[News]

News: Welcome to the new home of the Flat Earth Society Forums

[sandokhan]

The extraordinary book which shows the mistakes committed by A. Einstein:

http://users.net.yu/~mrp/index.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/contents.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter26.html#4
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter28.html
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter23.html#7

Errors of A. Einstein:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm
http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/03/relativity_fraud_the_complicit.html

http://www.aquestionoftime.com/lorentz.htm
http://users.net.yu/~mrp/chapter20.html

http://hometown.aol.com/thomasaquinas87/origins/pdf/einstein.pdf (the exceptional site with the information about Einstein's imposture)

other valuable information, black holes, quasars, variable speed of light)
http://www.kevin.harkess.btinternet.co.uk/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm
http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/0130/p14s03-bogn.html

http://superstringtheory.com/forum/relboard/messages12/103.html
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm#rel3
http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html (exceptional)

http://www.reformation.org/einstein-unmasked.html
http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html
http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html

http://www.collectmyflock.com/CollectMyFlock/pages/20--00__THE_DECEIVER_ALBERT_EINSTEIN__3--PART_SERIES__000.html (supersite)

if it cannot be accessed directly, try in cache format, on google search the word strings collectmyflock.com albert einstein:
:::::..... CNN reports on Aug. 8, 2002: Einstein's theory may be ...Below are assorted papers about Albert Einstein's Fraud, Theft, Word Trickeries (Swindles), Erroneous Mathematical Tricks, Deceptions and Hoaxes. ...
www.collectmyflock.com/.../pages/20--02__CNN__EINSTEIN-S_THEORY_MAY_BE_RELATIVELY_WRONG__000.html - 35k - Cached - Similar pages

http://uk.geocities.com/kevinharkess/reasons_einstein_wrong/reasons_einstein_wrong.html

einsteinfiles
http://itis.volta.alessandria.it/episteme/ep6/ep6-bjerk-rec.htm
http://nptbs.airweb.net/GR-HR.doc

big bang errors
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/cosmo.htm

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/explode.htm

Stationary Universe/E. Hubble/Red Shift Errors

http://www.ldolphin.org/univ-age.html
http://www.ldolphin.org/staticu.html
http://www.topology.org/sci/grav.html

In our time, Einstein has replaced Newton as the monarch of physics. Einstein's disciples tend to crush all opponents of his relativity theories by citing chapter and verse of articles he has published. The main problem with this is the fact that Einstein tends to be a moving target, and his arguments are not consistent from paper to paper, and often within the same paper. Louis Essen has published a booklet titled 'The Special Theory of Relativity A Critical Analysis' in which he examines this question in great detail. [55] Essen is a prominant English physicist who built the first caesium atomic clock in 1955 and determined the most accurate value for the velocity of light by using a cavity resonator. Skipping around the math, I present the following excerpts from the booklet:


Perhaps the strangest feature of all, and the most unfortunate to the development of science, is the use of the thought-experiment. The expression itself is a contradiction in terms, since an experiment is a search for new knowledge that cannot be confirmed, although it might be predicted, by a process of logical thought. A thought-experiment on the other hand cannot provide new knowledge; if it gives a result that is contrary to the theoretical knowledge and assumptions on which it is based then a mistake must have been made. Some of the results of the theory were obtained in this way and differ from the original assumptions...
A common reaction of experimental physicists to the theory is that although they do not understand it themselves it is so widely accepted that it must be correct. I must confess that until recent years this was my own attitude. I was, however, rather more than usually interested in the subject from a practical point of view, having repeated, with microwaves instead of optical waves(Essen 1955), the celebrated Michelson- Morley experiment, which was the starting point of the theory. Then with the introduction of atomic clocks, and the enormous increase in the accuracy of time measurements that they made possible, the relativity effects became of practical significance...

