Einstein was not who you thought he was

[Aaron]

only Einstein's prediction?

The experiment is the latest in a series of tests in which scientists have scrutinized one of Einstein's more profound predictions: that clocks in stronger gravitational fields run more slowly.

The aetheric gas model with no "curving" of space and time perfectly
predict that a clock will tick slower because of the increase in the density
of the aether nearer the surface of the planet.

The more dense, the slower
light is able to travel through it. A wind up propeller plane twirling in water
(low density) will move faster than a wind up propeller plane twirling in
gelatin (high density). Time is simply unable to unwind as fast in higher
density aether because it is under more "compression" by the displacement
of it by mass.

[Dr.K.Yin]

Orgone (Low frequency electron) concentrations are higher closer to ground level than in the air since the earth (metal oxides) have a very high affinity for orgone particles. The orgone energy actually interferes with the moving parts of the clock (At the atomic level). This is why Einstein seemed to be verified.

Einstein was disproven in a relativity theory test when one clock was stationery on the ground. One plane flew clockwise around the globe at earth rotation + x speed with its own clock. Another plane flew anticlockwise around the globe at earth rotation - x speed with its own clock. According to Einstein both clocks should have shown the same relative difference to gound. They differed by a factor of 3.

[Aaron]

DeMeo

DePalma's experiment showed the direction of spin did matter. Like a
smaller scale version of moving in different directions around the world.

In the aether model, I see it like the positive potential of that flux is
exerting a physical opposing push on the proton of the atom that makes
up the mass - interesting the orgone reference of similar analogy.

James Demeo has done other experiments that seem to disprove the same... this is just one of many references at:
James DeMeo: Publications and Abstracts

- "Energy in Space: Empirical Evidence and Implications for Orthodox Theory", Presented (in absentia) to the Pacific Division, American Association for the Advancement of Science, Annual Meeting, June 1994, Special session on "Challenges to Contemporary Views in Physics and Astronomy", San Francisco State Univ., California, Proceedings 13(1):64.
Experimental findings from a variety of research disciplines have independently observed and documented, or theoretically derived and implied, the existence of an energy in space which satisfies the described properties of a dynamic aether, but one with biological and meteorological properties. From the brief 1887 experiment of Michelson-Morley, undertaken for three days only in the basement of a stone building, one may properly conclude only the defeat of the static aether of Newton they never followed through with their expressed desire to test for a dynamic aether. An Earth-entrained dynamic aether would not be detectable from basement locations, or from inside any dense enclosure. Dayton Miller's later work (1920-33) satisfied these criteria, of high altitude and light density of interferometer environment, clearly detecting the dynamic aether. In later years (c.1950), Giorgio Piccardi detected an unusual energetic phenomenon with similar and additional unusual properties: solar-terrestrial components, affected by metals (density), more active at higher altitudes, capable of affecting the physical chemistry of water, with physiological and meteorological components. Harold Burr identified (c.1960) a similar electrodynamic phenomenon at work in nature. Wilhelm Reich likewise identified a life-energy phenomenon at work (c.1940) in living systems, in the atmosphere, and in ultra-high vacuum: capable of influencing the physical properties of air and water, reflectable by metal shields, more active at higher altitudes. More recent studies on anomalous energy fluctuations in ultra-high vacuum (Puthoff), anomalous coincidental placements of high and low red-shift stellar objects (Arp), and streaming cosmic plasmas in space (Alfven) provide additional independent evidence suggesting the existence of a tangible and measurable bio-cosmic energy continuum pervading the natural world. The relativistic and "big-bang" cosmologies are challenged empirically, by researchers working independently in different disciplines.

[Allcanadian]

I have found that we tend by our nature to judge things and persons by what we see on the surface or by what we have been told. However if we really want to know something then time, patience and perspective are required. I have studied the works of Albert Einstein for many years and found him to be nothing like what history has made him out to be, in fact he had a great contempt for the shallow thoughts of the people who put him on a pedestal. Here are some of his quotes---

"Weakness of attitude becomes weakness of character."

"Any intelligent fool can make things bigger, more complex, and more violent. It takes a touch of genius -- and a lot of courage -- to move in the opposite direction."

"Imagination is more important than knowledge."

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one."

"The only real valuable thing is intuition."

"Great spirits have often encountered violent opposition from weak minds."

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."

"The most incomprehensible thing about the world is that it is comprehensible."

"We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them."

"The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing."

"Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods."

"The only thing that interferes with my learning is my education."

"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."

"As punishment for my contempt for authority, fate has made me an authority myself."

