EINSTEIN'S HYPOTHESIS OF GENERAL RELATIVITY IS NOT VALID

Evidently, back ground of spacetime idea because he has no idea on the basic of astronomy; and not knowing that space and time has been applied in astronomy for long time ago.

Navigator Reveals The Fact

DID YOU KNOW?

EINSTEIN'S HYPOTHESIS OF GENERAL RELATIITY IS NOT VALID

CAN NOT BE PROVEN OR TESTED IN ANY WAY WHATSOEVER

Hypothesis and Einstein proposed test of general relativity are closely related to astronomy, especially celestial navigation. For understanding that hypothesis and the test are not valid, physics training is needed; but more importantly is celestial navigation training. Unfortunately, physicists and astrophysicists are not trained to become experts in the field of celestial navigation. The navigators around the world will be easily to recognize the fatal flaws of these hypotheses and test. Actually, general relativity can not be proven or tested in any way. No doubt, all tests that says ‘general relativity is correct’ really are the case of ‘knowing the result they wanted to get’.

41 Articles on Medium April, 2016 - August , 2017

1.I Need Not Prove My Claim, You Must Prove It Is False!-August 2017.

2.Einstein’s Thought Experiment Proves Special Relativity Is False

3.A Single Observation that Disagrees with the Prediction of General Relativity

4.The Field Equations of Gravitation (EFE) Violates the Basic of Astronomy

5.EEP: The Fallacy of  Composition.

6.How could a Small Warped Spacetime Orbits a Large Warped Spacetime?

7.Top 4 Reasons Why GPS Doesn’t Need Einstein's Relativity.

8.Why Should We Return to the Moon?

9.What Causes Mercury’s Orbit the Most Eccentric?

10.Gravitational Lensing: Forcing a Claim in Science

11.Logical Fallacies of Standard Model of Physics Over Decades.

12.Black Holes and Big Bang are the Old Stories.

13.Why Doesn’t the Earth Fall Towards the Sun?

14.Testing General Relativity with Present and Future Astrophysical Observations

15.Is It True that Newton’s Gravity is Not as Good as Einstein's Gravity?

16.An Important Thing Einstein Had Failed

17.Gravitational Waves vs Gravity Waves

18.What Happens If Gravity Probe B Succeeded Test General Relativity?

19.What Happens If the Force of Gravity Doesn't Exist?

20.Use Equivalence Principle And You’ll Look Like Einstein’s Happiest Thought

21.High School Students Easily Be Able to Understand Einstein’s Gravity Is False

22.Why Didn’t They Know Nonsense?

23.A Confirmation of General Relativity Won The Nobel Prize!

24.Eclipse’s Data of 1919 -1973 Verify Einstein’s Prediction Really Doesn't Work.

25.Experimental Evidence Predictions of General Relativity Don't Work

26.What Is The Most Accurate Telescope?

27.VLBI Measurements: Only One Can Be Right.

28.Gravity Probe B: Mission Impossible?

29.Why Didn’t They Know 3D+1D Space and Time?

30.Astronomical Data Prove Spacetime Fiction.

31.Logical Fallacies Of Einstein's Theory.

32.Prediction on the 2017 Eclipse Proves Einstein Was Wrong.

33.Einstein’s Proving Method Via Eclipse Is Not Scientifically Correct and Deeply Wrong.

34.What’s Wrong With Measuring The Speed of Gravity in 2002?

35.Albert Einstein Failed in Three Classical Tests

36.Sphere of Space and Time

37.What Exactly is Gravity?

38.Albert Einstein Began by Rejecting the Ether Theory.

39.Deflection of Light by Refraction, Not Gravity (Curve Geometry of Spacetime)

40.Albert Einstein’s Thought Experiment and Equivalence Principle are Misleading.

41.No doubt: Einstein’s General Theory Of Relativity Was Wrong-April, 2016.

Can the eclipse tell us if Einstein was right about general relativity?

Unfortunately, I have to answer honestly: No, that's impossible because Einstein's hypothesis is not valid.(sciencenews.org)

WHAT IS THE BIGGEST THING EINSTEIN WAS WRONG ABOUT?

