Albert Einstein: The Earth Mover - Galileo Was Wrong · real, i.e., structural changes in length and duration owing to motion, Einstein’s theory involves only apparent changes”

1

Albert Einstein: The Earth Mover

How Einstein Made the Earth Move 

(…When All the Experiments Showed it Didn’t Move) 

In his 1881 and 1887 experiments, AlbertMichelson discovered that the Earthwas notmovingaroundthesun.AsMichelsonhimselfdescribedtheresultsofhisownexperiment:“This conclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earthmoves.”1 But since his colleagues, including Albert Einstein, were die‐hard Copernicanswho didn’t want to believe that Michelson had discovered a motionless Earth, theyproposed that his experimental apparatus was distorted by the Earth’s motion throughspace and thus the apparatus only made it appear as if it wasn’t moving. In scientificparlance,wecallthisthefallacyofpetitioprincipii,thatis,usingasproof(amovingEarth)theverythingoneistryingtoprove(amovingEarth).Letmeexplain.

Michelson found the Earth wasn’tmoving by using the speed of twolightbeamsagainstoneanother.

1 Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125.

2

The first lightbeamwaspointedwestwardbecause itwas thepresumeddirectionof theEarth’smovementaroundthesun.ThesecondlightbeamwaspointednorthwardandthusawayfromthedirectionofthepresumedmovingEarth.

ThefirstlightbeamshouldhavebeenaffectedbythemovementthroughspaceiftheEarthismovingaroundthesunattheacceptedspeedof66,000mph.Ifso,thefirstbeamwouldhavetraveledslowerthanthesecondlightbeam.Butthatdidn’thappen.Bothlightbeamstraveled at nearly the same speed. According toMichelson, the first beam traveled onlyone‐sixth of the retarded speed needed if the Earth was moving around the sun.2 Theconclusion,asMichelsonnotesabove,shouldhavebeenthattheEarthisn’tmovingaroundthesun.

DesiredResult(ifEarthismovingaroundthesun) ActualResults(showsEarthisn’tmovingaroundthesun)

2 The equations used in the calculation are as follows: calculates it: Δt - Δt΄ = (l1 + l2) v

2/c3. Now we take v = 3.0 × 104 m/s, the speed of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun. In Michelson and Morley’s experiment, the arms l1 and l2 were about 11 m long. The time difference would then be about (22m)(3.0 × 104 m/s)2/(3.0 × 108 m/s)3 ≈ 7.0 × 10-16 s. For visible light of wavelength λ = 5.5 × 10-7 m, say, the frequency would be f = c/λ = (3.0 × 108 m/s)/(5.5 × 10-7 m) = 5.5 × 1014 Hz, which means that wave crests pass by a point every 1/(5.5 × 1014 Hz) = 1.8 × 10-15 s. Thus, with a time difference of 7.0 × 10-16 s, Michelson and Morley should have noted a movement in the interference pattern of (7.0 × 10-16 s)/(1.8 × 10-15 s) = 0.4 fringe. They could easily have detected this, since their apparatus was capable of observing a fringe shift as small as 0.01 fringe.

3

Otherprominentphysicistshavenotedthesametruth:

“Therewas justonealternative; theearth’s truevelocitythroughspacemighthappentohavebeennil.”

Physicist,ArthurEddington3“The data [ofMichelson‐Morley]were almost unbelievable… Therewas only one otherpossibleconclusiontodraw—thattheEarthwasatrest.”

Physicist,BernardJaffe4“Thus,failure[ofMichelson‐Morley]toobservedifferentspeedsoflightatdifferenttimesof the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’frameformeasuringabsolutemotioninspace.YetwehaveknownsinceGalileothattheEarthisnotthecenteroftheuniverse.Whyshoulditbeatrestinspace?”

Physicist,AdolphBaker5“….Theeasiestexplanationwasthattheearthwasfixedintheetherandthateverythingelseintheuniversemovedwithrespecttotheearthandtheether….Suchanideawasnotconsideredseriously,sinceitwouldmeanineffectthatourearthoccupiedtheomnipotentposition in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage bymovingaroundit.”

Physicist,JamesColeman6“The Michelson‐Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassingalternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theorywhich had explained somany things about electricity,magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining theethertheyhadtoabandonthestillmorevenerableCopernicantheorythattheearthisinmotion. Tomanyphysicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood stillthanthatwaves–lightwaves,electromagneticwaves–couldexistwithoutamediumtosustainthem.Itwasaseriousdilemmaandonethatsplitscientificthoughtforaquartercentury.Many new hypotheseswere advanced and rejected. The experimentwas triedagain byMorley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of theearththroughtheetherwaszero.”

Historian,LincolnBarnett,forewordbyAlbertEinstein7“Whathappenedwhentheexperimentwasdonein1887?Therewasnever,never,inanyorientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; nofringe shift; nothing.What’s the implication?Herewas an experiment thatwas done tomeasurethespeedoftheearth’smotionthroughtheether.Thiswasanexperimentthat

3 Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8. 4 Bernard Jaffe, Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76. 5 Adolf Baker, Modern Physics & Antiphysics, pp. 53-54. 6 James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman, p. 37. 7 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, p. 44.

4

wastentimesmoresensitivethanitneededtobe.Itcouldhavedetectedspeedsaslowastwomiles a second instead of the known 20mps that the earth as in its orbitalmotionaround the sun. It didn’t detect it. What’s the conclusion from the Michelson‐Morleyexperiment?Theimplicationisthattheearthisnotmoving…”

Physicist,RichardWolfson8“MichelsonandMorleyfoundshifts intheinterferencefringes,buttheywereverymuchsmallerthanthesizeoftheeffectexpectedfromtheknownorbitalmotionoftheEarth”

Physicist,JohnD.Norton9“This ‘null’ result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenthcentury.Onepossibilitywasthat...vwouldbezeroandnofringeshiftwouldbeexpected.But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; onlywith respect to theearth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell’s equations. This istantamounttoassumingthattheearthisthecentralbodyoftheuniverse.”

Physicist,DouglasC.Giancoli10

Butthedie‐hardCopernicansofthatdaywerenotabouttoaccepttheprimafacieresultsofMichelson’s experiment. They knew the catastrophic scientific, cultural, and religiousimplicationsofanon‐movingEarth. Inaword, thewholeworldwouldhavebeenturnedupside down, literally and figuratively, if it was finally discovered that the Earth wasstandingstillinspace.

