Science is Broken

Gary Novak


Page List

Peer Review 
Junk Science
What Science is
Superficial Science

Big Bang
Intelligent Design
Earth's Core
Windmill Efficiency


The Truth about Relativity

If light has multiple reference frames, it has multiple amounts of energy; and energy is not conserved.



There is no scientific validity in using multiple reference frames in evaluating motion. All natural laws require a single reference frame to maintain consistent relationships. Multiple reference frames break essential relationships. Promoting a scam was the only reason for synthesizing multiple reference frames with relativity.

Relativity is said to contradict Newton's laws. And no measurements were made to determine relativity. So where is the science? What was the basis besides Einstein's imagination? It was contrived out of nothing.

Relativity scammers claim to prove relativity correct every day. Their number one proof is that Einstein predicted light would bend around large objects, and sure enough, light bends around the sun and stars. Light bends when passing through matter, so it would bend when passing through matter around stars, not because Einstein said so.

One of the main frauds of relativity is that there is no relationship between one point and another. A hodge podge of claims fly out of nowhere—nowhere but Einstein's fraudulent head. E=mc² has no relationship to anything else in relativity, math or science. The same is true of the fake equation limiting velocities to that of light, as shown below.

Physicists don't know where Einstein got E=mc². They say it parallels the kinetic energy equation (KE=½mv²), which has velocity squared within it. Since mathematical proof shows that kinetic energy is not proportion to velocity squared, Einstein's parallel to it should also be wrong. He paralleled a false definition of energy. Any twelve-year-old could have done that.

Even if every word of relativity were true, it needed to be produced by the witch doctors, not scientists. It wasn't produced the way science is produced, and it has no relationship to anything else in science. Studying science wouldn't tell you anything more about relativity than studying plumbing would.

The reason why relativity exists is because there is no such thing as being wrong with fake reality. Incompetents go for it for that reason.

The starting point of relativity is not valid, so nothing else about it is valid. The starting point is that the velocity of light is supposedly determine by the receiving point. Effect can never precede cause.

This then shifts to the next invalid point—that use of multiple reference frames is how to account for the multiple velocities of the receiving points. There is no validity to multiple reference frames. The entire essence of relativity is muddling around with multiple reference frames, which is not a valid process. It's no more valid than multiple velocities for light.

Light cannot maintain a definable amount of energy with multiple velocities; and for the same reason, it cannot maintain consistent energy with multiple reference frames. Multiple reference frames create multiple velocities.

Relativity contradicts logic in ways which are not allowed anyplace else.

Near the origin of relativity is the claim that the velocity of light is determined by the receiving point. Effect supposedly precedes cause. Everyone knows something cannot be caused after it occurs. That claim is not allowed anyplace. (explained by Tom Van Flandern.)

The logic is that the velocity of light cannot be determined by the emitting point (such as a star), because it would then have different velocities for different sources, which are not found. Notice that the same would be true of receiving points, because they have different velocities also.

Relativity requires light to have an infinite number of velocities simultaneously, which contradicts conservation laws and everything else about waves and how they are produced.

Originally, common sense indicated that the velocity of light was determined by an etheric medium in space. But the Michelson-Morley experiment, of about a century ago, failed to find the medium. Nor did more recent versions of it. So the medium was assumed to not exist.

Failing to find the etheric medium should have meant nothing. It was like a person jumping into the ocean and coming back out saying the Titanic is not there. Failing to find something means nothing outside science, and far less in the complexities of science. Critics have pointed out any number of reasons why the experiment would have failed, and a recent mathematical analysis is said to show that if the curvature of the earth were taken into account, the result would have been different.

Inertia requires the existence of an etheric medium. Inertia is the continuation of motion in a straight line and resistance to change in motion. The change and velocity of inertia cannot be defined without an etheric medium, because all reference frames are relative apart from an etheric medium. For example, remove all heavenly bodies and try to define a straight line or acceleration for an object in space. It cannot be done apart from inertia. What tells inertia what a straight line or constant velocity is? Nothing but an etheric medium could create the reference.

