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

Heliocentricity and Theoretical Proofs (part one).

Newtonian gravitation is not proof of heliocentricity.

Bookmark and Share


The claim

There is a severe paucity of proof for heliocentricity.  The theory is simply accepted as fact, without mechanical and observational verification.  There is voluminous evidence from the 19th and 20th centuries which contradicts and disputes both heliocentricity and its apologist framework, the Special Theory of Relativity.  The errors and lack of mechanical proofs are covered extensively in a previous set of posts.

 

In this post we will have a hard look at what is incorrectly forwarded as Newton’s key ‘law’ that smaller bodies always orbit larger.  This is usually offered as ‘proof’ of heliocentricity, but as we will see when discussing the greater universal forces at work, this is not the case.  In fact, this supposed ‘law’ provides more evidence for geocentrism than Copernicanism, a consideration that is anathema to ‘The Science’. 

 

What did Newton say?

Newton neither said nor proved that a smaller object must always orbit the larger.  Newton merely stated that when we have two or more bodies in a rotating system, all bodies will revolve around the center of mass (also known as the center of gravity).  It is a natural effect and phenomena that the ancients probably well understood: 

 

“That the center of the system of the world is immovable: this is acknowledged by all, although some contend that the Earth, others that the sun, is fixed in that center” (Isaac Newton, Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Book 3: The System of the World, Proposition X, Hypothesis I)

 

Our own solar system and ‘milky way’ galaxy is not a closed system.  It is open and a part of a far larger universe.  This is one of the problems with Einstein’s thought experiments - he assumes a closed system. If we did have a closed system and there were only 2 planets namely the Earth and Sun, then the corrupted Newtonian claims that the smaller object or Earth would orbit the larger body the Sun, would likely be sensible and valid.  But that is not our reality.  There is a little factor called ‘the rest of the universe’ which Newtonians and Copernicans often ignore.  The universe is estimated to contain five sextillion stars.  Quite a mass of weight one would imagine.

 

Where is the center Chud?

 

In Newtonian physics the center of our solar system must find its location at the ‘center of mass’, which would consider all the bodies and masses within our solar system (ignoring for the moment the rest of the universe).  The displacement of this center within our solar system would of course not be the Sun itself, but would find its locus at quite an appreciable distance from the Sun.  Now add in the rest of the universe beyond our solar system.  The ‘center’ would need to migrate and be displaced even further from our Sun.  There is no proof that the center of universe is located with our Sun.  Such a claim, if ever made, has no empirical evidentiary support. 

 

As Fred Hoyle the famed physicist and astronomer (who believed in panspermia, and space-travelling ‘viruses’) stated:  “If a new body is added to the set from outside, or if a body is taken away, the “center” changes” (Hoyle, p. 85).  This makes perfect sense.  We should take into account the weight within our solar system, our own galaxy and other galaxies (new planets, comets, collisions causing destruction etc) when assessing mass attraction, gravity and the impact on inertial motion.

 

If we add in the ‘weight’ of the universe there must be an enormous impact on bodies within our solar system.  This implies that there is no ‘law’ that the Earth must revolve around the Sun given the displacement of this center.  It might well be that the Sun and planets revolve around the Earth in a Tychonic or Ptolemaic system, which current scientific observations would support as easily as they would support a Sun-centric view.  Or it might imply a completely different model not yet considered by ‘The Science’. 

 

The center of all masses

Given the size and mass weight of stars and bodies in our universe, there will be many local centers of mass.  These federated and local systems do not impinge or supersede the center of mass for the universe itself.  This means that each galaxy will have its own center of mass.  This seems logical.  While the constellation of planets in our solar system will have a center of mass near the Sun; and while the moons of the planets have a center of mass near their respective planet, these are only local centers of mass.

 

When we consider all the mass of the universe, there is only one place where the universe’s center of mass exists.  Newton’s principle given above that the ‘center of the system of the world is immovable’ does not mean that heliocentricity is proven.  There are many models which fit the observational data.  If for example, the universe was in rotation, Newton’s laws would demand that it rotate around its singular center of mass.  This could be the Earth (or not).  As Hoyle states it, the equivalence between heliocentricity and geocentricity was recognized not only in geometry, but also in the gravitational and inertial dynamics:

 

“…we can take either the Earth or the Sun, or any other point for that matter, as the center of the solar system. This is certainly so for the purely kinematical problem of describing the planetary motions. It is also possible to take any point as the center even in dynamics, although recognition of this freedom of choice had to await the present century” (Hoyle, p. 82)

 

Most physicists accept the concept that, “Mass there governs inertia here.” Newton never took the mass of the universe into account, and this is a primary inadequacy of his theory of motion (Misner, et al pp. 543). 