Here we have a person who may believe character, intuition and imagination are as valuable as knowledge, the foundation of science. If many here had read the original works of Einstein from his perspective I think they would see a very different person than many here have made him out to be. He had the same thoughts we have, he knew his theories were just theories with mistakes which he admitted and he wanted to know and understand how nature worked. If there is one trait I admire most in Einstein as I know him it is that he was humble, that is he had the character to admit if he was mistaken as his goal was simply to know the truth, I wonder how many here would be willing to concede that everything they know could be wrong? I see many people here judging others opinions harshly without contemplation and others stating their opinions as irrefutable fact, this is the very thing Einstein was not and it is the one thing that made him a brilliant man --- he was what we seldom are and that is what made him great.

Regards
AC

[Allcanadian]

@Matthew Jones

Its just amazing. No Credentials, No Reference, No Proof to the contrary yet you people feel good enough about yourself and your extensive educations to throw everything to wind because it sounds good when you write it

LOL, this is the very thing Albert Einstein opposed, Do we need credentials to be correct? Can these credentials effect our preponderance to be more or less correct or not as an individual if our thoughts ring true with everyone? As well concerning references, If I give absolutely no references yet all that I state is understood then what if any role have these references played? If I give numerous references and these references in time are proven to be as false in their assumptions as my own then what good are they? Proof --- what is proof? If I prove an apple must always fall from a tree then does this mean I understand "why" it has fallen or intimately understand the forces which cause this motion we call "falling"?. What if I have no credentials nor references nor proof of any kind yet I gave you an explanation for let's say gravity and you through your knowledge instinctively knew this explanation was true in every sense, then have credentials,references or proof any relevance? I for one do not believe they are relevant as we are all individuals having individual and often unique thoughts intrinsic only to ourselves, we evolve our thoughts and this evolution is what separates us from others, it is what makes us unique. I for one enjoyed this so called blog because it made me think, whether it is correct or not, has credentials,references or proof is irrelevant in this respect. This is why Einstein was brilliant, he made people think, he made them consider the unthinkable the unimaginable, he made thinking deep thoughts into the nature of things popular again and this is why right or wrong he was a great man.
Regards
AC

[Bob Smith]

FWIW, some reading that might help shed some further light on this thread's topic:

Sepp Hasslberger: Einstein: Warped Minds, Bent Truths

Albert Einstein: Plagiarist of the Century?
Einstein plagiarised the work of several notable scientists in his 1905 papers on special relativity and E=mc2, yet the physics community has never bothered to set the record straight.
by Richard Moody Jr
Abstract Proponents of Einstein have acted in a way that appears to corrupt the historical record. Albert Einstein (1879-1955), Time magazine's "Person of the Century", wrote a long treatise on special relativity theory (it was actually called "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies", 1905a), without listing any references. Many of the key ideas it presented were known to Lorentz (for example, the Lorentz transformation) and Poincaré before Einstein wrote the famous 1905 paper.

As was typical of Einstein, he did not discover theories; he merely commandeered them. He took an existing body of knowledge, picked and chose the ideas he liked, then wove them into a tale about his contribution to special relativity. This was done with the full knowledge and consent of many of his peers, such as the editors at Annalen der Physik. ...
AULIS Online – Different Thinking

[sucahyo]

Einstein force people into believing that time travel is possible when you accelerate something faster than light. Scientist build a mega million dollar particle accelerator but do not observe time travel but a multiplication of energy instead. And they explain it by recursive smaller particle that have more energy. Many experiment show that there is energy that move faster than light (1.5 times) and yet it do not come from the future or the past.

Einstein propose impossible thing, while some of the theory work, the can not be used to explain everything and thus made it incorrect. If you make a theory that do not work on all situation then your theory is wrong. You can only use it on spesific thing, but not everything.

Notice that many theory require strict assumption.

[Armagdn03]

@Allcanadian

I always get a kick out of how far out of your league you are.

Question is....Do we judge by second hand opin-utainment...or do we read the works and words of the creator? A. Einstein never claimed to know, he was just curious.

Is an idea stolen... or did two great thinkers follow the same train of logic... Are any of us inventors? or do we just re-discover what is known.

or...

Is your goal recognition... Or personal understanding

[lamare]

My reaction over at physicsof2012

“Einstein said that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe. Why? Did anyone bother to ask why? Well someone did and the answer was that mass was infinity at the speed of light so nothing could go faster. That doesn’t solve anything.”

Someone else also did. Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill:

Dr Charles Kenneth Thornhill

According to Thornhill, Einsteins theories are based on a fundamental error. EM waves are described by exactly the same wave equations as sound waves trough a liquid. In order to describe such waves from the point of view from an independent observer, one has to make a coordinate transform that expresses the relative position / movement of the observer with regard to the observed phenomenon, the wave.

Now if you ditch the idea of an eather, you have no independent reference frame, so in order to make a general applicable description of the phenomenon, you need a special transform, the mathematically correct Lorentz transform, which only works when the speed of light is fixed.

