Relativity - Fact or Fiction?

Relativity

  • Fact

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Fiction

    Votes: 6 100.0%

  • Total voters
    6

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
110
Reactions
523
Relativity

Reference

George Ellis, “Thinking Globally, Acting Universally”
E. Eschini, “Foundations of Many Generations”
Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned”
Eric Dubay, "The Atlantean Conspiracy"

“No theory can be proven, just disproven.”

“Man is so intelligent that he feels impelled to invent theories to account for what happens in the world.”

“It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts.”

“You were probably educated in the conventional economic theories of your period which were magnificent and most ingenious, but if you will pardon my saying so, they are all wrong.”

It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, no matter how eloquent the sums may be or how much “mathemagic” involved to make the claims believable. If it doesn’t work hand in hand with demonstrable experimentation, its WRONG!

Please find below some reference material I have put together, I would like to know what everyones thoughts on relativity is. Seems to be meagrely theory, proven incorrect numerous times but still taken as gospel from 99% of the scientific community.

The theory explains how to interpret motion between different places that are moving at constant speeds relative to each other – rather than relative to some sort of absolute ether (as Newton had assumed). While the laws of physics are universal, it says, different viewers will see the timing of events differently depending on how fast they are travelling. An event that would seem to take 1000 years when viewed from Earth may seem to take just a second for someone in a spacecraft travelling at great speed.

At the centre of Einstein’s theories is the fact that the speed of light is independent of the motion of the observer who is measuring the speed. This is strange, because common sense suggests that if you sit in your car alongside a railroad track, a train passing by will seem to be moving much faster than if you followed it in the same direction. However, if you instead sit and watch a light beam go by, it would move equally fast regardless of whether you were following it or not – a clear indication that something is wrong with common sense.

Around the turn of the 20th century, in order to save the dying heliocentric model from the conclusive experiments of Airy, Michelson, Morley, Gale, Sagnac, Kantor, Nordmeyer and others, Albert Einstein created his Special Theory of Relativity, a brilliant revision of heliocentricism which in one philosophical swoop banished the universal aether from scientific study replacing it with a form of relativism which allowed for heliocentricism and geocentricism to hold equal merit.

If there is no absolute aetheric medium within which all things exist, then hypothetically one can postulate complete relativism with regard to the movement of two objects, such as the Earth and Sun. At the time, the Michelson-Morley and Michelson-Gale experiments had already long measured and proven the existence of the aether, but the church of heliocentricism was not to be deterred, Einstein never tried to refute the experiments scientifically, choosing instead to object philosophically with his notion of “absolute relativity,” claiming that all uniform motion is relative and there exists no absolute state of rest anywhere in the universe.

Nowadays, just like the theory of heliocentricism, Einstein’s theory of relativity is accepted worldwide as gospel truth, even though he himself admitted geocentricism is equally justifiable:

Screenshot 2019-01-07 at 14.16.30.png

“The struggle, so violent in the early days of science, between the views of Ptolemy and Copernicus would then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used with equal justification. The two sentences, 'the sun is at rest and the earth moves,' or 'the sun moves and the earth is at rest,' would simply mean two different conventions concerning two different coordinate systems.”
-Albert Einstein

Screenshot 2019-01-07 at 13.54.18.png

When Einstein first introduced his theory of relativity to the world, he often used the analogy of a wagon rolling along the street as an illustration. “What we mean by relative motion,” he stated in a Princeton University lecture, “in a general sense is perfectly plain to everyone. If we think of a wagon moving along a street we know that it is possible to speak of the wagon at rest, and the street in motion, just as well as it is to speak of the wagon in motion and the street at rest. That, however, is a very special part of the ideas involved in the principle of Relativity.”

