Look Through the Telescope
(draft of February, 2006)
by Forrest Bishop
From Galileo’s letter to Kepler: ‘Here, at Padua, is the principal professor of philosophy, who I have repeatedly and urgently requested to look at the moon and planets through my glass, which he pertinaciously refuses to do. Why are you not here? What shouts of laughter we should have at this glorious folly!’ (Translation: Oliver Lodge, Pioneers of Science, 1893, p. 106.)
Twentieth Century science was seriously compromised and held back by a number of profoundly incorrect theories. The history of ‘Einstein’s’ relativity is a study in herd behavior, and a window into how certain contemporary professors of philosophy bend the truth to suit their contingency. The cosmology built from it has become as untenable as the theory the pre-Copernicans labored under.
‘Einstein’s’ theory has never been validated, and never can be, as it is internally contradictory and self-falsifying. Instead, these flaws are repeatedly ignored or glossed over. The data in several pivotal experiments has been suppressed, ignored, or otherwise massaged to fit the theories of special and general relativity. In an extreme case, an undetectable “Dark Matter” is imagined to fill the galaxies ten times over the amount of visible matter, simply to save Newtonian gravity and therefore general relativity.
The July, 1887 Michelson-Morley aether-drift experiment, perhaps the most famous experiment in physics, apparently detected an absolute motion of the Earth through space. The original data has survived, and the expected sinusoidal variation over a sidereal day is there for all to see. This experiment was repeated by Dayton Miller, with a much more accurate instrument, over a much longer period of time. In both experiments, the magnitude of the absolute velocity appears to be too small. This may be due to aether entrainment, or more precisely, to aether inflow. Reginald Cahill makes a tight argument that the working of an interferometer was misunderstood, thus throwing off the magnitude measurement by a factor of 20 or so.
The absolute motion of the Earth through the local aether-that-is-space was apparently seen through the aperture of this early instrument at its first light. We may be moving through a space at rest, towards the constellation Hercules, at about 400 km/sec.
The 1919 solar eclipse expedition of Arthur Eddington was hailed worldwide as proof positive of General Relativity. This was a media event the likes of which had never been seen before or since. Yet, it turns out, his camera didn’t have the resolution to distinguish the stellar aberration; very few observations were made due to clouds at the time; he simply threw out the data points that disagreed with the desired outcome. This individual was adept at conjuring the results he wished to see, for as Richard Feynman put it “…[he] proved by pure logic that [the inverse fine-structure constant] had to be exactly 136…as more accurate experiments showed the number to be closer to 137, Eddington discovered a slight error in his earlier argument, and showed by pure logic again that the number had to be the integer 137!” (it isn’t). He then went on to construct a theory of nuclear fusion burning in stars that relied on treating a plasma as if it were an ideal gas. There is no limit to how wrong a theory can be.
An epistemological note: a scientific theory can never be “confirmed” by observation, it can only be falsified by evidence to the contrary. The utility of a theory lies first and foremost in its ability to explain the observations of the natural world, and secondly in its predictive power. A “verbal description of the data table”, such as Werner Heisenberg called the Standard Model of particle physics, is not a theory. When an experiment contradicts a theory, it is time to restate the assumptions. When a theory contradicts itself, it is not even a theory anymore.
I have not studied, and do not understand, the intricacies of “Ptolemaic Theory”. I am not conversant in the equations of the “Epicycles”, though I have looked at some of the diagrams. Some of them are esthetically pleasing. I don’t have to be adept in this area in order to find this theory untenable. All I have to do is acknowledge the deduction, and later the direct observation, that the Earth orbits the Sun, and the whole thing falls apart. No invocations of dark energies, strange matters, shapeshifting neutrinos, epicyclical superstrings, or esoteric mathematical games can ever reincarnate it.
It may be possible to construct a complete, orthogonal set of Epicycles. With values of the constants refined by celestial observation, one could then produce an almanac of sorts, predicting the positions of the planets far into the future, as was done in that time. This ‘confirmation’ of theory with observation still cannot validate the proposition that the Sun revolves around the Earth. So too for ‘confirming’ “Special Relativity” and “General Relativity”.
There is no need to appeal to the alleged authority of some cult figure or imaginary institution. No quantity of manmade literature, however voluminous, can ever be a substitute for the truth of objective reality. The notion of ‘scientific consensus’ is also of no avail here: the Universe is not subject to the glorious folly of the vote.
All you need to do is to see for yourself. Look through the telescope.
References, i.e. the Telescope
Bryan G. Wallace, Radar Testing of the Relative Velocity of Light in Space, Spectroscopic Letters 2, 361 (1969)
"The 1961 interplanetary radar contact with Venus presented the first opportunity to overcome technological limitations and perform direct experiments of Einstein's second postulate of a constant light speed of c in space. When the radar calculations were based on the postulate, the observed-computed residuals ranged to over 3 milliseconds of the expected error of 10 microseconds from the best [relativistic] fit the Lincoln Lab could generate, a variation range of over 30,000%. An analysis of the data showed a component that was relativistic in a c+v Galilean sense. "
Wallace, Bryan. G., 1994,“The Farce of Physics”, at
“Establishment science has thus gotten into the habit of ignoring, burying or suppressing what has now become astonishing amounts of anomalous evidence. Some of this evidence challenges the very foundations of the accepted scientific worldview, and none of it is taught in universities or covered by textbooks.”
Essays on: Physics in the Twenty-first Century, by Bibhas De
“This is no Golden Age of Physics. If you must name this age, it is the Age of Fakery - it is in fact an all-time low…In the end, however, the message here is a positive and a constructive one. It says that for further progress, physics must return to reexamining its roots: The foundation is the frontier.”
Absolute Motion and Gravitational Eﬀects, Reginald T.Cahill
Here an analysis of [data] from seven experiments demonstrates that absolute motion relative to space has been observed by Michelson and Morley (1887), Miller (1925/26), Illingworth (1927), Joos (1930), Jaseja et al (1963), Torr and Kolen (1981),and by DeWitte (1991).
Reginald T. Cahill and Kirsty Kitto, Michelson-Morley Experiments Revisited and the Cosmic Background Radiation Preferred Frame, 2003, at-
‘Albert Einstein’s’ Special Theory of Relativity
Einstein, A., 1905, On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies, at
G. BURNISTON BROWN, 1967, “What is wrong with relativity?”
Cantrell, William H., “A Dissident View of Relativity Theory”
“…Einstein borrows from the mathematics of Lorentz and Poincaré, and this allows him to modify length and time measurement to force the speed of light to be constant for all observers.”
Remarks on the Correspondence of the Relativity and Causality Principles
A.L. Kholmetskii, 2001, at-
A contradiction between the causality principle and relativity theory has been
“An Open Letter to the Scientific Community” (Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004) “The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples.”
The Top 30 Problems With the Big Bang
http://redshift.vif.com/JournalFiles/V09NO2PDF/V09N2tvf.PDF He is up to 50 or so by now.
http://haltonarp.com/ Halton Arp has been called a latter day Galileo. He even had his telescope taken away. He was o’t seeing the proper images though it.