Pressuredtoappear“scientific,”theysearchedforawaytomakeitseemthatthefirstlightbeamdid, indeed,provide six‐sixthsof the retarded speed required for anEarthmovingaroundthesun.Todosotheythoughtupaningenious(butdevious)explanation.Asnotedabove,theyclaimedtheEarth’smovementaroundthesuncontractedthemetalenclosureinwhichthefirstlightbeamtraveled.

8 The Teaching Company, episode taught by Professor Richard Wolfson of Middlebury College. 9 The Origins of Special Relativity, www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_ 0410/chapters/origins/index.html, p. 14. 10 Douglas C. Giancoli, Physics: Principles with Applications, 1985, pp. 613-614 and 1980, p. 625.

5

Ifthelengthofthehousingiscontracted,thenthefirstlightbeamdoesnotneedtotravelasfaraswhenthehousingisnotcontracted.WiththiscontrivedexplanationtheyproposedtotheworldthatthecontractionofMichelson’sapparatuswasthereasontheEarthappearedtobemotionless.

Ineffect,ifsomeonesaidtothem,“YouclaimtheEarthismovingbutyouadmityoucannotdetect that movement by any experiment,” they would retort, “Well, we can’t detect itbecauseeverytimewetrytodoso,thelengthoftheexperimentalapparatusshrinksjustenough to conceal the movement, which makes it impossible to measure the Earth’smovement.”Again,weseethefallacyofpetitioprincipiiisinplay.

Fromstarttofinishthewholeenterprisewasadhoc,sincelengthcontractionwasn’tevencontemplated previously, much less was it an established fact of science. LengthcontractionwasinventedonthespotsothatthescienceestablishmentwouldhaveatleastsomehypotheticalanswerwhyMichelson’sexperimentshowedtheEarthwasmotionless.Everyonecouldbreatheasighofrelief.The irony,asof thisdate, is thatnoonehaseverdetectedalengthcontractioninamovingobject.Infact,modernphysicistscan’tevenagreeonwhatlengthcontractionisorhowitwouldbemanifested.11

11 So far, there are eight different views of length contraction proposed, none of which have actually proven it exists: (1) “The contraction is real.” Lorentz stated in 1922 that the “contraction could be photographed” (Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Vol. 3, Macmillan, p. 203); C. Møller writes: “Contraction is a real effect observable in principle by experiment…This means the concept of length has lost its absolute meaning” (Møller, The Theory of Relativity, 1972, p. 44); Wolfgang Pauli: “It therefore follows that the Lorentz contraction is not a property of a single rod taken by itself, but a reciprocal relation between two such rods moving relatively to each other, and this relation is in principle observable” (The Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, 1958, pp. 12-13); R. C. Tolman: “Entirely real but symmetrical” (Relativity Thermodynamics and Cosmology, pp. 23-24); (2) “The contraction is not real.” E. F. Taylor and John Wheeler write: “Does something about a clock really change when it moves, resulting in the observed change in the tick rate? Absolutely not!” (Spacetime Physics: Introduction to Special Relativity, p. 76); (3) “The contraction is only apparent.” Aharoni writes: “The moving rod appears shorter. The moving clock appears to go slow” (The Special Theory of Relativity, p. 21); McCrea writes: “The apparent length is reduced. Time intervals appear to be lengthened; clocks appear to go slow” (Relativity Physics, pp. 15-16); Nunn: “A moving rod would appear to be shortened” (Relativity and Gravitation, pp. 43-44); Whitrow: “Instead of assuming that there are real, i.e., structural changes in length and duration owing to motion, Einstein’s theory involves only apparent changes” (The Natural Philosophy of Time, p. 255); (4) “The contraction is the result of the relativity of simultaneity.” Bohn writes: “When measuring lengths and intervals, observers are not referring to the same events” (The Special Theory of Relativity, p. 59). See also William Rosser, Introductory Relativity, p. 37; and A. P. French, Special Relativity, p. 97; and Stephenson and Kilmister, Special Relativity for Physicists, pp. 38-39; (5) “The contraction is due to perspective effects.” Rindler writes: “Moving lengths are reduced, a kind of perspective effect. But of course nothing has happened to the rod itself. Nevertheless, contraction is no illusion, it is real” (Introduction to Special Relativity, p. 25); (6) “The contraction is mathematical.” Herman Minkowski writes: “This hypothesis sounds extremely fantastical, for the contraction is not to be looked upon as a consequence of resistances in the ether, or anything of that kind, but simply as a gift from above, – as an accompanying circumstance of the circumstance of motion” (“Space and Time,” in The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H. Weyl, translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery from the original 1923 edition, Dover Publications, 1952, p. 81); (7) “The contraction is real but invisible.” James Terrell writes: “…the Lorentz contraction will not be visible, although correction for the finite velocity of light will reveal it to be present” (“Invisibility of the Lorentz Contraction,” Physical Review, Vol. 116, No. 4, Nov. 15, 1959, p. 1041); (8) “The contraction is real and not real”: Einstein writes: “The author unjustly

6

Since they insist the Earth is moving around the sun yet cannot detect it moving,nevertheless,theyneededsomephysicalandmathematicalwayofaccountingforit,sincethere is obviously a difference betweenmotion and non‐motion. As noted above, lengthcontraction is how they presume to account for it. This is the essence of the SpecialRelativity theory that Einstein invented in 1905. It was invented solely to answerMichelson’sexperiment.AsEinsteinhimselfsaid:

“…to thequestionwhetherornot themotionof theEarth in space canbemadeperceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked…that allattemptsofthisnatureledtoanegativeresult.Beforethetheoryofrelativitywasputforward,itwasdifficulttobecomereconciledtothisnegativeresult.”12

Whereas in 1892 Hendrik Lorentz had hypothesized that the ether of space was whatcausedthecontraction,Einsteindecidedtodispensewithetherandattributethecauseto“relativemotion.” In effect, Lorentz at least had a physical cause for his claims of lengthcontraction, but Einstein never explained how “relative motion” could shrink objects.Hence,duringhisday,variousphilosophersaccusedhimofviolatingtheprincipleofcauseandeffect.

So, whatever the cause of the contraction, in order to give the ad hoc theory somesemblanceofcredibility,therequiredamountforthemetalenclosuretocontractwasputintoamathematicalequation,called“theLorentztransform.”

Lengthnew=Lengthold (1–v2/c2)‐1/2

It has become themost famous andmost used equation inmodern physics. Essentially,whatevertestsdisagreedwiththeirbeliefthattheEarthwasmovingaroundthesuncouldnow be mathematically “transformed” into their desired result, as well as give thesemblanceofbeing“scientific.”

Butthetransformoflengthrequiredanothertransform.Sincetheycontractedthelength,theyalsohadtodilatethetime,sinceifamovingobjecthasitslengthcontractedthenitisnotgoingtogetfromPointAtoPointBinthesametimeaswhenitisnotcontracted.To

posited a distinction between Lorenz’s conception and my own with regard to the physical facts. The question of whether the Lorenz contraction really exists or not is deceptive. It doesn’t ‘really’ exist insofar as it doesn’t exist for a non-moving observer; it does ‘really’ exist, in that it can be proven principally through physical means for a non-moving observer” (“Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon. Eine Bemerkung zu V. Variĉaks Aufsatz.” Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 509-510.; Original German: “Der Verfasser hat mit Unrecht einen Unterschied der Lorentzschen Auffassung von der meinigen mit Bezug auf die physikalischen Tatsachen statuiert. Die Frage, ob die Lorentz-Verkürzung wirklich besteht oder nicht, ist irreführend. Sie besteht nämlich nicht ‘wirklich,’ insofern sie für einen mitbewegten Beobachter nicht existiert; sie besteht aber ‘irklich,’ d. h. in solcher Weise, daß sie prinzipiell durch physikalische Mittel nachgewiesen werden könnte, für einen nicht mitbewegten Beobachter.”) 12 “Relativity – The Special and General Theory,” cited in Stephen Hawking’s, A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion, 2007, p. 169.

7

increasethetimeoftravel,theyusethesame“transform”equationasabove,butsincetheyareincreasinginsteadofdecreasing,theyturnthemultiplierintoadividertoget…

Timenew=Timeold÷(1–v2/c2)‐1/2

Ofcourse,justasthereisnoproofthatlengthcontracts,thereisnoproofthattimedilates.TheyjustneedittomakeeverythingappeartobalanceiftheyaregoingtoinsisttheEarthismoving around the sunwhen the empirical evidence says it is not. It’s easy for them.They just make up a theory and represent it by a mathematical equation to erase anydiscrepanciestheexperimentshowsagainsttheirtheory.

The“transforms”arenotover.Theymustalsoaddmassincrease,sinceifamovingobjecthas its lengthcontracted, then itwillhavea largermassperunitvolumewhen itgets topointB. So, tomake themass larger theyuse the same “transform”equationas for timedilation:

Massnew=Massold÷(1–v2/c2)‐1/2

InertialFrames

Often in the debate over the relevance of Michelson’s experiments, the issue of inertialframespresentsitself.Aninertialframeisoneinwhichanobjectisatrestorismovinginuniformmotionandnotacceleratingordecelerating.IftheEarthismovingaroundthesun,it isanon‐inertialframesinceit isaccelerating(NB:inphysics,allobjectsthatmoveinacircle are considered accelerating, even though they go the same speed). As such, one ishampered when doing experiments on Earth due to the effects of acceleration on theapparatus (a principle of which all scientists agree). So, in order to make Michelson’sexperimentvalid,thatis,onethattakesplaceinaninertialframe(asIFitwereatrest),aRelativistwillcreatetheinertialframebytheabove“transform”equations.Onceagain,itiseasytoseethefallacyofpetitioprincipiiatworkintheirthinking.

Forthosewhoaccepttheprima facieresultsofMichelson’sexperiment(thattheEarth isnotmoving), theEarth is alreadyshown tobean inertial framebecause it is at absoluterest.ThusthereisnoneedtocreateinertialframesfortheEarth,andthusnoneedtousea“transform”equation.

ResidualEther

Incidentally,weshouldnoteonemoreimportantfacetoftheMichelsonexperimentbeforewe move on. We saw above that the experiment showed only one‐sixth of what wasrequired for an Earth moving around the sun. This one‐sixth is important for anotherreason.Itshowedthatspacewascomposedofsomethingsubstantive.Thenamegiventoitby Lorentz,Maxwell, and all other scientistswas “ether.”No one knewpreciselywhat it

8

was composed of, but they correctly deducted that space cannot be nothing, sincemetaphysically “nothing” cannot exist. Space must be a “something,” composed ofsomething physical, although like air we cannot see it because it is invisible. It doesn’tmatterwhat you call it. The fact is that itmust exist.Quantummechanicshas suggestedthat the ether’s basic component is Planck particles, which are 20 orders of magnitudesmaller than the electron. Another type of ether may be an electron‐positron dipoleparticle,whichwasdiscoveredin1932byCarlAnderson.

Inanycase,thesubstanceofspace,whichwewillcall“ether,”wasdetectedinMichelson’s1887experiment.Sincelightmovessofast,itcanservetomeasuretheeffectonsomethingas small as ether particles. His interferometer was so accurate it could measure onehundredtimesmorethanitwasrequiredtomeasure.Assuch,Michelson’sinterferometerdidn’tmeasureenoughethertomatchanEarthmovingat66,000mpharoundthesun,butit didmeasure a little ether, otherwise his resultswould not have shown one‐sixth, butzero‐sixthsofetherpresence.Michelsonnotedthissmallpresenceinhis1887paper.

ThiswasnotgoodforEinstein.Hecandidlyadmittedthatifanyetherwasdetected,evenalittlebit,histheoryofSpecialRelativitywouldautomaticallybefalsified.ThiswasnotedinEinstein’s statement to Sir Herbert Samuel in Jerusalem: “If Michelson‐Morley is wrong,then relativity is wrong.”13 In other words, Einstein was forced to assume that becauseMichelsondidnotfindenoughetherforanEarthrevolvingaroundthesun,thenMichelsondidn’t find any ether. But if this conclusion of Einstein’s was wrong, then his wholerelativitytheorywouldbeautomaticallyfalsified,sinceevenalittleetherwouldactasan

13 Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 107.

9

absoluteframeandthusnullify“relativity.”NotedphysicistCharlesLanePoorofColumbiaUniversityreiteratedtheproblem:

“The Michelson‐Morley experiment forms the basis of the relativity theory:Einsteincallsitdecisive…ifitshoulddevelopthatthereisameasurableether‐drift,then the entire fabric of the relativity theory would collapse like a house ofcards.”14

So Einstein was banking on the hope that since Michelson did not detect the requiredamount of ether for an Earthmoving around the sun, he could conclude that the ethersimply didn’t exist. Hence, the detection of one‐sixth of the required ether was thusconvenientlychalkedupto“experimentalerror.”

