Einstein's General Relativity: Fake Physics

[Pentcho Valev]

Sabine Hossenfelder: "Is this still science?" has become a recurring question in the foundations of physics. Whether it's the multiverse, string theory, supersymmetry, or inflation, concerns abound that theoreticians have crossed a line. Science writer Jim Baggott called the new genre "fairy-tale science." Historian Helge Kragh coined the term "higher speculations," and Peter Woit, more recently, suggested the name "fake physics." http://backreaction.blogspot.bg/2017/11/if-science-is-what-scientists-do-what.html

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

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

Clearly there is no essential difference between the "invincible models that can forever be amended" and Einstein's general relativity. 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.

In order to be consistent with dark matter, general relativity needs four fudge factors:

"Verlinde's calculations fit the new study's observations without resorting to free parameters – essentially values that can be tweaked at will to make theory and observation match. By contrast, says Brouwer, conventional dark matter models need four free parameters to be adjusted to explain the data." https://www.newscientist.com/article/2116446-first-test-of-rival-to-einsteins-gravity-kills-off-dark-matter/

How many fudge factors LIGO conspirators needed to model the nonexistent gravitational waves is a deep mystery:

"Cornell professors Saul Teukolsky, astrophysics, and Larry Kidder, astronomy, played an instrumental role in the first detection of gravitational waves, a century after Albert Einstein predicted their existence in his theory of general relativity. [...] The LIGO and Virgo group confirmed that these gravitational waves had come from the collision of black holes by comparing their data with a theoretical model developed at Cornell. Teukolsky and the Cornell-founded Simulation of eXtreme Spacetimes collaboration group have been developing this model since 2000, according to the University." http://cornellsun.com/2016/02/10/cornell-scientists-validate-einsteins-theory-of-relativity/

If Peter Woit is correct and the "invincible models that can forever be amended" are "fake physics", then so is Einstein's general relativity.

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

Peter Woit: "String theory as a theory of unification predicts (in the usual scientific sense of the word) nothing about anything. You can't rule out the cosmic strings of superstring theory, because the theory is so unconstrained that you can evade any conceivable negative experimental result, by just saying, "there really are cosmic strings, it's just that their properties make them unobservable by the current version of LIGO." http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9817

Things are much easier when it comes to Divine Albert's Divine Theory. Whenever an experiment disproves it, Einsteinians inform the gullible world that the experiment has gloriously confirmed it. For instance, the Pound-Rebka experiment demonstrated that the velocity difference (acceleration) of photons is "identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall", as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Jr, APPARENT WEIGHT OF PHOTONS http://journals.aps.org/prl/pdf/10.1103/PhysRevLett.4.337

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

That the speed of falling light varies like the speed of ordinary falling bodies is so obvious that many Einsteinians confirm the fact and so unwittingly disprove Einstein's relativity:

"If we accept the principle of equivalence, we must also accept that light falls in a gravitational field with the same acceleration as material bodies." http://sethi.lamar.edu/bahrim-cristian/Courses/PHYS4480/4480-PROBLEMS/optics-gravit-lens_PPT.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

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, 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

Yet in the post-truth world this is the official teaching:

"The Pound–Rebka experiment measured the relative redshift of two sources situated at the top and bottom of Harvard University's Jefferson tower. The result was in excellent agreement with general relativity. This was one of the first precision experiments testing general relativity. The experiment was later improved to better than the 1% level by Pound and Snider." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

All claims that Einstein's relativity is experimentally confirmed are fraudulent. Consider the Michelson-Morley experiment. In 1887 Michelson and Morley had calculations showing that the two beams should arrive at different times, but the experiment demonstrated no time difference at all - the two beams arrived at the same time.

The calculations were based on a false assumption - Michelson and Morley had assumed that the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter. So the first thing the Michelson-Morley experiment refuted was this assumption. If Michelson and Morley had assumed that the speed of light varies with the speed of the emitter, as predicted by Newton's emission theory, the experimental result would have matched the calculations:

"Emission theory, also called emitter theory or ballistic theory of light, was a competing theory for the special theory of relativity, explaining the results of the Michelson–Morley experiment of 1887. [...] The name most often associated with emission theory is Isaac Newton. In his corpuscular theory Newton visualized light "corpuscles" being thrown off from hot bodies at a nominal speed of c with respect to the emitting object, and obeying the usual laws of Newtonian mechanics, and we then expect light to be moving towards us with a speed that is offset by the speed of the distant emitter (c ± v)." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_theory

Since the refuted assumption, "the speed of light is independent of the speed of the emitter", became one of Einstein's postulates in 1905, it is fair to say that Einstein's relativity was experimentally refuted before it was created.

