Crucial Absurdity in Einstein's General Relativity

Dec 27, 2022
83
2
35
Einsteinian physics: The speed of light DECREASES as the source of gravity is approached, and increases in the opposite direction:

"Thus, as φ becomes increasingly negative (i.e., as the magnitude of the potential increases), the radial "speed of light" c_r defined in terms of the Schwarzschild parameters t and r is reduced to less than the nominal value of c." https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm

"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached...If the photon, the 'particle' of light, is thought of as behaving like a massive object, it would indeed be accelerated to higher speeds as it falls toward a black hole. However, the photon has no mass and so behaves in a manner that is not intuitively obvious." http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm

"The change in speed of light with change in height is dc/dh=g/c."
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ2SVPahBzg


Newtonian physics: The speed of light INCREASES as the source of gravity is approached, and decreases in the opposite direction. This is so obvious that physicists often admit it explicitly, ignoring for a while Einstein's general relativity:

James Hartle, Gravity: An Introduction to Einstein's General Relativity, p. 113: "Light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." https://www.amazon.com/Gravity-Introduction-Einsteins-General-Relativity/dp/0805386629

"We conclude, therefore, that A BEAM OF LIGHT WILL ACCELERATE IN A GRAVITATIONAL FIELD AS DO OBJECTS WITH REST MASS. For example, near the surface of Earth light will fall with acceleration 9.8 m/s^2." http://web.pdx.edu/~pmoeck/books/Tipler_Llewellyn.pdf

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction. Consider a light beam that is travelling away from a gravitational field. Its frequency should shift to lower values. This is known as the gravitational red shift of light." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics : "You do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices...The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs.html

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/pound.pdf
 
Sep 11, 2020
74
28
1,560
dh relative to us does not exit as it is offset by the increase of the speed of light falling in.a gravity well. The net result is the light in the falling box travels in a straight line.
The photon however as it drops from the void into our location in the gravity well is subject to both distance travelled and equivalent depth change. This is why we think the universe is expanding at the rate it is.
 
Last edited:
Dec 27, 2022
83
2
35
Einsteinians teach that the frequency shift measured in the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment gloriously proved gravitational time dilation, a miracle Einstein fabricated in 1911:

David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground, you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed. [...] This GR time-dilation effect was first measured at Harvard by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma rays up a 20m tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency) at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is only a few parts in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy." http://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilliam/Chapter 13 General Relativity.pdf

The truth is that the frequency shift measured in the Pound-Rebka-Snider experiment proves (is proportional to) the speed-of-light shift predicted by Newton's theory, and therefore there is no gravitational time dilation. Some Einsteinians unwittingly hint in this direction:

University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." https://courses.physics.illinois.edu/phys419/sp2011/lectures/Lecture13/L13r.html

Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics : "You do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices...The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs.html

Banesh Hoffmann (p. 139): "The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation." http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

Here Pound and Snider honestly inform the reader that they predict variation of the speed of the photons identical to the variation of the speed of material objects in free fall:

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/pound.pdf
 
Dec 27, 2022
83
2
35
Sabine Hossenfelder: "The speed of light is not constant in a gravitational field. This is an observationally confirmed fact (Shapiro delay). Einstein was very clear about this:

[Einstein:] ...according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity: its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light)." http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/08/how-we-know-that-einsteins-general.html

Any Einsteinian, except for the least intelligent ones, would confirm that the speed of light is not constant in a gravitational field. But, with very few exceptions, no Einsteinian would have the courage to tell you that, according to Einstein's general relativity, the speed of light DECREASES as the light approaches the source of gravity. This relativistic prediction is too preposterous, even by the standards of the Einstein Cult.
 