The facts show otherwise, however. Every interferometer experiment performed fromMichelson in1881 to Joos in1930—which is 50 yearsof the same results fromadozendifferentexperimenters—detectedtheone‐sixthtoone‐tenth.Einsteinwassobotheredbythisfactthathehiredwhatcanbecalleda‘scientifichitman,’RobertShankland,toseektodiscredittheexperiments,especiallythemostcomprehensiveinterferometerexperimentsperformedbyDaytonMillerbetween1908and1921.

But at this point in time (the 1920s) theworldwas only too happy to accept Einstein’stheoriesandrejectanyonewhochallengedthem.Afterall,EinsteinwastheEarth‐Mover.HemadetheEarthmovearoundthesunandthussavedmankindfromhavingtoadmitthatpopularsciencehadmisledtheworldforthe500yearsprior.

14 Gravitation versus Relativity, p. 261.

10

Forthegeocentrist,theonlythinglefttoansweris:fromwhencedidtheone‐sixthofetheroriginate?Forthegeocentrist,thesimpleansweristhatsincetheuniverse,withitsether,isrotating around a fixed Earth, some of that ether spilled into Michelson’s 1887interferometerwhenhewastryingtodetectiftheEarthwasmovingaroundthesun.Thisis confirmed by the fact that Michelson did another experiment in 1925 in order tomeasure the ether movement for the daily rotation between space and Earth. In thatexperimenthefoundsix‐sixthsoftherequiredetherforadailyrotation.Henceitislogicaltoassumethattheone‐sixthhefoundin1887camefromthesameetherhelaterdetectedin his 1925 experiment. Since the ether in the 1887 experiment hit the interferometerorthogonallyinsteadoflinearly,itwouldonlypickupone‐sixthofthetotaletherinspace.“Electromagnetism”

YouwilloftenhearmoderndevoteesofEinsteinclaimthatheinventedSpecialRelativityasananswertoMaxwell’sequationsofelectrodynamics.Theydothisbecausetheydon’twantto admit that Einstein invented Special Relativity for the express purpose of making itappeartheEarthwasmovingaroundthesun.Theywant tomake itappearthatEinsteininventedSpecialRelativityoutofpuremotivesandan independent thoughtprocess.Thetruth is far different. Einstein himself admits that the only reason he invented SpecialRelativitywasduetoMichelson’sdiscovery.Hewritesin1922:

Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about themotion of the Earthwithrespecttotheetherisincorrect,ifweadmitMichelson’snullresultasafact.Thiswasthefirstpathwhichledmetothespecialtheoryofrelativity.15

Bethatas itmay,thereasontheRelativistwantstointrudeonMaxwell’selectrodynamictheoryisbecause,asitstands,electromagnetismdoesn’tshowanycharacteristicsofbeing“relative.” Maxwell’s experiments from 1865 show us that the effect of an electric coilmoving over a stationary magnet is different than a magnet moving over a stationaryelectric coil, and Maxwell appropriately represented these different reactions by twodifferentequations.

15 Speech titled: “How I Created the Theory of Relativity,” delivered at Kyoto University, Japan, Dec. 14, 1922, as cited in Physics Today, August, 35 (8), 45, 1982, by Yoshimasa A. Ono.

11

Maxwell’sexperimentandhistwoequations(actuallyfourequationsaltogether,butwithtwomainequations)thusshowusthatspaceandthereactionsthatoccurinitareabsolute,notrelative,sinceitdistinguishesbetweenthetwodifferenteffectsoftheelectriccoilandthemagnet,respectively.

Since a Relativist does not like anything absolute, Einstein sought to make Maxwell’sexperiment“relative”justashehadmadeMichelson’sexperiment“relative.”Todoso,heusedthesame“transform”equationsthatheusedtomakeitappeartheEarthwasmoving.Assuch,theRelativistcanmakeitappearthattheeffectofelectricityonmagnetismisthesame as magnetism on electricity, but in reality they are not the same. We still useMaxwell’sequationstoday,becausetheyarecorrect.ButwhentheRelativistusesthemhemustinvariablyinjectthe“transform”equationsinordertomakeMaxwell’stwoabsolutereactions into Einstein’s one “relative” reaction.16 Without the “transform” equation,Maxwell’sfindingsarediametricallyopposedtoEinstein’srelativitytheory.

Einstein admits thatMaxwell’s finding of the different reactions between an electric coilandamagnetarerelated toMichelson’s “unsuccessfulattempt todiscoveranymotionoftheEarth.” In his famous1905paper, he seeks tomake their respective absolute effectsinto“relative”effects(i.e.,thesame).Hewrites:

ItisknownthatMaxwell’selectrodynamics—asusuallyunderstoodatthepresenttime—whenappliedtomovingbodies,leadstoasymmetrieswhichdonotappeartobeinherentin the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of amagnetandaconductor.Theobservablephenomenonheredependsonlyontherelativemotionofthe conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinctionbetweenthetwocasesinwhicheithertheoneortheotherofthesebodies is inmotion.Forifthemagnetisinmotionandtheconductoratrest,therearisesintheneighborhoodof themagnetanelectric fieldwithacertaindefiniteenergy,producingacurrentat theplaceswherepartsoftheconductoraresituated.But if themagnet isstationaryandtheconductor inmotion, no electric field arises in the neighborhood of themagnet. In theconductor, however, we find an electro‐motive force, to which in itself there is nocorrespondingenergy,butwhichgivesrise—assumingequalityofrelativemotion in thetwo cases discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as thoseproducedbytheelectricforcesintheformercase.

Examplesofthissort,togetherwiththeunsuccessfulattemptstodiscoveranymotionoftheearthrelativelytothe“lightmedium,”suggestthatthephenomenaofelectrodynamics

16 This is also why Relativists tout the idea of an “electromagnetic wave” to describe light. The term“electromagnetic” gives the impression that light is electricity and magnetism combined into one entity.Hence thismakes electricity andmagnetism dependent and relative instead of independent and absolute.Einstein did this because previously it was understood that light traveled in waves of ether. But sinceEinstein’s Special Relativity dispenses with ether, he then claimed that light made its own medium byorthogonaloscillationsofelectricityandmagnetism.

12

aswellasofmechanicspossessnopropertiescorrespondingtotheideaofabsoluterest.Theysuggestratherthat,ashasalreadybeenshowntothefirstorderofsmallquantities,thesame lawsofelectrodynamicsandopticswillbevalid forall framesofreference forwhichtheequationsofmechanicsholdgood.

Inotherwords,sinceEinsteinfirmlybelievestheEarthismovingaroundthesunandyetherealizesthathemusthaveananswerforallthe“unsuccessfulattemptstodiscoveranymotionoftheEarth,”heproposesthatthisdiscrepancycanbedealtwithby:

(1) Assuming, as a fact, that electrodynamics and mechanics did not show states ofabsoluterest(e.g.,MichelsondidnotshowusamotionlessEarth,andMaxwelldidnotshowustheabsolutestatesofelectricityandmagnetism)

(2) WearethusobligatedtochangewhatappearedtobeabsoluteframesinMichelson’sandMaxwell’s experiments into relative frames (which isnoted inhisphrase, “allframes of reference”). In order to do so, that is, in order to make “all frames ofreference” tobe“valid,”Einsteinwilluse the“transform”equation,whichappearsonpage7ofhis1905paperasfollows:

β =

or, the same equation can be written as:

β=1÷(1̶ v2/c2)-1/2

ThisisthepreciseequationusedbyLorentztoclaimthatthearmofMichelson’sapparatushadshrunkby1 (1 ̶ v2/c2)-1/2,withEinsteinalsoaddingtimedilationby1÷(1̶ v2/c2)-1/2.

Thesectionof thepaperwhere this “transform”equationappearsbeginsonpage5withthetitle:

§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co‐ordinates and Times from a StationarySystem to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to theFormer

Alas,wedon’tneedtogosearchingforit.Einsteintellsusquitecandidlywhatheisdoing.He is “transforming” space and time from a “Stationary System” (e.g., a fixed Earth) to“another System,”oneof “Relativity.” In fact, theword “transformation” appears twenty‐four times in his paper as he applies it to every phenomenon from time, space,motion,electricity,magnetism,theDopplereffect,stellaraberration,energyoflightwaves,electronacceleration,tomassincrease.Itbecamethequintessentialmeansto“relativize”thewholeuniverseandforeverbanishthethoughtofamotionlessEarth.

13

Aswe can see, it is all donebymathematics.There isnotone iotaofphysical, empiricalproof to the theory. In the Relativist’s mind, of course, there is no need to prove theirfindings or to justify using the “transform.” Since everyone “knows” the Earth ismovingaroundthesun,theneverythingismovingandthereisnoobjectatrestandthusthewholeuniverse is “relative.” In effect, whenever the experiments show an absolute result, theRelativistcanwavehismagicwandandchangeitintoarelativeresult.Thisistheessenceof theSpecialRelativity theory thatEinstein invented in1905.ThatEinsteinbelieves theEarthismoving,buthasnoproofforitisnotedinhisstatement…

“I have come to believe that themotion of the Earth cannot be detected by anyopticalexperiment,thoughtheEarthisrevolvingaroundtheSun.”17

Einstein’sadmissionmerelybegsthequestion: If,onascientificbasis,hecan’tdetecttheEarthmoving,howdoesheknowtheEarth ismoving?The truth is,hedoesn’tknow.Hejustassumesittobeso,sincethatiswhathehasbeentaughtsincechildhood.Ineffect,the“transform”equationistheninvokedtomakeitappearasiftheEarthismovingaroundthesun, but in reality the “transform” equation is just an equation and has no ability orauthoritytodeterminetheissue.HenceEinsteinwouldalsoadmit…

Thepossibilityofsolvingthesedifficultiesdependsontheanswertothefollowingquestion.Canweformulatephysical lawssothattheyarevalidforallcoordinatesystems,notonlythosemovinguniformly,butalsothosemovingquitearbitrarily,relative to eachother? If this canbedone, ourdifficultieswill be over.We shallthenbeabletoapplythelawsofnaturetoanycoordinatesystem.Thestruggle,soviolentintheearlydaysofscience,betweentheviewsofPtolemyandCopernicuswould then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used withequaljustification.Thetwosentences:“thesunisatrestandtheEarthmoves,”or“the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two differentconventionsconcerningtwodifferentcoordinatesystems.18

Thatis,arbitrary“coordinatesystems”willbeemployedtomaketheabsolutestate(i.e.,afixedEarth)intoarelativestateinwhicheithercoordinatesystemcanbeused(i.e.,afixedEarthoramovingEarth).All the“coordinatesystems”arecreatedmathematicallyoutofthinairbyusingthe“transform”equation.Iftheydidn’tusethetransformequation,thentheywouldbestuckwithonlyone“coordinatesystem,”theoneMichelsonfoundin1887whentheexperimentalevidenceshowedtheEarthwasn’tmovingaroundthesun.

17 Speech titled: “How I Created the Theory of Relativity,” delivered at Kyoto University, Japan, Dec. 14, 1922, as cited in Physics Today, August, 1982. 18 The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, 1938, 1966, p. 212.

14

IfyouaskaRelativist for thescientificvalidityofusing the “transform”equation,hewillsimplyretort,“Well,thetransformequationwasproventobevalidwhenMichelsondidhisexperiment in 1887.” Again, the fallacy ofpetitioprincipii is readily apparent since he isusing an unproven fact (an Earth moving around the sun) as the basis for making theconclusionthattheEarthismovingaroundthesun.

The cause of the fallacy, as Einstein admitted above when he said “though the Earth isrevolvingaroundtheSun,”isthattheyinsistonusingamovingEarth(whichtheyclaimto“know intuitively”) as the indisputable authority to interpret Michelson’s experiment.Consequently,ifonefirmlybelievestheEarthismoving,buttheexperimentsshowitisnotmoving, then ones interpretation of the experiment will force one to find some way tomakeitappearasiftheEarthismoving.

In effect, any experiment that shows the Earth is not moving will be math‐magicallytransformed into amoving Earth by the “transform” equation. The “transform” equationtells us precisely what is happening, namely, the system that one does not prefer istransformedintosystemthatonedoesprefer.ModernmancertainlydoesnotpreferafixedEarth, since a fixed Earth would validate much of the history and science prior to themodernage,andwouldshowmodernmanthatheisnottheobjectiveandnon‐prejudicedicon of society that he has enjoyed the last few hundred years, but little more than amagicianwhohasbeenfeedingtheworldasteadydietofillusions.

