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
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, 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
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 (Sagnac, Michelson-Morley, Dayton 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:
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.
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.
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.
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 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
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).
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
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