Dec 27, 2022
83
2
35
In general relativity, the speed of gravitational waves was determined by Einstein's arbitrary choice. He tweaked the coordinates so that gravitational waves could travel at the speed of light, and Arthur Eddington was surprisingly honest in exposing this particular hoax:

Arthur Eddington: "If coordinates are chosen so as to satisfy a certain condition which has no very clear geometrical importance, the speed is that of light; if the coordinates are slightly different the speed is altogether different from that of light. The result stands or falls by the choice of coordinates and, so far as can be judged, the coordinates here used were purposely introduced in order to obtain the simplification which results from representing the propagation as occurring with the speed of light. The argument thus follows a vicious circle." The Mathematical Theory of Relativity, pp. 130-131 https://www.amazon.com/Mathematical-Theory-Relativity-S-Eddington/dp/0521091659

Arthur Eddington: "The problem of the propagation of disturbances of the gravitational field was investigated by Einstein in 1916, and again in 1918. It has usually been inferred from his discussion that a change in the distribution of matter produces gravitational effects which are propagated with the speed of light; but I think that Einstein really left the question of the speed of propagation rather indefinite. His analysis shows how the co-ordinates must be chosen if it is desired to represent the gravitational potentials as propagated with the speed of light; but there is nothing to indicate that the speed of light appears in the problem, except as the result of this arbitrary choice." http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royprsa/102/716/268.full.pdf

LIGO fakers test if the physics community is fully brainwashed or needs additional brainwashing:

LIGO fakers: "The fact that the speed of gravitational waves is equal to the speed of electromagnetic waves is simply because they both travel at the speed of information." https://discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/why-does-gravity-travel-at-the-speed-of-light

"Speed of information" is undefined nonsense but physicists agree with LIGO fakers (no protests). Conclusion: The physics community is fully brainwashed and does not need additional brainwashing.
 
Dec 27, 2022
83
2
35
Eddington's 1919 hoax:

Frederick Soddy, An Address to the fourth Conference of Nobel Prizewinners at Lindau (Bodensee), S. Germany, 30.VI.1954: "Incidentally the attempt to verify this during a recent solar eclipse, provided the world with the most disgusting spectacle perhaps ever witnessed of the lengths to which a preconceived notion can bias what was supposed to be an impartial scientific inquiry. For Eddington, who was one of the party, and ought to have been excluded as an ardent supporter of the theory that was under examination, in his description spoke of the feeling of dismay which ran through the expedition when it appeared at one time that Einstein might be wrong! Remembering that in this particular astronomical investigation, the corrections for the normal errors of observation - due to diffraction, temperature changes, and the like - exceeded by many times the magnitude of the predicted deflection of the star's ray being looked for, one wonders exactly what this sort of "science" is really worth." http://www.reformation.edu/scripture-science-stott/aarch/pages/10-soddy-to-nobel-prizewinners.htm

Sabine Hossenfelder: "As light carries energy and is thus subject of gravitational attraction, a ray of light passing by a massive body should be slightly bent towards it. This is so both in Newton's theory of gravity and in Einstein's, but Einstein's deflection is by a factor two larger than Newton's. [...] As history has it, Eddington's original data actually wasn't good enough to make that claim with certainty. His measurements had huge error bars due to bad weather and he also might have cherry-picked his data because he liked Einstein's theory a little too much. Shame on him." http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2015/04/a-wonderful-100th-anniversary-gift-for.html

In 1924 Eddington calculated the "Einstein shift" and commanded two observatories to confirm his estimate (by that time he was an all-powerful boss in post-truth physics). For half a century, the fraudulent test was deemed the most solid confirmation of Einstein's general relativity:

"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger – 28 parts in a hundred thousand. Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see." http://puritanreformed.blogspot.bg/2010/08/fallible-nature-of-supposed-objective.html

"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that both Eddington's estimate and Adams' measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four." http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H

"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. [...] ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... [...] In 1928 Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... [...] ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. [...] More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second." http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980QJRAS..21..246H

Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud tells a breathtaking story. According to him, initially Einsteinians were all fraudsters but the fraudulent period ended in 1971 when Eddington's second (Sirius B) hoax was exposed. Then, in the 1970's, all Einsteinians became as honest as the day is long:

"The whole world believed for more than fifty years in an unverified theory. Because, we know it today, the first proofs, descent notably from a famous eclipse of 1919, were not proofs. They were based in part on unmentionable manipulations aiming to obtain a result known in advance, and on measurements tainted with uncertainties, when it was not a question of characterized fraud. It took until the 1970s for new methods to finally provide solid experimental proof of relativity." http://bonnetbidaud.free.fr/ce/relativite2008/pdf_CE/RELATIVITE-052-456.pdf
 
Dec 27, 2022
83
2
35
"We've known for decades that space-time is doomed," says Arkani-Hamed. "We know it is not there in the next version of physics." https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/amplituhedron-may-shape-the-future-of-physics

