RSS Output
French    German    Spain    Italian    Arabic    Chinese Simplified    Russian

Letters by a modern St. Ferdinand III about cults

Gab@StFerdinandIII - https://unstabbinated.substack.com/

Plenty of cults exist - every cult has its 'religious dogma', its idols, its 'prophets', its 'science', its 'proof' and its intolerant liturgy of demands.  Cults everywhere:  Corona, 'The Science' or Scientism, Islam, the State, the cult of Gender Fascism, Marxism, Darwin and Evolution, Globaloneywarming, Changing Climate, Abortion...

Tempus Fugit Memento Mori - Time Flies Remember Death 

Recent Articles

Newtonian Physics: why Relativity adds no value

Abstract maths does not mean anything. Your cat does not occupy its own 'space-time' with its own 'clock'. Nor, when it swats a mouse, is there an 'equal and opposite reaction' from the mouse.


We have discussed Relativity and what Einstein, and the Relativists were trying to accomplish. Einstein never ‘discovered’ ‘Relativity’ as a theory or concept, but simply a version of it based on the work of many predecessors and contemporaries. In essence he was a plagiariser and a manipulator, or to be generous, a simplifier of other people’s work, even though his work is tautological, convoluted, issued and propagated without physical proof.

Einstein’s version of Relativity is unique in its philosophical and metaphysical application of a merged spacetime, itself based on Minkowski’s and Palagyi’s maths. This is of course one of the greatest frauds in science. Time can never be merged with space as many posts outline (examples, hereherehere).

It is absurd, nay insane, to assign a merged time and space dimension along a 4th axis, affixed to Euclid’s 3 axes, pointing nowhere; and claim that your apple (or the Earth), has its own coordinate system, occupying a unique ‘space’ within the grid; endowed with its own ‘relative time’, different than that of the orange (or our moon) sitting next to it.

Relativity is a fantasy.   More here

Newton and his far simpler maths which explain the attraction between the Sun and Jupiter.

There is no need for Relativity. It explains nothing, while Newtonian physics is understandable, accessible and provable. It also assumes an aether.

 

Previously we went through the tortured gymnastics used by the Einstein cult to mathematically describe the gravitational attraction between the Sun and the largest planet in our solar system, Jupiter, King of the Greek and Roman gods.

The purported proofs for Relativity don’t exist and are propaganda. The mathematics do not resolve the issues with Newtonian mechanics, supposedly in evidence in areas of high density or gravity, or near to the speed of light. Newtonian physics ably explains the attraction between planets.

Newtonianism does not fully explain why planets are aligned in their orbits given it does not reference the Euler or Coriolis forces. But Newtonian mechanics is simpler, provable and experimentally valid – unlike Relativity. It does empirically explain what we view in real life and in the cosmos. It is based on an aether, and as with the aether, there is no need to overturn it or destroy it with Einstein’s fantasy worlds of made-up maths.

Problem statement: ‘What is the gravitational attraction between Jupiter and the Sun’. Let’s start with a comparison of mass.  More here

Relativity and its tautological maths. The gravitational pull of the Sun on Jupiter as an example.

Many simpler and more logical explanations exist, based on Newtonian and Keplerian maths to explain how planets interact. Relativity provides an endless sequence of absurd confusions.

 

Relativity was concocted to defend Copernicanism and the theory that the Earth is moving, gyrating, disco-dancing 585 million miles around the Sun, each year. It might be. But the mechancial proof for the Barber of Seville routine in space is very, very thin to non-existent.

Einstein, the great philosophical comedian and artificer, along with many others from the cult of mathematics, concocted the endless abstract inanity of Relativity to deny Michelson-Morley’s 1887 proof from light interference experiments, that no movement of this planet can be found, but an aether wind detected.

STR is false given it does not include gravity, nor an aether. Gravity exists. So does the aether. STR was created to avoid the implications of light experiments which found an aether but no movement of this planet. GTR tried to amend STR by adding in both gravity and a ‘not ponderable’ aether. GTR therefore nullifies STR. GTR is based on circular maths and tautological ‘reasoning’ and explains nothing because it means nothing. The tensor calculus field equations are invalid. When used in reality they derive nothing.

