Jump to content
Science Forums

Collecting Evidence Negating All Of Einstein's Hypothesies.


marcospolo
 Share

Recommended Posts

 

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
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 months later...

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

 

images-1.png

Victor, you are hardly in the position to be able to dismiss offhand, someone who is writing sensible, rational logical statements, because you are a cult member, blinded by your indoctrination into Scientism.

Somebody needs to kidnap you away, and undo all the brainwashing you have been subjected to.

 

Refuting a sensible argument by placing a "crank" sticker as your reply is all the evidence anyone needs to understand who here is the deluded one.

 

For instance, the claim of GR is that spacetime is curved, and as such planets orbit because of the curvature, as if they were following straight paths, but the exact same statement MUST be applicable to the path of light. So its a totally correct claim of Isaac, to point out that if Light beams are curving around the Sun because of curved spacetime, then we would NOT observe them having any displacement at all, which is opposite to what Relativists claim, and contrary to what we actually observe.

 

GR does NOT account for the starlight displacement around the Sun, but Classical Physics does perfectly!

 

VIctor, you need help, you seem incapable of clear critical thought.

 

Please stop trying to refute sensible arguments with childish put downs, and silly labels, like "crank".  These do not help your argument, only make you appear to be the ignorant one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Victor, you are hardly in the position to be able to dismiss offhand, someone who is writing sensible, rational logical statements, because you are a cult member, blinded by your indoctrination into Scientism.

Somebody needs to kidnap you away, and undo all the brainwashing you have been subjected to.

 

Refuting a sensible argument by placing a "crank" sticker as your reply is all the evidence anyone needs to understand who here is the deluded one.

 

For instance, the claim of GR is that spacetime is curved, and as such planets orbit because of the curvature, as if they were following straight paths, but the exact same statement MUST be applicable to the path of light. So its a totally correct claim of Isaac, to point out that if Light beams are curving around the Sun because of curved spacetime, then we would NOT observe them having any displacement at all, which is opposite to what Relativists claim, and contrary to what we actually observe.

 

GR does NOT account for the starlight displacement around the Sun, but Classical Physics does perfectly!

 

VIctor, you need help, you seem incapable of clear critical thought.

 

Please stop trying to refute sensible arguments with childish put downs, and silly labels, like "crank".  These do not help your argument, only make you appear to be the ignorant one.

I am sick of arguing about Einstein so now I label them cranks anyone who is against Einstein. I had, had it a long time ago about this anti-relativity crankism. The subject is taboo to me, anyone that is against Einstein is a crank. I don't care what argument you make I accept that Einstein's theories are correct with the great amount of evidence that points them to be right.

Edited by VictorMedvil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am sick of arguing about Einstein so now I label them cranks anyone who is against Einstein. I had, had it a long time ago about this anti-relativity crankism. The subject is taboo to me, anyone that is against Einstein is a crank. I don't care what argument you make I accept that Einstein's theories are correct with the great amount of evidence that points them to be right.

That's fine, believe what you want.  But try to understand that the theories of Einsteins are NOT as "solid and proven" as Relativists claim.

GAHD seems to think that he needs to ban anyone who "repeatedly argues for hypothesis that are discredited",  but strangely despite this belief, no one from the Relativists camp can actually back up Einsteins theories with sensible statements. Massive paradoxes always remain. "Relativity Deniers" are only able to exist BECAUSE of the problems that permeate Einstein's theories. 

 

 

 

Rest assured, IF anyone could actually put up a decent rebuttal of the many criticisms, then there simply would be no doubters.

 

For example, no one bothered to address the statement of Issac, all you guys who feel you are of superior knowledge and understanding, can only muster a reply that starts and ends with the word, "crank".

 

This is not doing science. It places actual thinking men on the side of Issac, which offers a more sensible explanation than does Einstein's contortions.

Edited by marcospolo
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...