Many of the thought-experiments described by Einstein and others involve the comparison of distant clocks. Such comparisons are now made every day at many laboratories throughout the world. The techniques are well known. It seems reasonable, therefore, to consider the thought-experiments in terms of these techniques. When this is done, the errors in the thought-experiments become more obvious. The fact that errors in the theory arise in the course of the thought- experiments may explain why they were not detected for so long. Theoretical physicists might not have considered them critically from an experimental point of view. But if one has been actually performing such experiments for many years, one is in a more favorable position to detect any departure from the correct procedure. In the existing climate of opinion, one needed to be very confident to speak of definite errors in the theory. Was there not perhaps some subtle interpretation that was being overlooked? A study of the literature did not reveal any, but even so it was familiarity with the experiments that gave one the necessary confidence to maintain a critical attitude.

The literature sometimes reveals a remarkable vagueness of expression, a lack of a clear statement of the assumptions of the theory, and even a failure to appreciate the basic ideas of physical measurement. Ambiguities are not absent from Einstein's own papers, and various writers, even when advancing different interpretations of the theory, are correct in as much as these interpretations can all be attributed to Einstein...

The contraction of length and the dilation of time can now be understood as representing the changes that have to be made to make the results of measurement consistent. There is no question here of a physical theory but simply of a new system of units in which c is constant, and length and time do not have constant units but have units that vary with v2/c2. Thus they are no longer independent, and space and time are intermixed by definition and not as a result of some peculiar property of nature... If the theory of relativity is regarded simply as a new system of units it can be made consistent but it serves no useful purpose... The argument about the clock paradox has continued interminably, although the way the paradox arose and its explanation follow quite clearly from a careful reading of Einstein's paper... The experiment is often expressed in the dramatized form of two twins, one of whom returns from a round trip younger than his brother; and in this form it has received wide publicity... It is illogical to suggest that a result obtained on the basis of the special theory is correct but is a consequence of a completely different theory developed some years later. It is also illogical to assume that accelerations have no effect as he does in A's picture of the events and then to assume that gravitation, which in the general theory is assumed to be equivalent to acceleration, does have an effect... It may be surprising, therefore, to find that a more critical examination of the experiments and the experimental conditions suggests that there is no experimental support for the theory... The experiments of the Michelson-Morley type cannot be taken as supporting the theory, because the theory was developed in order to explain the null result that was obtained... The increase of mass with velocity was predicted for the case of charged particles directly from electromagnetic theory before the advent of relativity theory and was confirmed experimentally by Kaufmann...

18. Conclusions

A critical examination of Einstein's papers reveals that in the course of thought-experiments he makes implicit assumptions that are additional and contrary to his two initial principles. The initial postulates of relativity and the constancy of the velocity of light lead directly to length contraction and time dilation simply as new units of measurements, and in several places Einstein gives support to this view by making his observers adjust their clocks. More usually, and this constitutes the second set of assumptions, he regards the changes as being observed effects, even when the units are not deliberately changed. This implies that there is some physical effect even if it is not understood or described. The results are symmetrical to observers in relative motion; and such can only be an effect in the process of the transmission of the signals. The third assumption is that the clocks and lengths actually change. In this case the relativity postulate can no longer hold.

The first approach, in which the units of measurement are changed, is not a physical theory, and the question of experimental evidence does not arise. There is no evidence for the second approach because no symmetrical experiment has ever been made. There is no direct experimental evidence of the third statement of the theory because no experiments have been made in an inertial system. There are experimental results that support the idea of an observed time dilation, but accelerations are always involved, and there is some indication that they are responsible for the observed effects.

My main insight into Einstein and his work came from a book by Dr. Abraham Pais titled 'Subtle is the Lord...' The Science and the Life of Albert Einstein. [37] Pais is an award-winning physicist who knew Einstein personally during the last nine years of his life. On page 13 we find that in Einstein's own words he had been an 'unscrupulous opportunist.' On page 44 we learn that Einstein did not attend lectures or study, but instead used Marcel Grossman's lecture notes to pass his college examinations. With regard to the mathematics of relativity, page 152 states:


Initially, Einstein was not impressed and regarded the transcriptions of his theory into tensor form as 'uberglussige Gelehrsamkeit,' (superfluous learnedness). However, in 1912 he adopted tensor methods and in 1916 acknowledged his indebtedness to Minkowski for having greatly facilitated the transition from special to general relativity.
Since most scientists do not use or are conversant in tensor mathematics, its use has tended to obscure the intimate meaning behind the relativity theoretical arguments. On page 164 Pais asks:


Why, on the whole, was Einstein so reticent to acknowledge the influence of the Michelson-Morley experiment on his thinking?
On page 168 we find the answer to this question in the second volume of Sir Edmund Whittaker's masterpiece book entitled 'History of the Theories of Aether and Electricity', where:


Whittaker's opinion on this point is best conveyed by the title of his chapter on this subject: 'The Relativity Theory of Poincaré and Lorentz.'
In effect Whittaker showed that Einstein's special relativity theory was not original work, but just a clever restatement of the theoretical work of Poincaré and Lorentz. The translation of Lorentz's 1904 relativity paper [57 p.12] states:


...Poincaré has objected to the existing theory of electric and optical phenomena in moving bodies that, in order to explain Michelson's negative result, the introduction of a new hypothesis has been required, and that the same necessity may occur each time new facts will be brought to light. Surely this course of inventing special hypotheses for each new experimental result is somewhat artificial. It would be more satisfactory if it were possible to show by means of certain fundamental assumptions and without neglecting terms of one order of magnitude or another, that many electromagnetic actions are entirely independent of the motion of the system.
The translation of Einstein's 1905 special relativity paper [57 p.37] presented the argument that one could explain many electromagnetic actions by fundamental assumptions based on two postulates and that the 'introduction of a 'luminiferous ether' will prove to be superfluous', and his paper made no direct reference to the Michelson-Morley experiment or the work of Poincaré and Lorentz. On page 313 of Pais' book we learn that in 1920, after Einstein had become famous, he made an inaugural address on aether and relativity theory for his special chair in Leiden. In the address he states:


The aether of the general theory of relativity is a medium without mechanical and kinematic properties, but which codetermines mechanical and electromagnetic events.
So we finally find that relativity is an ether theory after all, and that this ether has arbitrary abstract contradictory physical characteristics! This illustrates the arbitrary nature of relativity, most physicists, and for that matter, most physics text books, present the argument that relativity is not an ether theory. On page 467 we find that near the end of his life, Einstein wrote to his dear friend M. Besso in 1954:


I consider it quite possible that physics cannot be based on the field concept,i.e., on continuous structures. In that case, nothing remains of my entire castle in the air, gravitation theory included, [and of] the rest of modern physics.
With regard to the problem of the average physicist not understanding relativity theory, Dr. S. Chandrasekhar, a Nobel laureate physicist, writes in an article [46] titled 'Einstein and general relativity: Historical perspectives':

[sandokhan]

The meeting of November 6, 1919 of the Royal Society also originated a myth that persists even today (though in a very much diluted version):'Only three persons in the world understand relativity.' Eddington explained the origin of this myth during the Christmas-recess conversation with which I began this account.
Thomson, as President of the Royal Society at that time, concluded the meeting with the statement:'I have to confess that no one has yet succeeded in stating in clear language what the theory of Einstein really is.' And Eddington recalled that as the meeting was dispersing, Ludwig Silberstein (the author of one of the early books on relativity) came up to him and said: 'Professor Eddington, you must be one of three persons in the world who understands general relativity.' On Eddington demurring to this statement, Silberstein responded, 'Don't be modest Eddington.' And the Eddington's reply was, 'On the contrary, I am trying to think who the third person is!'

This lack of comprehension of Relativity theory, is not uncommon among physicists and astronomers. Over the years, in many intimate conversations and correspondence with them, I've found few scientists willing to admit to an indepth understanding of the theory, yet most of them will argue of their belief in it. I have also discovered that even the scientists that are willing to admit to full comprehension of the theory, have serious gaps in their knowledge of it. For example, Prof. William H. McCrea of England wrote the counter argument to Prof. Herbert Dingle's controversial attack on the inconsistent logic in the theory, which was published in the prestigious journal NATURE. [47] Dingle was an interesting fellow, at one time he was a leading proponent of the relativity theory, and even was a member of several British solar eclipse expeditions. He was a professor at University College in London, and the author of many books and papers on astrophysics, relativity, and the history of science. I was introduced to McCrea by Prof. Thornton Page, at the 1968 Fourth Texas Symposium on Relativistic Astrophysics. McCrea who is considered to be an authority on relativity theory, was surprised to find that Einstein considered relativity to be an ether theory. With regard to the argument that I showed McCrea that represented relativity as an ether theory, Einstein and Infeld state:


...On the other hand, the problem of devising the mechanical model of ether seemed to become less and less interesting and the result, in view of the forced and artificial character of the assumptions, more and more discouraging.
Our only way out seems to be to take for granted the fact that space has the physical property of transmitting electromagnetic waves, and not to bother too much about the meaning of this statement. We may still use the word ether, but only to express some physical property of space. This word ether has changed its meaning many times in the development of science. At the moment it no longer stands for a medium built up of particles. Its story, by no means finished, is continued by the relativity theory. [20 p.153]

There is a very interesting article on this question published in the August 1982 issue of Physics Today by Prof. Yoshimasa A. Ono. The article begins:


It is known that when Albert Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for Physics in 1922, he was unable to attend the ceremonies in Stockholm in December of that year because of an earlier commitment to visit Japan at the same time. In Japan, Einstein gave a speech entitled 'How I Created the Theory of Relativity' at Kyoto University on 14 December 1922. This was an impromptu speech to students and faculty members, made in response to a request by K. Nishida, professor of philosophy at Kyoto University. Einstein himself made no written notes. The talk was delivered in German and a running translation was given to the audience on the spot by J. Isiwara, who had studied under Arnold Sommerfeld and Einstein from 1912 to 1914 and was a professor of physics at Tohoku University. Isiwara kept careful notes of the lecture, and published his detailed notes (in Japanese) in the monthly Japanese periodical Kaizo in 1923; Ishiwara's notes are the only existing notes of Einstein's talk...
Ono ends his introduction to his translation with the statement:


It is clear that this account of Einstein's throws some light on the current controversy as to whether or not he was aware of the Michelson-Morley experiment when he proposed the special theory of relativity in 1905; the account also offers insight into many other aspects of Einstein's work on relativity.
With regard to the ether, Einstein states:


Light propagates through the sea of ether, in which the Earth is moving. In other words, the ether is moving with respect to the Earth...
With regard to the experiment he argues:


Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the Earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun. [48]
The above information gives us insight into the nature of Einstein's relativity theory. He believes that the sea of ether exists, but he also believes that it cannot be detected by experiments, in other words, he believes it is invisible. The situation in modern physics is very much like the Hans Christian Andersen tale of 'The Emperor's New Clothes', with Einstein playing the part of the Emperor. The tale goes that the Emperor, who was obsessed with fine clothing to the point that he cared about nothing else, let two swindlers sell him a suit of cloth that would be invisible to anyone who was 'unfit for his office or unforgivably stupid.' It turned out that no one could see the suit not the emperor, not his courtiers, not the citizens of the town who lined the street to see him show off his new finery. Yet no one dared admit it until a little child cried out, 'But he doesn't have anything on!'

In regard to Einstein's reluctance to acknowledge the influence of the Michelson-Morley experiment on his thinking, and Whittaker's argument that his special relativity theory was a clever restatement of the work of Poincaré and Lorentz, I report the following published [56] statements which Einstein made to Prof. R. S. Shankland on this matter:


The several statements which Einstein made to me in Princeton concerning the Michelson-Morley experiment are not entirely consistent, as mentioned above and in my earlier publication. His statements and attitudes towards the Michelson-Morley experiment underwent a progressive change during the course of our several conversations. I wrote down within a few minutes after each meeting exactly what I recalled that he had said. On 4 February 1950 he said,'...that he had become aware of it through the writings of H. A. Lorentz, but only after 1905 had it come to his attention.' But at a later meeting on 24 October, 1952 he said, 'I am not sure when I first heard of the Michelson experiment. I was not conscious that it had influenced me directly during the seven years that relativity had been my life. I guess I just took it for granted that it was true.' However, in the years 1905-1909 (he told me) he thought a great deal about Michelson's result in his discussions with Lorentz and others, and then he realized (so he told me) that he 'had been conscious of Michelson's result before 1905 partly through his reading of the papers of Lorentz and more because he had simply assumed this result of Michelson to be true.'...