Because Einstein had no idea on the basic of astronomy:

Published on 1916, Einstein predicts light from a distance star passing by the limb of the Sun would be deflected by 1.75  arc seconds.This prediction without any explanation the altitude of star/the Sun during eclipse. Therefore, this prediction has no scientific meaning, because calculation for deviation of star all depend on the altitude of star.

Something weird and magical when experimental tests of general relativity; via eclipse using optical telescopes (1919, 1922, 1927, 1936, 1952, 1973) and test using radio telescope after 2004, the result is declared general relativity is correct.

That is very embarrasing to the world of science. They are not aware of making themselves look so foolish: had no idea on the basic of astronomy.

READ MORE: On Quora

Youtube: Watch Video

THESE ARE NOT PHOTOS OF BLACK HOLES

SCIENTISTS HAVE PEERED INTO A BLACK HOLE AND TAKEN A PHOTO OF ITS EVENT HORIZON FOR THE VERY FIRST TIME. From the initial image returned, scientists should be able to test relativity. “If you know the mass of the black hole—and for Sagittarius A* we know that well—and if you know the distance of the black hole, which again we know well, then relativity predicts you will see that shadow and ring and that the ring will have a certain diameter and it will be near circular. That’s a test of relativity. If the shape isn’t circular or the wrong size, then relativity has made a prediction that has failed. That’s the first thing we’ll look at.” (Event Horizon Telescope)

Event horizon telescope will be useless; the same as radio telescope (VLBI), LIGO's twin detector and other. Einstein’s gravity (general relativity) was totally wrong (Astronomical Data Prove Spacetime Fiction)

Eclipse’s Data of 1919 -1973 Verify Einstein’s Prediction Really Doesn’t Work

TEST OF GENERAL RELATIVITY AT 2017 ECLIPSE USING ASTRONOMICAL METHOD

TEST OF GENERAL RELATIVITY 

AT 2017 SOLAR ECLIPSE

“…during totality on August 21, 2017 — although it will be close to midday — you’ll easily be able to see 4 planets with the unaided eye near the eclipsed sun!

In order of brightness, these planets will be Venus, Jupiter, Mars and Mercury. Mars is slightly brighter than Mercury, but so nearly the same in brightness that you probably won’t notice a difference.”( Eddie Irizarry, See 4 planets during 2017 solar eclipse, earthsky.org).

    At the 2017 solar eclipse, Monday, August 21, in USA, the bright star Regulus make a thrilling sight shinning near the Sun’s corona, this event is the best chance to test or re-examine Einstein’s general theory of relativity.

    As we know, at his theory of general relativity, Einstein declared a new law on gravity, stating that gravity was not a force as commonly known at the Newton’s gravity theory, but a part of inertia. His gravity law illustrated the object behaviour at the gravity field, for instance the planets, not in the sense of ‘the attracting forcer’ but only in the sense of the crossing track being taken.

    For Einstein, gravity is a part of inertia. The movement of stars and planets originates from their inertia derivation, and the crossing track taken is determined by the space metrical nature, or more precisely the continuous space-time.

    Einstein concluded that the light just as other material objects, moved in curve if gravity field of an object was massive. Einstein suggested that his hypothesis could be tested to observe the crossing track of the star light at gravity field of the sun. Due to the fact that the stars are not visible at day time, there is only one chance when the sun and the stars can be seen together at the sky, and that is the time when there is a solar eclipse.

    Special phenomena of 2017 solar eclipse, that we will easily be able to see 4 planets, and the bright star Regulus make a thrilling sight shinning near the Sun’s corona.

    Apparent position of the star Regulus during total solar eclipse meet the conditions in accordance with Einstein hypothesis

     According to Einstein’s hypothesis, the star light visible around the sun would be bent inwards, toward the sun at the time when passing through the gravity field of the sun. Einstein calculated the level of their deviation and predicted that for the stars observed being the closest to the Sun, their deviation was about 1.75 seconds of an arc.

Test of general relativity

     In this test, we use terminology  "deflection of light by the Sun" as Einstein's idea on general relativity, and Einstein proposed test via eclipse. In this book, "tests" is made by using astronomical data that has been predicted at the 2017 total solar eclipse, in USA, August 21.

As explained in previous discussion, there are three steps to test general relativity using astronomical method: determine the place of observation, measuring the apparent altitude of star  using the sextant, and apply data to find  the deviation of starlight  in the Nautical Almanac.of 2017.

    To get the most accurate results, the test should be carried out at the locations of a total eclipse, in this case in the USA, on August 21, 2017 .   

    According to Earthsky Website, any location along the path of totality from Oregon to South Carolina can enjoy good weather on eclipse day, but the western half of the United States, especially from the Willamette Valley of Oregon to the Nebraska Sandhills, will enjoy the very best weather odds. Therefore, the best place of direct observation to test general relativity is in Oregon, sea waters near the Oregon coast or on the beach of Madras.

    In this case, the measurement using a sextant. The sextant allows us to very accurately measure the apparent altitude of stars, it’s because there are  visible horizon from the sea or beach.  According to Earthsky Website, totality begins at 10:19 a.m, and duration of totality is 2 minutes, 4 seconds.

Prediction at 2017 total solar eclipse.

   In this book,  prediction is made based on astronomical data from NASA Eclipse Website, the Astroadventure Website, and Earthsky Website.

Read more in Your Kindle Device:

Kindle eBook-Amazon.Co.UK

    Einstein’s prediction or according to general relativity, the deviation of Regulus, as the star observed being the closest to the Sun,  was about 1,75 sec. arc.  But we get results as prediction at 2017 eclipse is about 236 sec.arc. It is more than 100 times greater than Einstein’s prediction. 

Read more in Medium: 

Astronomical Data Prove Spacetime Fiction

LOGICAL FALLACIES OF EINSTEIN'S THEORY

Einstein has no competence in the field of Astronomy.

    The main source of this book is the book ‘ The Universe and Dr. Einstein’, by Lincoln Barnett, London, 1949, Foreword by Albert Einstein himself. Some reviews about this book:

    “This is a brilliant, readable and clear report, by a gifted journalist, of the significance of Einstein’s theories and their far reaching effect upon the modern world. Written for laymen, it penetrates the realms of space, explains the facts available on the nature of atoms, and merges for purposes of clarity, the relation between philosophy and modern science.Utilizing the theories of Newton, Planck, Gamow, Lemaitre and Jeans, Barnett explains the Einstein concept of the universe. Relating these scientific theories to the philosophical systems existing at the time, he shows how all forms of human activity are influenced by the discoveries of science, and how Einstein’s theories are a step in this long history of research.”

   
     “Everybody who has a mind, or who imagines he is a thinker, should understand this much of Relativity as a minimum.”—Philip Wylie
   
     “The Universe and Dr. Einstein sets a new standard in science writing and is, I think, the first American book that can be compared in maturity, clarity, and grace with the distinguished and influential works of Sir James Jeans and Sir Arthur Eddington.”—Gerald Wendt, N. Y. Herald Tribune Book Review
 (Pickle Partners Publishing on Aug 9, 2016)
    
    I agree with everything the above review says. In my opinion, the book The Universe and Dr.Einstein  is very interesting. This book shows that the author, Lincoln Barnett, really  is an expert in conveying his ideas, I mean, the ideas of Albert Einstein relates with his two popular theory, special  and general theory of relativity. Reading this book, as if I am dealing with Albert Einstein himself, who was telling the background of the invention of his theories. 
    
    I assumed that the author of this book has conducted an interview with Albert Einstein himself, or at least has been made an intense of communication with Einstein.
    Albert Einstein himself wrote a foreword, and among other he states:
"Lincoln Barnett's book represents a valuable contribution to popular scientific writing. The main ideas of the theory of relativity are extremely well-presented. Moreover, the present state of our knowledge to physics is aptly characterized.

     The author shows how the growth of our factual knowledge, together with the striving for a unified theoritical conception comprising all empirical data, has led to the present situation which is characterized-notwithstanding all successes-by uncertainty concerning the choice of the basics theoritcal concepts"

    Lincoln Barnett's book has a very important meaning for me, because I’ve  found a kind of valid proof about Einstein's theory, which it has not been revealed by others. I’ve found some of logical fallacies of Einstein ideas in the Lincoln Barnett’s book, relating with Einstein’s theory, special and general theory of relativity.

