including myself) would be reluctant to agree that the time gained by any one of the clocks is indicative of anything” and “the difference between theory and measurement is disturbing.” A full analysis of the shortcomings of the tests is given in a separate paper. This shows that a test, with an accurate improvement of two orders of magnitude, would be required before any credence could be placed in the results of such a test… Further practical proof of the Sagnac effect is in the measurement of the relative time keeping of standard clock-stations around the earth. It is found that, when signals are sent from one station to another, allowance has to be made for the fact that the signals do not travel at the same speed Eastward and Westward around the globe (Saburi et al, 1976).’ A.G. Kelly: op. cit., pp.7-8.
For a complete review see N.M. Gwynne’s Einstein and Modern Physics

As regards other so-called ‘laboratory proofs’ for the STR; well space prevents us from entering this aspect of the debate in any real depth. Suffice to say that when you hear them say this you must know that they speak about supposed tests on the behaviour of high velocity particles of an atom. They talk about measuring velocity and mass of a particle that conform to the STR. But the truth is, as Professor Waldron of Ulster Polytechnic says in Dingle’s book, that such measurements have never been validated. Indeed, as Dingle himself says, the velocity, mass and lifetime of a hypothetical atomic-particle cannot be measured for the simple reason that their existence and properties have all to be inferred on theoretical grounds.

‘Its like claiming, as a proof that a man always speaks the truth, the fact that he says he does…Through long familiarity with the world, physicists have unconsciously come to believe that mass, time, distance, and such terms mean the same for hypothetical particles as for the senses. They have forgotten that their world is metaphorical, and interpret the language literally.’ ---H. Dingle: op. cit., p.233.

Hands up who saw Stephen Speilberg’s movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind? If you have, surely you remember when the alien spacecraft landed on earth after that impressive musical communication between the scientists and the aliens, and an exchange of people took place, some coming off the flying saucer and others volunteering to zoom off with it when it left? Remember also when, as each person disembarked, someone called out his/her name and date of ‘disappearance’? As it turned out most of them were fighter pilots of the Second World War that presumably had gone missing. As each walked back onto earth-soil once again, looking dazed and puzzled of course, but physically as they must have been 50 years earlier, young men, lean and fit, one of the many white coated observers and scientists present was scripted to say: ‘Einstein was right.’ Did you catch it? So, there we are, proof provided by the movie Close Encounters of the Third Kind, ‘Einstein was right’ after all.

Next
EINSTEIN’S GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY Tuesday.

cassini · « **Reply #504 on:** October 19, 2014, 12:47:23 PM »

We have now posted up a summary of Einstein's SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY.

Most laypeople would have assumed such 'physics' far beyond their ability to understand. Here, it is hoped, that illusion had been shattered and readers on CIF have as good a grasp of it as the layperson can have.

It would be interesting, before we move on to get some reaction. Does TE do the job it set out to do?

Cassini.

cassini · « **Reply #505 on:** October 21, 2014, 11:03:47 AM »

EINSTEIN’S GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY

In science, every theory has its consequences. When Einstein’s special theory of relativity was accepted to get the earth moving again after the M&M test result, Newton’s theory of gravitation suffered badly. Sir Isaac’s ‘immediate action at a distance’ theory, the ‘proof’ that convinced both Church and State in 1687 that the earth orbited the sun, could no longer be sustained for if nothing can go faster than the speed of light then Newton’s ‘instantaneous’ gravity was seen to be falsified. Now whereas this might sound like an embarrassing set-back, no one seemed to notice, for as we have said, such things do not matter when it comes to falsifying the Fathers of the Church and the 1616 Church decree. Quite the opposite, for it was then the Earthmovers grabbed the whole hog for themselves, the earth, the solar system, the Milky Way, the galaxies, the complete cosmos, even time itself. Having taken everyone in with their heliocentric lie, they were again determined to destroy all traces of true and proper metaphysics forever, that lofty philosophy that seeks to methodically explain ultimate realities. Given Einstein’s STG was his baby and it was now the accepted cosmic physics, it followed that he, and he alone, was obliged to conjure up a new theory of gravity that could accommodate his STG while at the same time of course, rescue heliocentricism from the collapse of Newton’s idea of an ‘instantaneous’ working solar system. And so it was that Einstein got his thought process going once again, ‘recasting the laws of gravity out of his head’ as his admirers will tell us. On 25 Nov. 1915, Einstein presented his general theory of relativity to the Earthmovers of the Prussian Academy.
According to any standard textbook on science Einstein’s GTR of 1915 is an expansion of his STR of 1905 with further revelations.