Screenshot 2019-01-07 at 13.53.58.png

“People need to be aware that there is a range of models that could explain the observations. For instance, I can construct you a spherically symmetrical universe with Earth at its centre, and you cannot disprove it based on observations. You can only exclude it on philosophical grounds. In my view there is absolutely nothing wrong in that. What I want to bring into the open is the fact that we are using philosophical criteria in choosing our models. A lot of cosmology tries to hide that.”
-George Ellis, “Thinking Globally, Acting Universally”

Einstein’s necessary modification to the heliocentric theory ultimately resulted in transforming it into the “acentric” theory of the universe, because the Sun was no longer the centre of anything, and all motion was only relative. Acentrists soon began postulating that not only is the Earth spinning 1,000 mph and revolving 67,000 mph around the Sun, but the Earth, Sun and entire solar system as a whole are simultaneously rotating around the Milky Way galaxy at 500,000 mph! Furthermore, the entire galaxy, with the Earth, Sun and entire solar system, are also simultaneously shooting 670,000,000 mph through the universe away from a Big Bang explosion at the beginning of time!

Screenshot 2019-01-07 at 13.55.04.png

“Most people who accept that the Earth is in motion believe it is a proven fact. They do not realize that not only has the motion of the Earth never been proven, but by the constructs of modern physics and cosmology cannot be proven. Again, even modern cosmology does not claim to be able to prove that the Earth is in motion. In fact the very best argument for Earth’s motion is based on pure ‘modesty’ not logic, observation and experience. If anyone could prove the Earth’s motion, that someone would become more famous than Einstein, Hawking and others. They may all be fools but even they would not make such an ignorant claim to proof of Earth’s motions, and those who do so don’t realise just how ignorant of physics they really are! Before folks go demonstrating how ignorant they are, they should consider: 1. The relationship between Mach’s principle and relativity. 2. The relationship between Gravity and Inertia, and Gravity and Acceleration (and the paradoxes that exist). 3. Relativity does not claim to prove Earth’s motions, in fact it ‘dictates’ the ridiculous idea that motion cannot be proven period. 4. Relativity proposes motion, it does not nor can it claim to disprove that the Earth is the centre of the universe! 5. Only those who are ignorant of physics attempt to make arguments based on weather patterns, ballistic trajectories, geosynchronous satellites, and Foucault’s pendulums for evidence of Earth’s motions! For all those ‘geniuses’ out there, not even Einstein would claim such stupidity.”
-Allen Daves

“That would be amusing if we read it in a comic paper, but when Professor Einstein says it in a lecture at the Princeton University, we are expected not to laugh; that is the only difference. It is silly, but I may not dismiss the matter with that remark, and so I will answer quite seriously that it is only possible for me to speak of the street moving while the wagon remains still - and to believe it - when I cast away all the experience of a lifetime and am no longer able to understand the evidence of my senses; which is insanity … Such self-deception as this is not reasoning; it is the negation of reason; which is the faculty of forming correct conclusions from things observed, judged by the light of experience. It is unworthy of our intelligence and a waste of our greatest gift; but that introduction serves very well to illustrate the kind of illusion that lies at the root of Relativity. When he suggested that the street might be moving while the wagon with its wheels revolving was standing still, he was asking us to imagine that in a similar manner the earth we stand upon might be moving while the stars that pass in the night stand still. It is a Case of Appeal, where Einstein appeals in the name of a convicted Copernican Astronomy against the judgment of Michelson - Morley, Nordmeyer, physics, fact, experience, observation and reason.”
-Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (65-66)

“The theory of the three [now four] motions of the Earth and subsequent ‘relativity,’ is the result of trying to cover up one lie by another. They say that as we whirl in London at the rate of nearly eleven miles a minute, we are shooting into space around the Sun at nearly twenty miles a second, and the Sun itself moves around a point in space, at the immense speed of 150,000,000 miles in a year, pulling our poor Earth with him at the added speed - the distance that separates us from the Sun - and in this maddening whirlwind of motions they try to apply Euclid’s spherical trigonometry to locate distances - which data was intended by Euclid to determine fixed points only - with the result that they have brought out wild calculations which have been fostered dogmatically on a gullible World, but are about as infallible as the utterances of Borgia.”
-E. Eschini, “Foundations of Many Generations” (7)


On the surface relativity may seem plausible enough, especially when presented by a charismatic character of Einstein’s caliber, but is it really so simple and straight-forward? In fact Einstein’s theory of relativity is so complicated and convoluted that when it first came to the public’s attention, it was said that there were probably less than a dozen people on Earth capable of understanding it!