    What is logical fallacies?  Fallacies are defects that weaken arguments; Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that invalidate the argument.

    
    A fallacy is an incorrect argument in logic and rhetoric which undermines an argument's logical validity or more generally an argument's logical soundness. Fallacies are either formal fallacies or informal fallacies.These are commonly used styles of argument in convincing people, where the focus is on communication and results rather than the correctness of the logic, and may be used whether the point being advanced is correct or not.

    Of course, some errors in reasoning of Einstein,  as the founder of theories, make a great impact to the validity of the two theories: Special and General theory of Relativity.

New release paperback-Amazon

5.Conclusion:

List Of Einstein’s Logical Fallacies

There are at least 5 logical fallacies of Einstein's special and general theory of relativity

1.Einstein’s Thought Experiment: Fallacy Of Composition.

2.The Equivalence Principle: A false equivalence

3.Spacetime: A fallacy of ambiguity or reification.

4.Einstein's Field Equation: Logical fallacy : argumentum ad lapidem

5.Einstein's proving method: The fallacy of ignoratio elenchi, or irrelevant conclusion.

Einstein had no idea of the units and disciplines of measurement as the goal of using mathematics in physics. EFE just a formal mathematical construct with no real physical meaning.

In the book The Universe and Dr.Einstein, by Lincoln Barnett, on page 78, we can read Einstein proposed test for his theory as evidence that Einstein had no idea on the basic of astronomy. Einstein proposed test of general relativity is not scientifically correct and deeply wrong.

Correct illustration should be : the rays are bent down, with the result that image or apparent of star looks higher than it actual of star.

    

Moreover, as he had written a foreword, he had not realized there is incorrect illustration on page 79, and it shows he does not understand about the effects of deviation of starlight in the real world, for example, when we see the stars in the sky at night. Einstein has no competence in the field of astronomy.

There is no such thing as spacetime or a curve space in the real world.

Second Edition:

There are at least 5 logical fallacies of Einstein's special and general theory of relativity, and this book reveals evidence and reasoning that general relativity doesn't meet the principles of scientific method. 

This book try to convey prediction using astronomical test of general relativity at 2017 total solar eclipse, in USA, August 21. This book also shows that astronomical data of 2017 eclipse prove spacetime is false.

                                                   A Beautiful Sunset - @julia_zba

WHY EINSTEIN NEVER RECEIVED A NOBEL PRIZE FOR RELATIVITY

Einstein's Proving Method via Eclipse is NOT SCIENTIFIC and DEEPLY WRONG

Nobel prizes often attract controversy, but usually after they have been awarded. Albert Einstein's physics prize was the subject of argument for years before it was even a reality.

PROF.LAURA MERSINI: BLACK HOLES DO NOT EXIST AND BIG BANG WRONG

Black holes do NOT exist and the Big Bang Theory is wrong, claims scientist - and she has the maths to prove it.

A scientist from University of North Carolina states she has mathematical proof that black holes (illustrated) can't exist. She said it is impossible for stars to collapse and form a singularity. Previously, scientists thought stars larger than the sun collapsed under their own gravity and formed black holes as they died.

The research was conducted by Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in the College of Arts and Scientists.

Scientist claims she has mathematical proof black holes cannot exist

GENERAL RELATIVITY HAS BEEN WRONG SINCE THE BEGINNING

Einstein’s prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science. (Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time)

Tests on the general relativity theory as suggested by Albert Einstein: the photo taken to the stars at the time when the sun was dark during the solar eclipse was compared to the photo of the same stars taken at another time. The words ‘was compared to the photo of the same stars taken at another time’ means proposal suggested by Albert Einstein is unjustifiable from scientific point of view of the astronomy.
It is really hard to understand that the tests was conducted by a team led by Arthur Eddington in 1919.

