Einstein WAS wrong!

Posted by on


There is no figure more deified in all of science, perhaps in all of pop-culture, than Albert Einstein.  He is synonymous with genius and was voted Time Magazine's man of the century for the 20th century. But science has a dirty little secret.  In many circles, it is well known that Einsteins General Relativity is nothing more than a case study in numerology.  

It removes absolute standards in a way that simply caters for the value of time/spacetime being flexible by compensating variables with commensurate adjustment of variables elsewhere. This provides an incredible weapon for any disingenuous scientific enterprise out there. It allows for the parameters of mathematics to be tailored to preserve the LAMDA-CDM model which is currently being utterly decimated in cosmology, to be unjustifiably upheld as the standard model at incredible cost the taxpayers. Einstein has no industry, no engineering, no technology, no unique solutions, no nothing based on his work. If his work disappeared tomorrow we would lose precisely nothing! All his work does is prop up nonexistent artifacts of gravity-only ^CDM cosmology. Is it any wonder that this very same community of scientists (or should I say "establishment") are the ones propping up his meaningless work.  This model has been so completely and utterly discredited that it's fair to say it lives on borrowed time.  Many of today's top minds in physics and even in mathematics do not even think that Einsteins paper would have passed peer review today, unless perhaps it had a reference to climate change...



Einstein deserves credit for his integrity and himself expressed grave reservation later in life that his work would not stand and in some ways died an unhappy man. Einstein, to be frank, believed none of his work would last.
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/dec/05/albert-einstein-archive-genius-doubts-and-loves


What is often glossed over is that Einsteins Nobel prize came not from Relativity, but from the Photoelectric Effect.  Einstein introduced the notion that light carries energy in the form of photons/quanta in accordance with the frequency of the spectrum. Unlike with transverse EM waves, the photon particle would be required to transfer energy, in accordance with its place on the spectrum, through space as physical particles called photons that are proposed as massless. The given solutions suggest energy transfer using something between electromagnetic means and kinetic means. Stars accelerate charged particles in their feild, the same way we accelerate charged particles on earth, this is the definition of current (moving charge) yet astrophisics is infested with principles of "bow shocks, collisions, gas or wind as if this was possible for gases inspace which become ionised plasma in that high radiation environment). This should produce a number of problems.

Firstly, spectrum specific energy distribution transfered kinetically in particles withouts mass (m). Momentum is p=mv and force f=ma. You see mass involved in fundamental ways in equations of motion.

Secondly the ^cdm cosmological model isnt geared for EM phenomena and light is no exception. The inflation equations designed as a fudge factor to hide the huge contradictions stemming from the assumption that redshift is commensurate with recessional velocity at a ratio of 1:1 also rely on the weakest force by far being the force (actually theorised "curved spacetime) that dictates the morphology of the universe and its demanded we believe it does so ALONE.  In fact its a more general issue going back to Tesla. In Cosmology and astrophysics its been categorically denied at various times that any electrical current travels in space. Space is something they see as electrically neutral despite the obvious moving charged particles in stellar winds, galactic jets, Herbig Harrow objects and ionised plasma birkeland current filaments. All this despite electromagnitism establishing that only electric current produces magnetic fields, even in remnant magnetism when forming iron magnets.  All kinds of weird causes are cited to dodge the familiar and tested principles in electrodynamics and they are meant to explain the magnetic fields we see everywhere in space. A popular howler even explains magnetism as being "frozen in" after the Big Bang

Consider
  E² = m² c⁴ + p²c²  or better known as E = m c²  

If this was honoured it would be understood to be in defiance of his own E=mc2 which states that energy = mass x (the speed of light)² squared. So right off the bat we have a problem, photons cannot posses any energy according to Einstein himself since photons are stated to be MASSLESS PARTICLES. Einsteins groupies will get around this by citing multiple definitions for energy and mass and use this to dismiss the argument. Not good enough. In terms of pure physics the getarounds are in violation of p=mv, otherwise they will be forced to overhaul the laws around electromagnetism in play in space and its associated EM radiation accross the spectrum from visable light, infrared, ultraviolet, x ray, microwave and gamma rays. How are all these phototons producing such different energies.


In a failed quest to find the luminiferous medium (or aether) using the Michelson-Morley interferometer, Einstein ran into an observational problem. He then fixed it by saying that the speed of light is the same in every frame of reference universally, such that it is not affected by the motion of the source and the observer. He then made time to be subject to the speed of light as opposed to the other way round, hence Galilean transformations gave way and stretchy Lorentz transformations were brought into reality.

In order to conserve energy, Einstein had to create some formulations to show that light carries momentum as it moves, and thus he introduced photons, p = mc. Then to patch it with E = hf = hc/λ, he derived E = pc = mc². And it mixed with the wavy nature of light rendering it impossible to understand exactly how matter interacts with light. Instead of travelling waves, we are confronted with travelling particles that have 0 time but still propagate over distance. Unfortunately quantum mechanics have not agreed with Einstein till this day. Both could be wrong.