‘By a series of remarkably creative and idiosyncratic steps, Einstein decided that space is not flat but curved, and the local curvature is produced by the pressure of mass in the universe. Consequently bodies moving through curved space did not travel in straight lines but rather follow the path of least resistance along the contours of curved space. These paths are called geodesics. If this were true there would be no need for a mysterious ‘force of gravity’ that is transmitted instantaneously. Nor would it be necessary to explain the odd coincidence that inertial and gravitational mass are exactly the same.’ ---J.P. McEvoy and O. Zarate: Introducing S. Hawking, Icon Books UK, p.30.

To begin with, Einstein proposed the universe is a surface-sphere and consequently finite. On the latter we are in agreement with him. After that he suggested space is made up of a 4-dimentional fabric, so to speak, the vertical lines, the horizontal lines, the depth lines and space-time dimension. Introduce a large cosmic body in it and it creates ‘curves and warps’ in this fabric of space, just as a trampoline bends with the weight of a person. This ‘whirlpool’ will now suck in and hold smaller bodies that will orbit around it. In our part of the universe the sun is the big cosmic body causing the bowl and the planets we know whirl around the sides creating what is known as our solar system.
This idea, pure invention of course, something you, John Doe or anyone could have proposed, has, even we admit, an attractive appeal about it. Is it no wonder then that ‘many physicists believe this theory to be the most perfect and aesthetically beautiful creation in physics, perhaps in all science.’ (Jeremy Bernstein: Einstein, p.63.)

Einstein’s curved space Solar System

‘Gravitation was not treated as a force but as an intrinsic curvature of space-time. Small bodies such as the planets moved in orbits round the sun not because the sun attracted them but because in the curved space-time around the sun there simply were no straight world lines.’ ---B. Hoffmann & H. Dukas: Einstein, p.150

Now it is one thing coming up with a concept, another with the approved mathematics to give the theory some semblance of credibility.

‘Combining these postulations, Einstein selected as his model for space-time a restricted type of non-Euclidean geometry invented by B. Riemann, 1826-66.’ ---S.F. Mason: A History of the Sciences, Henry Schuman, New- York, (1954).

‘The bad news is that the mathematics is extremely difficult. There are some 20 simultaneous equations with 10 unknown quantities. The equations are almost impossible to solve except in situations where symmetry or energy considerations reduce them to simple forms. If we ignore the cosmological constant lambada (which doesn’t belong there anyway) and consider free space where the mass is zero, the equations can be written simply.’ ---J.P. McEvoy and O. Zarate: op. cit., p.39.

Later it was disaster for Einstein’s GTR. It seems that when they did the mathematics in the 1980s or so, they found there wasn’t enough matter in the universe to accommodate Einstein’s gravitation theories. So, what did they do? Well, as Newton invented ‘perturbations,’ for Einstein’s universe they invented ‘dark matter’ to solve their problem. So, where is it? ‘Out there in space, stupid, but because we cannot see it, it must be invisible.’ And you know what, they spent the last 90 years looking for it, we kid you not. One of the latest is described on the Vanderbilt University website like so:‘Most of the matter in the universe may be made out of particles that possess an unusual, donut-shaped electromagnetic field called an anapole. In the article, titled “Anapole Dark Matter,” the physicists propose that dark matter, an invisible form of matter that makes up 85 percent of the all the matter in the universe, may be made out of a type of basic particle called the Majorana fermion. The particle’s existence was predicted in the 1930’s but has stubbornly resisted detection.[/i]’ 2013.