After Einstein presented his theory to the Royal Astronomical Society, philanthropist Eugene Higgins offered a prize of $5,000 for the best explanation of relativity, in essay form, describing it so the general public could understand what it was all about. Prize winner Mr. L. Bolton himself admitted that “even when stated in its simplest form, it remains a tough proposition.”

Screenshot 2019-01-07 at 13.54.33.png

Along with Einstein’s denial of the aether and anything absolute (except the absoluteness of relativity), he had to create a litany of new terms and ideas, each depending upon another and contributing to support the whole. For example, Einstein claimed there was no aether, that time is a fourth spacial dimension, that “infinity” and “eternity” do not exist, and that light is a material thing. This meant that time must be added to the three dimensions of length, breadth, and thickness, that “space” be renamed a “continuum,” and “points” in the “space-time continuum” be renamed to “events.”

“What we have always known as a ‘point’ in the terms of Euclid, Einstein calls an ‘event!’ but if words have any meaning a point and an event are two totally different things; for a point is a mark, a spot or place, and is only concerned in the consideration of material things; while an event is an occurrence, it is something that happens. There is as much difference between them as there is between the sentence ‘This is a barrel of apples,’ and ‘These apples came from New Zealand.’ While claiming ‘time’ as a fourth dimension, Einstein explains that ‘by dimension we must understand merely one of four independent quantities which locate an event in space.’ This is to imply that the other three dimensions which are in common use are independent quantities, which is not the case; for length, breadth and thickness are essentially found in combination; they co-exist in each and every physical thing, so that they are related - hence they are not independent quantities. On the contrary, time IS an independent quantity. It is independent of any one, or all, the three proportions of material things, it is not in any way related; and therefore cannot be used as a fourth dimension.”
-Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (69-70)

Einstein’s theory of relativity claims that light is a material thing which therefore has weight and is subject to gravity. This idea meant starlight could now bend under its own weight and curve its path based on the distance and mass of objects along its trajectory, which allowed heliocentrists like Einstein to claim stars are in reality not where they appear to be, and that with this new geometry the stars must be moved to much farther away than previously assumed.

“Consequently the heavenly bodies may be much further away than they have hitherto been supposed to be, and every method which is based upon the geometry of Euclid and the triangulation of Hipparchus will fail to discover the distance to a star; because its real position is no longer known. Wherefore Einstein has invented a new kind of geometry, in order to calculate the positions of the stars by what is nothing more or less than metaphysics.”
-Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (66-67)

Einstein’s “Law of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light” states that light always travels at the same speed, 186,414 miles per second (671,090,400 miles per hour), but Einstein also claims that gravity causes light to bend towards massive objects along its trajectory. If a ray of light can be said to bend, curve, or deviate from its course due to the gravitational pull of masses in its path, it must by necessity accelerate when approaching and decelerate when receding from these things. However, if light can bend under its own weight, or under the law of gravitation, as Einstein claims it does, then it is not and cannot be absolute.