With regard to the politics that led to Einstein's fame Dr. S. Chandrasekhar's article [46] states:


In 1917, after more than two years of war, England enacted conscription for all able-bodied men. Eddington, who was 34, was eligible for draft. But as a devout Quaker, he was a conscientious objector; and it was generally known and expected that he would claim deferment from military service on that ground. Now the climate of opinion in England during the war was very adverse with respect to conscientious objectors: it was, in fact, a social disgrace to be even associated with one. And the stalwarts of Cambridge of those days Larmor (of the Larmor precession), Newall, and others felt that Cambridge University would be disgraced by having one of its distinguished members a declared conscientious objector. They therefore tried through the Home Office to have Eddington deferred on the grounds that he was a most distinguished scientist and that it was not in the long-range interests of Britain to have him serve in the army... In any event, at Dyson's intervention as the Astronomer Royal, he had close connections with the Admiralty Eddington was deferred with the express stipulation that if the war should have ended by 1919, he should lead one of two expeditions that were being planned for the express purpose of verifying Einstein's prediction with regard to the gravitational deflection of light... The Times of London for November 7, 1919, carried two headlines: 'The Glorious Dead, Armistice Observance. All Trains in the Country to Stop,' and 'Revolution in Science. Newtonian Ideas Overthrown.'
Dr. F. Schmeidler of the Munich University Observatory has published a paper [49] titled 'The Einstein Shift An Unsettled Problem,' and a plot of shifts for 92 stars for the 1922 eclipse shows shifts going in all directions, many of them going the wrong way by as large a deflection as those shifted in the predicted direction! Further examination of the 1919 and 1922 data originally interpreted as confirming relativity, tended to favor a larger shift, the results depended very strongly on the manner for reducing the measurements and the effect of omitting individual stars.

So now we find that the legend of Albert Einstein as the world's greatest scientist was based on the Mathematical Magic of Trimming and Cooking of the eclipse data to present the illusion that Einstein's general relativity theory was correct in order to prevent Cambridge University from being disgraced because one of its distinguished members was close to being declared a 'conscientious objector'!


There can be no more clear definition of hoax than what went on in the Tropics back in May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that it is probable that Eddington fudged the data to make it conform to Einstein's work on general relativity.
Let us address the issues set forth by G. Burniston Brown in What is wrong with relativity, also the highly detailed work by Paul Marmet called, Appendix II The Deflection of Light by the Suns Gravitational Field: An Analysis of the 1919 Solar Eclipse Expeditions Internet article and finally, the equally detailed work of P. Marnet and C. Couture called, Relativistic Deflection of Light Near the Sun Using Radio Signals and Visible Light and The Deflection of Light As Observed At Total Solar Eclipses by Charles Lane Poor.
The work of Poor is particularly disturbing for an ethical scientist. First, his summary from J. Opt. Soc. Amer (173-211), The mathmatical formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sum, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics. Not a single of the fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space, of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved in Einsteins prediction of, or formulas for the deflection of light (emphasis added). The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore, been given a fictictious important. Their results can neither prove nor disprove the relativity theory.... (emphasis added)
From Brown we learn that Eddington couldn't wait to get out to the world community that Einsteins theory was confirmed. What Eddington based this on was a premature assessment of the photographic plates. Initially, stars did appear to bend as they should as required by Einstein, but then, according to Brown, the unexpected happened; several stars were then observed to bend in a direction transverse to the expected direction and still others bent in a direction opposite to that predicted by relativity (Brown).
The utter absurdity of the data collected during the eclipse of 1919 was demonstrated by Poor (1930) who pointed out that 85% of the data was discarded from the South American eclipse due to accidental error i.e. it contradicted Einsteins scale constant. By a strange coincidence, the 15% of the good data was consistent with the Einsteins scale constant. Somehow, the stars that did not conform to Einsteins theories conveniently got temporarily shelved and the myth began. Even to this date, the discredited experiment by Eddington is still quoted as gospel by some writers (see David Levy in Parade Magazine, Summer of 2000). The real question though is, Where was Einstein in all this? Surely, he must have known of the work of Poor. Why didnt he go on the record and address a paper that directly contradicted his work? How much have the followers of Einstein tried to set the record straight with respect to the bogus data of 1919 and 1922?
What makes this so suspicious is that neither the instrumentation nor the physical conditions were conducive to make these measurements of such great precision i.e. on a good day with everything perfect as far as instruments and the weather both on earth and on the sun. For example, just the difference in temperature between day and night that day was way beyond the 10 degrees (75-97 degrees) that was the upper limit of range of permissible temperatures for the instruments. Add to this severe limitations imposed by the crude (compared to modern instruments) nature of the 4 object glass and the astrographic and the reliability of this primitive equipment. It appears that Eddington was claiming precisions of .02 of an arc when a more realistic precision due to the turbulence in the suns atmosphere was 2-3 arc (Marmet).
Here are some additional comments by people who have studied the whole question of the reliability of the 1919 expedition. Marmet and Couture (ibid.) state, This paper shows how all the experiments claiming the deflection of light and radio waves by the Sun are subjected to very large systematic errors, which render the results highly unreliable and apparently incorrect. Following those difficulties, and since it has also been demonstrated that the deflection of light by a gravitational potential is not compatible with the principle of mass-energy conservation, we show that no one can seriously claim that light is really deflected by the sun. Another comment, Rare is the night (at most sites) when any telescope, no matter how large its aperture or perfect its optics, can resolve details finer than 1 arc second. More typical at ordinary locations is 2- or 3-arc-second seeing or worse. (MacRobert). The problem becomes even worse during the afternoon due to the heat of the ground. (Marmet). The error caused by the atmospheric turbulence is large enough to refute any measurement of the so-called Einstein effect. (Marmet)
Other attempts to demonstrate relativistic delays based on other parameters fail miserably e.g. From Marmet and Couture, Consequently, due to the above uncertainties in the elements of orbits of the planets, the delay reported is meaningless and does not prove any fundamental agreement with general relativity. So, it appears, the apologists for Einstein once again have corrupted science, this time with both theory and experiments.
To any lay person watching the shimmering of heat waves off hot asphalt and the distortion of the points on the far side of the heat waves, the turbulence of the sun seems to represent a simple insurmountable barrier to the acquisition of highly precise data. It is clear from the outset that Eddington was in no way interested in testing Einsteins theory; he was only interested in confirming it. The obvious fudging of the data by Eddington and others is a blatant corruption of science, may have misdirected scientific research for the better part of a century and probably surpasses the Piltdown Man as the greatest hoax of all times.

[sandokhan]

missing dopler effect/relativity hoax

http://padrak.com/ine/NEN_6_10_9.html

photon: fact or fiction?

http://www.wbabin.net/science/schreiber12.pdf

Did Einstein cheat?

http://www.wbabin.net/physics/tdm5.pdf

Notice, however, that the gravitational mechanism remains equally mysterious. Newton could not say how a massive object acted upon matter at a distance. Einstein cannot explain how a massive object curves space at a distance. There is much talk and work currently on gravitons, but none have been found. And Einstein never presented them as the mechanism for gravity anyway. He postulated that gravity waves might be produced under certain situations, and that the waves might be composed of gravitons, but he never implied that a normal gravitational field was produced by gravitons—by a transmission of influence-carrying sub-particles. For Einstein, no carrier of influence was necessary in a normal gravitational field, since matter in the field 'felt no force.' A particle that feels no force does not need to be acted upon by smaller influence-carrying particles. Matter in a gravitational field moves as it does because the field is curved, not because it is being influenced by sub-particles. Einstein took the electrical field as his blueprint for the new gravitational field of General Relativity, and it is equally mysterious. An electrical current is composed of moving electrons; an electrical field is not. A single electron has a charge, a charge it could hardly transmit to surrounding particles by emitting another electron. This would certainly be a reductio ad absurdum. The electrical field just is. The 'field' has most often been a concept without mechanical legs—another one of those words that so successfully implies content that history has never felt the need to supply it with any. Just so the gravitational field.

http://www.wbabin.net/mathis/mathis22.htm

http://www.wbabin.net/mathis/mathis17.htm


supersite
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/44738

Was Einstein wrong about Special Relativity?


http://www.johnpeckscience.com/


http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html


http://www.wbabin.net/valev/valev5.htm


http://blog.hasslberger.com/2006/05/tweaking_einstein_unified_theo.html


http://homepage.ntlworld.com/academ/whatswrongwithrelativity.html

http://www.physicsmyths.org.uk/relativity.htm
Einstein's Misconceptions of Space and Time

Many notable scientists such as the French mathematician, Henri Poincare rejected Einstein’s Theory of Relativity due to it’s lack of sound mathematical procedures, absence of clearness of vision or rigorous arguments.

supersite
http://www.aethro-kinematics.com/

http://blog.hasslberger.com/2007/06/einstein_warped_minds_bent_tru.html

Other special theory of relativity errors:

http://www.helmut-hille.de/units.html

http://www.wbabin.net/science/mueller.pdf

http://www.aetheoraem.com/Contemporary.htm (supersite)

http://www.catholicintl.com/scienceissues/critique-dermott3.htm

H. Dingle critique of special relativity:

http://www.heretical.com/science/dingle1.html

http://www.suppressedscience.net/physics.html
(How anybody who dares to criticize the relativity theory is eliminated from the research labs/courses in universities)

[sandokhan]

Nikola Tesla on the space-time concept hoax invented by Minkowsky and Einstein:


Tesla underlined that time was a mere man-made reference used for convenience and as such the idea of a 'curved space-time' was delusional, hence there was no basis for the Relativistic 'space-time' binomium concept.

Motion through space produces the 'illusion of time'.

He considered time as a mere man-made 'measure' of the rate at which events occur such as a distance travelled (in miles or kms) in a certain period of time, for a frame of reference. He considered the 'curving' of space to be absurd (putting it in gentle terms) saying that if a moving body curved space the 'equal and opposite' reaction of space on the body would 'straighten space back out'.

'... Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curving of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies, and producing the opposite effects, straightening out the curves. Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible - But even if it existed it would not explain the motions of the bodies as observed. Only the existence of a field of force can account for the motions of the bodies as observed, and its assumption dispenses with space curvature. All literature on this subject is futile and destined to oblivion. So are all attempts to explain the workings of the universe without recognizing the existence of the ether and the indispensable function it plays in the phenomena.'
'My second discovery was of a physical truth of the greatest importance. As I have searched the entire scientific records in more than a half dozen languages for a long time without finding the least anticipation, I consider myself the original discoverer of this truth, which can be expressed by the statement: There is no energy in matter other than that received from the environment.' — Nikola Tesla

Tesla's aether is in fact a medium, 'a perfect fluid' that wets everything in which are immersed 'independent carriers'. It behaves as a solid to light (high frequency) and is transparent to matter, while it's effects can be felt through inertia. Tesla demonstrated how this aether could be 'polarized' and made 'rigid' through a particular high frequency alternator and single terminal coil (ex. 1892 lecture in London) and 2 metal plates which he 'suspended' in the air making the space between them rigid 'privately' on one another (ed. the tesla effect). In 1894, Tesla invented a special bulb (which was the ultimate result of his research in vacuum tubes; the unipolar 'targetless' bulb) which augmented this technology to create 'tubes of force' which could be used for motive power (what Tesla later cited as 'veritable ropes of air').

At the age of 81, Tesla challenged Einstein's theory of relativity, announcing that he was working on a dynamic theory of gravity that would do away with the calculation of space curvature.