Here we know general relativity was wrong. Einstein ignored light refraction: astronomical refraction and terrestrial refraction, when he proposed the proving method for general relativity, and at the same time ignored the existing of the celestial sphere.  Each point in the earth has its own celestial sphere. The celestial sphere is only applicable at a certain time and at a certain place on which such observation is performed.

GENERAL RELATIVITY IS WRONG

New Release

“Einstein’s prediction of light deflection could not be tested immediately in 1915, because the First World War was in progress, and it was not until 1919 that a British expedition, observing an eclipse from West Africa, showed that light was indeed deflected by the sun, just as predicted by the theory. This proof of a German theory by British scientists was hailed as a great act of reconciliation between the two countries after the war. It is ionic, therefore, that later examination of the photographs taken on that expedition showed the errors were as great as the effect they were trying to measure. Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get, not an uncommon occurrence in science. “ ( Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time, 1985 ).

The tests of General Relativity as suggested by Einstein : the photo taken to the stars at the time when the sun was dark during the solar eclipse was compared to the photo of the same stars taken “at another time’. The words ‘at another time’ means proposal suggested by Einstein is not at all scientific, the reasons are explained by the following pictures.

Figure 1

Figure 2

Figure 1 is two stars portrait taken by an observer from point A in the earth at a time, and Figure 2 is the same portrait of two star, taken by the same observer from point B in the earth ‘at another time‘ eg two months later. Point A located in Europe, while the point B located in the Africa continent, the two point  has a big different of the latitude and longitude.

    The two sightings of  stars will always be different because point A and B has its own Celestial Sphere. The Celestial Sphere is only applicable at a certain time and at a certain place on which such observation is performed. Therefore, the two portraits can not be compared.

    And again ..... the two portraits is the appearance of Apparent Position of the two stars, not the the True Position. Therefore,  from the two portraits could not be use to calculate the angular difference between True Position and Apparent Position of stars that becomes the object of observation.

Conclusions: The tests / proving method on the theory on general relativity as requested by its founder, Albert Einstein, is unjustifiable from scientific point of view of the astronomy. In addition, a hypothesis stating that the light is bent by gravity of massive object ignores the existence of light refraction (Snell’s Law). 

   If a scientist conveys a theory and at the same time shows its proving method, however after being tested by another scientist it is found out that his proposed proving method is proven to be unable to be performed due to not being scientific, then automatically such proposed theory prematurely falls by itself. And the proving cannot be  carried out by other methods not  as requested by the theory founder, since it is reasonably assumed that such proving is made based on belief.

    The general relativity theory has been wrong since the beginning. True, general relativity theory is wrong.

One More Night

"One More Night"

You and I go hard at each other like we're going to war.
You and I go rough, we keep throwing things and slamming the door.
You and I get so damn dysfunctional, we stopped keeping score.
You and I get sick, yeah, I know that we can't do this no more.

Yeah, but baby there you go again, there you go again, making me love you.
Yeah, I stopped using my head, using my head, let it all go.
Got you stuck on my body, on my body, like a tattoo.
And now I'm feeling stupid, feeling stupid, crawling back to you.

So I cross my heart and I hope to die
That I'll only stay with you one more night
And I know I said it a million times
But I'll only stay with you one more night

Try to tell you "no" but my body keeps on telling you "yes".
Try to tell you "stop", but your lipstick got me so out of breath.
I'll be waking up in the morning, probably hating myself.
And I'll be waking up, feeling satisfied but guilty as hell.

Yeah, but baby there you go again, there you go again, making me love you.
(Making me love you)
Yeah, I stopped using my head, using my head, let it all go.
(I let it all go)
Got you stuck on my body, on my body, like a tattoo.
(Like a tattoo, yeah)
And now I'm feeling stupid, feeling stupid, crawling back to you.

