# Collecting Evidence Negating All Of Einstein's Hypothesies.

relativity einstein physics

90 replies to this topic

### #1 marcospolo

marcospolo

Explaining

• Members
• 606 posts

Posted 31 May 2019 - 09:51 PM

This is the topic that is outside the bounds of standard science: it contains interesting and supported views based on Rational analysis and requires the use of deductive Logic. No wishy washy Math is required.

Anyone is invited to add to this collection, its already quite big, but I've not posted what I've found so far.

Relativists will have nothing new to contribute, their position is well understood, but rejected on the grounds that its all irrational nonsense.

### #2 marcospolo

marcospolo

Explaining

• Members
• 606 posts

Posted 01 June 2019 - 01:18 AM

May I suggest we begin with reasons why Special Relativity is an impossibility? The first problems with this work of trickery are the incompleteness of the two postulates. These half statements are used to lead readers to draw wrong conclusions.

The first postulate only says that physics works the same in all inertial frames of reference, moving or not.

This is only half of the correct statement, which is, "within moving or stationary inertial frames, physics provides the same results AS MEASURED BY AN OBSERVER IN THE FRAME OF INTEREST.

This fuller statement about the use of inertial frames gives a different picture of the way we should apply this knowledge. It means that the results of measurements are only going to be identical across any inertial frame, PROVIDING that the measurement is ALSO done within that individual frame.

So a ball moving up and down in a speeding car will be measured as moving up and down in exactly the same way in a stationary car, PROVIDING the measurements are taken by some observer within that car.

IF, and only if an observer outside in the car wants to measure the balls action, AND STILL GET THE SAME RESULT as the cars occupant gets, WOULD BE to take the measurements THEN APPLY a compensation to allow for the fact that the car is in motion relative to his position when he took his measurements.

ONLY then, can the Galilean principal of the equality of inertial frames still work. Both moving observer and stationary observers will find that physics works the same in all inertial frames.

But because EInstein only states HALF of this basic principal of Physics, he is able to trick and fool the reader with this half truth postulate.  Einsteins hypothesis is wrong when he allows the stationary observer to measure the motion of the light pulse in the moving vehicle, BUT FAIL TO APPLY THE REQUIRED COMPENSATION. Then Einstein claims that there will be a discrepancy between the two obsevers requiring a Lorentz transformation, when in reality, if physics is done correctly, there is no discrepancy.

The half postulate makes no sense if you think about it, only the fuller, complete statement makes sense.

And armed with a correct understanding of how inertial frames work, the reader of Einstein's paper will come to the place where Einsrtein's weak logical arguments fall down, because of this one deceptively stated postulate.

But it gets worse, as the second postulate is also a half-truth. And also allows the formation of the deception that is called Special Relativity.

We will look at this later.

Edited by marcospolo, 01 June 2019 - 01:27 AM.

### #3 marcospolo

marcospolo

Explaining

• Members
• 606 posts

Posted 01 June 2019 - 01:36 AM

Because of the half truth of the first postulate, a serious reviewer of Einsteins hypothesis would, (realizing the import of the missing information) return the manuscript to Einstein for revision. As in this form, a clearly false conclusion is able to be made, which is opposite to the correct conclusion that one would make if he possessed the necessary information.

However, as Einsteins whole hypothesis relies on deception involving of the use of inertial frames, the postulate can not be modified to reflect the real application of inertial frames, as this would totally destroy the remainder of Einstein's hypothesis. Special Relativity hypothesis must use deception to arrive at the irrational conclusion.

But now we should examine the next half truth of Einstein's second postulate.

What could be wrong about light speed being constant? Well lets take a look in the next comment.

### #4 marcospolo

marcospolo

Explaining

• Members
• 606 posts

Posted 01 June 2019 - 02:05 AM

Half-truth second postulate of Special Relativity:

Light always goes at c in any inertial frame.

Why is this a half-truth?

Maxwell never suggested that light will be measured at c in any inertial reference frame.

Maxwell would turn over in his grave if he knew what the Einstein quack scientists did to his equations.

Maxwell said that light has a fixed velocity.

He also knew that the velocity of light was different when it was passing through water, or vacuum or air or glass or diamond.

What did Maxwell actually say about light speed then?

He said that light speed was constant, always the same RELATIVE TO THE MEDIUM THAT IT WAS IN.