But the ripples in space-time (LIGO's gravitational waves) will be there, like the grin of the Cheshire Cat (otherwise LIGO fakers will have to go to jail):



"Einstein introduced a new notion of time, more radical than even he at first realized. In fact, the view of time that Einstein adopted was first articulated by his onetime math teacher in a famous lecture delivered one century ago. That lecture, by the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski, established a new arena for the presentation of physics, a new vision of the nature of reality redefining the mathematics of existence. The lecture was titled Space and Time, and it introduced to the world the marriage of the two, now known as spacetime. It was a good marriage, but lately physicists passion for spacetime has begun to diminish. And some are starting to whisper about possible grounds for divorce." https://www.sciencenews.org/article/its-likely-times-are-changing

"Was Einstein wrong? Do we have to kill off the theory of space and time to make sense of the universe?" https://space.com/end-of-einstein-space-time

"Bye bye space-time: is it time to free physics from Einstein's legacy?" https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24332472-900-bye-bye-space-time-is-it-time-to-free-physics-from-einsteins-legacy/

"Rethinking Einstein: The end of space-time...Horava, who is at the University of California, Berkeley, wants to rip this fabric apart and set time and space free from one another..." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20727721-200-rethinking-einstein-the-end-of-space-time/

What scientific idea is ready for retirement? Steve Giddings: "Spacetime. Physics has always been regarded as playing out on an underlying stage of space and time. Special relativity joined these into spacetime...The apparent need to retire classical spacetime as a fundamental concept is profound..." https://www.edge.org/response-detail/25477

Nima Arkani-Hamed: "Almost all of us believe that spacetime doesn't really exist, spacetime is doomed and has to be replaced..."
View: https://youtu.be/U47kyV4TMnE?t=369
 
Dec 27, 2022
83
2
35
New Scientist: "There was never much doubt that we would observe gravitational waves sooner or later. This rhythmic squeezing and stretching of space and time is a natural consequence of one of science’s most well-established theories, Einstein’s general relativity. So when we built a machine capable of observing the waves, it seemed that it would be only a matter of time before a detection. In point of fact, it took two days. The Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory collaboration, better known as LIGO, switched on its upgraded detectors on 12 September 2015. Within 48 hours, it had made its first detection. It took a few months before the researchers were confident enough in the signal to announce a discovery. Headlines around the world soon heralded one of the greatest scientific breakthroughs of the past century. In 2017, a Nobel prize followed. Five other waves have since been spotted. Or have they? That’s the question asked by a group of physicists who have done their own analysis of the data. “We believe that LIGO has failed to make a convincing case for the detection of any gravitational wave event,” says Andrew Jackson, the group’s spokesperson. According to them, the breakthrough was nothing of the sort: it was all an illusion." https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24032022-600-exclusive-grave-doubts-over-ligos-discovery-of-gravitational-waves/

Not even an illusion. Just fake.

"In 1970 Joseph Weber, an electrical engineer turned physicist, and working with the University of Maryland, reported the detection of 311 excitations on his test equipment designed to measure gravitational waves...But Weber's criteria for data analysis turned out to be ill-defined and partly subjective. By the end of the 1970s Weber's work was considered spurious as it could not be replicated by others. Still Weber is considered one of the fathers of gravitational wave detection and inspiration for other projects such as LIGO." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_experimental_errors_and_frauds_in_physics

LIGO fakers brought Weber's fraudulent ideas to perfection:

"He [Barry Barish] re-designed the system so that it was easy to inject fake signals." https://kirstenhacker.wordpress.com/2020/09/05/too-many-cooks-spoil-the-soup/

Why do LIGO fakers need a system allowing easy injection of fake signals? Purely rhetorical question.