More here

Relativity's Philosophical & Mathematical nonsense

'Transformations’, ‘Length contractions’, ‘Time Dilation’


Einstein admitted there is no relationship between maths and reality. The two are distinct. My lying eyes tell me that the train crashed into the mountain. Not so says the Einstotle, ‘It is also true to say dat dee mountain crashed into dee train’ he assures me. ‘Relativity’, he condescendingly informs me, smiling, ‘has proven it my little mensche’. The polite and right response is to break out the white strait-jacket, apply it to the Einstotle, and quietly usher him into a small room in a pleasantly located sanitorium and lock the door.

....Einstein ingested Lorentz whole except for the bones and joints around the aether and the implied kinetic energy of ‘space’. He removed these and refined the equations around moving objects with no absolutes. It was one thing to say that ‘rods shrank’ (or material pace Fitzgerald) as they moved through the aether with the Earth, even at the reasonably slow pace of 30 km / second. However, to be consistent, Lorentz understood that clocks running through the aether must also be affected and must therefore ‘tick’ more slowly by the same factor that made the rods shrink.

More here

Einstein's Tautological Maths and Field Equations. The heart of the Relativity confusion.

Circular illogic. Unproven assumptions. Apriori claims. Made up constants. Contrived metrics to force an answer. No physical proofs. About as anti-science as one will find.


 

When Relativity was first proposed in 1905, almost immediately, many perceptive scientists and mathematicians noticed the tautological nature of Einstein’s calculus. The equations themselves are circular and of little value. It is not hard to spot and is explained below. As part of the author’s quotidian existence he is involved with tensor calculus equations deployed in data analysis. He knows full well that you can create complex tensor and field equations that no one understands, to generate a desired output, or parse the data in a certain desired manner. This is often done to prove an apriori or confirmation bias.

A few posts have assessed the tautology of the transformation equations which is the foundation of Relativity. The Einstotle’s philosophy that everything, time and space, all objects, all grids, all motion, all aspects of life is ‘Relative’, was based on flawed maths which are called, ‘Einstein Field Equations’. As you would expect these are canonical ‘laws’ within ‘science’ and ‘education’. Memorise, regurgitate, repeat.

Einstotle’s Tautology

 

 

 

 

The cornerstone of General Relativity or ‘GTR’ is the Einstein field equations (EFE), which describes the unproven and frankly ridiculous curvature of spacetime in relation to the distribution of mass and energy within it. 

More here

The fraud of 1919 and 'bending Starlight which proved Relativity'

The Relativity cult supposedly performs an experiment, which (shock news), confirms that the Relativity cult is right! Never saw that coming. Follow that Science.

 

Einstein and his gravitational ‘theorem’ do not explain anything. For Relativists, gravity is a wave oscillation found within the non-existent (unproven) ‘continous field’ of a merged space-time curvature. This theory has never explained why you are glued to your chair and not floating off somewhere.

Pace ‘The Science’, there are 3 ‘claims’ which ‘prove’ Relativity.

1. Bending of starlight around the Sun (absurd, this was known to medieval natural philosophers). See below.

2. Connected to #1, ‘gravitational redshifts’, sometimes called ‘gravitational lensing’. Redshifts are discussed on this substack, given they actually disprove Relativity. There is no factual evidence that a ‘redshift’ means a recessionary movement nor long ages.

3. Mercury’s perihelion (easily explained by both Newtonian maths (Gerber 1887) and the cosmic aether.

Let’s focus on #1 – the ‘bending of starlight’.

More here

Bell's Theorem which disproves Relativity and causes issues for Quantum Mechanics.

Electron and particle communication at a distance cannot be explained by Relativity. Relativity is a local-only phenomenon. It does not allow actions at a distance.

 

Einstein received a Nobel prize in 1921, for his earlier work on photons and ‘Brownian motion’. He should probably have surmised that it was unlikely that space is ‘empty’ and equally unlikely that particles are not connected, even over a great distance. His own gravitational theorem, which is wrong, posits that gravity is a wave, generated by unknown forces (mass gravitational attraction), through the non-existent 4th dimension of space and time.