The following revelations are staggering:

John Norton: "To it, we should add that the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment was unhelpful and possibly counter-productive in Einstein's investigations of an emission theory of light, for the null result is predicted by an emission theory." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/12289/1/Einstein_Discover.pdf

John Norton: "In addition to his work as editor of the Einstein papers in finding source material, Stachel assembled the many small clues that reveal Einstein's serious consideration of an emission theory of light; and he gave us the crucial insight that Einstein regarded the Michelson-Morley experiment as evidence for the principle of relativity, whereas later writers almost universally use it as support for the light postulate of special relativity. Even today, this point needs emphasis. The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that contradicts the light postulate." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

So we have an experiment that has disproved the constancy of the speed of light but the brainwashed world is certain that the experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light. Who is to blame? According to Stachel and Norton, Einstein is innocent in this case - he was honest and taught that the Michelson-Morley experiment had confirmed the principle of relativity, not the constancy of the speed of light. Today's Einsteinians ("later writers") however are liars and teach that the experiment has confirmed the constancy of the speed of light.

Stachel and Norton are right about today's Einsteinians (they are pathological liars) but did Einstein really teach the truth? Of course not. He was the author of the hoax:

The New York Times, April 19, 1921: "The special relativity arose from the question of whether light had an invariable velocity in free space, he [Einstein] said. The velocity of light could only be measured relative to a body or a co-ordinate system. He sketched a co-ordinate system K to which light had a velocity C. Whether the system was in motion or not was the fundamental principle. This has been developed through the researches of Maxwell and Lorentz, the principle of the constancy of the velocity of light having been based on many of their experiments. But did it hold for only one system? he asked. He gave the example of a street and a vehicle moving on that street. If the velocity of light was C for the street was it also C for the vehicle? If a second co-ordinate system K was introduced, moving with the velocity V, did light have the velocity of C here? When the light traveled the system moved with it, so it would appear that light moved slower and the principle apparently did not hold. Many famous experiments had been made on this point. Michelson showed that relative to the moving co-ordinate system K1, the light traveled with the same velocity as relative to K, which is contrary to the above observation. How could this be reconciled? Professor Einstein asked." http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=9806EFDD113FEE3ABC4152DFB266838A639EDE

Pentcho Valev

[Pentcho Valev]

String theorists don't change their faith when the predictions of their pet theory are falsified:

Peter Woit: "The fact that falsification of these "predictions" hasn't changed one iota the faith in string theory of the people promoting them is good reason not to take this supposed science seriously. If the people behind these ideas don't, why should you?" http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/?p=9817

How about other Einsteinians? The revolutionaries Peter Woit and Sabine Hossenfelder for instance? Their faith in Divine Albert's Divine Theory gets even stronger when they see this:

"Doppler effect - when an observer moves towards a stationary source. ...the velocity of the wave relative to the observer is faster than that when it is still."

"Let's say you, the observer, now move toward the source with velocity Vo. You encounter more waves per unit time than you did before. Relative to you, the waves travel at a higher speed: V'=V+Vo. The frequency of the waves you detect is higher, and is given by: f'=V'/λ=(V+Vo)/λ." http://physics.bu.edu/~redner/211-sp06/class19/class19_doppler.html

"Vo is the velocity of an observer moving towards the source. This velocity is independent of the motion of the source. Hence, the velocity of waves relative to the observer is c + Vo. [...] The motion of an observer does not alter the wavelength. The increase in frequency is a result of the observer encountering more wavelengths in a given time." http://a-levelphysicstutor.com/wav-doppler.php

Banesh Hoffmann, Relativity and Its Roots, p.92: "Moreover, if light consists of particles, as Einstein had suggested in his paper submitted just thirteen weeks before this one, the second principle seems absurd: A stone thrown from a speeding train can do far more damage than one thrown from a train at rest; the speed of the particle is not independent of the motion of the object emitting it. And if we take light to consist of particles and assume that these particles obey Newton's laws, they will conform to Newtonian relativity and thus automatically account for the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment without recourse to contracting lengths, local time, or Lorentz transformations. Yet, as we have seen, Einstein resisted the temptation to account for the null result in terms of particles of light and simple, familiar Newtonian ideas, and introduced as his second postulate something that was more or less obvious when thought of in terms of waves in an ether. If it was so obvious, though, why did he need to state it as a principle? Because, having taken from the idea of light waves in the ether the one aspect that he needed, he declared early in his paper, to quote his own words, that "the introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous." https://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

John Norton: "The Michelson-Morley experiment is fully compatible with an emission theory of light that CONTRADICTS THE LIGHT POSTULATE." http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/1743/2/Norton.pdf

Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, 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..."x http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs.html

Pentcho Valev