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 

Archive - January 2025

Einstein and the Space-Time deceit. 'Time' has nothing to do with 'Space'.

'Curved' space and geodesics brings us back to Aristotle and Greek gods who managed planetary motions. 'Space-time' was needed to resolve the error in Einstotle's maths.


Space merged with time and being ‘curved’ is one of the great mysticisms from the Church of ‘The Science’. It is nonsense of course. See the quote aboe. Einstein knew it was a fable. He even admitted that the universe is Euclidean, not a geometrically curved dimension.


The merger of space with time is one of the great deceptions in ‘The Science’. The 2 concepts have nothing to do with each other. They are merged to correct errors in Relativity’s maths, and to compensate for the very weak force that is gravity, and to explain how planets over billions (soon trillions?) of Darwinian years, serenely glide around their ‘star’.

More here

Tesla and his critique of Relativity. A genius engineer, versus the maths-philosopher Einstotle....

If you claim Einstein was a scientist, where are his inventions? Where is his 'Tesla output' and practical, material creations?


Time_magazine_cover

For some reason there is widespread acceptance, even amongst ‘sceptics’, of the anti-reality position that space-time are merged into a 4th dimension. Tesla one of the 20th century’s most prolific engineers, knew that Relativity, including the 4th dimension of ‘space-time’, was a fraud. He also propsed a sensible ‘dynamic gravity’ theorem that the relativists did not accept.

 

Tesla is mostly forgotten and rarely taught. Here we have a man who more than any other single person, helped form our modern world. The magic of electrical power - imagine a world without it! So here in magnificent mediocrity I sit surrounded by the Catholic Croatian Tesla’s brain.

 

It was Tesla who created the entire framework of AC power, including generation, motors, coils, capacitators, transformers and fluorescent lighting. Edison had promoted Direct Current which had a 21-mile distribution limitation, essentially building entire power plants to service small areas, flowing into incandescent lights. This was impracticable and uneconomic. He rejected working with Tesla, hiring and firing the workaholic Croation, with disputes over money and engineering. The Edison-Tesla conflict and saga fills an entire book and is not the focus on this short post.  More here

 

Gödel’s 'Incompleteness Theory' and why it undermines Relativity and mathematically-based 'science'.

Maths is not science. Equations are out of context, framework-less models, which often cannot be verified and are often syntactically and semantically unproven.

 

 

In 1931 a 25-year-old Austrian mathematician, Kurt Gödel, developed the ‘Incompleteness Theorem’ as he analysed mathematical formulae and their relevancy. The theory is still valid today and has never been refuted, based as it is on simple common sense and demonstrable logic which parametrises the limits of provability in formal axiomatic and mathematical theories.

 

The theory basically states:

Principle 1: in a consistent and formal system named F, within which mathematical operations are carried out, there are statements of the language within F, which can be neither proven nor disproven (unless one uses an outside framework reference, or context, see the simple examples given above) and,

Principle 2: in this formal system named F, we cannot prove that the system itself is consistent, we must assume that it is intern

ally consistent. The internal consistency of the system has a great impact on the mathematical operations but cannot be verified without the use of an external frame of reference.

More here

Relativity's tautological maths, and issues with Mercury's perihelion and Einstein's gravity.

Relativity does not explain nor prove anything. There are many different explanations for the precession of Mercury and Relativity adds an unknown push-source dimension to gravitational force.

 

 

Relativity was ushered into being to explain the thousands of experiments that can find no motion of our planet. In the last post we looked at the error in the tensor calculus maths in Relativity. By itself this disproves the theory and all its many hydra-headed claims.

 

We also discussed the illogical nature of Relativity, both Special and General, given that neither theory can explain heliocentricity, or the thousands of experiments which failed to find the movement of the Earth. This short post has a look at Mercury’s perhelion and gravity and why Relativity is unnecessary in both cases as an explanatory model.  More here

Relativity's maths are circular and in error? Was this deliberate?

Why did Einstein add Riemannian geometry, and invent the space-time dimension, if not to save his equations?


Einstein’s Relativity yields results which are in conflict with the postulates upon which it is based namely:

1. Space time curvature is the basis of General Relativity (a demonstrably false and unproven concept),

2. Physical laws are the same in all frames of reference (equivalency). This is also false (see below) (Bertschinger, 1999).

The above are tautological as summarised below. In order to produce his equivalency through mathematical models only, namely tensor calculus equations, Einstein had to invent the curvature of space time. Logically, this means that his postulates are circular and incorrect. You see this in the maths.

There is at least one significant error in Einsteinian maths which impact the derivations. This error must have been known by Einstotle and those within the discipleship of Relativity. Intelligent undergraduates in physics have no doubt uncovered the error and raised objections, only to be beaten down by dogmatic high priests who demand bended knees and subservience to Relativity.

 

More here

The 'Lorentz Transformation', the basis of 'Relativity' and its tautological, fantasy world.

The 'Relativity' wizards and salesmen. Don't like 'this Relativity'? No problem, we have a few Relativity products you can choose from. Or, we can just make things up.


In many posts we have discussed the Lorentz Transformation which is the basis of Relativity and was ushered into existence by the Dutchman Hendrik Lorentz after the failure of the 1887 Michelson-Morley interferometer experiment, to find the motion of the Earth. Of course Lorentz was awarded a Nobel Prize for saving the Copernican phenomena. His name and memory are now consumed by Einstotle, the holiest of the Saints within the Church of Scientism. Few have heard of the Dutchman.

 

Experiments with light and water have found no movement of this planet. The only way to explain this was to invoke ‘Relativity’, namely that an ‘observer’ on a moving body cannot calculate the movement or velocity of that body or object, in relationship to another moving body or object. This was the great saviour of Copernicanism. No Relativity, no Copernicanism, no Big noisy Banging.   More here

 

The Doppler effect does not prove heliocentricity and Redshifting could indicate a young universe

Other models easily explain the 'shifting of light' and the establishment dogma that Redshift means a receding object and distant time, is unsupported by the evidence.

 

The Doppler effect was discovered by Christian Doppler in 1842. This effect occurs when the source of wave emission moves closer or farther away from the observer. The waves are compressed when the source moves closer and stretched when the source moves farther away. This phenomenon does not occur, however, when the receiver moves closer or farther away from a stationary source since the waves coming to the receiver are the same in both cases.

Light acts in a similar manner. If the source of light is moving closer to the observer, the light waves are compressed or ‘blue-shifted’; while if the source of light is moving farther away from the observer, the light waves are stretched or ‘red-shifted’. This is the theory. Redshifting has little to do however with ‘age’, or even distance and recession. It is an emanation from the light spectrum at a frequency level. It does not confirm ‘time’ as explained below.

More here