“Strangely enough, while Einstein claims that everything is in motion and nothing is stable, he allows one thing, and one thing only, to remain outside the realm of relativity, independent of everything else; He claims that the velocity of light is constant under all circumstances, and therefore is absolute. This is a blunder of the first magnitude, but I do not imagine that he fell into it through any oversight; for it is quite evident that he was driven into this false position. He was compelled to say that the velocity of light is constant, because, if he did not his new geometry would be useless … We are told that light is a material thing, and that a beam of light is deflected from a straight line by the gravitation of any and every thing that lies near its course as it passes within their sphere of influence; and we are further assured that light always maintains a uniform speed of 186,414 miles a second. We have, however, to remind Professor Einstein that this was determined as the result of experiments by the physicists - Fizeau, Foucalt, Cornu, Michelson, and Newcomb, all of which experiments were conducted within the earth’s atmosphere, on terra-firma. In all these experiments a ray of light was reflected between two mirrors several miles apart, so that it had to pass to and fro always through the atmosphere, and it is not to be supposed that light, or anything else, can travel at the same speed through the air as it would through the vacuum Einstein supposes space to be. Let us reverse this in order to realise it better. It is not to be supposed that any material thing travels at no greater speed through a vacuum than it does through air, which has a certain amount of density or opacity. If anything does not distinguish the difference between air and a vacuum, then it is not a material thing; it cannot be matter. On the other hand, anything that is matter must of necessity make such a distinction, and in that case its velocity cannot be constant.”
-Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (70)

Conventional wisdom before Einstein’s theory was that light was not a material thing, that it discharged in a straight line in every direction from the source, that it could not be influenced by gravity, could not bend, curve, or be deflected from its course by anything; As Lord Kelvin said, “Light diverges from a luminous centre outwards in all directions.” Its velocity may be affected according to the density of the medium through which it passes, but this fact simply proves Einstein’s “Law of the Constancy of the Velocity of Light” is incorrect.

“The length of the course used by Newcomb in the final determination of the Velocity of Light was 7.44242 kilometres. If the ray of light had deviated by a hair’s-breadth from an absolutely straight line, it never could have passed through the interstices between the very fine teeth of his revolving wheel, or return precisely to the appointed spot on his sending and receiving mirrors, which were 3.72121 kilometres apart. The fact that the ray of light did pass from mirror to mirror, and through the wheel, proves that it maintained a straight line; hence it is certain that it was not deflected from its course by the gravitation of the earth between the two mirrors; wherefore it is obvious that it was not affected by gravitation. So we find that the very experiments by which the accepted 186,414 miles per second as the Velocity of Light was measured - experiments which were carried out with the utmost painstaking and minute attention to detail - prove that a ray of light is not influenced by the gravitation of the earth in the slightest degree. Therefore, if those experiments were good enough to warrant all the world in accepting the ‘Velocity of Light’ they may be equally well adduced as proof that a ray of light does not bend by its own weight; and that light is not affected by gravitation.”
-Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (71)

"As for Einstein, if you want to believe that lengths shrink when an object moves, time changes in the process, and its mass increases, just so you can explain the anomalies of Michelson's experiment, that's your privilege, but I'd just as soon answer it by saying that mass, time and length stay the same and the Earth isn't moving, and I'm just as 'scientific' as you for saying so."
-Robert Sungenis

“Relativity is clever; but it belongs to the same category as Newton’s Law of Gravitation and the Kant-Herschell-Laplace Nebular Hypothesis, in as far as it is a superfine effort of the imagination seeking to maintain an impossible theory of the universe in defiance of every fact against it.”
-Gerrard Hickson, “Kings Dethroned” (65)

“A 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 brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists"
- Nikola Tesla

"I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."
- Nikola Tesla

Theory of Theory

Law: A descriptive generalisation about how some aspect of the natural world behaves under stated circumstances.

Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of SOME aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.

Key word being SOME not ALL.

Criticism of the theory of relativity - Wikipedia

The criticism has always been there and still is. It’s the only thing propping up the heliocentric model. We are undoubtedly the centre of the universe, all luminaries rotate above out head.

Screenshot 2019-01-07 at 14.19.59.png

"In short, the sun, moon, and stars are actually doing precisely what everyone throughout all history has seen them do. We do not believe what our eyes tell us because we have been taught a counterfeit system which demands that we believe what has never been confirmed by observation or experiment. That counterfeit system demands that the Earth rotate on an 'axis' every 24 hours at a speed of over 1000 MPH at the equator. No one has ever, ever, ever seen or felt such movement (nor seen or felt the 67,000MPH speed of the Earth's alleged orbit around the sun or its 500,000 MPH alleged speed around a galaxy or its retreat from an alleged 'Big Bang' at over 670,000,000 MPH!). Remember, no experiment has ever shown the earth to be moving. Add to that the fact that the alleged rotational speed we've all been taught as scientific fact MUST decrease every inch or mile one goes north or south of the equator, and it becomes readily apparent that such things as accurate aerial bombing in WWII (down a chimney from 25,000 feet with a plane going any direction at high speed) would have been impossible if calculated on an earth moving below at several hundred MPH and changing constantly with the latitude."
-Marshall Hall, "A Small, Young Universe After All"

