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
"That the earth is a sphere is shown by the fact that as one goes south the stars of the northern constellations appear to sink down, and those of the south to rise higher; and also by the fact that the shadow of the earth, as cast on the moon in eclipses, is circular." (Aristotle, On the Heavens)
Aristotle’s observations are correct and confirmed. He offers 3 good reasons why this planet is a spheroid, and these are discussed below.
The ‘Enlightenment’ based its animus against the ‘Schoolmen’ on the idea that the medieval era ‘slavishly followed’ Aristotle. Unlike the Muslims and Arabs, the European medieval scholars did not. Beginning in the 12th century, Christians translated, analysed, experimented with, and eventually overturned, Aristotlelian physics.
However, some astronomical observations made by Aristotle, or the ‘teacher’, some 2500 years ago, are entirely valid and these informed medieval and early modern astronomy. There is nothing ‘dark’ about that. Use what works. Reject what does not. Given the vast quantity of Aristotle’s work, this analysis does take time.
The Flat Earth question is related to Relativity and some of the topics we have analysed in over 100 posts on the Einstein-fraud. Essentially, much of ‘science’ is about philosophy and the filtering, interpreting and modelling of phenomena through world-views and agendas. The same applies to how Flat Earthers ingest and transform experiential data and observations. More here
“A more intriguing instance of this so-called “time dilation” is the well- known ‘twin paradox,’ where one of two twins goes for a journey and returns to find himself younger than his brother who remained behind. This case allows more scope for muddled thinking because acceleration can be brought into the discussion.
Einstein maintained the greater youthfulness of the travelling twin, and admitted that it contradicts the principle of relativity, saying that acceleration must be the cause (Einstein 1918). In this he has been followed by relativists in a long controversy in many journals, much of which ably sustains the character of earlier speculations … as “monstrous”. (Max Born 1956).
The ‘muddled thinking’ of Relativity, if one can term obstruse, unproven, illogical, tautological and fraudulent theory as ‘thinking’. As Born states, the idea of the ‘twin paradox’ based on ‘time dilation’ makes little sense (more below). We discussed the tautological aspects of time dilation in the previous post. In this post we will extend this analysis and eviscerate the entire concept.
(discussed here in some mathematical detail as well)
The Special Theory of Relativity (STR) proposes that fast moving objects will ‘age’ more slowly than slower objects. ‘Fast moving’ always means at the ‘speed of light’ for Einstein. A travelling ‘twin’, rocketing off into deep space, will age more slowly than the sibling twin back on Earth returning from his voyage ‘younger’ in actual age and appearance.
The ‘twin paradox’ is probably the most famous implication emanating from STR. It would mean that the age of the cosmos is extremely different than Earth time. A few thousand years on this planet might well equate into millions or billions in space time. The author fully agrees that is likely the case, but it has nothing to do with Einstein or Relativity. We can explain this from gravity and energy, and the infinite speed of light.
There is no way to verify the twin paradox of course. Supposedly this phenomenon was ‘validated’ in 1971 using atomic clocks on commercial flights but this is untrue. This experiment (Hafele-Keating) simply demonstrated that gravity and its effect on instrumentation had a small, almost infinitesimal impact on clocking within the Earth’s multi-layered atmosphere. More here
“The Michelson-Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassing alternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theory which had explained so many things about electricity, magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining the ether they had to abandon the still more venerable Copernican theory that the earth is in motion.
To many physicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood still than that waves – light waves, electromagnetic waves – could exist without a medium to sustain them. It was a serious dilemma and one that split scientific thought for a quarter century. Many new hypotheses were advanced and rejected.
The experiment was tried again by Morley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of the earth through the ether was zero.”
Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, p. 44
The quote above dear friends, is the heart of the matter.
It is never taught why the philosophical-mathematical chimera of ‘Relativity’ was erected as dogmatic gospel truth, more divine than any creed emanating from the Catholic Church. The idempotent galvanising factor is the reality that we on this globe have not, and cannot, mechanically measure, using light interference experiments, a movement of this planet through the heavens. Relativity was conjured by the mathigicians to explain this anomaly.
As a ‘science’ Relativity has no merit, as about 1000 pages on this substack attest and establish. It was, and still is, a maths game of illusion.
One of the most risible and inane scientistic marketing claims is that Einstein was a ‘genius’ and the ‘greatest scientist ever’. Neither is true. He was not a practical scientist, and did not build a single experiment to prove this anti-scientific ‘thought experiments’.
‘The’ Einstein created elaborate tensor-calculus models which mean nothing. The author uses the same in his quotidian existence. The author can take any tensor model, distort it, beat it, torture it and force it to produce anything he wants. It does not mean it is ‘science’. More here