Calling Einstein Into Question Cosmology today has taken on a near religious belief structure where hypothetical matter and multiple dimensions are cited as fact in most reputable journals. The word "hypothetical" is rarely used anymore in press releases or even in scholarly journals.
Let us be clear. The following list of items are all HIGHLY hypothetical and have only the slimmest of ties to real world testable physics. Many of the items on this list, as they are currently modeled, contradict known laws of physics and nuclear chemistry that can be directly proven in laboratory experiments.
In fact nearly every aspect of what we "think" we currently know about how the universe works is based on hypothetical physics that have loads upon loads of "adjustable" parameters to equations that can be made to say nearly anything the physicists dream up. If something totally unexpected crops up, they assume it must be some new unknown force and label it a "dark" force, like dark matter or dark energy or dark flows. The way it currently works is physicists have a set of "constraints" they like to place on their fictional variables based on what is observed. Then they create a story using math to try and explain the observations. For instance, the standard "cold dark matter" model that is all the rage these days has no less than 5 "adjustable" parameters that go into its equations.
Prior to the modern age, physicists used what were calledepicycles to try and explain the movement of the planets in their orbits. When a planet was observed to get slightly out of line, a new epicycle was added to account for the error. This cycle of adding layer upon layer of "fixes" and corrections to current models has led us down the path of developing our own modern version of epicycles.   Einstein and Schwarzschild A Few Facts -Did you know Einstein wrote a published paper in a scholarly journal arguing against black holes? He never believed in them, with good reason. Should they exist, they would have invalidated his theories. It is a great heresy of modern physics to tie his name to these hypothetical objects. Einstein's paper showing black holes can not exist based on his own theories is posted in the peer reviewed papers section. In fact Einstein fully agreed with Karl Schwarzschild's solution to his Mercury orbit problem which shows that there is no way a black hole could exist and be in agreement with the principles of relativity. Shchwarzchild's original work, in English, which leaves no room for black holes can be found here. This fact should be astounding in itself. Two of the founding fathers of modern physics did not believe in the possibility of black holes and wrote published papers showing as much. -Did you know despite hundreds of millions spent in the search for gravitational waves (a wave of gravity that is required by Einstein's relativity) not one has ever been observed?
In fact just about every aspect of current cosmology when put to the test has failed to pass muster.
Black holes can be proposed to exist, yet we can't test for them. We can't see them, touch them, sense them, or in any way detect them. This leaves us with an untestable hypothesis. The same can be said of dark matter, dark energy, quark stars, and nearly everything else.
Theoretical physicists can postulate their existence and we are left with no way to prove them wrong.
This is not science.
Making an observation and then dreaming up an untestable conclusion is not science. Classic Tests A few tests Einstein's relativity has failed miserably:
The LIGO (gravitational wave observatory) has never detected a gravitational wave after 8 years of trying.
The CDMS project has never detected dark matter.
Gravity Probe B could not confirm frame dragging.
The Pioneer anomonly can not be explained.
In fact every major test of Einstein's relativity has for one reason or another failed. Scientists blame this on a myriad of causes, anything but the fact that Einstein's version of relativity might be wrong.
If we look at wiki's list of classical tests we can see that: 1. The perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit - can be deduced using steady state mechanics. In fact as I posted earlier, Schwarzschild's solution to the problem rules out the existence of black holes. 2. The deflection of light by the Sun - can be explained by various electrical plasma effects 3. The gravitational redshift of light - can also be explained in steady state models. There are several peer reviewed papers in my library covering this. Halton Arp's site also goes into great detail on this subject. These are not tests. They are observations. There is no way to prove that the observed phenomena are caused by effects of relativity because they have possible alternative explanations.
Gravitational lensing - has been shown by numerous astronomers to have serious flaws. Its another observation attributed to effects of relativity that also has a simpler alternative explanation. Halton Arp's site covers this extensively. This is an image of the famous Einstein Cross - What you are looking at is supposedly ONE quasar with an extremely high redshift (way behind the foreground galaxy) gravitationally lensed into FOUR objects. Seriously folks, if that isn't the biggest load of nonsense I've ever heard in my life I don't know what is. Standard cosmologists actually believe this stuff. If this isn't one quasar lensed into four objects, we must discard Einstein's relativity. There is observed rotation in the cross, the objects are point like and not oblong, and they are variable in their emissions. NONE of those features are predicted or accounted for by any current theory of gravitational lensing. You be the judge.  It takes true denial to turn a blind eye from the facts of this photograph. Again, its implications are profound. If this image is not a gravitational lens, it would COMPLETELY INVALIDATE our ideas of what redshift is, the age of the universe, and the big bang.
All it takes to do that is just this one image. Nothing else. Scientists however have been turning up HUNDEREDS of examples just like this one where it is obvious that redshift (the shifting of light towards the red end of the spectrum) does not equal distance. Those who speak out have their funding cut, their telescope time removed, their papers rejected, and are ostracized from the academic community for SPEAKING THE TRUTH. In this 1999 image you can see the clear clockwise rotation from the 91-94 images.  Don't expect too many more high rez photos of this object to be taken in the future. Lord knows what it looks like now. They are probably waiting for it to make a full rotation so they can claim it never rotated at all! Frame dragging tests - failed Cosmic Background Radiation - alternative simpler explanations exist that fit observation better, again morepapers covering this in the peer review section.
The ONLY effects of Einstein's relativity that could not possibly be explained in a steady state model aregravitational waves and frame dragging. That is it. Neither one of those effects has ever been proven despite hundreds of millions spent in an effort to do so. No matter how many tests the fans of Einstein may throw out there, the fact remains that the definitive tests of relativity have all failed for one reason or another. We've had 100 years to prove without any doubt that Einstein's version is the real deal. To date, it still has not been proven beyond any doubt. It’s important to have doubt and skepticism when searching for the truth. The more you dig the more you will find that most standard cosmologists are fantasy fiction writers rather than actual scientists. Gravity Is Not Constant?
I encourage you to dig more on your own. You will find that some very odd things keep rearing their ugly head over and over as scientists try to wrangle nature into Einstein's obtuse theory of warping space. One notable item is the fact that we can't pin the universal constant of the gravitational force down with any degree of accuracy. Measurements of the gravitational constant:  It doesn't look too "constant" to me. Einstein's theory declares that gravity must be a supremely constant force that does not change, just as the speed of light does not change. Einstein in fact ties the two together by stating gravity may not propagate at a speed faster than light. Remember what I said about scientists tying measurements to functions of light earlier? Well here we see the consequences of this. When measured by something as large and simple as a beam balance it was found to vary by nearly 1%! Scientists finally got sick of it and tied it to light using an atom interferometer. The effect of which is to say the yard stick itself is variable. Then they just simply "declared" what G is and all debate on the matter has ceased. For comparision, the 2007 atom interferometer test said G= 6.693 x 10–11 But wait! Here's another 2008 atom interferometer test that says G=6.667 x 10–11 Does it make any sense that gravity is measured using atoms beamed through an interferometer? Of course not! If you want to measure gravity you do it by measuring objects that are strongly affected by it! The nuclear and electromagnetic forces dominate at the scale of the atom. In fact particle physicists use an entirely different set of physics equations to deal with them! If this wasn't so serious it would almost be comical. How can the force of gravity not be known to any high degree of accuracy if it is supposedly a universal constant? 100 years of testing, still no solid data. The Aether and Einstein There are two famous experiments that modern physicists like to wheel out when anyone claims Einstein might be wrong (which is comical since Einstein never agreed with them in the first place) so lets go over the list real quick.
-The light beam interferometer test disproving the aether. -The clocks on GPS satellites. The light beam interferometer test is a big one. Prior to the theory of relativity, scientists assumed matter moved through, and was a part of, something called theluminiferous aether. The aether was a medium light waves were assumed to propagate through. A test for this medium was created using light beams. If the aether existed, the earths movement through it was supposed to drag light in one direction causing a measurable disturbance in the light beam. If the observed movement of the earth could be calculated by the measured disturbance, the aether could be deemed to be real.
An analogy would be thinking of aether being like the air that sound waves move through. Without air, there is no way for sound waves to propagate. Without aether, there is no way for light waves to propagate. This makes the explanation of light a simple matter in an aether based theory and one of the primary reasons scientists assumed it must exist. Light can be fairly well explained if the assumptions are made that light is a composite longitudinal wave propagating through an aether.
For comparison, Einstein's relativity says light waves propagate as photons which are "wave-particles" that are emitted from luminous sources. Exactly how these photons propagate as waves is extremely obtuse since there is no good way to describe how a wave could propagate without a medium to propagate through. I have yet to find a suitable explanation for it.
Scientists assumed the aether to be real because all the data observed up to this point had led them to conclude that matter inherently acted in a manner consistent with an infinite universe and a universal speed. All of Maxwell's equations, which are a set of laws dealing with electromagnetic forces, assume that the universe is infinite with a universal speed. This necessitated the need for a medium that wave functions could propagate through.
The famous Michelson–Morley experiment supposedly disproved the aether because it didn't find the expected fringe shift in the light beam. However it DID find some fringe shift, just not the expected amount. Most text books will flat out claim none was found and that is patently false. In fact a scientist by the name of Dayton Millerconducted a year long study on a mountain top repeatedly doing the same experiment over and over. It turns out he WAS able to calculate the earths observed movement using only his interferometer. A paper on his findings can be found in the peer review section of this web site.
While the expected amount of fringe shift was not found, Miller concluded there were various explainable reasons for this. In the end, how much fringe shift was found is immaterial because all that matters is that the observed movement of the earth can be calculated as demonstrated in this paper by Maurice Allais.
Numerous other interferometer experiments have been carried out since then; however, none of them took all of Millers findings into account that dealt with something called "entrainment" (basically a blanket of aether being pulled along by the earth) and the effects of altitude, obstructions, and sidereal time on the light beam and its readings all at the same time. Morely, Michelson, Hammar, Gale, and other physicists did not look into the possibility of a globally entrained aether, just object level entrainment aether. Nor did they conduct their experiments over a long period of time attempting to see if the movement of the earth could be calculated from the observed fringe shifts in their own experiments.
The claim that scientists have tried to replicate Millers work and failed is patently false. No full blown recreation of Millers work has ever been attempted.
I will be creating a section of this web site to deal specifically with all of the claims of disproof that can be levied against aether theory in the near future, but for the moment, its suffice to say that it still remains scientificallypossible. What we need to recognize here is at least thepossibility of an "entrained" aether existing.
Scientists lay claim to Occam's razor, which states "All things being equal, the simplest explanation tends to be the correct one." as reason enough to doubt the existence of an aether. The argument goes that since Einstein's relativity doesn't require an aether, it is a simpler explanation, and therefore does not need to be researched further. I submit that since Einstein's relativity has lead us down the path of multiple dimensions and black holes that it is Einstein's theory that is clearly far more complex than an aether based model.
I encourage you to research the matter more on your own. All we require is that it is possible, because that possibility will bear itself out as the evidence against Einstein continues to mount. As I will demonstrate, if Einstein is wrong, there are alternativepossible explanations out there that can account for this if scientists were to pursue them.
No test of relativity has ever returned a result that could conclusively rule out the possibility of an entrained aether existing. I'm highlighting the word possible over and over again because I'm not trying to prove an aether exists, I'm just trying to show it’s possible. I'll leave you to be the judge if an aether exists or not after you get done looking at the rest of the evidence presented on this web site.   Michelson and Miller So what are the implications?
According to Millers work, the implications are profound. It means a steady state universe that is infinite and timeless. It means no black holes, no neutron stars, or anything of the sort. His work has been buried and discredited over and over again but the truth of his results still stands. Facts are pesky things. They don't go away no matter how much some people may wish them to.
As for the satellite clocks, it turns out Lorentz version of relativity that assumes an aether exists and an infinite universe can also account for the clock speeds. In fact it turns out that Lorentz version accounts for them in a much simpler fashion than Einstein's version.
So in essence it doesn't prove anything since Einstein's version of relativity is directly derived from Lorentz version of relativity. That's right, Einstein's work is not totally original. He took the work Lorentz had done and then subverted it with some untestable assumptions. The underlying theories though are nearly the same. Dr Tom Van Flandern's site in the resources section also covers these two tests extensively.
Scientists have tied units of measurement to functions of light, thereby creating a state of affairs where if lights speed should fluctuate, so will the measuring stick used to test lights speed making it impossible to tell one way or the other if the speed of light has actually changed.
What you should take away from this page is that what we think we know is pure hypothetical conjecture without any solid irrefutable proof to back it up.
This leaves us free to look at competing models that could possibly explain the same observed phenomena that is currently attributed to effects of gravity (Einstein's relativity). The great question is do any of them provide simpler explanations for the same observations? If so we must as scientists follow Occam's razor and choose the simplest explanations as being the correct ones. |
Aether Research In Greek, 'Aithen' means to burn or shine The word 'aethere' was used by Romans and Greeks to mean the upper air which they regarded as pure and connected to a Sun that was driven through this aethere across the sky during the day, hence the relation to shining and burning (thus luminiferous Aether is nothing more than a distributed physical medium permeating the entire universe, endowing it [space] with measurable physical qualities H. A. Lorentz formulated an aether based version of special relativity, known as Lorentz Ether Theory MATTER IS MADE OF WAVES " The material Universe is solely made out of Aether "  The Greek derived word Aether is defined in the Webster Universal Dictionary as a: "hypothetical medium, supposed to fill space, by means of vibrations in which light and other forms of radiation are transmitted". Up until the latter part of the last century the 'Ether' theory was an established scientific fact. The Fundamental Discovery of How Shape Modifies Undifferentiated Universal Aether Into Electricity, Magnetism, and Nuclear Forces |
Einstein "Zionist Puppet" |
