IDIOCY CALLED GENERAL RELATIVITY

http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...ein-got-wrong/
Lawrence Krauss, What Einstein Got Wrong: "Deflection of light by a massive object was a key observational prediction of general relativity. In 1919 an expedition led by physicist Arthur Eddington observed a solar eclipse and determined that starlight passing by the sun bent just as Einstein expected. News of the confirmation appeared on the front pages of newspapers around the world, with the drama of a British expedition confirming the work of a German scientist right at the end of World War I no doubt contributing to the public's fascination. Einstein rapidly attained a level of scientific fame unequaled ever since. There is a further twist to the story. Einstein had done the same light-bending calculation years earlier, in 1912. He had not recognized the cosmological importance of his result then, either. Even worse, he had made a near-disastrous mathematical error: he performed his calculation using an early version of general relativity that predicted a light deflection by gravity half as big as the true value."

This half-deflection was the Newtonian prediction, and it is a public secret that Eddington's 1919 observations were unable to say which prediction was correct (Lawrence Krauss is lying about that). The Newtonian prediction is based on the assumption that the speed of falling (towards the source of gravity) light increases like the speed of ordinary falling objects - in the gravitational field of the Earth the acceleration of falling photons is g.. This misleads Einsteinians into believing that the speed of falling light increases twice as fast as the speed of ordinary falling objects (the acceleration is 2g):

http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/9909014v1.pdf
Steve Carlip: "It is well known that the deflection of light is twice that predicted by Newtonian theory; in this sense, at least, light falls with twice the acceleration of ordinary "slow" matter."

In fact, Einstein's general relativity idiotically predicts that the speed of falling light DECREASES - the acceleration is NEGATIVE, -2g:

http://www.physlink.com/Education/AskExperts/ae13.cfm
"Contrary to intuition, the speed of light (properly defined) decreases as the black hole is approached."

http://www.speed-light.info/speed_of_light_variable.htm
"Einstein wrote this paper in 1911 in German. (...) ...you will find in section 3 of that paper Einstein's derivation of the variable speed of light in a gravitational potential, eqn (3). The result is: c'=c0(1+φ/c^2) where φ is the gravitational potential relative to the point where the speed of light c0 is measured. Simply put: Light appears to travel slower in stronger gravitational fields (near bigger mass). (...) You can find a more sophisticated derivation later by Einstein (1955) from the full theory of general relativity in the weak field approximation. (...) Namely the 1955 approximation shows a variation in km/sec twice as much as first predicted in 1911."

http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s6-01/6-01.htm
"Specifically, Einstein wrote in 1911 that the speed of light at a place with the gravitational potential φ would be c(1+φ/c^2), where c is the nominal speed of light in the absence of gravity. In geometrical units we define c=1, so Einstein's 1911 formula can be written simply as c'=1+φ. However, this formula for the speed of light (not to mention this whole approach to gravity) turned out to be incorrect, as Einstein realized during the years leading up to 1915 and the completion of the general theory. (...) ...we have c_r =1+2φ, which corresponds to Einstein's 1911 equation, except that we have a factor of 2 instead of 1 on the potential term."

Pentcho Valev

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/ea...cience.aac6498
"In Einstein's general theory of relativity, time depends locally on gravity; in standard quantum theory, time is global - all clocks "tick" uniformly."

http://www.scienceandnonduality.com/...al-relativity/
"Although quantum mechanics and general relativity both have strong support in modern physics, the two fields don't always agree. Time is a good example of this. In quantum theory, the passage of time is the same throughout the universe. General relativity, though, says that time can be affected by gravitational fields - something that has been shown experimentally by placing clocks at different elevations."

Time is not affected by gravity - general relativity is absurd and should be discarded. Einsteinians measure the gravitational redshift and inform the gullible world that they have proved gravitational time dilation:

http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/...ted-precision/
"A new paper co-authored by U.S. Energy Secretary Steven Chu measures the gravitational redshift, illustrated by the gravity-induced slowing of a clock and sometimes referred to as gravitational time dilation (though users of that term often conflate two separate phenomena), a measurement that jibes with Einstein and that is 10,000 times more precise than its predecessor."

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2...-billion-years
"Einstein's relativity theory states a clock must tick faster at the top of a mountain than at its foot, due to the effects of gravity. "Our performance means that we can measure the gravitational shift when you raise the clock just two centimetres (0.78 inches) on the Earth's surface," said study co-author Jun Ye."

There is no gravitational time dilation. The gravitational redshift is the result of the the variation of the speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..."

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/...ctures/l13.pdf
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction."

http://www.printsasia.com/book/relat...ann-0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation."

Pentcho Valev

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jskvBySY2x4
"Albert Einstein's "happiest thought" is the subject of this week's "A Moment of Science with Brian Greene" — it is the very thought that ultimately led Einstein to the General Theory of Relativity."

