The Path of Dead End Physics
The so-called, centers of higher education, which are really mind control centers, teach (parrot) myths about a dead end physics, based on materialistic, scientific reductionism and it’s strange and unnatural theories like: the second law of thermodynamics, dark matter,dark energy, the big bang, einstein’s relativity , curved space and time, solar nuclear furnaces , a limit to the speed of light , quantum mechanics, string theory, nuclear atoms, neutron stars, worm holes and wimps and machos, to name just a few. As long as someone hasinvented some egghead math which will model their goofy theory, they enshrine it as “scientific, academic proof“.
“Einstein’s relativity was not accepted by a number of his contemporaries. Rutherford, widely thought of as the ‘father of nuclear physics’, considered it to be nonsense. Columbia University astronomer C.L. Poor in 1922,’26 & ’30 gave unassailable refutations of the claims of Eddington, i.e., that observations of the 1919 South American solar eclipse confirmed Einstein’s predicted gravitational attraction of light. (Poor also documents a similar situation existing with the 1922 West Australian eclipse and the claims of Campbell & Trumpler.) It was this “proof” espoused by Eddington however, which brought Einstein his first acclaim and greatest fame.
Poor showed clearly that the actual observations were not what was claimed and that they did not support Einstein’s prediction. This is still a valid refutation of Einstein’s presumed gravitational attraction of light, and notwithstanding the “Gravitational Lensing” phenomenon, still remains standing as an unanswered challenge to Einstein’s general theory of relativity and theory of gravitation. As a side issue, this relegates the concept of ‘black holes’ to pure science fiction as many non-conventional scientists contend – that is, despite evidence of the most recent discoveries being claimed as proof of their existence (even to including the latest data concerning the centre of the Milky Way), such ‘proof’ does not survive close scrutiny.
Possibly still the world’s leading scientist on time measurement, L. Essen OBE (being inventor of the atomic clock and used with his approval in relativity experiments), rejects Einstein’s relativity. He is also an FRS and has written a book and several articles which expose serious errors in the theory. For example, one brief letter (1977), even though rejected by the leading journal Nature, is sufficient to refute the claim that atomic clocks flown around the world confirmed Einstein’s “shortening of time” with motion.
In a later article (1988), he stated 1) “Einstein’s theory of relativity is invalidated by its internal errors”, 2) “Einstein’s use of a thought experiment, together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result which fooled himself and generations of scientists”, 3) “Claims frequently made that the theory is supported by experimental evidence do not withstand a close scrutiny”; and in closing he remarks, “Insofar as the theory is thought to explain the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment I am inclined to agree with Soddy that it is a swindle; and I do not think Rutherford would have regarded it as a joke [as said in 1954] had he realised how it would retard the rational development of science”.
“With regard to the investigation I have here presented I maintain that whosoever from now upholds the relativistic ideas or applies the fundamental relativistic formulae as representing relations between physical quantities, without regarding and refuting my above criticism of the Theory, makes himself liable to the accusation of grave intellectual laxity.”
[NOTE: All such threats lack worthwhile correctional force because of overriding peer group influences.]
“I do not hesitate to declare as a result of my investigation the opinion that Einstein’s Theory of Relativity is not only among the most sensational fancies, but also one of the most serious logical incoherencies in the history of science.” …. “I have often met persons, who have expressed their astonishment that Einstein was not awarded the Nobel Prize for his Theory of Relativity, which many people consider as one of the most outstanding achievements of this century.”
[Note: the Prize given in 1921 related to his work on the photoelectric effect.]
“As a member of the Swedish Academy of Science which distributes the Nobel Prizes of physics I am on the other hand very glad that this was NOT done, since THE THEORY OF RELATIVITY IS NOT PHYSICS BUT PHILOSOPHY AND IN MY OPINION POOR PHILOSOPHY”. (THE *TROUBLE* WITH RELATIVITY)
Our sciences are provably fraudulent in many of their basic premises and therefore many of the conclusions based on them are illogical and absurd. The conclusion of the quantum academic eggheads who parrot and advance these doomed ideas is that our Universe is, absurd, unknowable, bizarre, etc. It never seems to occur to these fools that their ideas and conclusions are absurd, unknowable, bizarre and absolutely baseless, so they cheerfully tell us we live in a strange and bizarre, unknowable universe. (Then I must ask, why even pursue physics, if we can never know about it?)
“Once a more realistic appraisal of the situation is made and it is realized that it is no longer possible to avoid conceding that modern science could be wrong in its assumption of omniscience; that it could have overlooked some alternative explanations of the results of crucial experiments such as Rutherford’s scattering experiments and the Michelson-Morley experiment; that the presumed necessity of choosing between action at a distance and propagation through a medium (or the equivalent of a medium) is a result of insufficient consideration of the problem and not a reflection of the true physical situation, and so on, all such arguments against the existence of a rational external world independent of the observer simply collapse.
… One of the standard tools of logic is the reductio ad absurdum in, which the falsity of certain assumed premises is proved by showing that the necessary and unavoidable consequences of these premises lead to an absurdity. But modern physical science now repudiates this well established doctrine and advances the weird contention that the basic premises which have been accepted by the scientific profession cannot be wrong, and hence the conclusions drawn from these premises must be correct, even if they are absurdities or near absurdities. It then follows as a matter of course that the universe itself is an absurdity. Here the physicist at least demonstrates that he has the courage of his convictions, for he does not shrink from this astounding end product of his line of reasoning.
… The ‘real’ world is not only unknown and unknowable, says Herbert Dingle (a quantum mechanics groupie), but it is inconceivable—that is to say, contradictory or absurd”. (Beyond Newton, Part V)