Einstein’s universe was established by three so-called proofs:
(1) The general theory of relativity’s ability to resolve the extraordinary ‘perturbation’ (perihelion) of Mercury.
(2) The ‘discovery’ that starlight is ‘bent’ as it passes the sun.
(3) The experimental confirmation of the GTR that the lines of a spectrum (The ‘rainbow’ of light) should be displaced when emitted in a strong gravitational field, causing the light, as it loses some of its energy when moving away from the field, to become redder.[/font]

cassini · « **Reply #506 on:** October 21, 2014, 11:19:20 AM »

(1) The Perihelion of Mercury

‘[The first proof] concerned the phenomenon discovered by the nineteenth century French astronomer Leverrier, known as the perihelion [point of closest approach to the sun] of the planet Mercury. Instead of performing a perfectly elliptical orbit, Mercury, in common with the other planets, slides away fractionally in its orbit, forming instead a slight spiral. The shift was just under 5,600 seconds of arc per hundred years, and most of it is accounted for by Newtonian physics, but a minute but definite residual increase of between forty and fifty seconds of arc per century remained unexplained. Einstein claimed that Relativity provided the answer, explaining that the shortest path in space time around a weighty particle of matter would be an ellipse that spiralled round the particle rather imitating the stationary ellipses indicated by Newton’s action-at-a-distance gravity. He produced a formula, made his calculations, and, perhaps understandably since he knew in advance the result at which he was aiming, came up with a thoroughly appropriate figure of 42.9 seconds of arc.’ ---N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, pp.26-27

Orbits remember; were measured by Domenico Cassinian as ovals and not Keplerian compromise ellipses, a fact that Gwynne was not aware of when he wrote his paper. The problem with Mercury’s perihelion then, is that it is not real but based on a false mathematical elliptical orbit of Kepler. Nevertheless, to ‘solve’ this illusion Einstein used another newly invented incomprehensible mathematical system, the tensor calculus of the mathematicians Ricci and Levi-Civita. To say this exercise proved the GTR should now be seen for what it is; more wishful thinking.
But here is something else so obvious that we cannot pass this supposed proof for the GTR without pointing it out. If Einstein’s whirlpool theory is correct, and Mercury gets sucked in to a spiral causing problems with its supposed orbit, how come all the other planets seem to be immune from similar effects? Are they too not whirling around in this same spiral? Did all these planets come out squeaky-smooth in their ‘elliptical’ orbits when Einstein’s formula was used for the new astronomy?

Well in fact when they did apply Einstein’s formula to them it produced ‘inaccuracies that were embarrassing.’ ‘The motion of the perihelion of Venus is particularly embarrassing for the relativity theory,’ wrote Professor Charles Lane Poor, Professor of Celestial Mechanics at Columbia University in 1922. Of course it was embarrassing, said the pot as it called the kettle black.
The final insult in this tragic-comedy arises when we find that Einstein’s formula for ‘solving’ the perihelion of Mercury was identical to one derived by the German Physicist Paul Gerber (1854-1909) eighteen years previously to explain something different (As reported in The Listener, 5th Aug. 1971 by Dr. G. Burniston Brown, reader in Physics at University College London.), ‘a discovery which provided the unmistakable inference that instead of working out a formula which harmonized with his theory he stole from somebody else, a formula which he knew to fit the facts, an expedient presumably made necessary by the fact that he didn’t have the mathematical ability to concoct such a formula himself.’ (N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, p.27.) We could go on but surely enough is enough.

(2) The Bending of Starlight Sham

Isaac Newton once proposed light could be made of particles and thus be subject to gravity. In his theory Einstein postulated that in his universe, gravitational fields would influence the passage of light to a greater extent than Newton predicted. Thus starlight, as it passed by the sun, should be bent.

‘Four years later, the scientific world awaited the verdict of an experiment which Einstein himself had suggested, the bending of starlight during a solar eclipse. The theory predicted that starlight passing just at the edge of the Sun would be displaced by 1.7 seconds of arc from its true position. It was the first real test of the theory.’---J.P. McEvoy and O. Zarate: op. cit., p.42

On Sunday 29 May 1919, a total eclipse allowed the test to be performed. Einstein himself tells us. This is what they wanted to find:

‘Undaunted by the war and by difficulties aroused by the war, [The Royal Society and the Royal Astronomical Society] sent several of Britain’s most celebrated astronomers (Eddington, Cottingham, Crommelin, Davidson) to Sobral (Brazil) and to the island of Principe (West Africa) to obtain photographs of the solar eclipse of 29 May 1919. The reason why we must wait for a total eclipse is that at every other time the atmosphere is so strongly illuminated by the light from the sun that the stars situated near the sun’s disc are invisible.’---Albert Einstein: Relativity: The special and General theory: Appendix III.

A camera was set up; steady as a rock. Photographs of the sky were taken just before the eclipse. Shortly afterwards the sun and moon converged, leaving all in darkness. A second series of photographs were taken. Then it was back to the laboratory for development and comparisons.

There were 43 photographic plates in all; the Sobral team took 27 and the Principe team took 16. Fifteen of these, however, were discarded because they were clouded, no use for their purpose. First let us see the propaganda:

‘Eddington found that light rays which had left the surface of stars thousands of years ago and had been bent by the curved space near the Sun only eight minutes previously, passed through the lens and exposed the photograph plates just where Einstein said they would. One of the most remarkable experiments in scientific history had been completed. The results of the eclipse expedition were presented by the Astronomer Royal at a meeting of the Royal Society on 6th November 1919 [announcing the observers had confirmed Einstein’s theory], and Einstein became a national hero overnight. Headlines in the New York Times suggested that a new Universe had been discovered… and this time the newspaper hype was not exaggerated. A world weary from war embraced the quiet and eccentric scientist, sitting in his study in Berlin with a pencil and pad, who had figured out the great plan of the Almighty for the entire Universe.’---J.P. McEvoy and O. Zarate: op. cit., pp.43-44.

So says the book ‘Introducing Stephen Hawking,’ filling yet another generation full of bunk. Watching their tails however we find the following tucked into the corner of the next page (45): ‘Many critics said the results were inconclusive, that the possibility of error in the star measurements was too great, so the scepticism continued.’ But note ‘Einstein became a national hero’ anyway, and the New York Times did suggest ‘that a new Universe had been discovered.’
If the theory is true, then all the stars positioned near the sun should have been displaced towards the sun. They were not. The stars in fact were displaced in the photographs in every conceivable direction, this way, that way, and every which way, but a long way from showing Einstein’s GTR to be true.

‘To make the observations come out to support Einstein, Eddington and the others took the Sobral 4-inch results as the main findings and used the two Principe plates as supporting evidence while ignoring the 18 plates taken by the Sobral astrographic… On 6th Nov. 1919, Sir Joseph Thomson, the President of the Royal Society, chaired a meeting at which he said: “It is difficult for the audience to weigh fully the meaning of the figures that have been put before us, but the Astronomer Royal and Professor Eddington have studied the material carefully, and they regard the evidence as decisively in favour of the larger value for the displacement.” ’[/i] --- H. Collins and T. Pinch: The Golem, p.51, and quoting J. Earman, and C. Glymour, ‘Relativity and Eclipses: The British Eclipse Expedition of 1919 and their Predecessors,’ Historical Studies in the Physical Sciences, 11 (1), 49-85.

Ah yes, the Masonic founded Royal Society was in full flow then, doing what it was established to do, dictate what ‘science’ the world was to believe, and what it was to ignore. They approved Newton’s anti-biblical thought experiments and now Einstein’s. ‘The results of the measurements confirmed the theory in a thoroughly satisfactory manner,’ wrote Einstein in his paper already quoted. [/font]

Chapter finish tomorrow

cassini · « **Reply #507 on:** October 22, 2014, 05:55:12 AM »

Rejection and Rebuttals

Dr Arthur Lynch, the distinguished mathematician, let the cat out of the bag:

‘The results of the observations are shown on a chart, by a series of dots, and by tracing connections between these dots it is possible to obtain a “curve” from which the law of deviation is inferred. But the actual charts show only an irregular group of dots, through which, if it be possible to draw a curve that seems to confirm the theory of Relativity, it is equally possible to draw a curve which runs counter to the theory. Neither curve has any justification.’ --
Arthur Lynch: The Case Against Einstein, 1932, p.264

And if that is not enough to show a ‘scientific’ farce, Professor Charles Lane Poor really spilled the beans on the tricksters:

‘The table showing displacement of individual stars shows that on average the observed deflection, as given by the British astronomers, differ by 19% from the calculated Einstein value. In the place of two stars the agreement between theory and observation is very nearly perfect… in other cases however, the differences range from 11% to 60% [from the calculated Einstein value]. The diagrams show clearly that the observed displacements of the stars do not agree in direction with the predicted Einstein effect. This point was nowhere mentioned in the report… But, after the measurements of the plates became available for study, several investigators called attention to this fact of a radial disagreement in direction between the observed and the predicted displacements.’ ---C.L. Poor: Gravitation V Relativity, pp.218-226

Professor Poor then goes on to tell us that the Relativists tried to claim the differences between the predicted and observed shifts are no greater than should be expected. Consequently, ‘This very question was investigated by Dr Henry Davies Russell, of Princeton University, a most ardent upholder of relativity theory.’ After ‘an exhaustive examination’ he found the differences are real, and are contradictory.

‘The results given in the Report for the observations are the means (average) of the radial components (direction towards or away from the sun) only, nothing whatever being given to the directions in which the actual displacements took place. The Einstein theory requires a deflection, not only of a certain definite component, but also in a certain observed direction. To discuss the amount of the observed deflection is to discuss only one-half of the whole question, and the less important half at that. The observed deflection might agree exactly with the predicted amount, but, if it were in the wrong direction, it would disprove, not prove, the Relativity theory. You cannot reach Washington from New York by travelling south, even if you do go the requisite number of miles.’ ---Gravitation V Relativity

But the Royal Society, as we have already seen, has long been taking homo consensus to Washington from New York travelling south, west and east.

‘Now the diagrams of the seven best plates, the seven taken at Sobral with the 4-inch camera, show clearly and definitely that the observed deflections are not in the directions required by the Einstein theory… The relativists either totally disregard these discordances, or invoke the heating effect of the sun to distort the vision by just the proper amount to explain them away.’-- Gravitation V Relativity

Find something that can be said to cause the problem by ‘just the proper amount’ and that explains it. Recall this ploy was used to explain the Airy and Michelson & Morley failures. But then Professor Poor offered another solution to ‘starlight-bending.’ one Cassini was well aware of back in 1650.

‘Further… there are other perfectly possible explanations of a deflection of a ray of light; explanations based on every-day, common-place grounds. Abnormal refraction in the earth’s atmosphere is one; refraction of the solar envelope is another… Such is the evidence, and are the observations, which according to Einstein, “confirm the theory in a thoroughly satisfactory manner.’--- C.L. Poor: Gravitation V Relativity, pp.218-226.

(3) The Third ‘Proof’ for Relativity

The experimental confirmation of the GTR that the lines of a spectrum (The ‘rainbow’ of any light) should be displaced when emitted in a strong gravitational field, causing the light, as it loses some of its energy when moving away from the field, to become redder. Sir Arthur Eddington, having conned the world with his ‘bent’ interpretation of the starlight, then tried to do the same with their ‘red-shift’ as the third proof for relativity. To spare the reader from intellectual embarrassment at not being able to see this proof clearly, we will curtail this explanation to a sample amount only. Any that wish to study it in total may acquire Eddington’s book and read it for themselves:

‘Displacement of the Frauenhofer lines (The dark lines of the spectrum of sunlight). Consider a number of similar atoms vibrating at different points in the region. Let the atoms be momentarily at rest in our coordinate system (r, θ, Ø, t). The test of similarity of the atoms is that corresponding intervals shall be equal, and accordingly the interval of vibration of all the atoms will be the same. Since the atoms are at rest we set dr, dθ, dØ= 0 in (38.8) so that ds² = y di². Thus the times of vibrations of the differently placed atoms will be inversely proportional to y.’

Want more? OK, but first remember that no one has ever seen an atom or identified its makeup. Everything to do with atoms is theory only, not necessarily scientific fact. To keep our sanity though, let us skip some of this ‘stuff’ and try to get to the point:

‘Consequently the waves are received at the same time-periods as they are emitted. We are therefore able to compare the periods of the waves received from them, and can verify experimentally their dependence on the value of y at the place where they were emitted. Naturally, the most hopeful test is a comparison of the waves received from a solar and a terrestrial atom whose period should be in the ratio of 1.00000212:1. For the wavelength 4000 Aº, this amounts to a relative displacement of 0.0082 Aº of the respective spectral lines. The verdict of experiment is not yet such as to secure universal assent; but it is now distinctly more favourable to Einstein’s theory than when Space, Time and Gravitation was written.’