So, the question is: why oh why do we use two different kind of transforms to describe the same kind of phenomena (waves) depending on the medium?

And, we *know* the speed of light is not fixed, that is why prisms and lenzes work. And scientists have been able to slow down light to a crawl, so it is actually very far fetched to maintain that the speed of light in vacuum must be fixed.

So, IMHO Thornhill is right and Einsteins general relativity should go down the drain.

However, that has some far stretching consequences, because all our measurements of the location and speed of stars are based on the assumption that the speed of light is fixed. So, these are unreliable, which means that the floor drops underneath the whole big bang idea. And that might be a bit too much for the mainstream to swallow…..

[Jbignes5]

I agree but...

“Einstein said that the speed of light is the speed limit of the universe. Why? Did anyone bother to ask why? Well someone did and the answer was that mass was infinity at the speed of light so nothing could go faster. That doesn’t solve anything.”

Someone else also did. Dr. Charles Kenneth Thornhill:

Dr Charles Kenneth Thornhill

According to Thornhill, Einsteins theories are based on a fundamental error. EM waves are described by exactly the same wave equations as sound waves trough a liquid. In order to describe such waves from the point of view from an independent observer, one has to make a coordinate transform that expresses the relative position / movement of the observer with regard to the observed phenomenon, the wave.

Now if you ditch the idea of an eather, you have no independent reference frame, so in order to make a general applicable description of the phenomenon, you need a special transform, the mathematically correct Lorentz transform, which only works when the speed of light is fixed.

So, the question is: why oh why do we use two different kind of transforms to describe the same kind of phenomena (waves) depending on the medium?

And, we *know* the speed of light is not fixed, that is why prisms and lenzes work. And scientists have been able to slow down light to a crawl, so it is actually very far fetched to maintain that the speed of light in vacuum must be fixed.

So, IMHO Thornhill is right and Einsteins general relativity should go down the drain.

However, that has some far stretching consequences, because all our measurements of the location and speed of stars are based on the assumption that the speed of light is fixed. So, these are unreliable, which means that the floor drops underneath the whole big bang idea. And that might be a bit too much for the mainstream to swallow…..

The speed of light is just that. Light is an effect of something much greater. Just like all movement. They were only trying to explain what they could see. The problem with that is they missed the very essence of this unseen. Even Maxwell saw the unseen. But then it was removed because no one wanted to see the truth. After all it was too hard to make calculations for something one couldn't see but knew was there.
Imagine how hard it would have made the acceptance of his other work if some of it couldn't be worked out.
Einstien was a brilliant man of that age because he saw the whole picture of what was presented to him. He took all his contemporaries works and tried to unify it. But he was a mathematician. He worked on problems he could see officially and only thought on the rest that he knew could not be seen. His theroies hold to the effects that he was looking at. Since he was looking for an equation that described the effects of the current energy teachings he was accurate.
The one thing he did was say keep an open mind about this stuff. The problem is we never listened. I think he was fully aware that there was an underlying reson for energy and matter. The problem was that at that time you need the math to prove it and he didn't have that.
All to many times on here when someone makes perfect logical sense they are bombarded with requests for proof. Well proof is ok when you can see it but what happens when you are talking about what is behind it all. Some of us are trying to say that and others want you to believe them with nothing gone into reading and educating yourself on the subject and at least connecting the dots. If this is a new area then there is not gonna be proof till we hammer out the concepts.
I try to listen to everyone but at some time you need to make the descision by ones self as to the truth of the matter. Thats a personal endevor. The problem is that this subject goes deeper then anyone wants to admit. They tend to stay with what they were taught because it is the accepted theories behind our current system and they think that the longer that we don't go further the more it makes the current theories facts. It is all theories by the time you get into the atom and below because no one could see the source thru observation. We know that it is a more simpler operation at that point with fewer rules or laws because it's only function at that point is to be the source and facilitate it all.
I hope this sheds some light that we all are humans. We all make mistakes and we all tend to believe our eyes before our thoughts.

[broli]

AllCanadian has a very good point. The entire blame shouldn't be thrown at Einstein for he was a mere thinker who shared his work with the world. There are countless people who have written papers about their theories of the universe and what not but it is the SCIENTIFIC ESTABLISHMENT
which picks the theory that suits its needs best and start worshiping it like a god. Instead of looking at it as a VERY crude approximation of the big scheme, that can be replaced at any given time. I believe this could have happened with any theory out there. Imagine if Tesla's work got accepted, we would probably be in the same boat damning Tesla for his narrow view of the universe...but at the end all he did was share his work.

So if you want to blame someone blame the blockheads that can't think for themselves and make a religion of a theory they see fit. This reaches to every field, in biology it's the evolution theory, in geology it's the tectonic plate theory, in psychology it's the brain theory, in chemistry it's electron theory.

