Einstein Was Wrong

Has science taken a wrong turn? If so, what corrections are needed? Chronicles of scientific misbehavior. The role of heretic-pioneers and forbidden questions in the sciences. Is peer review working? The perverse "consensus of leading scientists." Good public relations versus good science.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Einstein Was Wrong

Unread postby michael.suede » Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:12 pm

Full article devoid of snarky comments for your cut-n-paste pleasure.


1. Quasars brightness does not correlate to their observed red shift as it does with galaxies. This refutes the notion of “expanding space” and the big bang. High red shift quasars can be well accounted for with known properties of light acting in the plasma vacuum of space. Paper proving this here.

2. Quasars with low red shift have been found to more often than not match their host galaxy. This proves Halton Arp’s ejection model of quasar formation. Paper proving quasars match their host galaxies red shifts, with the odds of correlation 1.5 in a million, can be found here. Further, high and low red shift objects are observed to be interacting with each other. The odds of quasar/galaxy quartet NGC7630 being a random chance alignment occurrence are on the orders of billions to one. However, NGC7630 does not stand alone, dozens of other interacting objects have been observed.

3. Quasars with low red shift along with galactic red shift can be explained by the CREIL effect, a property of light acting in the plasma vacuum of space interacting with diffuse hydrogen. This effect can account for all the effects of galactic red shift cause by “expanding space.”

4. Quasar red shift is observed to be quantized, as is shown in the published papers listed here. This means the earth must be at the center of the universe in order for the big bang model to be true. Quantization is shown to be related to the harmonic 0.062 in quasar and galactic red shift here. This harmonic finding has never been refuted to my knowledge.

5. The M87 galactic jet has been observed to eject matter at speeds faster than the speed of light. Theories proposing orientation as a solution for this do not agree well with observation. Los Alamos plasma physicist Anthony Peratt has shown how charged plasma can account for all observations of the M87 galactic jet without the need to invoke ‘black holes’. Indeed, Peratt’s theory, which is based on Alfven’s work, can account for the double jets we observe in some AGNs – which I believe remains unexplained in the standard model. Double radio sources were predicted by Alfven before their discovery. Paper showing this to be true can be found here.

6. Physicist Stephen Crothers has demonstrated the physics behind black holes to be a fallacy. Black hole physics violates SR, which means it also violates GR. Even by the mainstreams own standards, black holes are an impossibility. SR forbids infinite point mass particles such as a black hole singularity. Further, Schwarzschild’s original paper that proposed the solution to the Mercury orbit problem, from which the black hole is supposedly derived, is regular in all of space-time. This absolutely refutes the notion of black holes. Schwarzschild’s original paper in English can be found here.

7. The LIGO has never detected a gravitational wave. This non-detection directly refutes previous theory and stands in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity.

8. A recent study of Quasars show them to be devoid of all effects of time dilation. This directly refutes the notion of “expanding space” and the big bang. This is a primary falsifying observation of Einstein’s theories. Article on the subject here.

9. All observational evidence of the Sun refutes the notion that the Sun is a gravitationally collapsing gas cloud that is powered by a hydrogen to helium fusion reaction. The surface of the Sun is only observed to reach around 6000 degrees, while the corona high above it can get into the millions of degrees. Sun spots are the deepest place we can see into the Sun, yet they are the coldest places we can measure. These observations directly refute the notion that heat energy is being released from the core of the Sun. Other observed anomalies that refute the notion the Sun is a gravitationally collapsing gas cloud: neutrino deficiency, neutrino variability, differential rotation by latitude, differential rotation by depth, sun spots, the sun spot penumbra, even magnetic field, etc... the list goes on. Refutations to existing arguments as well as links to the solar models in question can be found here. In conjunction with this point, see point 19 as refutation against magnetic reconnection as a mechanism of heat transport.

10. All comet nuclei that have been directly observed have proven to be rocky with no visible water present on the surface. This refutes the standard theory of comets. Comets are also observed to emit x-rays and have filamented tails. This is unexplained by the standard model, yet these observations were predicted by plasma cosmologists. Supporting articles from a wide range of sources can be found here.

11. All comets observed falling into the Sun or passing very near the Sun have subsequently been followed by coronal mass ejections. This is not explained at all by the idea a comet is a dirty snowball, yet this is well explained by plasma cosmology’s view of comets. Also, comets have observed to brighten at distances too far from the Sun to possibly be attributed to sublimating ice. This too is explained well by plasma cosmology's view of comets.

