Einstein's relativity as a hoax
0 2015-03-09 by AndersLindman
In Einstein's relativity, motion is relative to frames of reference. If you for example stand on Earth and watch a spaceship fly by in space, then Earth is your frame of reference, and the spaceship is the frame of reference for the pilot in the ship.
What, then, is the velocity, according to Einstein's relativity between say two photons approaching each other from opposite directions along the same line? It's always possible to postulate that the maximum relative velocity is c, the speed of light. But what does the math in Einstein's relativity say? The answer is that the velocity between the photons cannot be calculated with Einstein's relativity.
The cop out physicists use is to claim that photons have no frame of reference. How convenient. Another incredible claim in Einstein's relativity is that one event A can happen in a different order (before or after) another event B, depending on the observers' reference frames.
Does Einstein's relativity really describe how physics works? One conspiracy theory is that Einstein's relativity is a deliberate hoax.
Knowledge is power, and if you can keep the real knowledge within the classified world and give the public scientific community false theories as diversions your power will more easily remain even with future progress.
How would that have been possible? How can the whole public scientific community be fooled so monumentally? One example is GPS. The claim is that Einstein's relativity is compensated for by adjusting the clocks in the GPS satellites before launch. Very few people have access to the clocks in the satellites and it's easy to claim that an adjustment has been made when in reality it hasn't.
36 comments
7 Terex80 2015-03-09
Why don't you ask this in /r/askscientists ? There will be people who really know this stuff. Ask them about the photons
6 ct_warlock 2015-03-09
Please repost this in /r/physics so that they can explain to you the errors of your ways.
5 bovickles 2015-03-09
This...is just stupid.
-3 AndersLindman 2015-03-09
Scientists in the classified world may disagree with you. The power gained from diverting the public scientific community is considerable.
Here is a smaller example of manipulation of the public scientific community:
"According to John Kelsey (who was listed as author of NIST SP 800-90A together with Elaine Barker), the possibility of the backdoor by carefully chosen P and Q values was brought up at an ANSI X9.82 meeting. As a result, a way was specified for implementers to choose their own P and Q values.[14] It turned out later that the specific subtle formulation that NIST put into the standard meant that you could only get the crucial FIPS 140-2 validation of your implementation if you used the original compromised P and Q values.[15]" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dual_EC_DRBG#Timeline
8 bovickles 2015-03-09
If you want to prove your point dont compare it to other ones. Stick to your facts. How do you know that ALL scientists of the world are lying about gps calibrations based on relativity? Light is both a particle and wave making it hard to find it in one spot. Have you ever heard of the double slit experiment?
4 SquareHimself 2015-03-09
So is every other wave. It's not unique to light.
Actually, they admit fully that they use a geocentric model for GPS. GPS doesn't use relativity whatsoever.
2 AndersLindman 2015-03-09
No, no, not all scientists. As I wrote in the OP: "Very few people have access to the clocks in the satellites and it's easy to claim that an adjustment has been made when in reality it hasn't."
So only a few gatekeeper scientists are needed to manipulate the GPS satellites. Most scientists in public academia would believe the GPS satellites have been adjusted and therefore be monumentally fooled.
I believe photons are wave packets. A wave packet may appear as a particle but is in reality a result of nonlocal waves added together. So there are only waves. As Stephen Hawking wrote:
"Maybe that is our mistake: maybe there are no particle positions and velocities, but only waves. It is just that we try to fit the waves to our preconceived ideas of positions and velocities.The resulting mismatch is the cause of the apparent unpredictability." -- http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Stephen_Hawking
3 bovickles 2015-03-09
Are you a mathematician? Can you disprove the theories with math? And if "you beleive" in something it doesnt make it true in the scientific world at all. Science isn't a believe its a method for understanding the universe.
While it is okay to skeptical with things like e=mc2, because science is meant to disprove current facts as much it is to prove, it is irresponsible and ignorant to challenge things without being able to prove it with the method it was proven. In this case with math.