We should look around for other angles of waves and particles as well as outside these models. NASA Engineer, the late Edward Dowdye, made a convincing case that light is just a wave, a wavelength extends outwards through space from a particle at a speed of Δc' = c ± Δv or c' = (c² ± v²)½ where v is the speed of the particle. c is universally constant in all reference frame but it does not serve as a delimiter. Neither mass nor time are affected by c. There are no black holes.
Energy is automatically conserved whenever the extinction shift happens as light comes in contact with a particle
c = fλ = f'•λ' = f(1 ± v/c)•λ/(1 ± v/c) rendering it impossible to detect c' or the initial wavelength. c' ≠ c.
If we agree that kinetic energy E = mv²/2 does not mean that mass increments as it nears the speed of light as implied from Lorentz transformations, it just means that more energy is needed to move the confined mass further. The emission from of a moving mass will instantaneously shift any reflected or reemitted radiation from the environment back to itself thus causing the object to feel heavier. Energy always comes from outside.
From here we can derive ΔE = m(1 ± v²/c²)½ - m = Δmc² = mc².
...because Δm = {mv²/2}/c² = E/c².

Also, nobody has ever produced a perfect vacuum on earth or encountered one anywhere in the solar system. We are assuming that light actually CAN travel in a vacuum without charged particles, associated fields and aether. All of this is without getting into relativistic length contraction issues, such as the length contraction problems at relativistic speeds of a Planck length object, or contraction relative to what? The contracted ruler measuring it or its former uncontracted self?



In addition, as pointed out by Stephen Crothers, when Einstein's highly nonlinear equations switch to linear mid equation, that is an unforgivable violation of core mathematics, nobody ever says anything. This is something that cannot possibly be missed.

They are starting to notice in China, and view it as a way of leapfrogging the West in physics, I'm sure they are right. There is still controversy, but at least they are not afraid to nominate credible challenges to Einstein for prestigious prizes at least and raise the issue to open debate in their circles, which is healthy.

Other cited unique solutions supposedly proving Einsteins work.

The orbit of Mercury has several explanations, especially including possible unproven options which cannot be brushed aside. One possibility that illustrates how open the number of possibilities is lies with its lopsided modest magnetic field. Modest though it may be it is after all interacting with the suns powerful electromagnetic environment from up close. It must be pointed out that the solar surface itself does not have an evenly distributed magnetic field, as pointed out as far back in the 40's when Velekovsky published his epic work A Cosmos without gravitation. But there are numerous other reasons and it is not unreasonable to suggest that of these unquantified influences, several may contribute at the same time, meaning its even possible that any single cause solution may be coincidence and lead us astray. The important aspect here is that Einsteins is not unique, but critically its THEORETICAL whereas the other solutions are equally speculative in some cases but based on established science.

Failure to factor in the aforementioned electromagnetic fields, which must influence orbital dynamics as per the laws of physics, is probably the main reason for NASA having to do so many course corrections using the Newtonian mechanics that should be adequate for the environment their probes navigate.

To see what I  mean see the NASA experiment below:




   How exactly did Einstein's notoriety take off?   

    

 Einstein did not get recognized out of the blue
 Arthur Eddington basically invented Einstein by checking   the bending of starlight during an eclipse prediction in dubious circumstances where 1 arc second challenges the capabilities of his sort of telescope used on his trip in that day. In truth Eddington needed Einstein's work celebrated for reasons between him and the Royal Society of London.   

Precisely zero curiosity or scepticism was shown after Eddington announced he knew in advance that the result would be correct, he didn't really need to check, it was merely a formality.  Some interesting background from Wikipedia: 
Wartime conscription in Britain was introduced in 1917.  At the age of 34, Eddington was eligible to be drafted into the military, but his exemption from this was obtained by his university on the grounds of national interest. This exemption was later appealed by the War Ministry, and at a series of hearings in June and July 1918, Eddington, who was a Quaker, stated that he was a conscientious objector, based on religious grounds.[9] At the final hearing, the Astronomer Royal, Frank Watson Dyson, supported the exemption by proposing that Eddington undertake an expedition to observe the total eclipse in May the following year to test Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. The appeal board granted a twelve months extension for Eddington to do so. Although this extension was rendered moot by the signing of the Armistice in November, ending the war, the expedition went ahead as planned.


Side note... 
Quote:
Despite a century-long effort, a proper energy-stress tensor of the gravitational field, could not have been discovered. Furthermore, it has been discovered recently that the standard formulation of the energy-stress tensor of matter, suffers from various inconsistencies and paradoxes, concluding that the tensor is not consistent with the geometric formulation of gravitation [Astrophys. Space Sci., 2009, 321: 151; Astrophys. Space Sci., 2012, 340: 373]. This perhaps hints that a consistent theory of gravitation should not have any bearing on the energy-stress tensor. It is shown here that the so-called “vacuum” field equations R ik = 0 do not represent an empty spacetime, and the energy -read more: 

....end quote


What's important is that we are still found lacking in the comprehensive definition of mass, matter, gravity and energy and they represent failures in the cornerstone of the mathematical elements that all the work on these topics are based on. Stephen Crothers is to name just one who breaks down these intractable logical conflicts in his papers which you can find online HERE and in the video clip I embedded later in this post. 


