Einsteins theories are false

[Mark Elin]

Anyone seriously want to discuss why this is true? You need to be willing to step through Einsteins thought experiments on Special Relativity if you want to challenge my claim.
So that everyone is on the same page, I'm confining this thread to Special Relativity.
For background material, please watch Fermilab's Dr Don Lincon's videos :

What is relativity all about?

What is relativity all about?

and

Relativity's key concept: Lorentz gamma

Relativity's key concept: Lorentz gamma

People just commenting with only "stupid" or "you are an idiot" without explaining exactly why and where I am wrong will be ignored.
Such people need to just stay watching Bevis and Butthead.

[Nikola Bijeliti]

Those two videos are an interesting introduction. I'm looking forward to seeing the videos that explain why (((Einstein))) was wrong.

[Ray Allan]

I first became aware that Einstein's theories were fraudulent or plagiarized from White scientists from William Pierce in the old 'National Vanguard' magazine. Pierce was a physicist, so if anyone would know, it was him.

[Rasen]

For long time I believed the common principles of that theory had been invented before Einstein. Now it turns out we don't have to wash hands only because jew Einstein was doing it.

[Mark Elin]

First it seems to me that there was the general feeling among educated people in the late 1800"s that men could figure out everything about this existence, explain every bit of it, and our understanding would reach the place where we need not any faith in a creator god.
I'm an atheist, but I don't believe that man has or possibly ever will be able to explain everything. I certainly have never heard of any even slightly convincing theory to date.

So some of the basic ideas of Special Relativity are borrowed or build upon the ideas of other men, its true. But the mistake is to assume that these other men had any sane concept to pass on to Einstein in the first place.

The only sane, rational and 100% correct theories are from Newton and Galileo as far as any understanding of "relativity" is concerned. Even Maxwell's conclusions are not guaranteed to be fully correct.

Lorentz, Minkowski, Einstein, Planck, and the boys of that era are all trying to outdo each other in the race to explain reality in a way that destroys belief in any "supernatural" causes. Im not saying that there is a god, I’m just saying that for an animal to figure out how it originated is a big ask. A chicken is never going to understand the process of fertilization by thinking about it. Neither is a human animal.

We have understood much, that is true, but we also just make up stories that help visualize processes and forces in nature that there is no possibility that they are accurate, even though they stories help us use the forces to our advantage, and do it reliably. The story of the Electron is one example. Electrons cant actually exist as we imagine them, but the story aids in our ability to use the force of electricity.

So what about Special Relativity?

First, its built on a series of assumptions, then Einstein cleverly and deceitfully twists his own words around from the opening statements, (which seem OK) into a conclusion that means the exact opposite of the original position stated.
Its this twist that is the cause of the error of SR, and its a terminal error, un recoverable.
As Einstein’s theories are now CENTRAL to modern Physics, these false theories have virtually infected many other theories which is why science now seems so weird.
As a result we have errors ( and science fraud to back it up ) such as Big Bang, Black Holes, Gravity Waves, Expanding Universe, CMB, Worm Holes, Parallel Universes, Particle Physics, Quantum Physics and a host of other totally weird claims about reality.
These concepts SEEM weird because they are all science fiction, and are all based in errors.

Ok, so what’s the first error of SR exactly?
In the first video at about 1:48, Don introduces the Galilean concept of relative MOTION. And the math that allows us to do basic calculations about relative motions.
We know for a fact that these motion translations are 100% correct, because the concepts are RATIONAL, and display sound LOGIC. Also the values calculated can be verified easily.
But Einstein’s dirty little trick is now starting to unfold without you suspecting anything is going off the rails of rationality.
Think about this: Both Galileo and Newton developed concepts pertaining to WHAT exactly?
Biology? History? Astronomy? Medicine? NO, they were both addressing PHYSICS, which is absolutely pertaining to the study of the MOTION of REAL PHYSICAL OBJECTS, and so all terms used are expressed in measurements such as “Inertia, momentum, Kinetic energy, velocity, speed, time, locations in cartesian coordinates, mass, gravitation pull, (force of one Newton= effort required to move one Kg one meter in one second, in earth’s gravity)
Now, please show me how any of these measurement units pertaining to the MOTION of OBJECTS that possess SIZE and have MASS, can be used for the study of OPTICS? The study of how light works?
Anyone?
Light, and the mythical Photon (an invention of Einstein) has NOTHING in common with the kinematics of Galileo and Newton.
But Don Lincon will soon tangle both Kinematics in with Optics without blinking an eye. He knows its wrong, yet he teaches it anyway…
So I’ll pause here, wait for any wag that is going to claim that the Photon exists, and has mass, therefore Newtons laws will apply to it.

[Mark Elin]

Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti

Those two videos are an interesting introduction. I'm looking forward to seeing the videos that explain why (((Einstein))) was wrong.

Ok, You have lost interest in why einstein is wrong?
No comments?

[Nikola Bijeliti]

Originally Posted by Mark Elin

Ok, You have lost interest in why einstein is wrong?
No comments?

Actually, I thought you were the one who lost interest. There are hundreds of videos on his channel. Which one or ones do I have to watch to find out why Einstein was wrong? I was waiting for you to post more links to the videos so I'd know which ones to watch. I'm certainly interested in the answer, but not interested enough to plow through hundreds of videos to find out. I found this video, but it doesn't say that Einstein was wrong but only that E=mc² is often misinterpreted.

Why E=mc² is wrong

Why E=mc² is wrong

[Mark Elin]

[QUOTE=Nikola Bijeliti;2289219]Actually, I thought you were the one who lost interest. There are hundreds of videos on his channel. Which one or ones do I have to watch to find out why Einstein was wrong? I was waiting for you to post more links to the videos so I'd know which ones to watch. I'm certainly interested in the answer, but not interested enough to plow through hundreds of videos to find out. I found this video, but it doesn't say that Einstein was wrong but only that E=mc² is often misinterpreted.

Ok, Here's the bit you are not getting. Would you ask a Jew if the Holocaust was true?
Well why would you expect to find hundreds of videos from mainstream, "approved" custodians of all science knowledge?
You are asking the very people who are lying to you, to tell you the truth.

Why you need a video? Cant you read?
I'm fairly sure that I posted a long intro to where SR was wrong, and got not one comment from anyone.
You think Im going to continue when I get no feedback?
AFTER I discuss the core problems with some one interested and able to think critically, Ill dig up a few videos for you, but you need to have a bit of an intro first. Its taken me years to untangle out this science mess.

[Nikola Bijeliti]

Originally Posted by Mark Elin

Ok, Here's the bit you are not getting. Would you ask a Jew if the Holocaust was true?
Well why would you expect to find hundreds of videos from mainstream, "approved" custodians of all science knowledge?
You are asking the very people who are lying to you, to tell you the truth.

Why you need a video? Cant you read?
I'm fairly sure that I posted a long intro to where SR was wrong, and got not one comment from anyone.
You think Im going to continue when I get no feedback?
AFTER I discuss the core problems with some one interested and able to think critically, Ill dig up a few videos for you, but you need to have a bit of an intro first. Its taken me years to untangle out this science mess.

You post a thread with the title "Einstein's theories are false" along with a couple of videos about Einstein's theories. The natural reaction would be to expect that more videos are forthcoming which will explain why Einstein was wrong.

I'm sorry I missed your earlier thread. Would you mind posting a link to it? I'd very much like to learn more about this subject and to continue this discussion with you. And I actually prefer reading text to watching videos, since with videos you waste a lot of time watching introductory material and irrelevant commentary, whereas with text you can skim over that stuff to get to the important part.

[Mark Elin]

The post I did earlier was #5 in this thread. Here it is again:

<<First it seems to me that there was the general feeling among educated people in the late 1800"s that men could figure out everything about this existence, explain every bit of it, and our understanding would reach the place where we need not any faith in a creator god.
I'm an atheist, but I don't believe that man has or possibly ever will be able to explain everything. I certainly have never heard of any even slightly convincing theory to date.

So some of the basic ideas of Special Relativity are borrowed or build upon the ideas of other men, its true. But the mistake is to assume that these other men had any sane concept to pass on to Einstein in the first place.

The only sane, rational and 100% correct theories are from Newton and Galileo as far as any understanding of "relativity" is concerned. Even Maxwell's conclusions are not guaranteed to be fully correct.

Lorentz, Minkowski, Einstein, Planck, and the boys of that era are all trying to outdo each other in the race to explain reality in a way that destroys belief in any "supernatural" causes. Im not saying that there is a god, I’m just saying that for an animal to figure out how it originated is a big ask. A chicken is never going to understand the process of fertilization by thinking about it. Neither is a human animal.

We have understood much, that is true, but we also just make up stories that help visualize processes and forces in nature that there is no possibility that they are accurate, even though they stories help us use the forces to our advantage, and do it reliably. The story of the Electron is one example. Electrons cant actually exist as we imagine them, but the story aids in our ability to use the force of electricity.

So what about Special Relativity?

First, its built on a series of assumptions, then Einstein cleverly and deceitfully twists his own words around from the opening statements, (which seem OK) into a conclusion that means the exact opposite of the original position stated.
Its this twist that is the cause of the error of SR, and its a terminal error, un recoverable.
As Einstein’s theories are now CENTRAL to modern Physics, these false theories have virtually infected many other theories which is why science now seems so weird.
As a result we have errors ( and science fraud to back it up ) such as Big Bang, Black Holes, Gravity Waves, Expanding Universe, CMB, Worm Holes, Parallel Universes, Particle Physics, Quantum Physics and a host of other totally weird claims about reality.
These concepts SEEM weird because they are all science fiction, and are all based in errors.

Ok, so what’s the first error of SR exactly?
In the first video at about 1:48, Don introduces the Galilean concept of relative MOTION. And the math that allows us to do basic calculations about relative motions.
We know for a fact that these motion translations are 100% correct, because the concepts are RATIONAL, and display sound LOGIC. Also the values calculated can be verified easily.
But Einstein’s dirty little trick is now starting to unfold without you suspecting anything is going off the rails of rationality.
Think about this: Both Galileo and Newton developed concepts pertaining to WHAT exactly?
Biology? History? Astronomy? Medicine? NO, they were both addressing PHYSICS, which is absolutely pertaining to the study of the MOTION of REAL PHYSICAL OBJECTS, and so all terms used are expressed in measurements such as “Inertia, momentum, Kinetic energy, velocity, speed, time, locations in cartesian coordinates, mass, gravitation pull, (force of one Newton= effort required to move one Kg one meter in one second, in earth’s gravity)
Now, please show me how any of these measurement units pertaining to the MOTION of OBJECTS that possess SIZE and have MASS, can be used for the study of OPTICS? The study of how light works?
Anyone?
Light, and the mythical Photon (an invention of Einstein) has NOTHING in common with the kinematics of Galileo and Newton.
But Don Lincon will soon tangle both Kinematics in with Optics without blinking an eye. He knows its wrong, yet he teaches it anyway…
So I’ll pause here, wait for any wag that is going to claim that the Photon exists, and has mass, therefore Newtons laws will apply to it. >>

Anything you don't agree with up till this point? Or anything I did not explain clearly?
The above re-post is not intended to be detailed, its just some background info to illuminate the actual source of Einsteins error in his SR Hypothesis.

Namely, that he relies on classical Physics laws in his new theory which claims to be doing away with those same laws.

Next and the main error, the laws to which he reefers, are ALL related to the study of solid, physics objects, but Einstein slips in to this some observations that have nothing whatsoever to do with the motion of solid matter, that is the nature of Light.

And the third error is he tricks the reader into accepting a crazy, irrational notion that simply by the act of changing one's location, or/and his state of motion, that this WILL CHANGE the PHYSICAL PROPERTIES of a solid object that he is watching!

Fourth error is based on the misconception that Math can reveal a previously unknown key principal of Physics, namely that simply due to Einsteins falsely based mathematically derived equation, Time MUST be a variable, because his bad math wont work out unless Time is a "thing" and that it can change willy-nilly.
Time is a concept, not a thing, and its simply a way of rhythmical counting based on the cyclical motion of real objects, whether those objects be the planets, or the oscillations of a quarts crystal, or the vibrations of a cesium atom.
You cant travel anywhere in "time" because its not a thing, not a "dimension".
Anymore than you can go back and forth in the "dimension" of happiness or faith. These are all concepts, and have nothing to do with Physics. Time is used to MEASURE motions in Physics, but its like the meter, its a measure of something, the meter measures the length, or distance, and Time measures the rate of motion, compare to other rates of motion.

Anything you are wanting to discuss so far?
These 4 main errors above are key to understanding where einstein went wrong, so if you dont agree with anything ive said so far, we need to sort it out before proceeding.

[Mark Elin]

Nikola, I just looked at you blog... excellent work you are doing, im in awe.

The pen is mightier than the sword, but few bother to read these days.

My single summarizing claim re Einstein so far, (pertaining to SR) is that The laws of Galilean and Newtonian Physics that Einstein uses and relies on as the BASE for his new theory, CANNOT apply to any assumptions about the nature or functioning of LIGHT.

Its like trying to come up with a new theory of PHYSICS by combining some rules of Chemistry with some assumptions of the study of History, along with a proposed experiment that can only ever be performed in your own head, and thinking that you have made a breakthrough! What the hell is a "thought experiment"? its a opportunity to make physics look like its capable of doing the impossible!

Whats more likely? A/ that physical objects shrink in only one plane, whilst at the same time they gain weight (mass), and that "Time" is changing for that object, BUT only in the eyes of an observer, also, these changes will be different for each and every different observer, OR B/ Einstein's hypothesis has one or more errors in there somewhere? And that an object stays the same length, same weight, and time is constant REGARDLESS of the speed differential.

I don't think we have looked at the hypothesis critically enough.
And we SHOULD, as the theories and conclusions are claimed to have changed all of Science!
If the theories and conclusions are true, then the hypothesis needs to be rock solid, without any ambiguity, containing no leaps of faith, or contradictions. The rationality of the proposal and the soundness of the hypothesis must be unquestionable, IF we are willing to do away with the already solid and simple theories of Galileo and Newton, the real geniuses, and replace it all with Einsteins imaginings, then we better be 100% positive.
I claim that the evidence shows that Einsteins is not 100% right, or 90% right, but his theories are actually 100% error.
Please note well, that observational evidence offered in support of Relativity is NOT PROOF. Because you can ever use an experiment to Prove your theory, only to disprove it.
And ALL evidence needs to be INTERPRETED by an observer, who has necessarily preconceived opinions and beliefs, as well as assumptions about what he expect to see.
All evidence is INTERPRETED, and as such, the is always more than one possible way to interpret this evidence. Relativists always pretend that there is only one way, and they never discuss any alternative interpretations. (they do however always mention straw men alternatives, which are easily shown to be crap.)

[Nikola Bijeliti]

Let me apologize again for the misunderstanding. There are younger people who will only post videos, and so when I saw you start out with a couple of videos, I made the assumption that you were going to present your case in a series of videos. I apologize for that false assumption.

Reading your post, you point out four places where Einstein went wrong:

1. He tried to apply laws of motion pertaining to matter to light, which is not matter.
2. He used the laws of classical physics to do away with the laws of classical physics.
3. He claims changing your location will change the properties of some other object.
4. He claims that math can reveal a previously unknown key principal of Physics.

I'll grant you #1. As far as #2 is concerned, I wouldn't say he is doing away with the laws of classical physics so much as refining them or generalizing them. I'm not sure where he says #3. And I don't see any reason why math cannot be used to discover new laws of physics, so long as they are grounded in observation.

My opinion of relativity theory is that it may be useful in predicting certain phenomena, just as Ptolemy's epicycles were useful, but it may not be correct as an actual causal explanation of how the universe works. For example, I've read that spaceflight using only classical physics would not succeed, that relativity is needed, at least to do the calculations, although some better theory may afford a better explanation of why the calculations actually work.

So are you saying only that relativity as a causal explanation is wrong, or are you saying that the calculations are also wrong, and that classical physics is the end of the road for physics and is 100% correct as is, with no need for improvements or refinement?

[Nikola Bijeliti]

Originally Posted by Mark Elin

My single summarizing claim re Einstein so far, (pertaining to SR) is that The laws of Galilean and Newtonian Physics that Einstein uses and relies on as the BASE for his new theory, CANNOT apply to any assumptions about the nature or functioning of LIGHT.

Its like trying to come up with a new theory of PHYSICS by combining some rules of Chemistry with some assumptions of the study of History, along with a proposed experiment that can only ever be performed in your own head, and thinking that you have made a breakthrough! What the hell is a "thought experiment"? its a opportunity to make physics look like its capable of doing the impossible!

Whats more likely? A/ that physical objects shrink in only one plane, whilst at the same time they gain weight (mass), and that "Time" is changing for that object, BUT only in the eyes of an observer, also, these changes will be different for each and every different observer, OR B/ Einstein's hypothesis has one or more errors in there somewhere? And that an object stays the same length, same weight, and time is constant REGARDLESS of the speed differential.

As I wrote in my previous post, I've read that there are practical uses of relativity theory, such as navigating a spacecraft, and that trying to navigate a spacecraft using only classical physics simply will not work. Is that correct, or is that false?

[Mark Elin]

Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti

As I wrote in my previous post, I've read that there are practical uses of relativity theory, such as navigating a spacecraft, and that trying to navigate a spacecraft using only classical physics simply will not work. Is that correct, or is that false?

On the basis that the equations are provably erroneous, there remains no chance that error filled equations can be used to "improve" on the soundly based classical laws of physics, so no, they cant be using error to make calculations about space travel. (or GPS) Science is a business, big business, and we both know who runs big business. They lie to keep control, and Public Education is the first and greatest tool they use to keep us ignorant.
("how do you know? your no Einstein" is an oft repeated phrase, like no one is allowed to question the genius)

[Mark Elin]

Originally Posted by Nikola Bijeliti

Let me apologize again for the misunderstanding. There are younger people who will only post videos, and so when I saw you start out with a couple of videos, I made the assumption that you were going to present your case in a series of videos. I apologize for that false assumption.

Reading your post, you point out four places where Einstein went wrong:

1. He tried to apply laws of motion pertaining to matter to light, which is not matter.
2. He used the laws of classical physics to do away with the laws of classical physics.
3. He claims changing your location will change the properties of some other object.
4. He claims that math can reveal a previously unknown key principal of Physics.

I'll grant you #1. As far as #2 is concerned, I wouldn't say he is doing away with the laws of classical physics so much as refining them or generalizing them. I'm not sure where he says #3. And I don't see any reason why math cannot be used to discover new laws of physics, so long as they are grounded in observation.

My opinion of relativity theory is that it may be useful in predicting certain phenomena, just as Ptolemy's epicycles were useful, but it may not be correct as an actual causal explanation of how the universe works. For example, I've read that spaceflight using only classical physics would not succeed, that relativity is needed, at least to do the calculations, although some better theory may afford a better explanation of why the calculations actually work.

So are you saying only that relativity as a causal explanation is wrong, or are you saying that the calculations are also wrong, and that classical physics is the end of the road for physics and is 100% correct as is, with no need for improvements or refinement?

Your 4 counters to my points:1. if you agree that light is not matter, not physical, then you cant accept the tenants of Special Relativity, or modern science, which claims that light has MOMENTUM, (a Galilean concept of Physical matter). The claim that Light (the Einstein invented, mythical PHOTON)... has no Mass at REST, but as it always moves at "c", then it does have Momentum. This defies all rationality. Momentum is p=mv. and that m in there is the mass of the photon, which is zero. They have a complicated work around, which converts the light into a frequency and uses a "constant" (which is a math fudge to make the math work) the constant called Plank Length. All this was done because no one can explain the simple claim of Einstein that an object moving will mysteriously gain weight (mass) from nowhere, while also shrinking in volume,,, so they had to invent this dodge of saying that Einstein, although a Genius, in his scientific papers, wrote always, "MASS" when he really meant to say "momentum".
That's point 1.
Now point 2, What is a LAW of Physics? Its like expressible in an equation, that can be verified. such as v=dt Velocity = distance * time.
Now, IF you "improve on this equation, by changing the formulation, its now no longer the same LAW. You can have TWO DIFFERENT methods for calculating velocity, only one can be right, or maybe we can add 6 more new ways to calculate velocity, each ending up with a totally different result?
No, a Law of Physics, such as v=dt is carved in stone, and is demonstrably applicable for any distance or time period.
So claiming that Einstein "improved" Newtons Laws, is a lie. he did away with them, replaced them totally with his own new equations, which SHOULD be applied to ANY velocity, not just velocities at ear light speed.
Why do they STILL teach that v=dt when now we know that distances and times are not measurable reliably because they are all subjective, and change according to who doing the measuring? Einstein did not "improve" on the classical equations by the substitution of totally different equations based on irrational concepts and possessing very weak logical constructs, and also using actual mathematical errors. (which we shall discover if we keep digging.)
3. Einsteins claims that physical objects morph and also time does, simply by an observer watching (measuring) it. (if there is a velocity or positional difference)
4. No, MATH can't ever "discover" new science. This is the very cause of all our insane science today. Tesla said that modern scientists wander off with fancy equations that bear no resemblance to reality.
Math is but a tool, a way to count efficiently. Its very useful, but the key to math is that the equations used must be PERFECT to begin with, Doing Math based on a equation that has a flaw, will provide perfectly accurate, repeatable results down to 37 decimal places every time, but they will be perfectly wrong every time.

First, get your hypothesis right, based on what you have observed, then try to predict what might happen under differing conditions, (that's where the math come in) Then compare the prediction ot experiments. That's the correct scientific method.

Einsteins and now much of Particle Physics and cosmology does the math first, and sometimes ONLY does the math, based on math driven theories, There is never an observation to kick it all off, THEN having decided that their conclusions are correct (after all they have the MATH) THEN they propose to find an OBSERVATION. They have the cart before the horse.

Given enough Data, and enough playing with equations, practically ANY theory can be supported by the "data".
Math is NOT PHYSICS.

Recently, Nobel prizes in PHYSICS were given to Mathematicians!
(who have no practical idea about Physics in the slightest.)
I'm now off to the Hospital, a 50mm splinter of Fiberglass off my Long Bow embedded itself deep into my palm. Ouch.

[Mark Elin]

[QUOTE=Nikola Bijeliti;

So are you saying only that relativity as a causal explanation is wrong, or are you saying that the calculations are also wrong, and that classical physics is the end of the road for physics and is 100% correct as is, with no need for improvements or refinement?[/QUOTE]

Nope, I'm saying that we cant ever replace a working set of Laws with utter error.
I'm saying that Einsteins Calculations are totally wrong, as no correct result can come from a truly irrational equation.
The concept is wrong, the geometry used in the formulation of the theory is wrong, therefore the resulting developed equations are meaningless, and all Math calculations using these equations will be totally wrong. This is demonstrable by examining his hypothesis in detail.

Scientific knowledge will increase, but there are some things that wont change with more information. Such as 2+2=4, that is never going to change, nor is the discovery that water is H2O. Never going to change. And likewise, Time is never going to be rediscovered as a "real thing", and solid objects won't be shrinking or getting heavier because of the simple act of motion.

[Nikola Bijeliti]

I'll grant most of what you're saying, but I do take exception to a few things:

Originally Posted by Mark Elin

On the basis that the equations are provably erroneous, there remains no chance that error filled equations can be used to "improve" on the soundly based classical laws of physics, so no, they cant be using error to make calculations about space travel. (or GPS)

Ptolemy's theory of epicycles is demonstrably false, yet, for a thousand years, was quite useful. For a thousand years, captains of ships at sea used Ptolemy's tables to navigate. If the calculations had been made assuming that the orbits of the planets were circular, with no epicycles, then ships would have gotten lost at sea. So that is an example of a scientific theory that proved to be false yet was highly useful.

Originally Posted by Mark Elin

Science is a business, big business, and we both know who runs big business. They lie to keep control, and Public Education is the first and greatest tool they use to keep us ignorant.

I have heard and read from numerous sources that NASA's space probes rely on calculations using relativity theory to navigate in space, and that if they relied solely on classical physics they would never reach their targets. So what you are telling me is that that is all a big lie, and that NASA is deliberately maintaining that lie for some reason, political coercion perhaps.

I am not saying that that is totally implausible, but I would want more evidence before believing it. I used to believe in the holocaust until I examined the evidence, but, having done so, it is fairly obvious that it is a hoax.

So let me ask you a couple of questions: Are you a physicist or an expert in physics? I studied physics for one year in high school and three semesters in college, so I am by no means an expert. What is your level of knowledge?

Are there any verifiable sources of physicists, astronomers, engineers, or insiders claiming either that NASA is lying when they say that they use relativity theory to navigate in space, or that others are lying when they state that NASA uses relativity theory to navigate in space? Government agencies lie all the time, but NASA is one government organization that I would be inclined to trust.

Originally Posted by Mark Elin

So claiming that Einstein "improved" Newtons Laws, is a lie. he did away with them, replaced them totally with his own new equations, which SHOULD be applied to ANY velocity, not just velocities at ear light speed.

My understanding is that Einstein's equations are equivalent to the equations of classical physics at low speeds.

Originally Posted by Mark Elin

First, get your hypothesis right, based on what you have observed, then try to predict what might happen under differing conditions, (that's where the math come in) Then compare the prediction of experiments. That's the correct scientific method.

Einsteins and now much of Particle Physics and cosmology does the math first, and sometimes ONLY does the math, based on math driven theories, There is never an observation to kick it all off, THEN having decided that their conclusions are correct (after all they have the MATH) THEN they propose to find an OBSERVATION. They have the cart before the horse.

My understanding is that Einstein's theories were motivated by observation, in particular, the Michelson–Morley experiment. The math was devised to fit the observations of that experiment.

[Mark Elin]

Ok, One by one.
Yes, it's historical fact that earlier theories such as perfectly circular orbits which were useful, have later been replaced by better more accurate theories such as the elliptical orbits and precessions.
But such improvements in theories relate to the better observations of the motion of planets, THEN the description of such, followed by a mathematical description with equations that are tested against more observations.

There were at the time, a number of possible explanations that tried to account for the anomalies observed, and the “winning” explanation along with the development of the accompanying math was the elliptical orbits proposal.
Now with Einstein’s Special Relativity, There was no actual observed evidence that there was a problem to solve with a new theory.
What we had was a contest between a bunch of Mathematicians and Physicists of the time, to come up with a solution for a THEORETICAL problem involving the non-invariance of the treasured equations of James Clerk Maxwell.
The “ideal” theoretical equation should be invariant under conditions involving motion or no motion, They were not. Add to this was the current search for the medium through which Light “waved”, the ether, which was universally believed, but never found…. And we have a perfect setup for a bunch of new proposals about how all this worked.
Einstein’s was one such proposal.
Now keep in mind, I make no proposals, I’m not claiming any new discovery or hypothesis. I only claim that Einstein’s; hypothesis can’t stand up to any sort of reasonable critical review.
The chances that he stumbled on the perfect math equations when his proposals were nonsensical, irrational, contain self contradictions, employ incorrect geometry, and also have actual math errors, is just too impossible to accept. He may as well just say he got drunk, and imagined the equations inspired by the shape of his piss in the snow.
Regarding NASA, or ANY authority organization, the bigger the better, I trust them like a trust the words of a curator of a holocaust museum.
I’m with the great George Carlin, “I don’t believe ANYTHING a government says”.
Doesn’t mean its ALL a lie, It’s just that I need to see concrete proof, …these guys, even NASA or FERMILAB or NIST simply have recorded instances of lying.
And yes, they do have valid reasons and motives to warrant lying, political, financial reasons.
But I suggest we dispense with the talk about results, and focus on why the hypothesis is totally wrong. After we can discuss why all authorities and institutions are pushing it so hard.
You need to keep in mind that no one (no professional) in the real world actually ever has to think about Einstein’s theories when they are designing complex bridges, skyscrapers, airplanes, even space rockets, they all use purely classical engineering based on Newtons laws. Without exception. Only guys who claim to use Einstein’s stuff are the really big govt funded institutions like NASA, NIST, and Particle Accelerators. GPS is US military.

Why would NASA be the only govt agency to be immune from corruption?
How could they “accidentally” loose or destroy ALL of the telemetry data from ALL of the Apollo flights? The single most impressive scientific feat of man ever?
How come NASA’s own astronauts are saying things like “I would go to the moon in nano-second, but unfortunately we destroyed all the technology and it’s a painful process to get it back”? (Don Peddit)
Yet they claim to be able to go to Mars now, years in 50 years have not been able to return to the moon.
You have seen the Chinese video of their moon mission and the India one, and Israel’s attempt?… its laughable.
Anyway, I don’t wish to debate these other topics, other than to say there is reason to doubt.
Next, Einstein’s equations are the same as Newtons at low speeds?
The problem is that there is NOT a single rational reason you can come up with to justify WHY Newtons equations won’t also work at ANY speed!
Einstein’s solution is an answer to a problem that DOES NOT EXIST!

Now M&M experiment.
THIS is the claimed observational evidence that prompted proposals from many people, including Einstein and Lorentz and Henri Poincaré to name a few.
The problem was that everyone ASSUMED that Light was a WAVE, and as such, required a medium in which to wave. This was the :”luminiferous aether” that everyone was trying to find, and was the intent of M&M.
When the experiment failed to register any result, SOME claimed that this meant that the aether theory was disproven. This is not scientific, as already stated, you cant prove a theory true with an experiment, (its only possibly supporting a theory, not proving it) and likewise you cant DISPROVE a theory with a non result. A non result may just mean that your experiment is unable to register anything at all!
And this is the case with M&M.
Its about as illuminating (excuse the pun) as if I spin a torch around in a circle and note that the light strikes all 4 walls, proving exactly NOTHING.
Anyway, Lorentz (along with Michelson) could not accept the conclusion that there was no aether, so each carried on with their research believing that the aether exists, but we just have not found how to detect it…
Lorentz rationalized the interpretation of the experiment by suggesting that matter shrinks in the direction if traveling through the aether, and came up with his equation, notably the EXACT sane equations that is used by Einstein in his SR paper. (but Einstein never gave any credit or cited any other researchers)
So all Einstein did was to say that we can use Lorentz equations and just dispense with the aether, its not required to make the MATH work out. (never mind the rationality or logic of these suggestions)
There remains no plausible way to interpret the M&M experiment null result as supporting the claim that light goes at c in ANY frame of reference! No way at all! Yet this is exactly what they are claiming.
The whole Physics changing theory or Einstein’s SR hangs on a very obscure twisting of this one claim, so its hardly concrete, solid rational material for a theory, is it?
This is one claim that’s on shaky ground, but the other is the problem already mentioned regarding the misuse of light in with geometry and kinematics of solid matter.
Finally, I’m a nobody, uneducated a high school drop-out, why do you ask? Is that going to change the validity if my statements as to their truthfulness?
Is science decided by the fame of the individual? Or by majority vote? I think not.
However, my ideas are not mine alone, I’ve certainly put my own studies findings in with a lot of work already done by hundreds of other people, many are actual PhD Physicists and Mathematicians.
But invariably all academics who challenge Einstein’s theories find themselves out of their university posts, and on the list of discredited scientists.
In exactly the same way as a historian who challenges the details of the Holocaust is discredited by the simple words, “Holocaust denier” or “Anti-semite”
It’s the same in science, one becomes a leper, a “science denier” if one disagrees with climate change by co2, or goes against any of the modern geniuses like Einstein, Planck etc.
The arguments of the “denier” are not considered.
Is this a conspiracy? If it quacks like a duck…

[Nikola Bijeliti]

I don't have enough knowledge or experience in physics to evaluate what you are saying. In that regard, I can only say that what you are saying sounds reasonable. But there are some things that cannot be solved with a simple common-sense approach. Common sense alone will not tell you that the planets, including the earth, orbit the sun in elliptical orbits. Only mathematics and a lot of data will tell you that. I have not studied the data or done the math; I only believe it because I was told so.

I am no fan of Einstein, and I agree that he failed to give proper credit to his sources. I also feel that there is something absurd about time dilation and other things in Einstein's theories, so I have no argument with you there.

Where I am not ready to agree with you without more evidence is that space travel and navigation is possible using classical physics alone. Although government agencies are certainly capable of lying and do it all the time, I would want to hear it from an expert that NASA and other space agencies are able to navigate in space using classical physics alone. There is nothing wrong with seeking the opinion of experts in matters that one is not capable of deciding for oneself. In the case of physics, common sense and a high-school education are not sufficient to come to a conclusion.

Until I see such evidence presented by an expert in the matter, I will continue to hold the position that Einstein's theories may be false, but they are still necessary for some purposes, just as the theory of epicycles was false but still necessary for navigation until better theories came along.

[Mark Elin]

"Au contraire de votre analyse", we are not discussing what the planets are doing.
and we don't need any more than common sense to understand Einsteins theories.
Even Einstein himself is reported to have said, "If you cant explain your concepts to a barmaid, then you don't understand it yourself". I doubt that many barmaids are in to advance math, or are interested in theoretical Physics, yet Einstein thinks they could grasp the ideas.
What you just said, is the very first lie drilled into students, that they cant understand an idea unless they specialize in the specific branch of study, AND excel at it!
Because if you do decide to go study Relativity, and turns out you disagree with the professor, you are deemed to have not understood what is effectively a simple concept.
Hell, even the math of SR is not hard. What’s to get wrong? I think I can give you a very accurate recital of the theory, including the math. But I would have to keep interrupting myself with objections.

So I reject your belief that one must do all the math, BEFORE you can understand the concept! Actually, its MORE correct that you must UNDERSTAND the concept, to be able to make sense of the math!

I cant understand WHY you would agree in principal that length contraction and mass increase and time dilation, SEEM to be absurd, YET you still insist that space travel must use these theories to get anywhere?

Right now, there is just you and I, and I'm saying that the theories of SR are error.
So, if we work through his theory, and you can see why I am claiming this, then the only conclusion is that Einstein's theory and his resulting equations are wrong, then please explain why you think that NASA is using wrong math to find their way around in space?
And why do you trust an expert?
Expert according to who?
Should you rather trust your own intellect? If Einstein wrote it all down, then its possible to be read and comprehended, as ALL of the university lectures explain. (available on Youtube, lectures by famous Physicists, from Harvard, Stanford, Yale, MIT.

Having understood the theory as presented, we then can re-think it and decide if its all as sensible as they make out.

Agreed?
There is no need to watch hours of lectures to understand the core of the theory.
That's why I posted those two FermiLab videos, for everyone to understand the theory of relativity as presented by an expert.
There is no need to do the math, Dr Lincon does it for you!

And finally, to give you something to think about..
Now, today, if you study astronomy and cosmology, they will explain exactly how they can accurately measure the distance to a particular galaxy. They triangulate a sighting of the galaxy, from a ground telescope, with readings taken exactly 6 months apart. So that they have an angle from the earth to the galaxy with a base that is the distance of the diameter of the earths orbit around the sun. That's 149.60 million km, quite a decent base for their triangulated sighting of the galaxy. using the millennia old Pythagoras' Theorem, they calculate the distance to that galaxy. This method is considered the most accurate way to measure such distances, but beyond a certain distance, it becomes un-workable due to the very tiny angles measured.
Now here's the kicker.
Einstein claims that space is NOT Euclidean, its CURVED. it also curves even more in the vicinity of planets. With the claim that even light is not following straight lines anywhere, as all of space is rippling with curving spacetime. So the PROVEN effect of "secular aberration" is further exacerbated by the incalculable bending of spacetime fabric.
So astronomers can easily account for the former effect, but no astronomer ever takes into account the second effect, that of curved spacetime in their astronomical calculations. Basically, the stars and galaxies we see through our telescopes are no where near where we think that are, in terms of straight line sight.

So if Einstein is correct on General Relativity, then NO ASTRONOMER CAN BE CORRECT.
It’s stupid to try to apply classical Euclidean math and geometry to totally NON Euclidean spacetime!
And the curving and warping of spacetime is so complex and un-measurable, that no astronomer could ever figure out the real positions of anything up there.

But of course, curved spacetime is JUST a math construct. This is actually admitted in documents. Its theoretical math, NOT real astronomy. From Wikipedia: "In physics, spacetime is any MATHEMATICAL MODEL which fuses the three dimensions of space and the one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold,".
So, how does NASA find their way around in space? Simple, by using ONLY classical Astronomy and classical Physics. Otherwise they would be wrong.