LIGO don't detect anything. They FAKE gravitational waves. There were rehearsals - fakers secretly injected false signals, informed the scientific community about a great discovery, studied scientists' reactions, finally fixed noticed Achilles heels. The dress rehearsal occurred in 2010. A few "expert administrators" injected a false signal, deceived everybody and misled astronomers into wasting time and money on the fake. Remarkably, "this became particularly useful starting in September 2015":

"...a blind injection test where only a select few expert administrators are able to put a fake signal in the data, maintaining strict confidentiality. They did just that in the early morning hours of 16 September 2010. Automated data analyses alerted us to an extraordinary event within eight minutes of data collection, and within 45 minutes we had our astronomer colleagues with optical telescopes imaging the area we estimated the gravitational wave to have come from. Since it came from the direction of the Canis Major constellation, this event picked up the nickname of the "Big Dog Event". For months we worked on vetting this candidate gravitational wave detection, extracting parameters that described the source, and even wrote a paper. Finally, at the next collaboration meeting, after all the work had been cataloged and we voted unanimously to publish the paper the next day. However, it was revealed immediately after the vote to be an injection and that our estimated parameters for the simulated source were accurate. Again, there was no detection, but we learned a great deal about our abilities to know when we detected a gravitational wave and that we can do science with the data. This became particularly useful starting in September 2015." https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/a-null-result-is-not-a-failure

In the physics establishment, only Natalia Kiriushcheva found courage to hint at the truth: LIGO's gravitational waves are fakes:

"On September 16, 2010, a false signal - a so-called "blind injection" - was fed into both the Ligo and Virgo systems as part of an exercise to "test ... detection capabilities". At the time, the vast majority of the hundreds of scientists working on the equipment had no idea that they were being fed a dummy signal. The truth was not revealed until March the following year, by which time several papers about the supposed sensational discovery of gravitational waves were poised for publication. "While the scientists were disappointed that the discovery was not real, the success of the analysis was a compelling demonstration of the collaboration's readiness to detect gravitational waves," Ligo reported at the time. But take a look at the visualisation of the faked signal, says Dr Kiriushcheva, and compare it to the image apparently showing the collision of the twin black holes, seen on the second page of the recently-published discovery paper. "They look very, very similar," she says. "It means that they knew exactly what they wanted to get and this is suspicious for us: when you know what you want to get from science, usually you can get it." The apparent similarity is more curious because the faked event purported to show not a collision between two black holes, but the gravitational waves created by a neutron star spiralling into a black hole. The signals appear so similar, in fact, that Dr Kiriushcheva questions whether THE "TRUE" SIGNAL MIGHT ACTUALLY HAVE BEEN AN ECHO OF THE FAKE, "STORED IN THE COMPUTER SYSTEM from when they turned off the equipment five years before"." https://www.thenational.ae/arts-culture/why-albert-einstein-continues-to-make-waves-as-black-holes-collide-1.188114

Kiriushcheva immediately disappeared from public debate, converted into an unperson perhaps:

George Orwell: "Withers, however, was already an unperson. He did not exist: he had never existed."
 
Dec 27, 2022
83
2
35
"Curve fitting is the process of adjusting a mathematical function so that it fits as closely as possible to a given set of data points. The function can then be used as a mathematical model of the underlying data." https://www.coursehero.com/file/22708453/Lecture-10/

Essentially, Einstein's general relativity is a curve-fitting (inductive) model:

"So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go back to the drawing board...On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once more. These are the equations still used today...It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation." Janssen, M. (2002) The Einstein-Besso Manuscript: A Glimpse Behind the Curtain of the Wizard. In The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein (Vols. 1-10, pp. 1987-2006). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

Before 1915 theoretical physics was mainly DEDUCTIVE - you cannot change your theory unless the change is deducible from the initial axioms (postulates). In 1915 Einstein replaced deduction with induction, and unlimited ad hoc changes, unrelated to any axioms, were allowed. Nowadays the situation is as follows:

Ethan Siegel: "Scientific Theories Never Die, Not Unless Scientists Choose To Let Them. When it comes to science, we like to think that we formulate hypotheses, test them, throw away the ones that fail to match, and continue testing the successful one until only the best ideas are left. But the truth is a lot muddier than that. The actual process of science involves tweaking your initial hypothesis over and over, trying to pull it in line with what we already know...By the addition of enough extra free parameters, caveats, behaviors, or modifications to your theory, you can literally salvage any idea. As long as you're willing to tweak what you've come up with sufficiently, you can never rule anything out." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/11/16/scientific-theories-never-die-not-unless-scientists-choose-to-let-them/

Sabine Hossenfelder (Bee): "The criticism you raise that there are lots of speculative models that have no known relevance for the description of nature has very little to do with string theory but is a general disease of the research area. Lots of theorists produce lots of models that have no chance of ever being tested or ruled out because that's how they earn a living. The smaller the probability of the model being ruled out in their lifetime, the better. It's basic economics. Survival of the 'fittest' resulting in the natural selection of invincible models that can forever be amended." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9375