0 AndersLindman 2015-03-09
It's easy to show how the math in Einstein's relativity fails for photons, so the cop out they use is to claim that photons have no reference frame.
u = 1 / sqrt(1 - 1 / (v / c)2)
For a photon in vacuum, v = c.
u = 1 / sqrt(1 - 1 / (c / c)2) = 1 / sqrt(1 - 1) = 1 / 0. Division by zero!
2 cuivie 2015-03-09
But that bases on the presumption that the rest mass of a photon is zero, right? I'm no physicist, but has that ever been proven? Or can it simply be considered as "true"? I'll be happy if you can offer some insight on this question.
1 ThickTarget 2015-03-09
It's not a cop out. Relativity assumes 2 things, a) that all inertial frames are equivalent and b) the speed of light in vacuum is constant with respect to all inertial frames. Clearly the second isn't true for a photon so it explicitly isn't included in relativity.
3 SatansAliens 2015-03-09
/u/AndersLindman I suggest you spend 16 minutes listening to this. It is the story of a brilliant electrician and computer programmer who is self taught and decides that he has proven Einstein wrong. He discusses it with his wife and takes a year off of work to pursue getting a book published about his break through theory.
2 AndersLindman 2015-03-09
I will listen to it. It's important to have in mind that there are a lot of disinfo, controlled opposition, limited hangouts etc out there. But, yeah, he could have found some new flaws with Einstein's relativity so I will check it out.
1 SatansAliens 2015-03-09
I understand all about disinfo and controlled opposition (this is/r/conspiracy after all) Well it is very fair, it includes interviews with him and his wife as well as several physicists. It reminds me a lot of what you're saying.
2 Drytruth 2015-03-09
So because it can't describe relative motion of one photon from the perspective of another photon, the whole theory is wrong? That's not how logic works.
0 AndersLindman 2015-03-09
Einstein's relativity cannot describe the motion of any photon other than postulating c, the speed of light, as a constant.
1 Drytruth 2015-03-09
Einstein's Theory of Relativity wasn't meant to apply to v=c (because, as you said earlier, you can't divide by zero). Perhaps that's why you're so confused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photon
-1 AndersLindman 2015-03-09
The math in Einstein's relativity unable to deal with the velocity of photons was of course a limitation already from the beginning. It's a cop out. Also, Einstein's general relativity can't explain inertia, and they use some kind of more messy cop out for that.
1 Drytruth 2015-03-09
Is Einstein's Theory of Relativity supposed to deal directly with photons from the initial frame of other photons?
0 SquareHimself 2015-03-09
/r/Geocentrism
-2 AndersLindman 2015-03-09
Geocentrism is false because the public scientific community can verify that the earth orbits the sun. A recent claim used by the geocentrists is that the cosmic microwave background (CMB) is lopsided and aligned with our solar system. The real cause I believe is that radiation from warm dark matter contributes to the CMB.
3 SquareHimself 2015-03-09
Incorrect. The evidence suggests a stationary earth.
It is. Check this animation.
There is universal alignment with the earth.
Dark matter doesn't exist. They can't prove it exists and the mystery is solved by having earth at the center of the universe and stationary. It's a consequence of relativity only, and realativity is a farce developed to avoid admitting the earth is stationary. It was born out of necessity to make the earth move when Michelson-Morley's experiments showed it didn't.
Without relativity, the universe is undeniably geocentric with a stationary earth.
6 AndersLindman 2015-03-09
That's the CMB alignment I mentioned. It has been confirmed by the Planck space observatory. It does NOT however prove geocentrism.
Without dark matter, galaxies would be unable to keep their shapes. Some have suggested modifying the law of gravity, such as MOND. To me that's just a messy ad hoc attempt to match observed data by modifying the equations. And:
"The most serious problem facing Milgrom's law is that it cannot completely eliminate the need for dark matter in all astrophysical systems: galaxy clusters show a residual mass discrepancy even when analysed using MOND.[2]" -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_Newtonian_dynamics#Outstanding_problems_for_MOND
3 SquareHimself 2015-03-09
It proves we are in the center of the universe.
Given current theory, sure. Current theory is horribly wrong, however.