Oppose any of the above theories and you will be seen as a crackpot, nutjob, loony, heretic, idiot. At the end there should be no laws. Maths should be used in practical formulas to give a predictable result, not an ignorant statement of "this is how the universe works". This arrogance has brought us where we currently are.

At the end of the day we should do what we believe in and try to better ourselves and the lives of the people around us. One way of doing this is independent research for things like energy and medicine. Over time these scientific establishment will destroy themselves and crumble away, all that will be left will be ruins which will remind us how low humans got.

[Dr.K.Yin]

We agree Einstein was probably a good man, but unfortunately, with the insight we have now, we see that his theories border on the dangerously irrational.

A theory does not need "credentials" to be correct. What are credentials anyway? Support of the masses? That's like saying your theory is wrong if no one takes the time to look at it and show appreciation.

I personally answer to logic and logic only as the determinant of whether a theory is wrong or right. It's quite simple really if the theory fits the results (all the results) over and over and is extremely useful in the practical everyday world then there is a very good change it's right. Since the universe as we know it is consistent, true logical thought can be very good guide.

---

As broli was saying it is indeed the scientific establishment that is responsible for the dogmatic/religious side of science. Its suits them perfectly well... The more confusion the better. Members of the establishment cast truth to the wayside in order to preserve their sacred dogmas. I'm almost certain they're politically motivated. With the advancement of better technology mankind would have been independent long ago. Even if it were just on solar power.

[Allcanadian]

@Armagdn03

Question is....Do we judge by second hand opin-utainment...or do we read the works and words of the creator? A. Einstein never claimed to know, he was just curious.

While I enjoyed the blog I did not necessarily believe all of it as I have read many of Einsteins papers and researched his history. Over 10 years ago I remember reading a paper and sitting for countless hours on my deck contemplating his single equation E=MC^2 and trying to make sense of it from both Einstein's perspective as well as my own. I think that was the first time I was really exposed to the deeper logic of problem solving.

Is an idea stolen... or did two great thinkers follow the same train of logic... Are any of us inventors? or do we just re-discover what is known.

I think stolen is a bit harsh, If we do the research we often find almost everyone without exception has been influenced by prior art in some way. As Einstein himself said--"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources." . The question is do we disclose our sources and give them the credit they deserve or call an invention or theory something entirely new -- which we know is almost never the case?. I think Einstein borrowed many of his thoughts from other places just as every person in history has, no more no less. As well I have yet to study any person's work that I could not establish prior art for with the exception of Walter Russell and John Keely, I have no idea where they got many of the aspects of their theories from.

Is your goal recognition... Or personal understanding

I think it is a balance of both, we would be lying to ourselves if we said we wanted no recognition for our work ---but is our understanding or work entirely ours? Personally this question is very simple for me, everything I know is the product of the work of others as well. I have discovered many new things and in every case I have found prior art on the discovery, in which case it was only "new" to me. At best I think we are simply connecting the dots which have already been established by others in another time and place.
Regards
AC

[Armagdn03]

@Armagdn03



I think it is a balance of both, we would be lying to ourselves if we said we wanted no recognition for our work ---but is our understanding or work entirely ours? Personally this question is very simple for me, everything I know is the product of the work of others as well. I have discovered many new things and in every case I have found prior art on the discovery, in which case it was only "new" to me. At best I think we are simply connecting the dots which have already been established by others in another time and place.
Regards
AC

Great points....

With respect to recognition vs understanding....Im not entirely sure that these are independent concepts....but rather dependent events. Ideally speaking, one should not receive recognition without understanding. Yes it is nice to have a pat on the back.. but it feels a bit cheep if its not well deserved.

I know that personally I worry....will someone take credit for what is mine!!! Will I loose out??? But gotta take a step back and remember, you are all a figment of my imagination...ha ha ha....I think I'm taking life less and less seriously.

[Armagdn03]

Here is my DePalma reference:
SpiningBall(Understanding)

I reference Einstein sometimes because he is correct, sometimes.

His opinions hold up only under certain parameters and under others,
they don't even apply. I'm not posting a reference for my "opinion."
Bottom line is that they obviously aren't laws and that is why they
are called theories of __________. But the general mass majority
that knows how to spell physics discuss Einstein like holy gospel,
which is is not. Just like Evolution or Big Bang (theories).

Tesla isn't the gospel either, but Tesla's viewpoint allows things to be
built things that violate what Einstein talked about so that has to
count for something.

I personally think Einstein opened a lot of minds and of course what
he contributed was used by others to lock people into a religion.
Times and understanding have changed beyond what he was about
and I don't want to discount his contribution. But we certainly have
moved on.

I missed this earlier....good paper, glad you brought it up.