 

Newton’s Oubliette

Newton failed to consider the gravitational and inertial forces found in the rest of the universe when he composed his laws of motion.  The missing parts of his theory directly affect the choice one makes for either Copernicus, Ptolemy or Tycho Brahe. As the Brazilian physicist, Andre Assis, puts it:

 

Leibniz and Mach emphasised that the Ptolemaic geocentric system and the Copernican heliocentric system are equally valid and correct…the Copernican world view, which is usually seen as being proved to be true by Galileo and Newton…Despite the gravitational attraction between the sun and the planets, the earth and other planets do not fall into the sun because they have an acceleration relative to the fixed starsThe distant matter in the universe exerts a force…..on accelerated planets, keeping them in their annual orbits.” (Assis, pp. 190-191)

 

This is an important point, ‘The distant matter in the universe exerts a force…..on accelerated planets’. Without such forces, the Earth would indeed be swallowed by the Sun.

 

Mach power

 

The principle of ‘equivalence’, based on Kepler and Mach’s maths, was enunciated by Einstein to explain uniform acceleration in an ‘inertial system’.  The Special Theory of Relativity does not account for acceleration, nor non-linear motions.  There are no absolutes in STR, and everything must be relative (many posts have gone through the proofs of why STR is unscientific). 

 

But if we accept at face value Einstein’s incorrect model of the universe, we can see that heliocentricity is just a theory as given by this principle of equivalence.  STR has never proven heliocentricity, nor has it done much to fix the gap in Newton’s laws of inertial motion.  Einstein uses 2 systems, one called ‘A; and the other ‘I’ to explain:

 

“Let A be a system uniformly accelerated with respect to an “inertial system.” Material points, not accelerated with respect to I, are accelerated with respect to A, the acceleration of all the points being equal in magnitude and direction. They behave as if a gravitational field exists with respect to A, for it is a characteristic property of the gravitational field that the acceleration is independent of the particular nature of the body. There is no reason to exclude the possibility of interpreting this behavior as the effect of a “true” gravitational field (principle of equivalence) (Einstein, p. 14.)

 

A is a system in uniform motion with respect to another system within a defined grid or system.  Within A but outside of I, objects are accelerated whose movement will not only be impacted by the gravitational attraction within system A, but also from the total mass of attraction which includes I.  This indicates that within our own solar system, not only the Sun but the planets and every other moving object in our system (comets, asteroids, moons), are controlled by the galaxies and the collective attraction and weight.  This ‘true gravitational field’ or principle of equivalence removes the mystery out of inertia and why the planets travel in precise orbits.  

 

“Kepler’s standpoint is particularly interesting, since he was deeply impressed by Tycho Brahe’s ‘demolition’ of the crystal spheres. Kepler posed the problem of astronomy in the famous words: “From henceforth the planets follow their paths through the ether like the birds in the air. We must therefore philosophize about these things differently.” (J. Barbour, p. 9.)

 

Kepler, the Protestant astronomer whose maths were the first theoretical proofs to support Copernicanism, came up with a rather ‘Machian’ solution.  Kepler’s maths suggested that the planets could not possibly follow such precise orbits by a mere inspection of empty space.  The elliptical and complicated journeys must be guided and driven in their motion by the real masses in the universe, namely, the Sun and the sphere of the fixed stars.  This insight by Kepler pre-empted that of Mach by some 300 years and is perfectly aligned to what most physicists believe today, namely that the mass of the universe is an essential ‘force’ which accounts for the observational data on planetary motions.  

 

This supports Mach’s principle which was in large measure a restatement of observations by the English astronomer George Berkeley in the 1700s:

 

(Encyclopedia Britannica) “Mach’s principle, in cosmology, hypothesis that the inertial forces experienced by a body in nonuniform motion are determined by the quantity and distribution of matter in the universe. It was so called by Albert Einstein after the 19th-century Austrian physicist and philosopher Ernst Mach. Einstein found the hypothesis helpful in formulating his theory of general relativity—i.e., it was suggestive of a connection between geometry and matter”

 

The Kepler-Berkeley-Mach ‘principle’ means that there are absolutes including mass and gravitational attraction.  Even Newton admitted that this was valid. 

