Earth's core younger than its crust or science is insane?

https://www.newscientist.com/article...han-its-crust/
"There's a surprise lying deep beneath your feet. Physicists have calculated that the centre of the Earth is two-and-a-half years younger than its surface, thanks to the effects of gravity as described by general relativity. According to Einstein's theory, your position in a gravitational field changes the rate at which you experience time passing. The idea has been rigorously tested and has an impact on GPS satellites. But the time differences involved here are normally fractions of a second, not a couple of years. Ulrik Uggerhøj of Aarhus University in Denmark and his colleagues realised the effect would be much more pronounced for Earth after re-examining a claim made by physicist Richard Feynman in the 1960s. In a series of lectures, Feynman claimed that the difference in age between the Earth's centre and surface was about a day or two - a figure often repeated and cited in papers by other physicists, including Uggerhøj."

No such effect has ever been observed. Einsteinians measure the gravitational redshift but then inform the gullible world that they have measured gravitational time dilation, a miraculous difference in the clocks' rates fabricated by Einstein in 1911:

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."

Clever Einsteinians know that gravitational time dilation does not exist. The gravitational redshift (blueshift) is not due to time dilation - rather, it is the result of "what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation":

http://www.amazon.com/Relativity-Its.../dp/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."

What befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation? They accelerate of course, just as ordinary falling objects do, and this variation of the speed of light (predicted by Newton's emission theory of light) causes the gravitational redshift (or blueshift):

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.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..."

Pentcho Valev

Science in Einstein world (extremely sane isn't it):

http://www.techtimes.com/articles/15...asse-tyson.htm
"The entire universe we see around us may be nothing more than a simulation, according to famed astronomer Neil DeGresse Tyson. (...) "What may have started as a science fiction speculation -- that perhaps the universe as we know it is actually a computer simulation -- has become a serious line of theoretical and experimental investigation among physicists, astrophysicists, and philosophers," the American Museum of Natural History reported. The astronomer made the following argument in an effort to address the question.. If the Cosmos is truly infinite, then every possibility has occurred somewhere. If it is possible to simulate the universe in a Matrix-type simulation, then one or more alien civilizations (in an infinite universe) has already accomplished that feat. Therefore, it stands to reason that we likely live within such a virtual reality. To add an extra layer of confusion to the idea, it may be possible that members of virtual civilizations may, in turn, create their own simulated Cosmos. If this is the case, there may be an infinite number of virtual universes, and only one "real" one."

Pentcho Valev

Einsteinians brainwash the gullible world:

https://aeon.co/essays/why-doesn-t-p...e-flow-of-time
"The Newtonian and Einsteinian world theories offer little guidance. They are both eternalised 'block' universes, in which time is a dimension not unlike space, so everything exists all at once. Einstein's equations allow different observers to disagree about the duration of time intervals, but the spacetime continuum itself, so beloved of Star Trek's Mr Spock, is an invariant stage upon which the drama of the world takes place."

The implicit suggestion is that the absurdity

"Einstein's equations allow different observers to disagree about the duration of time intervals"

is a trifle - the reader should ignore and forget it and concentrate on the awful news that the Newtonian and Einsteinian world theories "are both eternalised 'block' universes".

After the brainwashing, profiteers safely share their deep thoughts:

"Lee Smolin at the Perimeter Institute in Ontario argues that scientists must change tack, accepting the flow of time as real and building the church of a new physics upon that rock. The British physicist Julian Barbour takes an opposite stance; going beyond Newton and Einstein, in The End of Time (1999) he proposes that time itself is an illusion."

Pentcho Valev