GTR by default must support some ‘gravitational spooky action at a distance’.

  • A Nobel winner for a discovery related to photons and light should have known about the many experiments in the 19th and early 20th centuries which demonstrated a spatial connection between particles.

  • One would expect that a Nobel winner in the area of photonic energy would have been cognisant of such physical experimental evidence and keen to reproduce such mechanical proofs or at least work with others to try to explain them.

However, as usual, there is no evidence that Einstotle or the cult of Relativity ever interacted with 20th century scientists and engineers who were engaged with electron and photon experimentation. Relativity is always a maths game.

More here

Einstein’s own apostasy. Einstein admitted we live in a 3 dimensional universe.

Like so much of 'The Science', Relativity is a theory looking for proof, and when proof is not found; it creates its own reality and dogma, despite its founder's theologically confusion.


Einstein, or Einstotle, was a philosopher. He was not a scientist. He was not an engineer. He was not a practical builder of anything. You can’t even call him a physicist, given he never worked on ‘physical matter’ or mechanical projects. He was an abstract, abstruse Jewish-cosmological philosopher, who had some skills with calculus, and as the quote above states, ‘rigged’ his maths to prove his philosophy.

Einstotle’s math skills were pretty advanced but probably no more refined than the skills that many a university graduate in maths today possesses. If they were curious enough, current graduates could find the tautological errors in Einstein’s tensor calculus models. I can help them, working with tensor calculus as I do in building AI models. Most of these clever students never bother to inquire and just assume that the Einstotle was ‘right’. He was wrong on just about everything.

More here

The core of the Relativity Magic Show: the 'Observer' in their own 'reference frame'

According to Einstotle and his cult, there is no reality. We all live in separate reference frames. The only 'absolute' is the invariance of Light Speed (which is of course falsified).


One of the most risible aspects of the philosophy of Relativity, is its indiscriminate and peculiar use of an ‘Observer’. If you prove that light speed is variant (SagnacMichelson-MorleyDayton Miller etc), the Relativist will simply declare that this is only true in ‘your reference frame’ by ‘your observer.

If we move the reference frames and ‘observer’ around, then presto, everything is ‘relative’ and light speed is indeed finite. The entire philosophy of Relativity is based on an ‘observer’ viewing something at the absolute and finite speed of light (whatever that might actually be), hitting the retina. Relativity is composed of the following assumed postulates:

  1. Light speed is the only absolute in the universe and its speed is finite (this is wrong and admitted as erroneous by Einstein). Relativity demands that every observer receives light hitting their retina at an absolute speed.

  2. Virtually every idea and formula surrounding Special Relativity is based on ‘what the observer sees’ at this invariant (unchanging) speed of light as it hits the retina.

  3. Each ‘observer’ sits in their own ‘reference frame’ or grid or map. You in your chair is one ‘frame’. Myself crushing my own chair is another frame. We both see the same event. We can both mathematically describe it from completely different observer viewpoints. I saw the cat eat the bird. You saw the bird fly into the cat’s mouth. We can use maths to prove both.

  4. There is no absolute framework, just ‘relative frameworks’ and the only ‘absolute’ in Relativity is the speed of light in vacuo (vacuums don’t exist in space of course).

This observer-related reference frame is referred to as the ‘inertial frame of reference’. Newton’s First Law of Motion is also called the Law of Inertia

More here

Einstein admits the Speed of Light is variant.

A core 'postulate' of STR is proven invalid by its inventor.


Einstein was asking his camp follower Zangger, if the rather noisy and violent disciples of Relativity, or ‘the colleagues’, might be willing to denounce light speed invariance? After all there is the great ‘obstacle’, namely that the invariance of light speed in Special Relativity and Einstein’s ‘new’ General Theory of Relativity (GTR) with its ‘gravitational aether’, are at odds and incompatible. Would the ‘colleagues’ be amenable to some sophistry to amend the gap, Einstotle asks Bishop Zangger?

By 1912, Einstein fully comprehended that he had to modify his claim about the constancy of the speed of light, since the c postulate (light speed invariance) of the Special Theory (STR) only applied in the absence of gravitational fields which is what GTR was proposing. Therefore, light speed invariance was wrong. A conundrum indeed. How to save his STR while elaborating the ‘mathematical proofs’ for his GTR?  More here

Einstein's Theory of Gravity is Wrong. Basic physics and common sense reveals why.

This means that the Big Bang is also wrong, including the supposed shape of the universe and its expansion.

 

We have written on this substack why General Relativity is wrong. We can pursue this a little further by looking at the Einstotle’s theory of gravity. It has been mentioned that gravity can bend light. This is not entirely accurate. Newton was closer to the truth. Newton believed that light refraction was due to gravity and other forces which would bend light. This is more apposite (see below). It also disproves General Relativity and the Einstotle’s belief that the aether was simply a ‘gravitational field’ devoid of energy, kinematics, or material (the aether exists, Einstein was wrong).

General Relativity or GTR

 

 

In 1915, Einstein developed his GTR, the geometric theory of gravitation that is the current description of gravity in modern physics. This is part of the standard model of science and is taught and emitted by the narrative owners and is found in all textbooks and AI.

 

GTR states that gravity is a geometric property of spacetime, in which the curvature of spacetime is directly related to the energy and momentum of whatever matter and radiation are present.

That at least is the current refinement. This is not really what the Einstotle actually proposed. The Einstotle had chosen his maths teacher Minkowski’s spacetime model to graphically show the gravitational forces implied in GTR. He wanted an aether of gravity devoid of energy, merging Space with Time into a 4th dimension where Time now becomes ‘relative’ and in effect disappears as a subjective measurement.

More here

Charles Lane Poor; ‘Gravity versus Relativity’, 1922. Relativity's claim that gravity is not a force

100 years later, Poor's complaints are still true. Relativity resolves precisely nothing and adds chaos and fantasy to the Euclidean universe. Einstein's 'proofs' are frauds.


Physicist Charles Lane Poor was one of many intelligent people in the 1920s, who was deeply fatigued by the Relativistic fantasy worlds created by Einstein and his cult. Poor’s 1922 work, "Gravitation versus Relativity," cuts a swathe through Relativity’s gravitational assertions. Poor explains in non-technical language, basic principles of gravity, while critically examining the astronomical evidence used to support Einstein's theory of Relativity. Poor discovered that there was no astronomical evidence to support any of Einstein’s gravitational claims. The same is still true today.

 

 Einstotle’s Relativity Gravitation

 

The Special Theory of Relativity disavows an aether and says nothing about gravity. The General theory reinstates a gravitation-only aether and establishes a gravitational field. Einstein’s ‘theory’ on gravity can be summarised:

 

 The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events.”1

 

Einstein’s aether is not an aether of materiality. It is a ‘field’ of gravitational fluctuation. No gravitational force exists. It is a wave phenomena. In Relativity’s fantasy world, space and time are merged into a 4th dimension. Within this dimension, gravity from unseen forces will vibrate or flow within the ‘imponderable’ aether generating fluctuations. This theory adds precisely no value to understanding how you are fixed to your chair, or why the milk in your cat’s bowl doesn’t rise up and float away.

 

In Relativity, gravity is not a force. It is a wave through the ‘curved’ 4th dimension. A critic might ask what exactly is curved if there is no matter in space? How do you curve nothing? Or, if gravity is not a force why do I fall from the top of a tall building to the ground below? Surely pace Einstein, I must be able to fly and float?

 

In any event this is their story, ‘proven’ by their maths.  More here

 

'The 100 Authors' who opposed Einstein and Relativity from 1905-1930. Buried by claims of 'racism'.

Many of their arguments long predate the Nazi party and can be found in books and articles published before, during and just after World War 1. Relativity is based on the corruption of reality.

 

 

The theory of relativity is a mathematical masquerade, behind which there is an almost inextricable tangle of confusion of terms, contradictionsfallacies, arbitrary assumptions and disregard for sound logic.

The world becomes one of an infinite number of possible coordinates made of bundles composed of dynamics and causation, but also all actual physics, disappears….

 

The theory achieves its record with the relativization and reversibility of the terms before and after, cause and effect, and similar cinema jokes....” (Dr. E. Ruckhaber, p. 49, in ‘One Hundred Authors Against Einstein’, 1930).


Dr Ruckhaber (Jewish) and his quote above with its admittedly rough translation, is one of the best summaries of the fraud that is the Relativity cult. Ruckhaber was a professor of philosophy in Berlin. Relativity is not science as evidenced by the scientific method. It was, as Ruckhaber well understood, first and foremost an interpretative philosophy. The entire nexus of the complicated and circular mathematics is of course the philosophical imperative to deny what tens of thousands of light interference experiments found – no movement of the Earth but a confirmation of the aether wind.


From Einstein’s confused and largely plagiarized thesis it is a short hop to the testicles can be an ovary, the universe is revolving around the merry-go-round which is apparently immobile, and our universe is one of thousands of ‘multiverses’ (given that everything is ‘relative’). ‘The Science’ cannot explain the planet we live on, or how the moon was formed, or why Venus’ rotation is backward and slowing down. But apparently, pace its own propaganda, ‘The Science’ knows everything. It knows very little.

 

Racism

 

Einstein used the charge of antisemitism starting in the early 1920s. Ironically his own diaries reveal Einstotle to be rather racist and misogynistic. Some recent pundits surmise that the Jewish philosopher was actually anti-semitic, based on recent ‘hate laws’. Shutting down debate by calling someone a racist or anti-semite has a long antecedent. It is not a new phenomena.

More here

Einstein, Quantum Mechanics & the 1927 Solvay Conference

Einstein admits that Relativity was only a ‘thought experiment’.


Heisenberg developed the Uncertainty Principle still used in the standard ‘science’ model today. It is an important part of the QM standard model.

Uncertainty Principle: When scientists view a particle, the uncertainty in identifying the position of a particle and the uncertainty in its momentum, should never be less than one-half of the reduced Planck constant: Δx Δp ≥ℏ2 where:

  • · Δx: Uncertainty in position (x being the position of the particle)

  • · Δp: Uncertainty in momentum

  • · ℏ: Reduced Planck’s constant (ℏ = h/2π)

For example, if we know ‘everything’ about where a particle, say an electron, is located (the uncertainty of its position is quite small), it does not mean that we know anything about its momentum or velocity. The opposite would also be true (we know the particle’s movement but nothing about its current location). Variations of this principle exist for energy and time.

 

Einstein of course disavowed and publicly criticized Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Mechanics. But Quantum Mechanics, initially depending on nothing more than statistical analysis, was having reasonable success in analyzing and predicting the effects of the subatomic world. There are issues with QM, but also definite discoveries and experimental proof. Einstein’s opposition was a losing battle which only highlights the philosophical and temperamental deficiencies of Relativists.

More here

74 scientists who said nein to Einstotle.

Relativity has no relationship to reality.

 

Pure mathematics consists entirely of assertions to the effect that if such and such a proposition is true of anything then such and such another proposition is true of that thing. It is essential not to discuss whether the first proposition is really true, and not to mention what the anything is, of which it is supposed to be true. Both of these points would belong to applied mathematics…. Thus, mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we are talking about, nor what we are saying is true.”

(Bertrand Russell, Mysticism and Logic, 1957, pp. 70-71)

In my (Einstein’s) scientific activity, I am always hampered by the same mathematical difficulties, which make it impossible for me to confirm or refute my general relativist field theory.”

(Einstein November 25, 1948, quoted in Letters to Solovine, translated by Wade Baskin from the French Lettres à Maurice Solovine, 1987, p. 111)

Russell is right. You can blind anyone with maths. Einstein knew that his maths-only theory was hardly a ‘law’ or ‘axiom’ and he was ‘hampered’ by his own tautological maths. Einstein could not prove his own theory as he admits in the quote above. His theology, preached from a soap box in the village square, had precious little mechanical support and was based on forced answers from largely circular calculus equations.  More here