What Experiment Would Prove Einstein Wrong?

PSI Blog 20240401 What Experiment Would Prove Einstein Wrong?

 

Or: Why is Einstein always right?

Figure 42 Interferometer measurements of Earth’s velocity around the Sun as determined at various altitudes above mean sea level. The three data points in red at high altitude are projections and are yet to be performed. The other data are from Galaev^[1], who seems to be the first to show this relationship (Borchardt, 2017^[2]).

 

Thanks to Joachim Mika for his response to my post on the Michelson-Morley Experiment:

 

“Fair enough. So here's the acid test: can you make an experimentally observable prediction which will differentiate between your theories and those commonly accepted today. Ultimately, that's the only way new theories get accepted, supported by experiment, as Einstein's have multiple times over the past century.”

 

Joachim, each of the experimental results given in the above figure is a test of Einstein’s claim aether did not exist. In each case, he was wrong. As Galaev wrote somewhat clumsily:

 

“The work results can be considered as experimental hypothesis confirmation about the ether existence in nature, i.e. material medium, responsible for electromagnetic waves propagation.”[3]

 

In the absence of aether, each of those values would have been zero. As mentioned, the three projections at high altitude that I proposed in Figure 42 have not been performed. What do you think the results would be? Know any regressive physicists or cosmogonists who would like to support such an effort, destroying their life’s work in the redundancy?

 

The Gravity Test

 

Suppose solipsists (i.e., immaterialists) said they could survive after jumping off a building without a parachute? That might work for a one-storey building. But would it work for a five-storey building or a one hundred-storey building?

 

 

Einstein has been proven wrong more often than he has been proven right. Were you aware of any of those experiments? Even the supposed evidence for relativity that I have studied simply were misinterpretations. For instance, Eddington’s 1919 eclipse observation showed light to be bent around the Sun. He claimed this was a result of Einstein’s “curved space-time,” with the newspaper headlines anointing Einstein as the greatest genius of all time. It actually was the result of simple refraction in the Sun’s atmosphere just like the apparent bending of your fishing pole when you stick it in the water.

 

As a professional scientist I had two primary obligations:

 

1.   Perform experiments and observations.

2.   Publish the results.

 

Of course, there is publishing, and there is PUBLISHING! Like everything else in the universe, a particular publication is a microcosm existing in a unique macrocosm. Each is subject to the universal mechanism of evolution: univironmental determinism, the interactions between the within and without. How far and wide your experimental results are spread depends on the assumptions and desires of your audience. In this, Eddington and Einstein were especially lucky as I explained in detail in "Religious Roots of Relativity."[4] In short, the time was ripe for a reaction against the ravages of materialism of the 19^th Century.

 

There are over 10,000 of us opposed to relativity and the Big Bang Theory. Many have performed experiments like you suggest. Why have you not heard of any of them even if the work is excellent, such as Sagnac’s experiments proving the existence of aether?[5]  That was published a mere eight years after Einstein’s ballyhooed introduction of Special Relativity Theory in 1905. That single falsification should have been the end of relativity, but it was not. Soon-to-be regressive physicists ate it up, seldom acknowledging the surreptitious ad hocs to push the idea light was a particle instead of a wave in a sea of particles:

 

Einstein's Eight Magical Ad Hocs He Needed to Convert Light Waves into Particles

 

1.       Unlike other particles, his light particle always traveled at the same velocity - it never slowed down.

2.       Unlike other particles, it attained this velocity instantaneously when emitted from a source.

3.       Unlike other particles, it would not take on the velocity of its source.

4.       Unlike other particles, it was massless.

5.       Unlike other particles, it did not lose motion when it collided with other things.

6.       Unlike other particles, any measurement indicating light speed was not constant had to be attributed to "time dilation" - another especially egregious ad hoc.

7.       Time had to be considered something other than motion, for motion cannot dilate.

8.       He had to ignore the fact that constant velocity is only possible for wave motion.

 

The result was his “Untired Light Theory (ULT),” based on the false assumption light was a massless particle containing perfectly empty space traveling perpetually through perfectly empty space. That is the foundation of the Big Bang Theory, which like all creation theories, must assume “nothing” (i.e., perfectly empty space). There is so-called “evidence” for Einstein’s magical light particle, since renamed a “photon.” Per ULT, the photon is assumed to travel from galaxy to eyeball. It does no such thing. The particulate nature of light is due to local aether particles colliding with your eye in the same way the particulate nature of sound is due to local nitrogen molecules colliding with your ear drum. The “Einstein is always right” trope is what believers want to believe and has nothing to do with reality.

 

The Prayer Test

 

Again, you may wonder why you have not read or heard of any of this before. Again, that is because PUBLICATION, promotion, and advertising must focus upon a particular audience that will welcome and respond to the information. That is why the null results of the well-documented “prayer test”[6] are unknown or ignored by over 6 billion practitioners. It is not what believers want to know. Do you really think today’s regressive physics and cosmogony is any different?

 

 

PSI Blog 20240401

 

Thanks for reading Infinite Universe Theory! On Medium.com you can subscribe for free to receive new posts and be part of the “Last Cosmological Revolution.”  There you can support PSI financially by clapping 50 times and responding with your questions.

---

[1] Galaev, Y.M., 2002, The measuring of ether-drift velocity and kinematic ether viscosity within optical waves band (English translation): Space-time & Substance, v. 3, no. 5, p. 207-224. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/Galaevaether].

[2] Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 337 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].

[3] Galaev, The measuring of ether-drift, p. 223b.

[4] Borchardt, Glenn, 2020, Religious Roots of Relativity: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 160 p. [https://go.glennborchardt.com/RRR-ebk]

[5] Sagnac, Georges, 1913a, The demonstration of the luminiferous aether by an interferometer in uniform rotation: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 708–710. [https://gborc.com/Sagnac13a], Sagnac, Georges, 1913b, On the proof of the reality of the luminiferous aether by the experiment with a rotating interferometer: Comptes Rendus, v. 157, p. 1410–1413. [https://gborc.com/Sagnac13b].

[6] Masters, K.S., Spielmans, G.I., and Goodson, J.T., 2006, Are there demonstrable effects of distant intercessory prayer? A meta-analytic review: Annals of Behavioral Medicine, v. 32, no. 1, p. 21-26. [https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324796abm3201_3]; Soubihe Junior, N.V., and others, 2023, The remote intercessory prayer, during the clinical evolution of patients with COVID -19, randomized double-blind clinical trial: Heliyon, v. 9, no. 11, p. e22411. [10.1016/j.heliyon.2023.e22411]. 

[Those references might be obscure, but this certainly is not: Stein, Rob, 2006, Prayer doesn't aid recovery, study finds: Effect on healing of strangers at distance after heart-bypass surgery examined: Washington Post.]