12. Stars have been observed that are too cold to possibly host nuclear fusion. These stars are called brown dwarf stars and may be the most numerous stars in the galaxy. The explanation of these objects by the standard model is poor. If the star is too small to gravitationally ignite a fusion reaction, it stands to reason they shouldn't be cooling at all. They should be simple gas giants. However, they are well explained and predicted by the electric star hypothesis.

13. GPS clocks and all other phenomena that supposedly “proves” Einstein’s version of relativity can be accounted for better using steady state models of the universe. Lorentz's model can well account for observations in a steady state universe. Physicist Tom Van Flandern lays out the evidence here. An alternative theory based on Lorentz’s work that accounts for why the MM experiment null result, as well as all other aberrations, can be found here. Similarly, physicist Randal Mills has demonstrated predictive success with a model solely based on classical physics. The simplicity of these models and accuracy of their predictions merits further review.

14. The WMAP has show the existence of large scale voids in the supposed “cosmic background” from the big bang. These voids were not predicted and directly refute the notion of the big bang. Further, as the ACG so eloquently states, it seems that there are spurious temperature anisotropies that are comparable with the entire anisotropy found in the WMAP team’s maps. Therefore the entire analysis of cosmological parameters based on these maps is wrong. Indeed it seems very puzzling that an analysis that is so contaminated with errors should come up with parameters anywhere near those expected by LCDM models.

15. The CDMS project has never detected any observational evidence of dark matter despite years of trying. This directly refutes the notion that dark matter exists and is the supposed “missing mass” of galaxies. The theory of dark matter is tantamount to physicists simply making up matter to account for the failure of their gravitational models.

16. Quasar Q2237 “The Einstein Cross” – this quasar directly refutes the notion of gravitational lensing. This quasar is supposedly ONE quasar being lensed into 4 images. The individual quasars are observed to brighten and dim independently. They are not oblong in shape. They are are visibly connected by a plasma field. They are observed to change position. All of these observations are in direct contradiction to gravitational lens theory. I personally find the micro-lensing explanation to be a stretch of the imagination. The notion that gravitational micro-lenses are the cause of this effect are at such extreme odds that it is next to impossible for them to properly account for the variations observed over time.

In conjunction with argument 16:

If you agree that gravitational lensing is caused by black holes, it follows that you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lenses;

If you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lensing, then explain why we don’t see any lensing effects at the center of the Milky Way. High mass objects bend light according to GR as was supposedly demonstrated in the 1919 eclipse paper here, given that, the measurement arm excuse seems to fly in the face of standing theory. In fact, gravitational lensing theory has so many contradicting theories in support of it, one can not find a single standard view of lensing to even refute. I could attempt to refute one model, only face conflicting data from another model, and so forth - of course none of the models are backed up by any laboratory experimentation.

Further, if we look strictly at the observational evidence in support of lensing, excluding red shifts, we find that halo structures are all that's left to explain. If the assumption is made that red shift is caused by some other property beside expanding space, all one needs to do is explain the observed halo effects and light refraction. There exists in our own solar system such a massive halo effect that is not caused by gravitational lensing. The Phoebe ring of Saturn is a great example of a non-gravitational lensing halo.

Further, given that we know its possible to bend light here on earth without gravity, it stands to reason that there is probably some real property of plasma acting in space that can account for what is observed.

Berkeley's lab that works on bending light.

17. All Hubble deep field images show fully formed galaxies at the supposed “edge of the universe.” – if we are actually looking back in time to the birth of the cosmos, this should not be so. We should see developing galaxies, not fully formed galaxies.

18. Gravity is not constant. Every attempt to measure gravity has resulted in changes over time. No method of measuring gravity has ever proven gravity to be constant as is mandated by the general theory of relativity. This is direct falsifying observational evidence that GR is wrong, which also means SR must be wrong.

19. “Magnetic reconnection” as it applies to its use in explaining the Sun and the aurora’s violates the known laws of physics. Magnetic fields can not merge and snap imparting force. Magnetic field lines are not real objects. A paper by Scott proving this. This was also shown to be unnecessary by Falthammar here. AND Alfven himself rejected this idea in Cosmic Electrodynamics and in this paper here.

20. Neutron stars and pulsars violate the known laws of physics. The proposed density of neutrons in these stars by the standard model violates the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry. Neutrons can not be packed together that densely without having them fly apart instantaneously. Also, in pulsars, rotation rates have been observed on the order of 1200 hz. This also flies in the face of standard theory. It is impossible that a star can rotate that fast. The outer edges of the star would be approaching appreciable speeds of light. Plasma cosmology offers a far simpler explanation that doesn’t violate any laws of physics.

