Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Collecting Evidence Negating All Of Einstein's Hypothesies.

relativity einstein physics

  • Please log in to reply
102 replies to this topic

#103 VictorMedvil

VictorMedvil

    The Human Shadow

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2690 posts

Posted 10 March 2020 - 05:54 PM

 

Digging through the theoretical physics of his time, Einstein dug up "Lorentz transformations" and built "Special Theory of Relativity" on them. It turned out that this theory "holds the water", so in the rapture of success and based on his "happiest thought in life" that there is no gravity at all, he also launched the "General Theory of Relativity", which was embraced by the "popularizers of science" and who from theory made their "business". And as is usually the case, the inventor was often unaware of what he had actually found. 
 
In 1927, the famous physicist and philosopher Heisenberg, introduced to the world his "Theory of Uncertainty" as a natural law, claiming that we cannot simultaneously accurately measure the position and velocity of a particle, because it is a dynamic and statistical problem and because our methods of measurement are such that they simultaneously disturb the position and velocity of the measured particle. This ingenious and crystal clear idea was immediately accepted by most physicists, but not by Albert Einstein, because he could not accept the idea that something "could not" be done. Therefore, Einstein "pushed with all four" to disprove this theory, without even being aware that as early as 1915, with his "Special Theory of Relativity", he actually confirmed and supplemented the same theory, adding: that apart from being unable to accurately determine the position and velocity of a particle, likewise, when we are forced to do so (and always are!), we measure "with an error" equal to 1-(1-(v/c)2)0.5, depending on the relative velocity (v) of the inertial system in which we are measuring - AND THAT'S ALL!
 
It would be foolish and unscientific to say that in an inertial system, depending on its velocity, units of mass, length and time change, and that objects, space and time deform depending on the direction and speed of the system. Soon, Einstein himself realized this, as well as the fact that his "General Theory of Relativity" was "nonsense2" because it violated almost every law of physics. But why deny what is selling very well? Well, man has to live - from something!
So every honor and glory to Mr. Einstein but save us God from all the "popularisers of science" and physics professors who don't know physics!
 
A good scientist is always looking for evidence to refute a theory, and a bad scientist is looking for evidence to support it (Popper)! That is why new theories should always be refuted, and if they are correct, they will be proven by themselves! So let's refute the "General Theory of Relativity" (GTR):
 
Is measuring time with two watches proof of GTR validity? If one traveler has two identical watches and leaves one at home and with the other, he goes on the road "GTR supposedly says each watch will show a different time?". How is that possible? If both watches are identical, how does the traveler know which watch he brought and which one he "left"? How does a traveler know which of these two watches is "stationary" and which one is moving? If a passenger noticed that one watch was hurrying by 1s then he must have noticed that another watch was delayed by 1s so the total result of his measurement was 1-1 = 0! If the traveler claimed to have measured different times then he would have refuted the initial thesis that he had two identical watches and applied the principle of relativity to them! In fact STR strictly "FORBIDDES" this "measurement", that is, the so-called "twin effect"!
 
Is the shift of the ray of light near the star evidence for the validity of the GTR? We have all heard of the Fermat principle, which says that light moves between two points so that it takes the least time, that is, the shortest path. If the GTR were correct then light would have to move through the gravitational field such that the incident angle of light into that field was equal to the light output angle from that field, so the observer should not really see any "displacement". But if an observer has noticed a shift of a beam of light near a massive star, this is evidence that an optical phenomenon called refraction or diffraction has occurred. Therefore, according to GTR, it is not at all possible to have a phenomenon called "gravity lensing" by "astrophysicists", but rather a phenomenon that real physicists call "fatamorgana".
 
Is the "discovery" of gravitational waves an GTR confirmation? So how was that experiment designed? "Physicists" are allegedly trying to measure the change in the length of some bodies due to the passage of a gravitational wave, ignoring the fact that the passage of that wave would also change the length of the meter by which they measure, so the measurement result should always be 0. But they supposedly measured something!? Nature teaches us that all stochastic processes that can influence this experiment are inherently made of similar fractals, so what is the "probability" that our experimenters have declared the invention of two similar fractals to be the discovery of gravitational waves. Quite. In addition, the most important feature of a good experiment is its reproducibility. And how many times did the gentlemen repeat their experiment? Not once! That is why performing such "blind" experiments is complete nonsense.
 
Is the happening in an elevator, which is in free fall for the passenger of that elevator, proof that there is no gravity? Yes, until the elevator lands in the basement, then the passenger will realize the gravity and deformation of their space and the shortening of their length and time (of life). So how can anyone believe such nonsense? Well, in Newton's law of force F = ma, all members of the equation (F, m, a) are constants, while in Newton's law of gravity FG = mg is a constant only mass m, while FG, and g are variables because g = GM/r2. That is why anyone who says "g = constant" and that "g" and "a" can be replaced, or canceled, is telling us nonsense. Well, we already realized this in elementary school!
 
Does our space have more than 3 dimensions? Is time a 4th dimension? No. It is not. If our space had more than three dimensions then God would probably give us senses for those dimensions as well. Instead, we were given a MIND which, by using the IDEA of TIME as a category of MIND (Kant), realizes its three-dimensional space and the cause-and-effect flow of phenomena and the movements of matter and energy within it. The MIND realizes that it is in a space filled by countless harmonic oscillators, and he uses one of them as a reference (clock) to describe and recognize the movements of all others by means of it. Long ago, one smart MIND told the others: We must first comprehend "self"!

 

Where is my crank stamp at, I just had it.

 

images-1.png


Edited by VictorMedvil, 10 March 2020 - 06:02 PM.




Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: relativity, einstein, physics