TH
 
Last edited:

Jim Duyer

Well-known member
Messages
181
Reactions
468
I believe it to be one of the biggest cons of the twentieth century. Tesla made a comment on it, as being a foolish idea, and then provided information that he was able to bounce a radio signal around the world at greater than light speeds. Nobody seems to have done the math and understood his comment, or perhaps they simply chose to ignore it. Only on Earth, and only in the minds of those who follow Einstein is there a speed limit to light waves (or radio waves, same thing) in motion.
 

Paracelsus

Well-known member
Messages
344
Reactions
1,530
Here is the major crux of The General Theory of Relativity. It is based on the priciple of "Spooky Action-at-a-Distance," in which particles at even an infinite distance apart can still influence eachother despite being in a vacuum. In this model you have to have the speed of light in order to separate "matter." Even though, in reality, you have phenomena like transverse waves and especially Viktor Grebbinikov's Cavernous Structure Effect affecting matter within a vacuum. If the matter is confined - yet still being clearly affected - what gives?

The Aether, it is the most pervasive substance in the universe and Michelson and Morley did find it. They found anomalies that didn't correspond to the "null effect" they were expecting to find. And Dayton Miller absolutely did find it.
Michelson-Morley & the Story of the Aether Theory

The Aether supporters included:
Paracelsus
Isaac Newton
Nikola Tesla
Oliver Heaviside
J.J. Thompson
John Ernst Worrell Keely

...and yes, even Einstein (that Khazar fraud knew it was there!)
 
Last edited:

sonoman

Well-known member
Messages
312
Reactions
711
how does the geocentric modelers explain all the old astronomical/zodiac observations of the many isolated peoples from all over the earth that corroborate, verify, confirm each other?

not that I subscribe to Einsteins work on relativity etc. but c'mon.. throw everything out from all the previous astrologers etc. and start from scratch?

something is up with this FE 'movement' and it aint as innocent as it might seem IMO
 
OP
TH Dialectic

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
110
Reactions
523
how does the geocentric modelers explain all the old astronomical/zodiac observations of the many isolated peoples from all over the earth that corroborate, verify, confirm each other?
What observations are these? I was under the impression that all of the stars have remained fixed since "records" began. By records I’m either talking anecdotal or the documented work of said individuals.

Could you provide me with these? I was under the impression that no parallax has ever been detected?


For example, Danish Astronomer Tycho Brahe famously argued against the heliocentric theory in his time, positing that if the Earth revolved in an orbit round the Sun, the change in relative position of the stars after 6 months of orbital motion could not fail to be seen. He argued that the stars should seem to separate as we approach and come together as we recede. In actual fact, however, after almost two hundred million miles of supposed orbit around the Sun, not a single inch of parallax can be detected in the stars! 


“If the earth is at a given point in space on say January 1st, and according to present-day science, at a distance of 190,000,000 miles from that point six months afterwards, it follows that the relative position and directions of the stars will have greatly changed, however small the angle of parallax may be. THAT THIS GREAT CHANGE IS NOWHERE APPARENT, AND HAS NEVER BEEN OBSERVED, incontestably proves that the earth is at rest - that it does not move in an orbit round the sun.”
-Thomas Winship, “Zetetic Cosmogeny” (67)

TH
 

sonoman

Well-known member
Messages
312
Reactions
711
Could you provide me with these? I was under the impression that no parallax has ever been detected?[/B]
not right off the top of my head. FE was fairly easy for me to overcome using only firsthand experience, I wrote about how I did just that on another thread and its reproducable/verifiable. this 'centrality' deal is not high up on my list of priorities but I can see why its important.

but all we have to work with is hearsay so I will contemplate this now when I have some time to and try to come up with a way that I can determine geo or helio for myself using no outside in form ation like I did with FE vs SE.