So I cross my heart and I hope to die
(Yeah)
That I'll only stay with you one more night
(Oh)
And I know I said it a million times
(Yeah)
But I'll only stay with you one more night
(Yeah)

Yeah, baby, give me one more night
Yeah, baby, give me one more night (whoa, yeah)
Yeah, baby, give me one more night (oh, yeah, yeah)

Yeah, but baby there you go again, there you go again making me love you.
Yeah, I stopped using my head, using my head, let it all go.
Got you stuck on my body, on my body like a tattoo.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah

So I cross my heart and I hope to die
(Oh oh oh oh, oh oh oh oh)
That I'll only stay with you one more night
(Oh oh oh oh oh oh)
And I know I said it a million times
(Oh, I said it a million times)
But I'll only stay with you one more night
(Yeah, baby give me one more night)

So I cross my heart and I hope to die (yeah, yeah)
That I'll only stay with you one more night (yeah, yeah)
And I know I said it a million times (yeah, yeah)
But I'll only stay with you one more night (yeah, yeah)

I don't know, whatever.

CreateSpace Store - Updated August 25/2015 

Buy Gatot Soedarto's Books Direct  on CreateSpace Store

CLAIMS SCIENTIST: BLACK HOLES DO NOT EXIST AND THE BIG BANG THEORY IS WRONG

       

          Scientist claims she has mathematical proof black holes cannot exist

         She said it is impossible for stars to collapse and form a singularity

Professor Laura Mersini-Houghton said she is still in 'shock' from the find    Previously, scientists thought stars much larger than the sun collapsed under their own gravity and formed black holes when they died  During this process they release a type of radiation called Hawking radiation

But new research claims the star would lose too much mass and wouldn't be able to form a black hole       If true, the theory that the universe began as a singularity, followed by the Big Bang, could also be wrong

ECLIPSE 1919 AND THE GENERAL RELATIVITY THEORY

Paperback, 

CreateSpace, Full Color

INTRODUCTION

   Alphonsus Kelly, an Ireland engineer, in his lecture at Trinity College, Dublin, on February 15, 1996, stated that the Einstein’s Relativity theory might be wrong. Kelly revealed the experiment of Sagnac, the French physicist in the year 1914, showing that the time taken by a light to complete one rotation is found to be different from the time taken by one rotation in opposite direction. The Sagnac’s experiment proved that the speed of light was not constant. It is different from Einstein’s theory stating that the light velocity is constant.

WHAT IS THE SPEED OF GRAVITY ?

This is a very interesting and timely question. There was recently an experiment which aimed to measure the speed of gravity, and there has been some disagreement among scientists over the interpretation of the results.

In the theory of relativity, the speed of gravity should be equal to the speed of light, since the theoretical "particles" that carry gravity (sometimes called gravitons) are massless particles, just like photons (the particles that carry light). The light from the Sun takes 8 minutes to reach the Earth, so that if the Sun suddenly disappeared it would take 8 minutes before it got dark. Similarly the Earth would also feel the effects of the Sun's gravity for 8 minutes after it magically vanished.

In September 2002, two US scientists made some very accurate measurements of the position of a quasar as it passed behind Jupiter. They argued that the exact amount of apparent motion of the quasar (as the path of the radio waves from it was bent in Jupiter's gravitational field) depended on both the speed of light AND the speed of gravity. The measurements they took then proved that the speed of gravity is the same as that of light, ruling out some of the more bizarre modifications to the laws of gravity which have been proposed, and further backing General Relativity (BBC news articleon the experiment).

However, other astronomers disagree that the experiment is able to measure the speed of gravity, arguing that the effect is much smaller than the scientists claim and that (in effect) they got their arithmatic wrong when they decided that the speed of gravity did come into the equations. They are not claiming that the speed of gravity is different to that of light, just that it could not be measured in the experiment.

I have to confess that I don't have enough knowledge of the details of General Relativity to know who is right, but I think this is an interesting insight into how science works.

So the short answer is that it is thought that the speed of gravity should be equal to the speed of light, and that there is a ongoing disagreement over whether or not that has actually been measured.

READ MORE :  Speed of gravity

Why Einstein was wrong and Newton was right

It may surprise you to learn that the speed of gravity is something of an ongoing debate among many cosmologists today. 

The textbook answer to the question “what is the speed of gravity?” is that it propagates at the speed of light. This answer is derived from Einstein’s version of relativity, which demands that nothing be able to propagate faster than the speed of light. Yet there is a large body of physical evidence that contradicts this theoretical assertion.