If light and its source were moving inside a diamond, for instance, and you accelerated the diamond, then the light speed inside the diamond would never be affected by the motion of the diamond. It would still be going at the same speed inside that diamond BECAUSE light speed is relative to the medium it is passing through!

Light speed is NEVER relative to any observer in any inertial frame of reference. It's only relative to the medium it's passing through, and that speed is c in the medium of a vacuum.

How light moves through a vacuum in the first place is not part of Maxwell's equations.

So, despite the false claims that Maxwell's equations needed "fixing" because they were "not invariant" for motion, this is a false claim, as it falsely places the speed of light relative to the observers frame, when Maxwell was clear that light is always only relative to the medium that it's passing through.

When Einstein falsely made light speed relative to the observer, ANY observer, moving in ANY direction, he took us all for fools, as this creates a total impossibility that to this day, no one including Einstein has even offered a solution for.

Its simply IMPOSSIBLE that one can measure light speed at C when moving alongside the light, and also measure that same light as still moving at c as measured by someone moving directly against the direction of the light.

Really, any sane reasonable person should recognize that Einstein was playing a big trick on everyone, and so far he has been successful. We bought into his delusions without stopping to think for ourselves.

Light speed IS constant, that much is true BUT it's only constant, relative to the medium that it's passing through. Never to any observer.

No one knows how light manages to pass through the apparent vacuum. (we don't even know how it passes through glass or water, our speculations are not very rational)

This is still a mystery, but it is not necessary to solve in order to see that EInstein's Special Relativity is more than wrong, its now science fraud.

### #5 marcospolo

marcospolo

Explaining

• Members
• 606 posts

Posted 01 June 2019 - 04:26 PM

Here's another puzzle for Relativists.

Einstein spends a good deal of time explaining that the laws of Physics will remain the same in any inertial reference frame, but then goes on to conclude that they DONT!  In one frame the law of the stability of Mass is broken just because someone moved!

And the Law of mans accurate counting of what we call Time, fails to function, because someone moved.

And of course our meter stick, the standard by which we are able to make comparisons of physical objects and displacments, and actually DO Physics, now has become unrelaible, shrinking soemtimes, but not for all, and only if someone moves.

So, einstein, do the laws of physics stay the same or don't they?

If he thinks they dont, then that should be his first postulate.

### #6 marcospolo

marcospolo

Explaining

• Members
• 606 posts

Posted 01 June 2019 - 04:34 PM

Then we have to the problem of Einstein's idiotic method of pretending to be a Physicist.

Despite claiming that Physics is reliable in his first postulate, he then forgets that fact and prefers to believe that illusions of perspective and optics actually have a real physical effect on physical objects and processes.

They don't of course, any more than David Copperfield's magic trick of making that 747 disappear actually meant that it did!

Because Perception is NOT reality.

Physicists up till Einstein made damn sure that they were not being tricked by perspective, parallax and other tricks of the light, but along comes Einstein who insists that we must RELY on tricks of the light and ignore real physical properties.

### #7 marcospolo

marcospolo

Explaining

• Members
• 606 posts

Posted 01 June 2019 - 04:57 PM

Now we start looking at Einstein's moronic twisting of logic.

He agrees with real Physics, that a light pulse won't be affected by and subsequent motion of the source.

Once that pulse has been fired off in a particular direction, its motion, speed, and direction cannot be affected by some motion of the source.

So far he is talking reasonably.

But then when he describes the light clock in a moving carriage, with an internal and stationary observer, he reverts to his natural mode of the raving lunatic.

Because now he claims that despite the fact that the carriage observer sees that pulse move verticlly, the outside, or stationary observer will see that pulse move in a diagonal trajectory!

Here we see multiple major examples of Einstein's insanity at work.

First, any reasonable thinking Physicist or anyone with a rational mind will know that one object, one light pulse can never be doing multiple actions or be in multiple places at the same instant. (this is one of those "laws of Physics" that must still work in any inertial frame)

If there were 100 inertially moving observers, each with a different velocity, then Einstein claims that that single pulse of light is REALLY doing 100 different things all at the same time!

What's actually occurring is that there is one action of that one pulse of light, and 100 different perspectives. Those 100 observers will take their unique state of motion into consideration and calculate the ONE correct trajectory and position of that pulse if they are classically trained Physicists or sane amateurs.

Next, despite Einstein saying that the motion of the source won't affect that pulse of light, he immediately blunders ignorantly into his next major error of rational thinking.

Because he claims that somehow that light pulse possesses the ability to TRACK the target and make course corrections mid-flight to always strike that top mirror!

Keep in mind that the top (and base mirror) are moving always, so the light needs to change its angle of attack so that it always strikes the top mirror REGARDLESS of the speed of the top mirror, and MUST STILL be able to do this trick, even if the ship changes course, ad=ccelerates or decelea]rtaes, or stops suddenly! The light pulse will always find that top mirror!

It's magic!  David Copperfield would be impressed with this trick!

### #8 marcospolo

marcospolo

Explaining

• Members
• 606 posts

Posted 01 June 2019 - 05:01 PM

The up comming post will be regarding those pesky inertial frames of reference, and the way that a derranged brain in 1905 "understood" them.

### #9 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

• Members
• 1354 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 01:56 AM

Well, Light is a wave-particle thus it can be in multiple places at once thus that argument is null that "It Cannot be at multiple places at once", which was proven by the double slit experiment.

Edited by VictorMedvil, 02 June 2019 - 01:56 AM.

### #10 marcospolo

marcospolo

Explaining

• Members
• 606 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 04:46 AM

Well, Light is a wave-particle thus it can be in multiple places at once thus that argument is null that "It Cannot be at multiple places at once", which was proven by the double slit experiment.

You lost in the first line, where you claimed that one physical entity can be two different things.  There is no such thing as a dog/cat. Neither is there a particle/wave combo.  Its either one or the other, it cant be both, and tcant be the one you wish it to be when it suits you.

Try explaining interference when the light is a particle. And the photo electric effect when light is a wave, instead of a particle.  You cant choose the one you like, and ignore the other. But of couse you can because relativity is magic! and with magic anything can happen.

Actually, light cant be a particle of any sort, as a particle is a nonsense claim.  If you have something that has NO MASS, NO SIZE, then by definition you dont have ANYTHING, the thing you thought you had is nonexisting!

And the double slit joke is nothging to do with Special or General Realtivity.

Also a particle is a small piece of something solid, but a wave is an action of many particles. So light cant be a combo of many small particles and also what particles do.

Taake your precious double slit experiment, you claim that ONE photon was fired at a time but interfrered with itslef!  But how can you fire ONE photon when you also claim that its a wave of particles?  If its already a wave, then there is MORE than one particle to allow a wave action. Then you will get a wave pattern, whicjh is what we see.

No mystery here. You did NOT fire one particle in the first place!

### #11 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

• Members
• 1354 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 05:04 AM

And this is why you a crank, there is no arguing with a crank, someone else take this one that is about all the crank I can handle.

### #12 marcospolo

marcospolo

Explaining

• Members
• 606 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 04:47 PM

And this is why you a crank, there is no arguing with a crank, someone else take this one that is about all the crank I can handle.

You are the one displaying the crank attitude here.

I explain why your claims are incorrect, you reply by explaining nothing at all.

Yet you are confident that you are correct.

Seems that the only basis for your belief that I am a crank is that I dont believe what you believe.

There is no physics behind your beliefs, or you would explain why Im wrong.

Are Relativists incapable of using reason and logic?  Is that forbiden by the Einstein fan club?

So what exactly are you referring to when you said, "this is why you a crank,"  (you have failed to provide any context)

What exactly is not reasonable in my statements?

Edited by marcospolo, 02 June 2019 - 04:48 PM.

### #13 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

• Members
• 1354 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 06:35 PM

You are the one displaying the crank attitude here.

I explain why your claims are incorrect, you reply by explaining nothing at all.

Yet you are confident that you are correct.

Seems that the only basis for your belief that I am a crank is that I dont believe what you believe.

There is no physics behind your beliefs, or you would explain why Im wrong.

Are Relativists incapable of using reason and logic?  Is that forbiden by the Einstein fan club?

So what exactly are you referring to when you said, "this is why you a crank,"  (you have failed to provide any context)

What exactly is not reasonable in my statements?

Let's see I was talking about Wave-Particle duality and you instantly dismiss it as wrong when it is a well known scientifically proven fact that light exhibits wave-particle duality and say that the double slit experiment in false thus I am not dealing with you because these are well known scientific theories that you deny that have tons of evidence behind them so obviously experimental evidence means nothing to you thus you are crank, and I am not going to deal with it.

