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, 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