21. Saturn's rings are observed to emit radio waves. This is not well explained at all by gravitational models of ring formation. Further, to quote the KTH annual 2008 report:
The data obtained by the Cassini Radio and Plasma Wave Science instrument (RPWS) during
the shallow (2005-02-17) and the steep (2005-07-14) crossings of the E ring revealed a
considerable electron depletion in the proximity of the Enceladus orbit. Assuming that this
depletion is a signature of the presence of charged dust particles, the main characteristics of
dust down to submicron sized particles have been derived. The size distribution is found to be
well described by a power law with an index 5.5 to 6...Two papers have been submitted to Planetary and Space Science.

22. Io's volcanoes are observed to move around the surface and leave burn marks behind them. Also the volcanoes plumes exhibit filamentation. Peratt and Dessler demonstrated how electric forces could account for Io's oddities.

23. Standard galaxy formation models require the use of black holes and dark matter to achieve approximate model fit to observation. These hypothetical entities have never been proven to exist. Peratt has demonstrated super-computer formulations of plasma using standard classical physics to produce a galaxy formation model that does not require any hypothetical entities. His model well agrees with observations.

24. Stars located at the center of the galaxy do not agree with the standard model of galaxy star formation. They are too young by the standard model of measuring a star's age to have formed at the locations observed. Theories that attempt to account for this are orders of magnitude improbable.

25. Frame dragging has never been definitively proven despite numerous attempts to look for it using numerous satellites. The most famous of which is Gravity Probe B. The final report issued by the Gravity Probe B team utilizes a hypothetical model to account for the effects of static build up induced error on the gyros. The raw data showed no signs of any frame dragging at all. Given that a purely hypothetical model was used to massage the data, the reports findings lack any definitive proof of frame dragging.

26. The Pioneer space probe speed anomaly can not be explained by standard model physics. Plasma cosmology offers a proper explanation.

27. After nearly 100 years, Einstein's theories have not been unified. They are not falsifiable. These two facts alone merit reconsidering their continued use. The lack of unification and lack of fundamental ties to reality demands explanation. The LCDM model of the universe has no less than 5 adjustable parameters that can arbitrarily be adjusted to account for observation. This is no different than Ptolemy's epicycles that were continually adjusted to account for observation without providing any real explanation of the mechanics behind what is being observed.

28. Galaxies have been observed to be moving in dark flows. This observation stands in contradiction to the standard model of galaxy and universe formation. Such movement can be well accounted for in an electric model.

And finally, a large collection of papers in support of the arguments made.

Professor Donald Scott lays out the case for plasma cosmology at the NASA Goddard Space Center’s Engineering Colloquia in this video.
Last edited by davesmith_au on Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Correction to point #15 - DS
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Einstein Was Wrong

Unread postby michael.suede » Tue Apr 13, 2010 1:55 pm

Oh yeah, if anyone wants to add to this list, please post a referenced bullet point in this thread.

If I deem it to be a sound point, I will update the list on my blog with your point.

I'll maintain a running list of points that observationally refute Einstein's wacky theories.
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Einstein Was Wrong

Unread postby michael.suede » Tue Apr 13, 2010 9:56 pm

Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Einstein Was Wrong

Unread postby michael.suede » Tue Apr 13, 2010 11:06 pm

bah, I misspoke on my CDMS statement, I got dark matter and dark energy confused ahahah

So much BS its hard to keep track of it all.

The statement should read as follows:

15. The CDMS project has never detected any observational evidence of dark matter despite years of trying. This directly refutes the notion that dark matter exists and is the supposed “missing mass” of galaxies. The theory of dark matter is tantamount to physicists simply making up matter to account for the failure of their gravitational models.

[Mod note: Point 15 in the original post is now amended to reflect this erratum.]
Last edited by davesmith_au on Wed Apr 14, 2010 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Mod note - DS.
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Einstein Was Wrong

Unread postby michael.suede » Sat Apr 17, 2010 2:52 am

another error I made, i transposed some numbers

In point two, NGC 7630 should be NGC 7603

http://www.haltonarp.com/articles/resea ... re_1_b.jpg
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:27 am

Re: Einstein Was Wrong

Unread postby michael.suede » Thu Apr 22, 2010 7:45 am

I've updated the article linked in the original post with error corrections, removed the snarky comments, and have added several additional points.

If you're going to link the article, I have it posted two places. One is on my political blog, which allows commenting and which has more viewers:

The other is on my cosmology website which does not allow commenting :
http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyq ... -was-wrong


Again, if anyone has more points they want to add with referenced links, please post them and let me know. I'll add your comments if I think they fit with the rant. :D
Posts: 88
Joined: Fri Mar 06, 2009 9:27 am

Return to The Future of Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest