Archive for December, 2011

FOR POSTING: DEFINITIVE PROOF 7, Two More Refutations of Einstein’s GR

Tuesday, December 6th, 2011

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Tuesday, December 06, 2011 4:24 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: FOR POSTING: DEFINITIVE PROOF 7, Two More Refutations of Einstein’s GR

These are two further consequential refutations following upon Proof Six. The first refutation shows that in Einstein’s general relativity the total linear velocity in the observer frame is constant. However, is assumed in the theory that it is not constant, i.e. it is assumed that one frame moves in any way with respect to another. The second refutation shows that if a particle is assumed to be at rest (E = m c squared), then it has a velocity v squared = c squared / 2, a reduction to absurdity proof that the theory is incorrect. I advise funding agencies to note that the basis of many expensive experiments to test the theory is now obsolete. The funding is urgently needed elsewhere. If scientists refuse to note these refutations they cannot be funded because the very basis of science is being ignored, and this is therefore unscientific conduct.

adefinitiveproof7.pdf

View article…

The Refutation of Einsteinian General Relativity in UFT194

Saturday, December 3rd, 2011

Feed: Dr. Myron Evans
Posted on: Saturday, December 03, 2011 7:40 AM
Author: metric345
Subject: The Refutation of Einsteinian General Relativity in UFT194

This is conclusive and shows that for any spherical spacetime characterized by a function m, then m is the constant:

m = (E / (m c squared)) all squared / (1 + E / (m c squared))

where E is the constant total energy. This immediately refutes general relativity based on any spherical spacetime metric in which m is a function of r. Einsteinian GR is based on:

m(r) = 1 – r0 / r

a function falsely attributed to Schwarzschild, and which is completely wrong. The elaborate and hyper abstract nonsense published in Einsteinian general relativity is refuted directly, the more abstract the worse it becomes, the more meaningless, the more confusing. Any claims (even by the otherwise reputable NASA for example) to precise testing are refuted directly. It is grossly offensive and without any scientific purpose to make personal attacks on a scientist or a publisher in “response” to such simple and irrefutable logic. This is classic “shoot the messenger”. Such attacks are unethical and unprofessional, and may amount to aggravated harassment in the common law of the country in which these e mailings are received. This is a felony, and one which is regarded with seriousness by, for example, the British Crown Prosecution Service and almost all other countries. The only remedy to fanatical and malicious e mailing is electronic blocking if the e mailer continues to send messages after being politely asked not to do so. Personal animosity will not be allowed to obstruct or corrupt the progress of science.

View article…