LightastheAbsolute

Speakingofillusions,wehaveonemoretoexpose.Inordertodeterminetheyhavemadeanon‐inertial frame into an inertial frame (which ishard todo if everything is “relative”),ironically, you need something absolute! You need an absolute measuring stick todetermine the difference between the inertial and the non‐inertial. They can’t use theEarth,ofcourse,becausetheyhavealreadyinsisteditisacceleratingaroundthesun.Theycan’t use length, time, or mass because they have already said that they increase ordecreaseuponmovementandthusarenotabsolute.

The only candidate left is light. In order tomake light an absolutemeasuring stick, theyclaimthatitsspeedneverchanges.Butthereisnoproofforit.Theyjustassumeittobethecase(Einsteincalledita“postulate”).Inthisway,theymakelightserveastheoneandonlyabsolute in order to measure the amount of length contraction, time dilation or massincrease,andeventheratethattheEarthtravelsaroundthesun.Again,thisistheessenceof SpecialRelativity.Noproof, justmade‐uppostulates andmathematical equations thatgivetheappearanceoftruth.

Theequationβ=1÷(1 ̶ v2/c2)-1/2 isinterestinginitself.First,theeasiestwaytolookatitisin the form of a ratio. We’ve often heard of a 1‐to‐1 ratio. Well, this equation was

15

formulated tomake the right side always less than a1‐to‐1 ration, since1multipliedordividedbyanynumberlessthanitselfwillalwaysbelessthan1.Theamountitwillbelessthan 1 depends on the value ofv. The higher v is, the higherβwill be. Second, c,whichrepresent the speed of light, is used in the denominator because it is believed to beconstantandcanthusserveastheabsolute.Hencevisalwaysmeasuredagainstaconstantvalue for c; and v can never be higher than c because light is assumed to be the fastestknown speed. If v ever equaled c, then, then the ratio would be 1‐to‐1. Of course, theRelativistsareassumingthatcisalwaysthesame,buttheyhavenoproofofthisclaim.

TheRelativistmayretortwith,“Yes,lightspeedisconstant,butonlyinaninertialframe.Itcanvaryinotherframes.”Bydoingso,heonlytrapshimself.First,iflightisconstantonlyinaninertialframe,butanEarthgoingaroundthesunisanon‐inertialframe,thenhowcantheRelativistclaimthatthelightbeamsusedinMichelson’sexperimentonEarthwereinan inertial frame?He can’t, sohe employs the “transform” equation.But in this case theRelativist has again committed the fallacy of petitio principii, using as proof (an inertialframe)bytheverythingheistryingtoprove(that“transform”equationscreateaninertialframe).

Incidentally,oneofthemainquestionsRelativistsneveranswer(althoughtheyhavebeenchallengedwith it previously), is: if the physical dimensions of length andmass can becontracted bymovement, and the essence and calculation of time can be dilated by thesamemovement, thenwhy isn’t light contracted by amoving Earth? Since theRelativistadmitsthatlightisaphysicalrealityof“photons”(courtesyofEinstein)shouldn’ttheyalsobeaffectedinsomeway?ThisveryquestionwasposedbyMaxwellAbrahamandAugustFöppltotheRelativists,butwithoutananswerforthcoming.19

Inreality,theonlyreasonlightiskeptimmunefromtheeffectsofmotionintheRelativistsschemeofthingsisbecause,ironicasitis,theRelativistdesperatelyneedsanabsolutetogive the appearance of “relativity”! In his mind, he has two choices for the requiredabsolute:(A)thefixedEarththatMichelsonfound,or(B)thepresumedconstantspeedoflight that Einstein wants. If he chooses A as his absolute, it means B would vary. If hechoosesB ashis absolute, itmeansAwould vary.But choosingAas the absolutewouldmean certain death for the science establishment, since it would affirm the Church’sdecisionagainstGalileo.ChoosingBwouldallowthecharadeof“scientific”authorityover

19 As Pauli puts it: “For this purpose we shall discuss the Michelson interferometer experiment….Now,becauseoftheLorentzcontraction….itwouldthereforeseemthatanobservertravellingwithK’measuresavelocityof light…different fromthatmeasuredbyanobserver inK.AccordingtoAbrahamthere isnotimedilation.Abraham’spointofviewisconsistentwithMichelson’sexperiment,butitcontradictsthepostulateofrelativity,sinceitwouldinprincipleadmitofexperimentswhichwouldallowonetomeasurethe‘absolute’motionofasystem.(MaxwellAbrahamandAugustFöppl,TheoriederElektrizitāt,Vol.2,2ndedition,Peipzig,1908,p.367,citedinW.Pauli,TheoryofRelativity,page14,fn.41).

16

theChurchtocontinueindefinitely.Whichonedoyouthinkhasthegreaterchanceofbeingchosenbythereigningscienceestablishment?

Thegeocentristsaysthatthechoiceiseasy.Theprimafacieevidenceofthe1887and1925Michelson experiments show the Earth isn’t moving around the sun but that there is arelativedaily rotationbetweenEarthandspace.Hence, theEarth is theabsolute inertialframeand theabsolutemeasuring stick. If so, then theuniverse is absolute, not relative.Since themotionlessEarth isalreadyanabsolute inertial frame, thenthere isnoneedtointroduceadhoc“transform”equationstoturnitfromanon‐inertialframeintoaninertialframe,andthusthereisnoneedtocontractlength,dilatetimeorincreasemass.

Additionally,theycannotassumethatlightspeedisconstantorunaffectedbymotionsinceiftheEarthisn’tmoving,thenthereisnowayforthemtomakesuchadeterminationfromMichelson’s two experiments, especially when other experiments and evidence, (e.g.,Sagnacin1913andtheGPSsystemthatshowsa50nsdifferenceinlightspeedgoingeast‐to‐west)showlightspeedisnotconstant.ItisobviousthattheRelativistismakingtheseunproven ad hoc “transform” adjustments simply because he refuses to believe thatMichelson’s1887experimentshowedtheEarthisatrest.

Onemorething:Relativists—thosewhobelievethatMichelson’s1887experimentshowednodifferenceinthespeedofthetwolightbeams—claimthatMichelson’s“null”resulthasbeen verified by modern versions of Michelson’s experiment that show no differencebetweenthespeedofthelightbeamsupto10‐18precision.20Butifyoueverwanttoseeashell game, this is it.Themodernexperimentsonly trap theRelativistsmore firmly thanMichelsondid.