I need a reasonable motivation to take time away from other studies to even begin to contemplate such centrality, are you aware of anything that might fit the bill for it?

there has to be a way to do this for ourselves otherwise we are stuck with trust and belief of pure hearsay. (second hand accounts)

Im also dealing with the ME changes too, showing to me how nothing is 'true' from an over-all perspective, how even my own firsthand experience of SE might be limited in the grand scheme of things. and perhaps more importantly, why bother with all rabbit holes at all? seeking outwardly might just be a huge waste of energy?

p.s. more inline to this topic:

The experimental means of theoretical physics are still based in the linearly closed system of the western knowledge system. Or as Lu K'uan Yü states, "It is very regrettable that...in the minds of some modern commentators who like to link it [gatha, poem of enlightenment] with Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity which has no place in the Mind Dharma."131 Sharona Ben-Tov quotes Gary Zukav who claims that, "physicists are doing more than 'discovering the endless diversity of nature,' They are dancing with Kali, the Divine Mother."
from: Drew Hempel ~ Epicenters of Justice -- Sound-Current Non-Dualism
 
Last edited:

Onijunbei

Well-known member
Messages
175
Reactions
585
Theories are thoughts that haven't been proven to be reality.

Gravity is the main one... Never been proven but people still come up with more theories based on that theory.
E =mc2 is just a reduction of planks equation which is also... a theory.
Since when does light travel?
Particle Smartical...
Science has been coming up with bullshit ever since they started to convince people that there is no Creator...
 
OP
TH Dialectic

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
110
Reactions
523
All science must be practical and measurable. Non of the claims to support the globe are either. I'm sure that if we lived on a sphere, falling away from us at every point it would be a pretty self evident proof.

I'm not trying to perpetuate any division between anyone, simply trying to open people's eyes to how much faith they have in institutions. Modern space science is a religion, NASA and astrophysasists have taken their roles as high priests, continuously pushing their narratives with absolutely no demonstrable science involved. Pure belief based claims, the irony behind atheists living their life under the guise of faith is quite hilarious.

I have had many an open conversation with folk around geocentrisism but the term "flat earth" has people so triggered that they will fire around more appeals to ignorance than anything else! If your lucky you may get a few ad hominems in your general direction but other than that, nothing!

Some are quick to jump to questioning their motives...

"why would they be lying to us?"

why does anyone lie?

Although it seems pretty self evident to me, you wouldn't bust in to a crime scene and start jumping to motives before investigating the crime scene. People like to believe they are being told the truth, when you have lived a certain existence for so long it's easier to be ignorant than admit you have had the wool pulled over your eyes.

"It's easier to fool people than it is to convince people they have been fooled" - Mark Tawin

These conversations shouldn't ever be emotionally driven, if I'm talking about pure objectivity how can we even have a "debate" to begin with? So again, we come back to the fact that if something is objectively true, it's not an idea. Which brings me back round to my original point on what science actually is. Science has to be quantifiable, it must have experimentation to support its claims, it must be empirical, science based on visuals and mathematics alone is not a natural science.

TH
 
Last edited:

sonoman

Well-known member
Messages
312
Reactions
711
one things for sure. the amount of effort TH puts into this subject in one direction is notable and remarkable.
 
OP
TH Dialectic

TH Dialectic

Well-known member
Messages
110
Reactions
523
one things for sure. the amount of effort TH puts into this subject in one direction is notable and remarkable.
An unexamined life is not worth living.
Post automatically merged:

one things for sure. the amount of effort TH puts into this subject in one direction is notable and remarkable.
When the "otherside" is based on pure fictacious belief systems, why would I support any of their arguments?

Surely thats an oxymoron?

TH
 
Last edited:

Top