The Truth about Einstein, Relativity, and 20'th Century Magic Physics

https://thelethaltext.me/2017/07/26/tesla-erasure/

https://thelethaltext.me/2017/08/06/einstein/

These articles strike me as the best deconstruction of Einstein that I've come across. It wouldn't be difficult to miss some of the fine points of this articles. For one thing, special relativity is billed as a means of adapting physics to the supposed failure of the Michelson/Moreley experiment. The second article mentions Dayton Miller in passing and what that means is that Miller, one of the best physicists of the first half of the 20th century, reran the experiment with better equipment and at a substantially higher altitude (to eliminates the effect of gravitational drag from the planet) and, by all accounts, the experiment did not fail and that hard reality is generally missing from what they tell the public about relativity.

http://www.orgonelab.org/miller.htm

Ron Hatch (who holds most of the meaningful patents for GPS) describes relativity is a bunch of bullshit, noting that GPS works entirely on Newtonian physics and could not be made to work on Einsteinian/relativistic physics.

Also on record for generally viewing relativity as a bunch of bullshit is Nicola Tesla, the real scientific genius of the last 150 years or thereabouts and the second article contains a couple of dynamite quotes from Tesla:

Einstein compensated by inventing the surreal notion of ‘curved space’. This concept would appear, prima facie, absurd. I know – we’re supposed to say ‘counterintuitive’.

Tesla, for one, wasn’t buying that mealy-mouthed cover for the new theory’s glaring flaws. The grandiloquent Tesla needed to call on none of his famous rhetoric and dismissed it in a single, plain sentence:

“I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it has no properties.”

and

“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”

In interviews in the New York Sun and New York Times in 1935 Tesla called Relativity “a mass of error and deceptive ideas,” asserting that not a single one of its propositions had been proved. Relativity, he said, “wraps all these errors and fallacies and clothes them in magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king. Its exponents are very brilliant men, but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”

Lewis Carrol Epstein ("Relativity Visualized") describes relativity using the analogy of a house in which every window and door worked other than for one door which was binding. You would normally think in terms of planing the one door until it worked but Epstein notes that you could also go to Harbor Freight and purchase a couple of hundred small jacks, jack the house until the one door worked properly, and then readjust every other door and window in the house, which is basically what Einstein was doing. In the analogy, the one problematic door was light, and all of the other doors and windows were the various things which live in the house of physics (mass, velocity, distance, time...) Epstein claims that relativity is the one case you will ever find in which that kind of an approach makes sense but ordinary logic and Occam's principle both demand that there could never be such a case.

Einstein's biggest problems were probably with gravity. Einstein claimed that information could not be transmitted faster than this speed of light number (C) but gravity propagates instantaneously to within our ability to measure it. Plainly any time you take one step, you are sending a gravitational message out into the void at infinite or near infinite speed and somebody on the far side of our galaxy with a sufficiently sensitive instrument could read that message in real time. There is also the question of Ralph Sansbury's experiments indicating the existence of sub electron particles, the computed necessary velocity of which would get you from here to Andromeda in one or two seconds. That doesn't appear to fit Einstein's requirements either...

Likewise, there is no way to start with a claim of gravity being a differential geometry thing of some sort and believe that gravity could ever have undergone a major change on our own planet within geologically recent time; nonetheless, it is an easy demonstration that gravity HAS in fact undergone such a change and that a large dinosaur would be crushed by his own weight in our present gravity. Moreover, apologists do not have 65 million years to try to account for such a change in gravity. Researchers have been finding soft tissue in dinosaur remains since 2006 and there have been several documented cases of radiocarbon dates being determined for such remains and all those dates come in sight a range of 20,000 to 40,000 years.

There is a little club consisting of authors of dead science theories from past centuries and Charles Darwin is not the only member of that club. Albert Einstein is also a member and, in my view, will not be treated well by history of science books in future time.

Aside from all of that, there is the question of the bestiary of magical physics animals which has grown up around the misdirected theory of relativity and also around the flawed prejudice inherited from past centuries that gravity mainly governs the cosmos and that electrical and magnetic forces and phenomena are relegated to minor roles. In real life, gravity is by forty orders of magnitude the weakest force in nature; asking gravity to hold a galaxy together or to form up a solar system from cosmic dust is like asking the littlest kid in the school to do the power lifting event. Things like black holes and event horizons, dark matter, dark energy, singularities, string theory, WIMPS (weakly interacting massive particles), MACHOs (Massive Compact Halo Objects), neutron stars, gravitational collapse, gravitons, gravity waves, quantum gravity, gravitational lensing, gravitational radiation, the Schwarzschild Radius, anti-gravity, and the like are basically similar to the unicorns and centaurs of medieval times and will all be gone from science books in a couple of decades.

Once you get your head around the idea that electromagnetic forces hold galaxies together, there is no further psychic or mathematical need for things like dark matter. Don Scott of the thunderbolts group refers to dark matter as "Fabulous Ad-hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories", or FAIRIE DUST, which is basically what it is.

Stephen Crothers has demolished the mathematical basis for believing in black holes:
http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com

There isn't any physical basis for believing in black holes.

Likewise there is no rational reason to believe in any sort of a "Big Bang":
http://www.bigbangneverhappened.org

The big bang idea is bad physics and bad theology rolled into a package and should have been rejected on day one on purely philosophical grounds. Having all the mass of the universe collapsed to a point would in fact be the mother of all black holes (if there was such a thing as a black hole) and nothing would ever "bang" its way out of that. Likewise for a supposedly omniscient God, at any particular point in time, to suddenly determine that it would be cool to create a universe while the idea had never occurred to him aforehand, is hugely problematical.

In fact, the big bang idea was never based on anything better than the claim of an expanding universe which itself has been totally debunked by the works of Halton Arp, that is, by finding high and low redshift objects which are clearly part and parcel of the same things.