With a stationary earth, we don't need dark matter anymore. Here are the new physics being proposed to replace the old, outdated, incorrect theories of relativity. (This paper supports your case, btw)
I'm a flat earther, but if you choose the ball then this is the way to go.
3 AndersLindman 2015-03-09
I agree with this part: "... the inconsistency of SR is evident immediately from its two premises, ..."
But the CMB alignment although puzzling for mainstream astronomers can easily be explained with warm dark matter I believe.
It would be interesting to compare the CMB alignment with our solar system's alignment and position in relation to the Milky Way galaxy. If my hypothesis is correct, then the CMB can be aligned with dark matter in the Milky Way galaxy.
2 SquareHimself 2015-03-09
Post this explanation in /r/geocentrism to be discussed then. Otherwise I'll have to assume you're making shit up. I haven't heard of it and neither have they.
It's aligned with the ecliptic and equinox planes of the earth.
3 AndersLindman 2015-03-09
My dark matter hypothesis isn't even something mentioned by mainstream scientists, so the people at /r/geocentrism would likely directly dismiss the idea.
Plane of the Ecliptic Tilted on Celestial Sphere -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-TtcfmbrkI
How does earth's ecliptic plane align with the plane of the Milky Way? I found this:
"... the plane of the ecliptic is tilted roughly towards the direction of the solar system's orbital motion around the galaxy." -- https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/the-ecliptic-and-the-galactic-planes.689810/
0 SquareHimself 2015-03-09
The universe aligns with the earth, not just the milky way.
Here is the CMB and here is the solar system.
It's all aligned with the earths' planes.
Post it there anyways.
3 AndersLindman 2015-03-09
Nice illustrations. I have difficulty grasping the alignment though.
With the warm dark matter hypothesis, dark matter closer to earth will contribute more radiation effect. So a dark matter halo around earth could produce the CMB dipole. Alternatively it's dark matter from the whole Milky Way galaxy that produces the lopsided CMB, but that requires that earth's ecliptic plane is aligned with the Milky Way in such way, and that may not be the case.
2 SquareHimself 2015-03-09
As your attorney, I advise you to wander on over to /r/geocentrism and study the material there. I advise you to visit Galileo Was Wrong and watch this film about the CMB radiation when it reaches a theater near you.
You're already about three-quarters of the way to geocentrism, so as your attorney it is imperative that you understand that geocentrism is the conclusion you're headed towards on this path of yours. The geocentric solution solves the problem of dark matter, dark energy, relativity contradictions and paradoxes... it fixes everything. The evidence demonstrates a stationary earth.
This red pill should come in handy. Go ahead and take it; we'll be there by the time it kicks in...
3 AndersLindman 2015-03-09
Ha, some centuries ago scientists desperately tried to cling to the geocentric model by inventing ever more complicated epicycle theories. Similar to how scientists today struggle with trying to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics.
I will take a look at the sources though. It will be fun to debunk geocentrism.
0 Akareyon 2015-03-09
Don't even try :-P
I've been lurking there for quite some time, and... what can I say. You have valid concerns about relativity, you'll find good stuff over at /r/geocentrism, and enjoy the evidence they bring forward, imagine what if... they're right?
I do that often as a spiritual exercise. I ain't a believer, but right now I'm in a split between expanding earth, hollow earth and holofractal/plasma/electric universe.
Anything but Einstein's mathemagical mess. He divides by zero a little too often for my taste.
-1 LOLHOLOHOAX 2015-03-09
"Dark Matter"
"Strong Force"
"Weak Force"
"Gravity"
LOL
"science"
1 LOLHOLOHOAX 2015-03-09
lol
0 TheRightToBearArms 2015-03-09
I think you are right : /
0 Ifco 2015-03-09
Reminds me of that line in the star trek movie where old Spock helps adjust the equation to teleport between moving ships. "I didn't think about space as being the object that's moving." Or something like that.
-1 AndersLindman 2015-03-09
The math in Einstein's relativity unable to deal with the velocity of photons was of course a limitation already from the beginning. It's a cop out. Also, Einstein's general relativity can't explain inertia, and they use some kind of more messy cop out for that.