### #14 marcospolo

marcospolo

Explaining

• Members
• 606 posts

Posted 02 June 2019 - 07:05 PM

Let's see I was talking about Wave-Particle duality and you instantly dismiss it as wrong when it is a well known scientifically proven fact that light exhibits wave-particle duality and say that the double slit experiment in false thus I am not dealing with you because these are well known scientific theories that you deny that have tons of evidence behind them so obviously experimental evidence means nothing to you thus you are crank, and I am not going to deal with it.

You are incapable of clean thought. Not everyone is able to think outside his comfort zone. It's common. No need to feel ashamed.

You seem to get confused between a "scientifically proven fact" and a "favoured INTERPRETATION"  of some observed evidence.

Intepretations that themselves must be grounded in prior intepretations of other observtions, or sometimes not even on observations, but only on posturings.

Wave particle duality is exactly such an intepretation.

If you really feel that you are correct, then perhaps you should be methodical and start at my post #2.

Work through that example and explain where its wrong.

No need to jump to another topic of wave/particle theory.

Incidentally there is no such thing as a "scientifically proven FACT".  Even your own Einstein fan club members agree that you can only PROVE a theory wrong, never prove it true.

Edited by marcospolo, 02 June 2019 - 07:11 PM.

### #15 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

Questioning

• Members
• 108 posts

Posted 03 June 2019 - 11:41 AM

Marcospolo, could you run everything you have written in this thread through an online Gibberish to English translator and then post the results? Thanks.

• exchemist likes this

### #16 Amplituhedron

Amplituhedron

Questioning

• Members
• 108 posts

Posted 03 June 2019 - 12:33 PM

Here's another puzzle for Relativists.

Einstein spends a good deal of time explaining that the laws of Physics will remain the same in any inertial reference frame, but then goes on to conclude that they DONT!  In one frame the law of the stability of Mass is broken just because someone moved!

And the Law of mans accurate counting of what we call Time, fails to function, because someone moved.

And of course our meter stick, the standard by which we are able to make comparisons of physical objects and displacments, and actually DO Physics, now has become unrelaible, shrinking soemtimes, but not for all, and only if someone moves.

So, einstein, do the laws of physics stay the same or don't they?

If he thinks they dont, then that should be his first postulate.

I want to deconstruct this one little post of yours to show why you are either invincibly stupid or a troll, or both.

As I have already explained to you, it was NOT Einstein who first said that the laws of physics remain the same in any inertial frame, it was Galileo! Do you not have a memory, either?

Now what does that mean? It means that in any frame which is constant uniform motion, there is no experiment that you can conduct to prove that you are in motion, as distinct from being at rest. This has already been explained to you!

So Postulate One is from Galileo, NOT from Einstein! Understand? It is called Galilean relativity.

Only Postulate Two — that the speed of light is invariant as measured in all inertial frames — is from Einstein. This postulate is OBSERVED to be true.

It means — as has been explained to you! — that photons, lacking rest mass, do not obey Galilean additivity (addition of velocity calculation). From this, it automatically follows that relative simultaneity, time dilation and length contraction MUST occur.

The idea that the laws of physics are the same as measured in all frames is something that occurs WITHIN a frame. Even without Einstein, and with only Galileo, someone on the ground who watches a train rushing past will insist that someone inside the train who is bouncing a ball is bouncing it in a zigzag path! The rider, of course, will see the ball bouncing up and down — as he would at rest!

You see, WITHIN A FRAME, the meter stick does not shrink nor does the clock run slow nor does the ball zigzag — that is the whole effing point!

So your real beef, as I have explained to you, is with Galileo and not Einstein!

Now please don’t keep lying and say that no one has rebutted your garbage, troll. Thankfully, this crap thread has been removed from the standard science forum and placed in the trash heap where it belongs.

• sanctus and exchemist like this

### #17 marcospolo

marcospolo

Explaining

• Members
• 606 posts

Posted 03 June 2019 - 06:12 PM

Marcospolo, could you run everything you have written in this thread through an online Gibberish to English translator and then post the results? Thanks.

Can I suggest you begin with some rational plan to solve my gibbersih problem?

Start at line one, in my post #2  and tell me exactly what you cant understand....that would be the same way to back up your claim that it's gibberish.

But you won't, you prefer to ridicule and thereby dodge the challenge. Because you can't answer it sensibly.

So what are you going to do? Run away I guess... that what happens usually to people who can't face reality.