BRICS Nations Russia, China and India appear to be forming an idea of science that ommits Einsteins contributions, but they are quite mum about it.


But what about Einsteins mathematics?  Einstein was not known for his mathematics but I don't buy that, his mathematics was very good. If it were a problem with his mathematics someone in the establishment would have spotted it, so it's a systemically entrenched problem with the application of the mathematics.  This exposes itself because outsiders HAVE found serious errors, but are given no voice or even driven out of their academic institutions.  There is nothing more completely and utterly devastating to Einstein's mathematical application or conceptualising than seeing how poorly it stands up to scrutiny.  Here Steve Crothers destroys Einstein.  Crothers justifiably has an axe to grind for being expelled from the University of New South Wales for daring to take on Einstein.  As I mentioned, there are costs. Censorship and banning are always a red flag.  Crothers is a brilliant mathematician and travels the world giving talks and is in hot demand. If you want to get more technical, this is an absolute MUST WATCH. Surprisingly it can be understood in some places without the complicated mathematics being grasped.


4 Dimensional Space-time?
Lets start with the premise. 4 Dimensional Space-time? There are only 3 spacial dimensions. Can you point me in the direction of time? Space is a concept in 3 dimensions. How do you warp a concept? Is a concept flat or curved? These are meaningless issues outside of models. No bearing on reality. And to use geometry is also not reality, where is the force that drives it? There is no given mechanism through the laws of physics to propose how geometry can impart influence over inertia. Using three spacial dimensions and one time dimension is not four dimensional "Spacetime". It is A COORDINATE SYSTEM! Time is the Y axis and can be plotted against speed, distance, temperature or used in any a vector. Shall we just jam everything on the X axis and do away with causality altogether? You cannot have a spacial dimension measured in seconds. No fabric of spacetime can be measured or will be measured, we measure gravity my a direct measurement of mutual attraction. 

There is a word for that: "Force".

We measure such a force by weight, at least on earth we do, in kilograms not in degrees of curvature. Spacetime, it follows logically, can't be falsified if no direct measurement exists to establish it exists in the first place. There is a word for that to: "Pseudoscience".  Do not assume the current scientific establishment are immune from pseudoscience.


Special Relativity: A fundamental paradox
The elephant in the room is plain. If 2 objects across the universe, let's say 13.8 billion light years away, head towards each other at close to c what is the problem? Well for any time dilation to happen info would need to travel INSTANTLY to each body to inform them that they are heading towards each other at nearly 2 x c, otherwise they would head towards each other at 2c, or twice lightspeed. Information travelling faster that light to prevent objects traveling faster than light?


Other Myths about Einstein:

Claim:   The Global Positioning System is relativistic 
and therefore confirms Einsteins General Relativity? 

  Click below: Go on a deep dive into explaining this widely misunderstood myth.  



Citations/Sources
Inelastic collision and Conservation of Kinetic Energy http://www.extinctionshift.com/Signif... More regarding collisions and center of gravity. http://www.extinctionshift.com/detail... Propagation and Re-Emission of Light: https://tinyurl.com/y82jl7ta Challenges to Gravitational Lensing & More: https://tinyurl.com/ydb8v54o Re-Emissions, Lensing and FTL Propagation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tt5zk... Credible challenges based on plasma physics, optics, Galilean transformations, classic equations, 3D Euclidean geometry and Occam's Razor. https://tinyurl.com/y8jtrb5t List of credible challenges to Dark Matter, Big Bang, Relativity and More: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eSVD... Relativity - The Fools Gold of Physics‬ https://steemit.com/science/@verbz/re... Plasma Physics in Space: http://www.plasmacosmology.net/tech.html Eddington Errors: https://medium.com/@GatotSoedarto/the... APS Article - Eddington's 2nd Team https://www.aps.org/publications/apsn... 10 Questions about the Cosmos from Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfven https://bbs.boingboing.net/t/10-quest... Ron Hatch - GPS Co-Inventor Disputes Relativity: https://www.gps.gov/governance/adviso... Dr. Louis Essen Rejects Relativity: https://tinyurl.com/ya8pfp94 GPS, Relativity & PopScience Mythology: http://www.alternativephysics.org/boo... Peer-Reviewed Papers https://www.electricuniverse.info/pee... Everything wrong with the Standard Solar Model (SkyScholar) https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCL7Q... Sun is Not A Gaseous Plasma: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_A7VF... Over 60 Papers by Dr. Pierre Robitaille: http://vixra.org/author/pierre-marie_... Scientific Articles & Links Addressing Mainstream Inconsistencies: https://tinyurl.com/yvfwuq University of Michigan - Parker Satellite Mystery - Alfven Waves: https://tinyurl.com/y9wnkhut Self Organizing Plasmas and EVOs: https://tinyurl.com/ycf9w2l5

Full sources and citations can be found HERE.                                    www.dwahts.blogspot.com



Index
In times of universal deceit, truth is a crime. Censorship should be banned. Who and what are you not able to openly criticise? Thats who Id like to hear about. Fact checking is propaganda by the very nature of the act.