Using the Michelson-Morley experiment as a basis, physicist attempted to explain how light could have a constant velocity in the absence of an etheric medium. It was an enigma because of contradictions. Einstein's explanation gradually overwhelmed opponents simply because there was not a logic to counter it. The denial of an etheric medium destroyed the logic of the subject. Without a logic to the subject, relativity became an unbounded synthesis.

Ignored in relativity is the problem that light is supposed to be in discrete packets of energy called photons. But it cannot have discrete quantities of energy if it has an infinite number of velocities simultaneously. Relativity creates infinite reference frames, but infinite anything destroys the conservation of energy.

If there are an infinite number of possible velocities for receiving points, then there would have to be an infinite number of waves for light where there is supposed to be one wave. Light would have to have an infinite number of velocities relative to the same reference frame, if it had the same velocity relative to all receiving points, which have different velocities relative to a single reference frame. An automobile can't have different velocities simultaneously relative to the road, which is a single reference frame. The same logic applies to light, because it has energy in it, and it requires energy to be produced.

Einstein never clarified what the velocity of light is related to. Sometimes he portrayed it as relative to a universal reference frame such as ether. But most of the time he referenced it to the observer. In general, his claims are dependent upon it being referenced to the observer, and then the above contradictions apply.

Einstein used thought experiments to prove relativity. If that could really be done, the Mickelson-Morley experiment would not have been needed. The absence of ether and its universal reference frame could be proven with Einstein's thought experiments.

What relativity does is muddle the logic to a point where nothing about it can be proven. Proof is an application of logic. The same could be done in any courtroom, but it is not allowed. The proof needs to be produced by the proponents of relativity, not the critics. But then the proponents say they prove relativity every day. The proof is more sham, like Einstein's ability to predict.

Measurements of minute details, like aberrations in the motion of the planet Mercury, are said to be proof; but evil spirits create such effects. Science cannot be based upon minutia, because it goes beyond valid precision, and there are too many unaccounted for influences upon minutia. In science, there must be consistent logic with all basic principles, and then there are always methods of verifying results.

Einstein was an incompetent idiot and fraud. He copied (plagiarized) all of his concepts from other physicists who looked at them and rejected them. Power mongers who found the frauds exploitable forced them onto everyone else in contempt for the contradictions in logic.

Beyond Einstein, vast quantities of additional mathematics have been added to relativity. Nothing that is objectively correct can be expanded infinitely through mathematics. How many equations could anyone write for the origins of pi?

In fact, it is the origins of pie that physicists are analyzing. When physicists don't have anything else to do, they write relativity equations. It's a welfare system for physicists.

Velocity of Light from the Lorentz Equation

Supposedly, nothing can move faster than the velocity of light, because relativity says so. How can relativity say so? Physicist simply wrote an equation which limits any velocity to that of light and called it relativity. It would be like writing an equation which limits the velocity of an automobile to 70 mph and then saying no car can travel faster than 70 mph because the equation says so.

Here's the equation which physicists synthesized called the Lorentz equation:

     γ  =    1                

This equation never allows any velocity (v) to get larger than the velocity of light (c), because there is no such thing as the square root of a negative. In fact, it is not even an equation, because there's nothing real on the left side. It's nothing but eighth grade arithmetic which says there is no such thing as the square root of a negative. Where's the relativity? It contains no calculus. Where's the infinite reference points of relativity? Where's the observer who defines relativistic motion? There is no relationship to relativity in it. It's nothing but a fake contrivance. Fakery is the only thing it has in common with relativity.

The Big Bang

Outside Links:
  Alternative to Relativity
  Sagnac's Experimental Proof
  Einstein's Plagiarisms
  Historical Fraud of Ether Measurements
  Dissident View
  Tom Van Flandern

Space, Time and Matter and the Falsity of Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
By Kamen George Kamenov (At Amazon)

Criticisms of Big Bang (outside links)
  Thompson, Harrub & May