Deduction from clearly defined axioms (postulates) is the only reasonable method in fundamental physics:

"By a theory I shall mean the deductive closure of a set of theoretical postulates together with an appropriate set of auxiliary hypotheses; that is, everything that can be deduced from this set." W. H. Newton-Smith, THE RATIONALITY OF SCIENCE, p. 199 http://cdn.preterhuman.net/texts/thought_and_writing/philosophy/rationality of science.pdf

Einstein also seems to suggest that deduction, not induction, is the correct method:

Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms." https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/einstein/works/1910s/relative/ap03.htm
 
Dec 27, 2022
83
2
35
Sabine Hossenfelder: "The cosmological constant is a free parameter in Einstein's theory of general relativity. This means its value must be fixed by measurement." http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2017/12/the-cosmological-constant-is-not-worst.html

"A fudge factor is an ad hoc quantity introduced into a calculation, formula or model in order to make it fit observations or expectations. Examples include Einstein's Cosmological Constant..." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fudge_factor

Ken Croswell, Magnificent Universe, p. 179: "Ever since, the cosmological constant has lived in infamy, a fudge factor concocted merely to make theory agree with observation." http://www.amazon.com/Magnificent-Universe-Ken-Croswell/dp/0684845946

Can one add a fudge factor analogous to the cosmological constant to the Lorentz transformation equations? One cannot, and the reason is simple: Special relativity is DEDUCTIVE (even though a false postulate and an invalid argument spoiled it from the very beginning) and fudging is impossible by definition - one has no right to add anything that is not deducible from the postulates.

Einstein's general relativity was not deduced from postulates. It is a not-even-wrong INDUCTIVE concoction - a malleable combination of ad hoc (guessed) equations and fudge factors allowing Einsteinians to predict anything they want:

Alexander Poltorak https://ccny1-cuny.academia.edu/AlexanderPoltorak : "In 2005 I started writing a paper, "The Four Cornerstones of General Relativity on which it doesn't Rest." Unfortunately, I never had a chance to finish it. The idea behind that unfinished article was this: there are four principles that are often described as "postulates" of General Relativity:

1. Principle of general relativity

2. Principle of general covariance

3. Equivalence principle

4. Mach principle

The truth is, however, that General Relativity is not really based on any of these "postulates" although, without a doubt, they played important heuristic roles in the development of the theory." https://qr.ae/pr44cW

Sometimes Einsteinians call Einstein's 1915 final equations "postulates" (physics is schizophrenic, isn't it):

"Postulates of General Relativity
Postulate 1: A spacetime (M^4, g) is a Riemannian 4-manifold M^4 with a Lorentzian metric g.
Postulate 2: A test mass beginning at rest moves along a timelike geodesic. (Geodesic equation) ...
Postulate 3: Einstein equation is satisfied. (Einstein equation) ..." https://studylib.net/doc/18315385/postulates-of-general-relativity
 
Last edited:
Dec 27, 2022
83
2
35
Photons are gravitationally deflected or blocked by cosmic matter. Gravitational waves are not, Einsteinians used to teach:

"Unlike light, gravitational waves don’t care about matter in any way. You can pass gravitational waves through the vacuum of space, through a lens, prism, or other material, or even through the solid Earth itself, and they will continue to propagate at the speed of gravity." https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2020/12/24/how-gravitational-waves-might-wind-up-proving-einstein-wrong/

But LIGO fakers found it suitable to fake near-simultaneous arrival of gravitational waves and photons, "from the same location of the sky", which forces the nonexistent gravitational waves to travel exactly like photons:

"On 8:41 am EDT August 17, 2017, LIGO detected a new gravitational wave source, dubbed GW170817 to mark its discovery date. Just two seconds later NASA's Fermi satellite detected a weak pulse of gamma rays from the same location of the sky." https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/astronomers-see-light-show-associated-gravitational-waves

So Einsteinians had to change their minds and now they fiercely prove that gravitational waves and photons deflect in the same way:

"We establish at high confidence (significantly greater than 5σ) that the gravitational waves of GW 170817 underwent gravitational deflection to arrive within 1.7 seconds of the photons." https://arxiv.org/pdf/2001.01710.pdf
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY