• Louis Essen Lives

    From Foos Research@21:1/5 to All on Thu Nov 2 17:58:07 2023
    This will explain in the most elementary and obvious terms why and how Einstein's relativity and the bulk of modern physics is a cult of scientific fraud. How is that possible when thousands of scientists scoff at that claim and perpetuate the substance
    and style of Einstein's fraud? It should be no surprise considering the success of cults like Scientology or certain extreme political movements.

    What prompted this video was conversation on Quora about a YouTube video making this same claim: https://bit.ly/46VONGX. The discussion predictably consisted of dismissing such critics as ignorant "cranks" usually motivated by anti Jewish bigotry or
    right wing fervor. There are some of those, but I know or care nothing about politics. I do have eight years of university math and science consisting of many thousands of the most difficult math and science problems that I was able to solve far more
    efficiently than my peers because of understanding honed by many years practice. A fraudulent equation I would recognize. In all explanations of Einstein like this, the language used is steeped in false intellectualism meant to make the reader feel less
    than capable of truly understanding the topic but too ashamed to say so. Variables are often left hanging without definition, omissions guaranteed to be marked incorrect in a classroom. If one dares point out these omissions or question deliberately
    obscured math, his comments will be deleted or his account closed. Despite the deeply pretentious language used by these "physicists," most of them have dismally weak academic credentials. This is the dishonest game played by modern physics and well
    explained in Bryan Wallace's book, The Farce of Physics. See https://bryangwallace.dreamhosters.com/.

    So as I've done countless times, I commented on the Quora article to the effect that Einstein's equations and derivations violate the most basic laws of mathematics firmly established for hundreds of years and could not be considered anything but fraud.
    I pointed out specific examples backed by thorough familiarity with basic math principles first learned in ninth grade algebra and relied on to achieve perfect grades through two minors in chemistry and a master's in soils at Montana State. This comment
    and numerous others are quickly deleted by mods citing harassment or conspiracy theory. It isn't that anybody is harassed, it's that anyone who poses a genuine challenge is immediately banned. The only comments permitted are those who echo the praises of
    the Quora representative who dictates the conversation. This is how cults operate. Never in thousands of hours of university classes were my many questions not respected and answered. In my only upper division physics class, the instructor informed me
    that I was the only one with a decent grade. My criticisms are no less deserving.

    It seemed odd that there was such a YouTube video, because I researched this topic and saw none except several of my own whose claims were not politically or racially motivated, but no less mathematically correct than any of the thousands of problems I
    solved at the university. Unfortunately, this isn't a topic of widespread interest, and most viewers are themselves Einstein groupies, so they didn't gain much traction. The average viewer is also not very proficient in basic algebra. So, I got this idea
    that I would do a video that uses a typical Einstein oriented Quora topic and using the most elementary algebraic principles demonstrate exactly how and why it is deliberate fraud. My comments on this one were also removed. In other words, the reason no
    proof of fraud against Einstein exists isn't because it isn't valid, but because the truth is improperly banned as harassment, conspiracy theory, or politics. So, in this YouTube video I will give this example of why Mr. Toth's explanation is outright,
    obvious science fraud typical of modern physics. Refer to this example, https://bit.ly/3tx5Y2S, and let's get on with it.

    First, Mr. Toth presents the equation of motion of a satellite by Newton. Why is this equation not Newton's and why is it deliberately misleading? Typically, equations are deliberately altered to make them impossible for an honest mind to understand,
    usually with many of the variables not defined. In this simple case the variables are defined but their true meaning garbled. On the left is r double dot, stated as the differentiation with respect to time of the satellite's position vector r. This
    obviously a deliberately pretentious and false perversion of Newton's formula for the acceleration of falling bodies, g, which is 9.8 m/s^2 on the surface of Earth. The independent variable is not differentiation and no such procedure could be shown in a
    real classroom. Of course, an orbiting satellite is not a falling body exactly, but in that case the acceleration is the same except it is orbital acceleration, not differentiation of the position vector with respect to time. It isn't harassment but
    correct to say that Mr. Toth like his peers is overflowing with a certain substance.

    For more confirmation of that, we need only look at the right side of his equation. Why is there a negative sign in front? Unless bodies generally fall upwards, there is no reason for including a negative sign. This is fraud by small degrees. Then again,
    why is there an r cubed in the denominator. Mr. Toth could not possibly give a reason for that other than making the equation appear to represent something it doesn't in order to further bewilder an honest man. Nobody could explain the cube, not even
    Toth, but that's the point. Nor could he ever explain what is meant by a position vector. In Newton's equation, r is radius, distance from the center of the planet. There is no point in making r^3 absolute because just where and when could the distance
    from center be negative. Now you get it, right? Einstein and all modern physicists are simply frauds who misrepresent the facts as much as possible in order to confuse the minds of honest men. And again, what meaning does the solitary r in the numerator
    have? Can you tell me. Of course not, because you're being bamboozled. Those of you who passed elementary algebra can tell me that r in the numerator will cancel with one of the three factors of r in the denominator to give the only simple and correct
    Newtonian equation for the rate of acceleration of falling bodies, g=GM/r^2. Such pretentious wording and garbled equations are the core tactic of the physics cult of Einstein used to confuse the masses and justify their salaries.

    But Mr. Toth is not yet done. He has yet to show you how Einstein's relativity provides a correction to Newton's formula even after twisting it beyond recognition. He does this by multiplying by the term (1+3v^2/c^2). He states that v is the satellite's
    velocity, but Einstein's equation actually states that g (r double dot) is the satellites instantaneous velocity at distance r, 9.8 meters per second where you're sitting now. This means that the numerical value of the independent variable g is equal to
    itself as the independent variable v. Any good ninth grade algebra student can tell you that such an equation violates basic algebraic principles and has no solution. The formula is fraud. Otherwise, Toth doesn't feel the need to explain the meaning of
    this term because it must be correct being Einstein; hence, it must be true. Notice that there are 1,900 up votes to this post even though not a single reader questioned this term or the deliberate bastardization of Newton's formula g=GM/r^2. If any did,
    they would have been removed from the conversion. Of course, we see the similar term (1-v^2/c^2) in Einstein's general relativity where it refers to time and length "dilation. Toth not only has Einstein's sign wrong, but he's pulled the factor 3 out of a
    black hole. Nobody could explain what the 3 might stand for.

    The equation is thus by the standards of math enough to prove fraud, but where does this (1-v^2/c^2) come from? Explaining why Einstein's equations are fraud is a complicated exercise well covered in my book, but . But aside from violating fundamental
    algebra, it's extremely easy to show in this example why the use of such a term also violates elementary geometry thus on yet another count could not be anything other than fraud. Seeing this violation requires understanding what Newton's formula g=GM/r^
    2 actually means which isn't that difficult as Newton intended it.. This is a simple, fixed geometric relation like the area of a circle. If anyone told you that the area of a circle was not pi*r^2 you'd agree that the claim was fraud. Indeed, g=GM/r^2
    is nothing but a special case of the area of a circle. I will show you why so you can seen clearly for yourself. Go ahead and draw a circle and fill it with a shade of gray. Let the density of gray represents the density of a planet's mass. We know the
    force of gravity is proportional to mass, and so must be the rate of falling bodies. Hence, g is equal to M times a proportionality constant, say K; thus g=KM. Now increase the radius r such that the density of gray color is spread throughout the a
    larger area. Now the density of matter and thus force of gravity and g is diminished by the area of a circle. Hence, g must be equal to KM/(pi*r^2), the area of a circle.

    Not even Einstein could honestly claim that either K or pi could be variable, yet that is just what he and his devotees have done. Clearly K/pi is equal to G; hence, g=GM/r^2 which is nothing more or less than the density of an expanding circle. This is
    why the "experts" must constantly garble their equations. If they were properly understood then the fraud would be obvious to the ordinary bloke. Relativity is science fraud, and this example is sufficient proof of that. It isn't found in the literature
    because mainstream physics is run by a cult. The many other claims of the mainstream physics clique can be similarly exposed, but this simple example is enough to topple Einstein's air castle. I wanted this video to be as simple and short as possible to
    avoid risking confusion. If you have a good math background and want more detailed and comprehensive exposure of the Einstein fraud, you should read my book. It is well written, mathematically sound and heavily illustrated.

    So, the main objective, an elementary proof of Einstein's fraud, is well accomplished. I'm reluctant to go any further lest it invite more trouble; however, if you're satisfied to this point, you may well wonder how Newton could so elegantly and
    concisely express the laws of gravity without knowing their cause.
    Rather than force the truth on a brittle mind, it might be better to persuade you to ponder a different way of looking at g=GM/r^2. First, consider that gravity is a force equivalent to the force of acceleration, a fact even Einstein couldn't miss. In
    other words, if you were in a rocket ship accelerating at 9.8 meters per second per second, you would weigh exactly the same as you do now on the surface of Earth where you sit motionless. Now consider another contradiction. Objects falling freely at the
    acceleration of g experience no force whatsoever so in fact they must not be accelerating. If force equals mass times acceleration, F=ma, then it should be that it is not objects that accelerate downward, but the surface of Earth which is expanding
    outward towards them. This you likely cannot accept because obviously the Earth is of fixed dimension and cannot be expanding. However, if all points in space expand in proportion to their mass, then the expansion of Earth would not be perceived because
    you also would be expanding in proportion to your own mass. Then the lack of force experienced by objects in free fall makes perfect sense even though the expansion of matter cannot be perceived.

    This being the cause of gravity is also consistent with the laws of thermodynamics. If you pour a bottle of ink into a full bathtub, it expands outward with force (acceleration), at least initially. It is quickly diluted and slows as it encounters
    heavier concentration of water molecules. If, however, mass exists in a vacuum, which shouldn't be an argument, then there would be nothing to slow it down. And since it is mass itself which expands, all points within it should expand such that expansion
    is not perceived as such. Finally, expansion being a force (acceleration) outward from the center of mass means that the equal and opposite force would be exerted on mass itself according to Newton's third law of motion. I conclude with confidence that
    if the fraud of Einstein were exposed, the cause of gravity being spatial expansion would soon become apparent to the masses.


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Julio Di Egidio@21:1/5 to Foos Research on Fri Nov 3 07:43:37 2023
    On Friday, 3 November 2023 at 01:58:10 UTC+1, Foos Research wrote:

    This is the dishonest game played by modern physics and well
    explained in Bryan Wallace's book, The Farce of Physics.
    See <https://bryangwallace.dreamhosters.com/>.

    Nice, thanks for that in particular, quite a read.

    << With regard to Hubble’s expectation that the 200-inch would
    resolve the problem, the following information taken from a recent
    article [101] published in THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL by Dr.
    Paul A. LaViolette, and titled "IS THE UNIVERSE REALLY EXPANDING",
    shows that the current evidence supports the Zwicky tired-light model. >>

    It is amazing, that all science by now is more of a treasure hunt for
    what the "giant shoulders" did know, before we can even start any
    scientific research proper...


    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)