So, Einstein’s third proof, ‘is not yet such as to secure universal assent,’ which is another way of saying that the proof is no proof at all. Desperate to convince a few more, Eddington continued:

‘The quantity dt is merely an auxiliary quantity introduced through the equation 938.80 which defines it. The fact that it is carried to us unchanged by light-waves is not of any physical interest, since it was defined in such a way that this must happen. The absolute quantity, ds, the interval of vibration, is not carried to us unchanged, but becomes greatly modified as the waves take their course through the non-Euclidean space-time. It is in transmission through the solar system that the absolute difference is introduced into the waves, which the experiment hopes [hopes?] to detect. The argument refers to similar atoms. And the question remains whether, for example, the hydrogen atom on the sun is truly similar to the hydrogen atom on the earth. Strictly speaking it cannot be exactly similar, because it is in a different kind of space-time, in which it would be impossible to make a finite structure exactly similar to ours existing in the space-time near the earth. But if the interval of vibration of the hydrogen atom is modified by the kind of space-time in which it lies, the difference must depend on some invariant of the space-time.’ ---Sir Arthur Eddington: The Mathematical theory of Relativity, p.91

Impressed, we bet you are, but not Professor Arthur Lynch:

[i]‘“And that’s why your daughter is dumb” as the quack doctor of Moliere concluded, though his arguments seem to me a model of cohesion and clarity compared with this of Einstein. It may be my own deficiency, and if, dear reader, you have made good sense out of this, I admit that your intellect soars at a range inaccessible to me.’[/i] --- A. lynch: The Case Against Einstein, p.258.

For a more sober version of the earth-atom/sun-atom ‘proof’ and how it was established let us return to Collins and Pinch’s The Golem:

‘The derivations of the quantitative predictions were beset with even more difficulties than the calculations of the bending of light rays. The experimental observations conducted both before and after 1919, were more inconclusive. Yet after the interpretation of the eclipse observations had come firmly down on the side of Einstein, scientists suddenly began to see confirmation of the red-shift prediction where before they had seen only confusion… Once the seed crystal has been offered up, the crystallisation of the new scientific culture happens at breakneck speed. Doubt about the red-shift turned into certainty.’ ---H. Collins and T. Pinch: The Golem pp.52-53.

Collins and Pinch end their story of the ‘proofs’ for the GTR with a quote from philosophers of science John Earman and Clark Glymour. Kicking into touch, they preferred to stick with relativity rather than reject it on the basis of their findings, to keep their jobs no doubt. Obviously they did not want to be exiled from the fee-paying institutions that control science.

‘Appropriately understood, we ourselves see no reason to disagree with this [as a truth] … This curious sequence of reasons might be cause enough for despair on the part of those who see in science a model for objectivity and rationality. That mood should be lightened by the reflection that the theory in which Eddington placed his faith because he thought it beautiful and profound, and possibly, because he thought that it would be best for the world if it were true, this theory, so far as we know, still holds the truth about space, time and gravity.’ (p.55 & 85.)

Another opinion on the credibility of Einstein’s relativity:

‘The general theory of relativity is a complicated business. It is said that even by 1919 there were only two people who fully understood it: Einstein and Eddington. (This, let us hasten to add, is based on a quip of Eddington’s.) Even to this day, theorists are not completely united about what follows from Einstein’s theory…’ ---H. Collins and T. Pinch: The Golem p.43.[/font]

cassini · « **Reply #508 on:** October 22, 2014, 06:06:50 AM »

The Birth of Quantum Physics

In 1921 Albert Einstein won the Nobel Prize for physics. This award was for his work on the nature of light that he produced in 1905, the same year he offered his special theory of relativity. To put it in a nutshell, Einstein agreed with one of Isaac Newton’s ideas that light was not made up of smooth continuous waves but consisted of trillions of individual particles (now called photons). It seems the Nobel Prize people were bursting to give Einstein one of their awards but seemingly the rules were such that they could not give out funds for theories like his STR or GTR, no matter how much they needed them for their Holy Grail. Whether they bent the rules for Einstein like they bent starlight for him so that he got a Nobel Prize we do not know. What Einstein did do in this paper was to introduce to the world the subject of quantum physics, i.e., the physics of sub-atomic particles, proposing that they behave in an electromagnetic fashion, a not unreasonable proposition. Be aware however, that atoms, let alone their particles, are so small that man cannot actually see them even with the most powerful of microscopes. This makes quantum theory - the science that tries to comprehend the structure and workings of the atom extremely difficult to master and prove correct in any definitive way. As far as Einstein is concerned, this speculation is as far as he went in quantum physics and had no input thereafter except to regret introducing the idea in the first place as it progressed in weird speculation.

By 1927, a physicist named Werner Heisenberg had taken the lead in Einstein’s non-visible area of quantum or atomic physics. In Heisenberg’s quantum world however, nothing is predictable whereas in Einstein’s everything is predictable. Heisenberg said it was impossible to measure the speed and position of a particle (of an atom) for the simple reason that observing them interfered with their speed and place, thus nothing can be predicted with certainty. Leading ‘experts’ in quantum physics today will go before the cameras and tell us that in their quantum world the movements of atoms are always uncertain, the outcome based on probabilities with nothing absolutely predictable. One example of this shown on TV had a leading physicist tell us that anytime we cross the road there is a possibility that we could dissolve and reassemble on Mars or any other planet for that matter.

(The idea is that a man’s body could be rendered into particles, be transported somewhere else and reassemble alive again - just like they do when they ‘beam me up Danny’ on TV’s Startrek – presents a conflict in faith and science and reality. Catholic faith says the body cannot function without the soul. Disect the body and the soul leaves. According to quantum physicists the soul and the body are one and the same thing. This is just not true, for the soul - the life-giving agent - cannot be reassembled, and this shows a philosophical error has been introduced into this branch of science called quantum mechanics. The trouble with science fiction is that it can ignore the reality of ‘vitalism,’ that is, the actual life force of flora and fauna and get away with it, but surely not even theoretical science can be permitted such licence?)

In the 1920s then, we had two contrary ideas of the universe, Einstein’s predictable cosmos and the quantum cosmos of probabilities and chance. Out of the philosophical debate that ensued came Einstein’s famous quip ‘God does not play dice’ to which the other side answered ‘do not tell God what to do.’ Stephen Hawking however had the last quantum word with ‘God not only plays dice, but sometimes he throws them where they cannot be seen.’
Einstein was at his wits end with this paradox of quantum and who can blame him, but wasn’t it he who started it all. To resolve his dilemma and regain his crown as top physicist, Einstein decided to extend his general theory of relativity - his theory of universal gravitation - by attempting to combine it with the maths of electromagnetism, i.e., trying to mould fantasy with fact. He knew if he could produce the equations then he could claim the greatest breakthrough in the history of physics. This in turn would have made the quantum ideas he disagreed with redundant.
Einstein worked on his grand theory throughout the 1920s. Even when he fell ill he would do his maths on the sheets of his bed, or got the second wife to do them. In 1928 a rumour hit the newspapers that he was on the verge of the complete theory and was immediately lauded by journalists etc. Finally, on Jan. 30th, 1929 he published his five-page thesis. As we could imagine, such was his reputation that everyone first believed the man had done it; figured out how the cosmos operates. Upon study however, so blatant were the errors in his dissertation that they were unacceptable even to those who believed in his STR and GTR. His peers could see that this was no breakthrough, as the maths simply did not combine no matter how Einstein stretched them. Accordingly, a year later Einstein knew the game was up and withdrew the paper in humiliation. That was to be the last of his theories in the field of cosmology.
Albert Einstein died on 18th April 1955 in Princeton, New Jersey, USA. But again we could ask; how did Einstein get away with it?

‘Length shrinks, mass increases, time shrinks, straight lines form circles [GRT]. Constants, in fact, cease to be constants and nature is now seen not to act in accordance with nature. But how is all this done? Where is the fallacy in the equation that allows mathematics to prove the impossible? How is the conjuring trick achieved? It is done by simple hoax and elaborate fraud…No apology is needed for describing Einstein’s achievements as a conjuring trick [alchemic magic actually]. Conjuring tricks are accomplished by illusion, such as sleight-of-hand which, without the assistance of misdirection, would be exposed in an instant; yet hours can be spent staring at them without seeing wherein the fallacy lies. Let us confront ourselves with the problem facing the swindlers. How can we demonstrate to the geniuses in the scientific profession and to the gullible masses that three constants – length, mass and time – are in fact not constants but variables? The answer is simple and beautiful, even though it could never have served until our own lunatic century. Choose a fourth element, which clearly is a variable, such as the speed of light (The speed of light is a variable. It travels slower through water than air, and it travels faster through certain gases).; describe it – or rather “postulate” (Einstein’s term) it as a constant; and now crank out some mathematics. And, naturally, we shall find that if the variable is falsely inserted into the calculation as a constant, the mathematics cannot fail to demonstrate that the constants are variables.’ ---N.M. Gwynne: Einstein and Modern Physics, pp.18-19.