In 1998, physicist Tom Van Flandern authored a paper in Physics Letters A that remains one of the best refutations of Einstein’s version of relativity ever published. Van Flandern argues that Hendrik Lorentz’s version of relativity, which incorporates an aether that all matter moves through, is more correct than Einstein’s version, based on experimental observations about the speed of gravity. Lorentz and Einstein’s versions of relativity are actually very similar. The main difference being that the speed of light is not a limiting factor in Lorentz’s version of relativity. Van Flandern argues that the speed of gravity is far faster than the speed of light, just as Newton’s laws describe it to be. Newton’s laws declare gravity to propagate instantaneously.

I’m sure by now you may be wondering what kind of proof does Van Flandern have to offer? Van Flandern starts out by demonstrating that the visible light arriving from the Sun to Earth comes from a measurably different location in the sky than the point that the Earth is accelerating towards in space. This is because light propagates at light speed, while gravity propagates at infinite speed. The fact that the Earth is not accelerating toward the visible location of the Sun, but rather 20 arc seconds in front of the visible Sun (where the Sun will visibly be 8.3 minutes in the future) is very strong evidence against gravity propagating at the speed of light. This same light delay effect is seen in the positions of stars as well.

If gravity propagated between the Sun and the Earth at the same speed as visible light, the Earth would double the distance from the Sun in 1200 years, which obviously isn’t happening. Many other notable physicists besides Newton and Lorentz also concluded that orbital calculations must be made using an infinite speed of gravity. Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington’s orbital calculations rely on gravity having an infinite speed, and Pierre-Simon Laplace calculated gravity to have a speed of at least 10^8 times the speed of light.

Van Flandern goes on to discuss GPS clocks, which are often cited as being proof positive of Einstein’s relativity. It may surprise you, but the GPS system doesn’t actually use Einstein’s field equations. In fact, this paper by the U.S. Naval Observatory tells us that, while incorporating Einstein’s equations into the system may slightly improve accuracy, the system itself doesn’t rely on them at all. To quote the opening line of the paper, “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require.”

Van Flandern explains why this is so:

Finally, the Global Positioning System (GPS) showed the remarkable fact that all atomic clocks on board orbiting satellites moving at high speeds in different directions could be simultaneously and continuously synchronized with each other and with all ground clocks. No “relativity of simultaneity” corrections, as required by SR, were needed. This too seemed initially to falsify SR. But on further inspection, continually changing synchronization corrections for each clock exist such that the predictions of SR are fulfilled for any local co-moving frame. To avoid the embarrassment of that complexity, GPS analysis is now done exclusively in the Earth-centered inertial frame (the local gravity field). And the pre-launch adjustment of clock rates to compensate for relativistic effects then hides the fact that all orbiting satellite clocks would be seen to tick slower than ground clocks if not rate-compensated for their orbital motion, and that no reciprocity would exist when satellites view ground clocks.

Van Flandern also discusses the famous Michelson-Morely experiment, the Michelson-Gale experiment, and the Sagnac experiment, which are often cited as discrediting Lorentz’s version of relativity. The truth of the matter is that Lorentz’s version of relativity can easily account for the observations if one simply assumes a local gravity field with preferred frame for local observers, rather than a universal gravity field. Further, at the time, the wave nature of matter has not yet been discovered by Louis de Broglie.

Van Flandern concludes his paper by saying:

Near the end of his career, Lorentz is quoted as having graciously conceded the contest: “My theory can obtain all the same results as special relativity, but perhaps not with a comparable simplicity.” (private communication from C.O. Alley) Today, with hindsight, we might make a somewhat different assessment: “Special relativity can explain all the experimental results in Table II that Lorentzian relativity can, but perhaps not with a comparable simplicity.” Even so, SR cannot explain the faster-than-light propagation of gravity, although LR readily can.

We conclude that the speed of gravity may provide the new insight physics has been awaiting to lead the way to unification of the fundamental forces.

If this article has peaked your interest in alternative cosmology, please set some time aside to watch Thunderbolts of the Gods. I guarantee that this video will change your perspective on our universe.

READ MORE :  Watch Video