Actually the equivalence principle disproves Einstein's relativity:

http://galileo.phys.virginia.edu/cla...elativity.html
Michael Fowler, University of Virginia: "What happens if we shine the pulse of light vertically down inside a freely falling elevator, from a laser in the center of the ceiling to a point in the center of the floor? Let us suppose the flash of light leaves the ceiling at the instant the elevator is released into free fall. If the elevator has height h, it takes time h/c to reach the floor. This means the floor is moving downwards at speed gh/c when the light hits. Question: Will an observer on the floor of the elevator see the light as Doppler shifted? The answer has to be no, because inside the elevator, by the Equivalence Principle, conditions are identical to those in an inertial frame with no fields present. There is nothing to change the frequency of the light. This implies, however, that to an outside observer, stationary in the earth's gravitational field, the frequency of the light will change. This is because he will agree with the elevator observer on what was the initial frequency f of the light as it left the laser in the ceiling (the elevator was at rest relative to the earth at that moment) so if the elevator operator maintains the light had the same frequency f as it hit the elevator floor, which is moving at gh/c relative to the earth at that instant, the earth observer will say the light has frequency f(1 + v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2), using the Doppler formula for very low speeds."

Substituting f=c/λ into Fowler's equation gives:

f' = f(1+v/c) = f(1+gh/c^2) = (c+v)/λ = c(1+gh/c^2)/λ = c'/λ

where f' is the frequency measured by both the observer "stationary in the earth's gravitational field" and an equivalent observer who, in gravitation-free space, moves with speed v=gh/c towards the emitter. Accordingly,

c' = c+v = c(1+gh/c^2)

is the speed of light relative to those two observers. Clearly, the frequency shift is due to a shift in the speed of light - the speed of light varies with both the gravitational potential and the speed of the observer, just as predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and in violation of Einstein's relativity.

Pentcho Valev

Clifford Will lying blatantly:

http://journals.aps.org/prl/edannoun...ett.115.130001
Clifford Will: "Einstein and his general theory became celebrities in November 1919, when newspapers worldwide proclaimed "Einstein's theory triumphs.." The occasion was the report by British astronomers that they had measured the bending of starlight by the Sun. The researchers had analyzed photographs of stars near the Sun during a total eclipse and found that the tiny displacements of their images, with respect to reference photographs, agreed better with Einstein's theory than with Newton's, which predicted half the effect [3]. Subsequent eclipse measurements tended to confirm Einstein, but some physicists and astronomers remained skeptical [4]. While Einstein's theory successfully accounted for an anomaly in the orbit of Mercury, a third test of the theory, called the gravitational redshift, was initially a bust. Two 1917 observations failed to detect the predicted shift in the Sun's spectral lines. It wasn't until 1960 that the effect was finally measured in a laboratory experiment involving gamma rays [5]. (...) [5] R. V. Pound and G. A. Rebka, Apparent Weight of Photons, Phys. Rev. Lett. 4, 337 (1960)."

All the three tests failed to confirm Einstein's relativity. It is a public secret that Eddington's 1919 eclipse measurements were fraudulent. In the case of Mercury's orbit anomaly, Einstein and his mathematical friends had to change and fudge the equations countless times until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached:

http://www.weylmann.com/besso.pdf
Michel Janssen, The Einstein-Besso Manuscript: A Glimpse Behind the Curtain of the Wizard

Finally, the Pound-Rebka experiment is compatible with the variable speed of light predicted by Newton's emission theory of light and therefore cannot confirm Einstein's relativity:

http://www.einstein-online.info/spot...t_white_dwarfs
Albert Einstein Institute: "One of the three classical tests for general relativity is the gravitational redshift of light or other forms of electromagnetic radiation. However, in contrast to the other two tests - the gravitational deflection of light and the relativistic perihelion shift -, you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals inertial mass) suffices. (...) The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." x

http://courses.physics.illinois.edu/...ctures/l13.pdf
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign: "Consider a falling object. ITS SPEED INCREASES AS IT IS FALLING. Hence, if we were to associate a frequency with that object the frequency should increase accordingly as it falls to earth. Because of the equivalence between gravitational and inertial mass, WE SHOULD OBSERVE THE SAME EFFECT FOR LIGHT. So lets shine a light beam from the top of a very tall building. If we can measure the frequency shift as the light beam descends the building, we should be able to discern how gravity affects a falling light beam. This was done by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They shone a light from the top of the Jefferson tower at Harvard and measured the frequency shift. The frequency shift was tiny but in agreement with the theoretical prediction." x

http://www.printsasia.com/book/relat...ann-0486406768
Banesh Hoffmann: "In an accelerated sky laboratory, and therefore also in the corresponding earth laboratory, the frequence of arrival of light pulses is lower than the ticking rate of the upper clocks even though all the clocks go at the same rate. (...) As a result the experimenter at the ceiling of the sky laboratory will see with his own eyes that the floor clock is going at a slower rate than the ceiling clock - even though, as I have stressed, both are going at the same rate. (...) The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation." x

Pentcho Valev

http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2015...5291443122698/
"11-year search turns up no sign of Einstein's gravitational waves. Scientists now think black holes may merge too quickly to send out gravitational waves during their brief death spiral. (...) "We heard nothing. Not even a whimper," lead researcher Ryan Shannon, an astronomer with CSIRO and the International Centre for Radio Astronomy Research, said in a press release. "It seems to be all quiet on the cosmic front -- at least for the kind of waves we are looking for." (...) The new study, published in the journal Science, won't end the search for gravitational waves."