All you have read, dear reader, derived from the Earthmovers’ attempt to get the earth rotating and orbiting the sun after the Michelson & Morley scientific test showed the earth does not move. Consequently:

‘Almost all present models of the universe are based on
Einstein’s theories, one-way or another.’ ----TIME-LIFE Books: The Universe, USA, 1962, p. 171.

Chapter Summary

‘There was a young lady named Bright.
Whose speed was far faster than light.
She went out one day,
In a relative way
And returned on the previous night.
----Reginald Butler (1913) quoted by Al Kelly in the introduction to his book Challenging Modern Physics – Questioning Einstein’s Relativity Theories. Brown Walker Press, Boca Raton, Florida, USA, 2005.

cassini · « **Reply #509 on:** November 01, 2014, 06:35:22 PM »

Chapter Thirty-Seven

Walter’s Falsification
Of Einstein’s Relativity

‘Actually neither this Galileo, nor his mentor Copernicus, had a shred of truly tangible and unequivocal evidence for their heliocentric belief – and well do historians, astronomers, and philosophers of science know it! As I recently found it succinctly expressed in a research paper “Since Galileo science has shed logical proofs in favour of plausibility.” [Chris Biebricher: ‘Evolutionary Research,’ in Vincent Brummer, Interpreting the Universe as Creation. Kampen Kok Pharos, 1991, p.93.] Indeed, by this “scientific method” of adding plausible explanations to plausible explanations astronomy has arrived at the present view of the cosmos. However, those who forget that “plausible” and “proven” are not synonyms inevitably will see their chickens come home to roost.’ --- Walter van der Kamp: The Cosmos Einstein and Truth (1993), p.28.

So, where stood science in the conflict between geocentrism and heliocentrism after Einstein? The problem - as we have seen over many chapters - is the nature of space and the inability of human science to prove whether the sun and stars move about the earth or whether the earth turns and moves around the sun. Copernicus and philosophers George Berkely and G.W. Leibniz were some of the first to admit there was no proof for a solar-system now taught as a truth everywhere on earth today. Sir Isaac Newton was next when he admitted ‘it may well be there is no body really at rest to which the places and motions of others may be referred.’ [Dorothy Michelson Livingston: The Master of Light, New York, Scribner’s Sons, 1973, p.253] When the Airy (1871) and M&M (1887) experiments indicated the earth does not move, Einstein’s ad hoc theories of relativity were used to save the plausibility of a heliocentric world for science.

‘Expressing the today by the philosophers of science again generally accepted position, Stephen W. Hawking affirms: you can disprove a theory by finding a single observation that disagrees with the predictions of the theory.’ ---Walter quoting Stephen Hawking: Brief History of Time, Bantam Books, 1988, p.10

So, according to the media’s successor to Einstein, Stephen Hawking, if we find a single observation that disagrees with Einstein’s theory of relativity, we can disprove that theory and send heliocentric relativism back to where it came from, the pseudo-science bin it came out of after the Airy and the M&M tests showed no orbit for the earth.
Now let us pretend Einstein’s STR and GTR have never been falsified and start afresh with regard to the two theories under consideration, geocentrism and heliocentrism as applied to their very first so-called ‘proof’ for a moving earth in a fixed-star system, the phenomena of stellar aberration as found by James Bradley in 1725.

‘It was only in 1686 that mathematical astronomy chanced upon a real proof, when Newton demonstrated that according to the law of gravitation it was impossible for the mighty ball of the sun to revolve round the diminutive earth as its centre. A decisive proof based on astronomical observation was delayed until 1725, when Bradley showed that all the fixed stars described small ellipses within exactly the duration of a terrestrial year, that the ellipses described by the stars situate towards the celestial poles approach increasingly to the figure of a circle, whereas the stars situate in the neighbourhood of the celestial equator increasingly resolve into a simple straight line, and that this phenomenon is inexplicable except as an effect of the earth s orbit round the sun. Of these real proofs Galileo remained in complete ignorance all his life. The magnificent, yet exceedingly simple way, in which Copernicus accounted for the seemingly intricate motions of the planets, as well as his own observations, no doubt convinced Galileo personally of the truth of the new system, but the provocative manner with which he defended it against its opponents, and that without solid proofs of his own, was bound to lead to grave and disastrous collisions.’ ---Ludwig von Pastor, The History of the Popes, 1837

Bradley’s Stellar Aberration