Remember abovewe said Einsteinmaintained that the slight difference in the two lightbeamsofMichelson’soriginal1887experimentcanbechalkedupto“experimentalerror.”Ineffect,Einsteinwasclaimingthat therewasnodifference inthespeedofthetwo lightbeamsandtheresultwas“null.”Forthesakeofargument,let’sassumethattobethecase.Hence, if thespeedofthe lightbeamswasthesame,whatdidthissuggesttoEinstein?Itsuggested that the Earth wasn’t moving! We already saw what Michelson himself saidabout the presumed “null” result, namely, “This conclusion directly contradicts theexplanation…whichpresupposesthattheEarthmoves,”aswellastheotherscientistswequotedafterhim.Forfurtherverification,let’slookatwhatEinstein’sbiographersaid:

IntheUnitedStatesAlbertMichelsonandEdwardMorleyhadperformedanexperimentwhich confronted scientistswithanappalling choice.Designed to show theexistenceoftheether…ithadyieldedanullresult,leavingsciencewiththealternativesoftossingaside

20 http://m.phys.org/news/2015-09-precise-lorentz-symmetry-photon-constant.html

17

thekeywhichhadhelpedtoexplainthephenomenaofelectricity,magnetism,andlightorofdecidingthattheearthwasnotinfactmovingatall.21The problem which now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be onlythreealternatives.The firstwas that theEarthwasstanding still,whichmeantscuttlingthewholeCopernicantheoryandwasunthinkable.22

Soifthenewsapphireoscillatorconfirmsthatthetwobeamsgothesamespeed,itdoesn’trelieve the Relativist one bit. In fact, it traps him all themore, since now an evenmoresophisticated andprecise experiment confirms that theEarth isn’t going around the sunsince the light beam in the oscillator that was supposed to be affected by the Earth’smovementwasnotaffected.Butinsteadofadmitting,oratleastholdingoutthepossibility,thatthisresultshowstheEarthisn’tmoving,theyinsteadclaimthatthe66,000mphspeedhasnoeffectonthelightbeam,andtherefore,theyconcludetheEarthcouldbemovingandthelightbeamisconstant,regardlessthatitsframeismovingat66,000mph.ForthemthechoiceisafixedEarthorafixedlightspeed,andtheyhavechosenthelatterbecauseafixedEarthwas“unthinkable.”

Butwhentheymakesuchachoice,theymustalsoconcludethatSpecialRelativityallowsbothamovingsunaroundastationaryEarthandamovingEartharoundastationarysun.Asthearticleitselfadmits:

According to special relativity, there is no absolute space or absolute time. So if twoobjectsaremovingrelativetoeachotherinemptyspace,itwouldactuallybeimpossiblefor an observer to tell their absolute velocities—maybe only one of the objects wasmoving and the other was stationary, for example, but you wouldn't know which waswhichbecausetheirmovementsarerelativetoeachother,nottoanyexternalreferenceframe(assumingthereferenceframeisnon‐accelerating).23

Notice the corner intowhich theRelativist has paintedhimself.What theydiscovered isthatthereisapricetopayforchoosingafixedlightspeedoverafixedEarth.WithafixedEarth one knows that the universe is absolute, since the universe revolves around anabsolute,fixedpoint,andeverythingcanbeaccuratelymeasuredfromthatfixedpoint.

Butwithafixedlightspeed,thereisnofixedpointandnooneknowswhethertheEarthismovingaroundthesunorthesunismovingaroundtheEarth.Obviously,iftheyclaimthatlight speed is not affected by movement, then they can’t use light to measure themovement,andthusallmovementisundeterminable.Ineffect,forallitsbravadoandallits

21 Ronald Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, 1984, p. 57. 22 Ibid., pp. 109-110, emphasis added. In the opposite vein, senator James W. Fulbright once remarked: “We must care to think about the unthinkable things, because when things become unthinkable, thinking stops and action becomes mindless.” 23 http://m.phys.org/news/2015-09-precise-lorentz-symmetry-photon-constant.html

18

sophistication,scienceisforcedtoconcludethatsciencecan’tanswerthesimplequestionofwhichismoving,theEarthorthesun.

ButtheproblemsarenotoverfortheRelativist.Ifhecan’tdeterminemotionbyusinglight,thenhemustaccountforhisinability,sinceitisafactthatoutofthetwopossibilities(i.e.,thesunmovingaroundtheEarthortheEarthmovingaroundthesun)onlyonecanbethetrue reality. He believes, based on other criteria (mostly philosophical), that the Earthmovingaroundthesunisthetruereality,butheisincapableofprovingit.Thebesthecanhopeforisadrawduetohisincompetence.

Another issueconcernsthe lengthcontraction, thetimedilationandthemass increaseoftheoriginalLorentzandEinsteiniantheories.Dothesethreeeffectsapplytothesapphireoscillators?Iftheydo,thentheLorentz“transform”mustbeusedtoarriveata“null”resultif they insist that theEarth ismovingaround the sun? If the threeeffects arediscarded,thensomustEinstein’stheories.

The only question left to answer is,whydidMichelson’s 1887 experiment showat leastsome ether (NB:Michelson said it showed one‐sixth), but the sapphire oscillators don’tshowanyetherdownto10‐18?Thereasonisverysimple.Thesapphireoscillatorsareputin an extreme vacuum, which essentially removes the ether that Michelson discovered,sinceMichelsondidnotuseavacuum.Ineffect, theRelativistshavetocreateanartificialenvironmentinordertoobtaina“null”result.Intherealworld,however—theonewithouta vacuum—some ether always shows up in the Michelson‐type experiments. In fact, inMichelson’s1925experiment,alltheetherofspaceshowsupintheexperiment.

In theend, it reallydoesn’tmatter, since if theoscillatorshowsnodifference in the lightbeamsthenprimafacie,itshowstheEarthisn’tmoving.Wecansaythisbecause,asnotedearlier,thereisnoreasonthatlightshouldescapethephysicaleffectsoftheenvironmentat the same time that its housing is said to be affected in length, time and mass.Consequently, if the Earth were moving, we would expect there to be a significantdifferenceinthespeedofthetwolightbeams.