Bravo, Einsteinians! Don't give up, otherwise your children will go hungry in the streets!

Pentcho Valev

http://phys.org/news/2015-09-year-co...e-rethink.html
"One hundred years since Einstein proposed gravitational waves as part of his general theory of relativity, an 11-year search performed with CSIRO's Parkes telescope has failed to detect them, casting doubt on our understanding of galaxies and black holes."

Not on Einstein's general relativity? Why not? It is not even deductive - just an empirical model:

https://www.marxists.org/reference/a...ative/ap03.htm
Albert Einstein: "From a systematic theoretical point of view, we may imagine the process of evolution of an empirical science to be a continuous process of induction. Theories are evolved and are expressed in short compass as statements of a large number of individual observations in the form of empirical laws, from which the general laws can be ascertained by comparison.. Regarded in this way, the development of a science bears some resemblance to the compilation of a classified catalogue. It is, as it were, a purely empirical enterprise. But this point of view by no means embraces the whole of the actual process ; for it slurs over the important part played by intuition and deductive thought in the development of an exact science. As soon as a science has emerged from its initial stages, theoretical advances are no longer achieved merely by a process of arrangement. Guided by empirical data, the investigator rather develops a system of thought which, in general, is built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions, the so-called axioms."

Unlike special relativity, general relativity was not "built up logically from a small number of fundamental assumptions". Rather, it was "a purely empirical enterprise" - Einstein and his mathematical friends changed and fudged equations countless times until "a classified catalogue" was compiled where known in advance results and pet assumptions (such as the Mercury's precession, the equivalence principle, gravitational time dilation) coexisted in an apparently consistent manner. The process is nicely described he

http://www.weylmann.com/besso.pdf
Michel Janssen, The Einstein-Besso Manuscript: A Glimpse Behind the Curtain of the Wizard

The making of general relativity was analogous to "curve fitting" ("empirical models") as defined he

http://collum.chem.cornell.edu/docum...ve_Fitting.pdf
"The objective of curve fitting is to theoretically describe experimental data with a model (function or equation) and to find the parameters associated with this model. Models of primary importance to us are mechanistic models. Mechanistic models are specifically formulated to provide insight into a chemical, biological, or physical process that is thought to govern the phenomenon under study. Parameters derived from mechanistic models are quantitative estimates of real system properties (rate constants, dissociation constants, catalytic velocities etc.). It is important to distinguish mechanistic models from empirical models that are mathematical functions formulated to fit a particular curve but whose parameters do not necessarily correspond to a biological, chemical or physical property."

Pentcho Valev

Journalists are getting more and more aggressive:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...s-nothing.html
"Was Einstein wrong? Astronomers spend 11 years hunting for gravitational waves...but find nothing"

Time to leave the sinking ship, Einsteinians. Ordinary Einsteinians will leave the sinking ship in panic:

http://parterre.com/wp-content/uploa.../nyco_rats.jpg

Einsteiniana's high priests will leave the sinking ship in a well-organized way:

http://www.reset-italia.net/wp-conte...iam-andiam.jpg

Pentcho Valev

http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/201...s-theory-wrong
" 'All quiet on the cosmic front': Was Einstein's theory wrong? Scientists have spent 11 years listening for evidence of gravitational waves as predicted by Einstein's general theory of relativity. So far, at least, they've found nothing but silence."

Shock and horror in Einsteiniana:

http://www.infonetworkmarketing.org/...anza-paure.jpg

Time for answering the "embarrassing question":

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/con...ent=a909857880
Peter Hayes "The Ideology of Relativity: The Case of the Clock Paradox" : Social Epistemology, Volume 23, Issue 1 January 2009, pages 57-78: "The gatekeepers of professional physics in the universities and research institutes are disinclined to support or employ anyone who raises problems over the elementary inconsistencies of relativity. A winnowing out process has made it very difficult for critics of Einstein to achieve or maintain professional status. Relativists are then able to use the argument of authority to discredit these critics. Were relativists to admit that Einstein may have made a series of elementary logical errors, they would be faced with the embarrassing question of why this had not been noticed earlier. Under these circumstances the marginalisation of antirelativists, unjustified on scientific grounds, is eminently justifiable on grounds of realpolitik. Supporters of relativity theory have protected both the theory and their own reputations by shutting their opponents out of professional discourse."

Pentcho Valev