 

More here

Scientism and the Galileo myth. Another example of 'The Science' and its mendacity and propaganda.

The Religion of The Science, or Scientism, does not suffer competitors or doubts.

Bookmark and Share

Intro To Art: Galileo facing The Inquisition!

(Galileo (1564-1642), facing the inquistion)

 

The Scream

We have all heard the story of Galileo from the early 17th century.  The honest, independent, objective, ‘scientist’, trying to drag the superstitious post-medieval world into light and knowledge.  Attacked, tortured, and demonised by the Catholic inquisition for ‘proving’ that the Sun was the centre of our solar system and the true object of worship.  His truths ignored due to Biblical ignorance and rank stupidity.  Lesser mortals, debased by religion, unable to comprehend his proofs and genius, refused to enter the door of science he was opening, closing it.  The hairshirt wearing, idol-worshipping, cowering and despairing Church with its unclean, unkept, illiterate monks had declared war on ‘The Science’.  We all know this to be true.  Teacher say, TV say, books say, ‘The Science’ say.  Twas the Dark Ages before the ‘Enlightenment’.  

 

But the truth is that Galileo was never accosted, tortured, beaten or even demonised for his views.  In fact, he lived a long, salubrious life, entirely funded by the de Medici’s and the Church. 

 

The Myths

 

According to our modern education hagiography, the following is ‘true’ about Galilei Galileo:

1.     Proved heliocentricity (it took some 200 hundred years after Galileo, before some proofs were offered, namely stellar parallax and light aberration which can also be explained by the Tychonic model, as covered in other posts)

2.     Invented the telescope

3.     Discovered Sunspots

4.     Identified comets

5.     Dropped weights from the leaning tower of Pisa proving the ‘law’ of accelerated gravity

6.     Invented the incline plane to prove that an object falling down an incline will roll up an incline for the same distance as the declination

7.     Discovered the important properties of a pendulum

8.     Based on the pendulum discovered time keeping

9.     Was the first to push ‘experimental science’

 

Busy guy.  Except that none of the above is true (Kuhn, p. 10).  Galileo did not invent the telescope and his customised production was largely inferior to that of Kepler’s.  He did not prove heliocentricity whatsoever (more below).  It is unlikely he performed the weight dropping experiment, nor did he discover the attributes of a swinging pendulum, the incline motion of an object proceeding from a declination; nor did he uncover secrets leading to time keeping or navigation. 

 

Christopher Scheiner discovered Sunspots.  Jesuits long before Galileo had traced and explained the life cycle of comets, contrary to Galileo’s claim that they were ephemeral.  Scientific experimentation using defined methods dates to at least the 12th century.  Galileo was the same character who yelled and pounded his desk that the moon had an atmosphere. It doesn’t and if you landed on it, you wouldn’t survive more than 10 minutes due to radiation exposure.

 

Regarding the fictitious Tower of Pisa-weight dropping, Galileo said that the heavier object fell fastest in contravention of the supposed ‘law’ attributed to him:

“Experience shows….in the beginning of its motion the wood is carried more rapidly than the lead; but a little later the motion of the lead if so accelerated that it leaves the wood behind…I have often made a test of this.”  (Lane Cooper, Aristotle, Galileo, and the Tower of Pisa, 1935)

 

‘The Science’ claims that Galileo invented the law of accelerate gravity or the equation d = ½ g (t2) + v*t, where d = distance, g = gravity, t = time and v = velocity.  He didn’t.  Observations date back to the 6th century with Philoponus and include many experiments from the 16th century, including one from Simon Stevin from the Tower at Pisa in 1586.  There is no evidence that Galileo performed any such experiment at Pisa, though he claims to have done so many times.  If he had bothered, he would not have written the above. 

 

Shoulders of giants

 

Galileo was born in the late 16th century and performed his work during the early 17th.  He was an educated man and much of what he ‘discovered’ was already known.  In fact, he was taught about objects, motions, pendulums, and time.  He did not invent any of these concepts.  Yet as with so many – Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and countless other ‘great scientists’-- Galileo never bothered to reference the work, nor the efforts of others.  As with Einstein, you won’t find more than a few tangential attributions by Galileo to those who did the hard work of experimentation, or who discovered the theorem in question. 