Iproposeatestthatmayhelpdecidethe issue. If thesapphireoscillatorispositionedontheframeofa1925Michelson‐Galeexperimentalapparatusinsteadofan1887Michelson‐Morley apparatus, a significant difference in the oscillator’s results may be seen. Thereason, of course, is because in 1925 Michelson found 98% of the ether he needed toconfirmadailyrelativerotationbetweentheEarthandspace,butin1887MichelsononlyfoundafractionoftheetherheneededforanEarthrevolvingaroundthesun(sincesomeoftherotationaletherspilledintothe1887Michelsonapparatus).Thegeocentristsaysthatthisispreciselywhatshouldbeexpected,sincetheEarthisnotrevolvingaroundthesun,butetherealspace,whichmakesuptheuniverse,isdailyrotatingaroundafixedEarth.Ifon a Michelson‐Gale frame the oscillator shows no difference in the speed of the light

19

beams, this would prove that the oscillator cannot detect the relative rotation betweenEarth and space, and thus show why it is also not able to detect whether the Earth ismovingaroundthesun. Itwouldprove theoscillator tobe inertanddiscount itasbeingcapableofdetectingmovement. Itwould thendisqualify it frombeingusedtodeterminethatlightspeedisconstantandalsodisqualifyitfromclaiming“Lorentzsymmetry.”

WecouldalsoputthesapphireoscillatoronaGPSframetodeterminewhetheritsresultsarevalid.Presently, lightbeamssent fromGPSstations in theeast toGPSstations in thewestarefasterthanlightbeamssentfromGPSstationsinthewesttoGPSstationsintheeast,byatleast50nanoseconds,everyday,allday.(NB:ThisdiscrepancyiscoveredupbyRelativists since theypreprogram theGPS computers to adjust for thedifference so thattheycanthenclaimthatlightspeedisconstantaccordingtotheSpecialRelativitytheory).Ineffect,theGPSshowsthatlightspeedisnotinvariantandthereisnoLorentzsymmetry.Iftheoscillatoriscapableofdetectingthedifference,itwoulddetectthe50nanoseconds.Sinceweknowforafactthatthereisa50nsdifference,theniftheoscillatorcannotdetectit,theneithertheoscillatorisbeinghamperedbyitsvacuumstateortheoscillatorsimplycan’tbeusedtomeasurelightspeeddifferences.

Incidentally, the geocentrist can easily explain the 50 nanosecond discrepancy, since heholds that because space is daily rotating east‐to‐west against a fixed Earth, the inertialframeoftheGPSlightbeamsenteast‐to‐westismovingwestwardby1054mphorlessbythefactthatspaceisrotatingaroundtheEarth,thusaddingspace’srotationalspeedtothelight beam’s speed. Conversely, the GPS light beam traveling west‐to‐east must travelagainst the east‐to‐west frameof space’s daily rotationand thuswill be slower than theeast‐to‐westlightbeam.

BacktoMaxwell’sEquations:

If, as one Relativist claimed: “Special Relativity is for inertial frames of reference, a nonaccelerating frame of reference. They are the equations which keep the laws ofelectromagnetisminvariant,”heisbeingverydeceptive(asismuchofphysicstoday).Heismakingitsoundasifthereissomenecessitytomaketheeffectofanelectriccoilmovingagainstamagnettobethesameeffect(“invariant”)asamagnetmovingagainstanelectriccoil.His“necessity,”ofcourse, isnothingmorethanhisdesireforabackupargumentforrelativity after he had already relativized Michelson’s experiment. But Maxwell showedquiteconclusivelythathisresultswerenot“invariant.”Theyarevariantbecausenatureiswhat it is. Since theeffectsarenot invariant, then theuniverse is absolute,not relative.SpecialRelativity,because it seeks topromotearelativeuniverse tohide the fixedEarththatMichelsonfound,can’ttoleratetheabsolutenessofMaxwell’sexperimentalresults,soit uses its mathematical magic (the “transform” equation) to make Maxwell’s resultsrelative.

20

Deep in his heart the Relativist realizes that if Maxwell’s equations are left absolute, itmeans that Special Relativity cannot be applied to Michelson’s experiment and thusMichelson’s finding that theEarth ismotionlesswouldbevalid.But theRelativistwouldrather die a thousand deaths than accept a motionless Earth. It is “unthinkable.” So hecommandeers an untested, unproven ad hoc concept (e.g., length contraction) and itsaccompanying mathematical equation (the “transform” equation) to make it go away.Einstein is famousforonething.Heistheonethatmadeit“goaway,”andtheworldhasworshipedhimeversince.Hedidsobymakingthewholeuniverse“relative”when,infact,theempiricalevidenceclearlyshowedhimthattheuniversewasabsolute.

Allinall,thehistoryoftheMichelsonexperimentsshowhowapreconceivedidea(i.e.,theEarthmovesaround thesun)willbemade thesoledetermining factorofhowamodernscientist is going to interpret the results of any experiment. In order to hold on to hispreconceivedidea,hewill introducemitigatingfactorsontotheexperimentalresults,andusually, this isdonebyhypotheticalconceptsandfudgedmathematics.Thescientist thusconvinceshimselfthatbecausehecaninventamathematicalequationthatcan“transform”theempiricalresults,hecankeephispreconceivedideaofhowhethinkstheuniversemustoperate. In his mind, ‘the ends justifies the means’ because he “knows” that the Earthrevolvesaroundthesun.

There was nothing that wouldmakemankind happier than to keep believing the Earthmovedaroundthesun,regardlessofwhattheexperimentsshowed.Otherwise,theywouldhavetobowtothepopeoftheCatholicChurchforcondemningGalileoforthesameerror.Their god from on high, Albert Einstein, showed them a magical way to avoid such apredicament. And the world has accepted Einstein as a god ever since. His “transform”equation has become the magic wand to turn an Earth‐fixed absolute universe into anEarth‐wanderingrelativeuniverse.AsthenotedEinsteinbiographer,AbrahamPais,putit:

Anewmanappearsabruptly,the‘suddenlyfamousDoctorEinstein.’Hecarriesthemessageofaneworder intheuniverse.He isanewMosescomedownfromthemountain to bring the law and anew Joshua controlling themotion of heavenlybodies….Thenewmanwhoappearsatthattimerepresentsorderandpower.Hebecomestheθεῖος ἀνήρ, thedivineman,ofthetwentiethcentury.24

Togetmoredetailsandmanyotherimportantfacts,youcanobtaintheDVDJourneytotheCenter of the Universe or the books Galileo Was Wrong and Geocentrism 101 atwww.jttcotu.com

Robert Sungenis August 9, 2016

24 Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord, 1982, 2005, p. 311. The phrase qei:oV ajnhvr is the Greek for “divine man.”