During the succeeding two years of intense concentration I was fortunate enough to make two far-reaching discoveries. The first was a dynamic theory of gravity, which I have worked out in all details and hope to give to the world very soon. It explains the causes of this force and the motions of heavenly bodies under its influence so satisfactorily that it will put an end to idle speculations and false conceptions, as that of curved space. According to the relativists, space has a tendency to curvature owing to an inherent property or presence of celestial bodies. Granting a semblance of reality to this fantastic idea, it is still self-contradictory. Every action is accompanied by an equivalent reaction and the effects of the latter are directly opposite to those of the former. Supposing that the bodies act upon the surrounding space causing curvature of the same, it appears to my simple mind that the curved spaces must react on the bodies and, producing the opposite effects, straighten out the curves, Since action and reaction are coexistent, it follows that the supposed curvature of space is entirely impossible.

Speaking to his friends, Tesla often refuted some of Einstein’s statements, especially those which were related with curvature of space. He considered that it breaks the law of action and opposite reaction: “If curvature of space is formed due to strong gravitational fields, then it should become straight due to opposite reaction.”

Relativity hoax/Mercury perihelion imposture:

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Rethinking_Relativity.htm

http://www.gravitywarpdrive.com/Speed_of_Gravity.htm (the author, Tom Van Flandern, presents his calculations from the heliocentric point of view):

The advance of the perihelion of Mercury’s orbit, another famous confirmation of General Relativity, is worth a closer look (the perihelion is the point in the orbit closest to a sun). Graduate theses may one day be written about this peculiar episode in the history of science. In his book, Subtle Is the Lord, Abraham Pais reports that when Einstein saw that his calculations agreed with Mercury’s orbit, “he had the feeling that something actually snapped in him ... This experience was, I believe, by far the strongest emotional experience in Einstein’s scientific life, perhaps in all his life. Nature had spoken to him.”
Fact: The equation that accounted for Mercury’s orbit had been published 17 years earlier, before Relativity was invented. The author, Paul Gerber, used the assumption that gravity is not instantaneous, but propagates with the speed of light. After Einstein published his General Relativity derivation, arriving at the same equation, Gerber’s article was reprinted in *Annalen der Physik* (the journal that had published Einstein’s Relativity papers). The editors felt that Einstein should have acknowledged Gerber’s priority. Although Einstein said he had been in the dark, it was pointed out that Gerber’s formula had been published in Mach’s Science of Mechanics, a book that Einstein was known to have studied. So how did they both arrive at the same formula?
Tom Van Flandern was convinced that Gerber’s assumption (gravity propagates with the speed of light) was wrong. So he studied the question. He points out that the formula in question is well known in celestial mechanics. Consequently, it could be used as a “target” for calculations that were intended to arrive at it. He saw that Gerber’s method “made no sense, in terms of the principles of celestial mechanics.” Einstein had also said (in a 1920 newspaper article) that Gerber’s derivation was “wrong through and through.”
So how did Einstein get the same formula? Van Flandern went through his calculations, and found to his amazement that they had “three separate contributions to the perihelion; two of which add, and one of which cancels part of the other two; and you wind up with just the right multiplier.” So he asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, how in his opinion Einstein
had arrived at the correct multiplier. This man said it was his impression that, “knowing the answer,” Einstein had “jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value.”

This brings us to the explanation of Brownian motion, the subject of another of Einstein's 1905 papers. Brownian motion describes the irregular motion of a body arising from the thermal energy of the molecules of the material in which the body is immersed. The movement had first been observed by the Scottish botanist Robert Brown in 1827. The explanation of this phenomenon has to do with the Kinetic Theory of Matter, and it was the American Josiah Gibbs and the Austrian Ludwig Boltzmann who first explained this occurrence, not Albert Einstein. In fact, the mathematical equation describing the motion contains the famous Boltzmann constant, k. Between these two men, they had explained by the 1890s everything in Einstein's 1905 paper regarding Brownian motion.

1827 - 78 years before Einstein gets credit for it, Robert Brown in Scotland explains Brownian Movement, yet Einstein never even cited him.

Einstein's fallacies:

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/dp5/relativ.htm#rel3


http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html

http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/dishones.htm

http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/einstein.html

Space time hoax:

http://theflatearthsociety.net/forum/index.php?topic=537.0