 

 

Galileo admits the paucity of his experimentation, and like Einstein was more interested in philosophy and abstractions than actual proof:

“…in order to demonstrate to my opponents, the truths of my conclusions, I have been forced to demonstrate them by a variety of experiments, though to satisfy myself alone I have never felt it necessary to make many.” (J.H. Randall, The Making of the Modern Mind, 1976, p. 235)

 

There are little extant proofs which confirm that Galileo did much in the way of mechanical experimentation. 

 

The context of heliocentricity

It is necessary to put the Galileo myth in the context of its era.  The Protestant revolt, beginning in 1517, had sundered Western Christendom in two.  State powers viewed the Protestant church as a convenient entity to subsume into the secular political structures.  The ‘reformation’ was more about national power and control than about religion.  Catholic dogmas and received wisdom were under attack in every sphere.  In many countries it was against the law to be Catholic.  The Church had been forced to retreat from much of northern Europe and felt itself surrounded by the heresy to the north, and the Muslims to the east and south.  The early 17th century was a time of flux and real danger.  The Church had little interest in more internal convulsions generated by ‘science’. 

 

More here

Heliocentricty and Scientism (part 4). Dayton Miller and 30 years of proofs which negate STR

and call into question Copernicanism.

Bookmark and Share


Einstein’s doubt:

Einstein: “I believe that I have really found the relationship between gravitation and electricity, assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental errorOtherwise, the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.” (Letter to Robert Millikan, June 1921 in Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 400).

 

Einstein to astronomer Erwin Freundlich in 1913: If the speed of light is in the least bit affected by the speed of the light source, then my whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false” (ibid., p. 207).

 

Einstein: “My whole theory of relativity and theory of gravity is false.”  And so, they are Einstein.  Miller was right pace the first quote, and Sagnac was right confirming the second quote

 

Einstein’s house of cards

 

Georges Sagnac’s experiments, which disproved the constancy of the speed of light, and proved an ether, were rather miraculously, incorporated, and consumed by ‘The Science’ to support time dilation and STR!  Sagnac’s effect, which is used in GPS, measurement, and gyroscope technologies, disproved STR of course.  Sagnac proved there are absolutes when measuring light speed and the ether which STR does not support.  Experiments using Sagnac’s method which followed his 1913 effort, also found the same.  Not a single Relativist can point to an experiment disproving Sagnac. 

 

Sagnac never confronted Einstein and his fantasy-world directly.  But Dayton Miller did.  Miller like those before him who registered negative results when trying to prove STR and the Earth’s orbit around the Sun, was a Copernican Sunworshipper.  He was a very well-known American physicist and a key figure in the US science establishment.  He was not a man to be ignored.

 

Dayton Miller’s biography in summary:

·       PhD in science in 1890 from Princeton University

·       President of both the American Physical Society (1925-1926) and Acoustical Society of America (1913-1933)

·       Chairman of the division of Physical Sciences of the National Research Council (1927-1930)

·       Chairman of the physics department of Case School of Applied Science (aka: Case Western University)

·       Active member of the National Academy of Sciences.

 

During a 31-year period from approximately 1902-1933, Miller produced over 300.000 experimental tests which confirmed the 19th and early 20th century’s interferometer measurements including Sagnac’s, that no mechanical mobility or motion of the Earth could be detected, and there appeared to be an ether.  Miller’s experimentation is the most thorough and detailed study in history of trying to prove heliocentricity and the Earth’s movement through an ether.  All he found was that the Earth appeared immobile and that an ether acted on the Earth

 

Miller Time

So, what did Miller do?

 

Dayton Miller constructed (to paraphrase Joe Biden), the most extensive and sophisticated interferometer experiment in history.  Miller built the largest and most sensitive collection of equipment ever devised to record and measure the ‘interference’ readings of light beams.  As a devout Copernican he was simply trying to prove the theory of heliocentricity and STR.

(Miller’s Interferometer machine on Mount Wilson)

 

Miller took great care with his creation.  At extraordinary cost he floated the interferometer device on a pool of mercury to eliminate friction.  He employed different bases including, wood, metal and concrete.  Miller performed tests at different times of the day, different seasons of the year, different altitudes, including the Mount Wilson observatory near Pasadena California, and at different latitudes with differing light sources.  He produced his observations over a 3 decade long period. 

 

Miller also took precautions against thermal distortions by insulating the apparatus in one- inch cork and by applying uniform parabolic heaters and taking account of human body heat.  He covered the interferometer in glass so that drift would not be inhibited.  He used a 50x magnification telescope to observe the fringes, which allowed him to see down to the hundredth scale.  Miller even switched to an interferometer made of aluminum and brass to eliminate possible effects from magneto-constriction.

 

It was a comprehensive and largely incorruptible setup.  Beyond reproach or critique. 

 

The first round of testing ensued from 1902-1916, when Miller performed over 200,000 different readings.  By contrast, the 1887 Michelson-Morley had a total of 36 readings on an apparatus that was much smaller and less accurate.  The second round occurred between 1921 and 1933, when Miller performed over 100,000 trials (D. C. Miller, “The Ether-Drift Experiment and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth,” Reviews of Modern Physics 5, 352-367, 1933). 

 

In total we have some 300.000 measurements.


More here

Heliocentricty and Scientism (part 3). Georges Sagnac and the ‘Sagnac effect’

Entirely upends Relativity, despite what 'The Science' claims.

Bookmark and Share

Albert Einstein

“Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.’’ [quoted in “What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck” Saturday Evening Post, October 26th, 1929, p. 11]

 

A Religious Philosophy posing as Science

Imagination is the basis of much of modern ‘science’. Two previous posts outlined the lack of evidence for a mobile Earth, both pre-and-post 1905, which is the year ‘The Science’ issued Einstein’s opus magnus on Relativity.  The Special Theory of Relativity’s main purpose was to remove the inconvenient relevancy of studies which could not find a mobile Earth.  Einstein through the abstraction and ‘imagination’ of STR sought re-impose the accepted dogma of heliocentricity. 

 

STR achieves this by erecting a universe with no fixed absolutes, no rules, and in essence, no logic.  In this fantasy world, no mechanical measurement is needed to prove that the Earth moves, because none can be made.  This is because pace STR, a moving Earth which is an unproven assumption, negates the ‘law of inertial reference’ and makes any calibrated measurement impossible.  This is called an illogical tautology.  What they are saying is that the Earth moves and we don’t need to have mechanical, physical proof. We should just accept the premise. 

 

Proof?

For 500 years our world-views have been irrevocably impacted by the purported fact that the Earth is moving at the astonishing pace of 108.000 km / hour through the universe.   Yet the proofs are simply not in evidence. As Einstein and all physicists and astronomers have admitted, there are no mechanical proofs detailing and confirming that the Earth is hurtling along at 30 km per second.

 

The few who have thumbed through Copernicus’ 1543 exposition on the revolution of the orbits, will know that maybe 20 pages try to explain the idea.  The rest, some 180 pages is filler, full of tables and observations that don’t prove heliocentricity and could as easily prove geo-centricity.  The Copernican model was first and foremost a philosophical exercise, yet has been assumed since the late 16th century to be ‘correct’.  Newton’s entire system, which Einstein energetically tried to uphold, is based on Copernican acceptance, but like Einstein, Newton provided no proof. 

 

Since the late 16th century ‘The Science’ has never bothered to verify the Copernican claim.  This is not a scientific approach and is based on what is called an ‘appeal to authority’. The reality is that every physicist and astronomer since the 17th century has assumed Copernican veracity, appealing to various scientific figures as sources of proof. This includes Einstein, who wrote that Copernicanism should be taken as the starting point. This is a philosophical a priori belief, not a fact establshed from scientific measurement.

 

[An example is Gailelo. Any who have studied Galileo know that he did not prove heliocentricity. Indeed Galileo may have recanted his Copernican faith. At the end of this post is provided an interesting letter that no one knows about, dictated by Galileo in which he apparently apostasies from the Copernican theology (see footnote A)].

 

It must move!

Even though no mechanical proof exists that the Earth is mobile, Einstein demanded that we still believe it moves at the astonishing pace of 108.000 km / hour, an incomprehensible velocity (speech Kyoto Japan, Dec. 14 1922, ‘How I created the theory of Relativity’).  Relativity cannot be interpreted unless one understands that it is far more a philosophical and imaginative framework, than a scientific endeavor. 

 

By 1905 Einstein and a small group within ‘The Science’ had to save the heliocentric-phenomena which was being assaulted by interferometer calculations, which showed that the Earth’s movement, as measured by these light-sensitive machines, is about ~5 km per second, not the purported or expected 30 km / second. Many other 19th century experiments also failed to confirm diurnal rotation.  In fact all of these experiments called into question heliocentricity, suggesting that the Earth was immobile.


More here

 

Heliocentricity and Scientism (part 2). Post-1905 experiments which found no movement of the Earth.

The magic world of the Special Theory of Relativity. Long dead but the public is just not ready for the burial. It would be too emotional for most people.

Bookmark and Share

 


Scope of this post:

  • Keep the length down

  • Outline the post-1905 experiments which attempted to prove heliocentricity

  • The implications of their greater-than-null results

  • How ‘The Science’ reacted

  • Next posts:  The ground shaking experiments of Georges Sagnac and D. C. Miller

 

Heresy and damnation

Edwin Hubble:

"…there must be no favored location in the universe, no center, no boundary; all must see the universe alike. And, in order to ensure this situation, the cosmologist postulates spatial isotropy and spatial homogeneity.…" (Edwin Hubble, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, 1937, p. 63)

 

A very religious declaration from an icon of ‘The Science’.

Do you believe in a flat earth’? will be the response if you ask someone, ‘can you provide for me, physical proof to support the Copernican principle or heliocentricity’?  An exasperated interlocutor might also reply with, ‘are you stupid and one of those religious idiots?  Of course it flies around the Sun, everyone knows this, Galileo say, Einstein say, BBC say, NASA say, and you are not smarter than Einstein chud’

 

You can do your own poll.  Ask anyone to give you the speed of the Earth’s journey around the Sun.  Add the bonus question of ‘diurnal’ or daily rotational speed.  I doubt 1 in 10 could answer both.  The average person has no idea that the assumed speed of the mobile Earth is 30 km / second, 1800 km per minute, or a rather astounding 108.000 km/hour.  That is pretty quick. 

 

One would think that such a speed might be noticeable and measurable.  Supposedly, pace ‘The Science’, it isn’t.  You believe; therefore you spin around.  For the record the diurnal motion is purportedly and roughly, 1600 km per hour.  So here we are, spinning at 1600 km per hour in a tight turn, traversing the universe around the Sun at a sedate canter of 108.000 km per hour.  If that is not a miracle of something or other, I don’t know what it is. 

 

The previous post discussed the lack of evidence for heliocentricity pre-1905.  This lack of evidence led directly to Einstein and Relativity.  To save the Copernican theories and phenomena, the Special Theory of Relativity (STR) had to be invented.  Few know this.  Few know that there is no hard evidence for STR and that STR behind scientific closed doors has long been dead.  Its public burial and the rubbishing of its great apostle Einstein, is just too emotional a consideration for the great unwashed mass.

 

The previous post which can be extended into a book, was intended only as an introduction to a topic that rolls people’s eyes.  ‘You can’t be serious?’ will be the standard head-shaking comment.  However as this post will summarise, it gets even more difficult for the Sun-worshippers, post 1905.  There are literally dozens of experiments that you have never heard of, which do not support STR nor heliocentricity.  The brave explorer can find none that support the theories, ChatGPT and textbooks using their illogical and tautological claims notwithstanding. 

 

Socrates and evidence

 

Albert Einstein

“I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the sun.” (Speech titled: “How I Created the Theory of Relativity,” delivered at Kyoto University, Japan, Dec. 14, 1922, as cited in Physics Today, August, 1982)

(The very religious declaration of a devout Copernican)

 

1905 is of course a watershed year in ‘The Science’, when Einstein published his theory of relativity, on September 26 entitled “On the Electrodynamics of Bodies in Motion” in the Annalen der Physik.  As a mental concept Relativity has a long history, including Galilean, Descartian, Newtonian and Lorentzian relativity.  Einstein’s theory built on these antecedents and took them to their logical end point.  He postulated that physical, observational, and rational investigation could be replaced by models and maths. 

 

In Einstein’s universe there is no absolute reality, and all objects are moving relative to each other.  It is the imposition of Kant into science, via Ernst Mach who was probably the key inspiration for Einstein, which saturates the absurdity of the Special Theory of Relativity.  Relativity as a theological principle and abstract idea, simply means that there is no single point of reference, anywhere, any place at any time. 

 

Because there is no single point of reference or a ‘frame of inertia’ (a grid, a reference point, e.g. a stationary Earth) it means that we can use maths and models to contort the universe into any theory we find pleasing.  Or, to paraphrase Einstein, if we look at the phenomena around us, we could as easily explain what we see in the universe by assuming that the Earth is immobile, or the Sun, or even the moon.  Everything we see could be explained by any number of ‘relative’ models.  This means that there is no fixed reality.  By extension, the only way to make sense of it all is to describe this fluctuating relativisation with maths. 

 

The fantasy world of STR