quote from Joseph Cater - book: "The Awesome Force"

Mr Cater is perhaps about as diplomatic with conventional physics thinking as is Mr Winter.


Although the facts revealed in the previous chapter have shattered the theory of relativity, they are still not likely to convince the more ardent Einstein worshipers and zealots. This fallacy has become so deeply rooted in the consciousness of scientists and the rest of the world in general that it will not be easily disposed of, despite the fact it can be readily refuted from many different aspects. This concept has gained such a foothold, and become so much a part of modern physical theory, a mere demolition job on it will be inadequate. It must be completely pulverized from every conceivable angle. This will be accomplished in the following pages. Any reader who digests this chapter and remains an Einstein admirer should put this book aside and not read any further.

Before the advent of Einstein and the theory of relativity, the transverse wave theory of light was universally accepted. Waves cannot exist without a medium to transmit them, or in other words, a medium which vibrates in some manner. Thereforé, physicists postulated the existence of a subtle medium which permeates all space. They called it the ether. It follows that if light is a result of transverse waves transmitted through an ether, then, since the earth travels through this ether in its path about the sun, an ether drift should be detected. It's a situation analogous to sound waves being transmitted through a stationary atmosphere, and an observer moving through or relative to this atmosphere. His motion relative to the atmosphere would result in a wind, or atmosphere drift, according to his observations. Similarly, the earth's motion through the ether should produce an ether wind. Experiments were devised to detect this ether wind, or drift, and its velocity. They are known as the MichelsonMorely experiments. A light ray was split into two parts, each traveled different but identical length paths, and then they recombined. The apparatus was mounted on a platform that could be rotated in any direction. It was correctly reasoned that if light were transmitted in the assumed manner, then at the point the rays were recombined interference fringes should be observed. Negative results were always obtained, to the consternation and amazement of the physicists.

Some explained away such results by assuming the earth carried some of the ether along with it. If such were the case, it could certainly account for the negative results of the experiments. It was accepted by some of the famous physicists of the day but was rejected by the majority, a!though no sound arguments against it were proposed. Evidently, they all failed to realize the idea was contradictory. They were all aware of the fact that a body can travel through free space at a constant velocity and encounter no resistance. This means matter has no measurable attraction or affinity for this hypothetical ether. Light couldn't be transmitted through this medium in the manner assumed, without interactions taking place within the ether. It follows that no part of the ether can be displaced from the rest of it without encountering resistance. Therefore, the earth could not carry ether along with it, and not experience the same kind of resistance. This would deaccelerate the earth, and bring it to a stop. Likewise, no material body could travel through free space without requiring a steady application of force to counteract this resistance. Consequently, the orbiting of planets and other bodies would be an impossibility. Evidently, none of the scientists involved recognized this serious flaw in the above idea. One might have expected more from such a collection of distinguished intellects. It is not surprising in view of subsequent mental lapses concerning the interpretation of the experiment.

The Michelson-Morely experiments actually proved that the assumption that light is propagated as transverse waves through an all prevading medium is not valid. He would, therefore, have concluded the transverse wave concept is not necessary to account for the diffraction and interference effects of light. The physicists were unable to reject the transverse wave concept. Therefore, the only way out of the dilemma created by the results of the Michelson-Morely experiments was the absurd conclusion that the observed velocity of light was independent of the velocity of the source or that of the observer. In other words, the velocity of light is a universal constant. This idea, of course, violates the principle of relative velocities encountered in all of our experiences. This is clearly a case of doublethink.

+With this as a starting point, the physicist H. A. Lorentz derived a set of equations bearing his name. As expected, they predicted an assortment of ridiculous phenomena such as:

(I) Time slows down on a moving system. In other words, if two systems are moving relative to each other, an observer on each one will note that the clock on the other system is ticking off the seconds more slowly than his clock.

(2) A body will shorten in the direction of motion and the dimension will approach zero, as its velocity approaches that of light.

(3) The mass of a body increases with its velocity and approaches infinity as the velocity approaches that of light.

In 1903, a physicist derived the famous equation E = mc2 from the lorentz equations. This was two years before Einstein was heard of. Most of the physicists considered the conclusion derived from the Lorentz equations little more than mathematical oddities, since they were somewhat unpalatable and difficult to believe.

This was the state of the art when Einstein got into the act in 1905. He proceeded to compound the original error. He devised new interpretations for the Lorentz equations by transforming them into something that was supposed to have physical reality. Physicists were still in a daze over the results of the Michelson-Morely experiments, and apparently their mental state made them vulnerable to any idea, regardless of how illogical it might be. Consequently, Einstein's ideas were readily accepted, and he was hailed as the man who saved physics. He was also given credit for the equation E = mc2. It will be proven in Part II this equation is meaningless and represents only a minute part of the physical energy contained in any given mass. This monstrosity that Einstein put the finishing touches on became known as the special theory of relativity.

If the mathematics used to develop a theory are valid but the basic premise is wrong, the final conclusion will also be wrong. It is simply a cause and effect relationship. The conclusions will reflect the characteristics of the original assumption. The algebra of the special theory is valid, therefore, the conclusions are necessarily as vacuous as the original assumption. A review of the conclusions just mentioned is in order.

A body is supposed to shorten in the direction of motion, and this dimension will approach zero as its velocity nears that of light. With this conclusion, two mutually contradictory statements emerge. Since one of the dimensions of a body tends to vanish, the body itself will tend to disappear, yet according to a conclusion mentioned earlier, its mass becomes infinite!
     Incontrovertible Flaws in the Theory of Relalivity                                          27

The conclusion that time slows down on a moving system presents another impossible situation. Consider the case of the observers on two systems moving relative to each other. The observer on each system is noting the behavior of the clock on the system moving relative to him. Each one notes that the other clock is losing time relative to his own. The systems finally return to each other and stop. According to the Lorentz equations, each observer should notice the other clock has lost time relative to his own. Einstein had originally stated that the time equation for each system is equally valid. In other words, it doesn't matter which is taken as the moving system. Earlier writings on relativity by the authorities continually reiterated this.

The reality of this troublesome enigma must have eventually filtered down to the consciousness of the more "brilliant" physicist, since now the consensus is that only one of the observers would have this experience; and it did matter what was considered the moving system. By seeming to avoid this dilemma, our resourceful relativists are faced with another equally distasteful one. Some of their other beliefs are dependent on the assumption that each moving system deserves equal consideration, which is a factor they have now rejected.

According to them, the one to be considered as the moving system is the one that has been subjected to an acceleration to acquire its velocity. Which is to be considered the moving system, if both have been subjected to the same accelerating force, but in opposite directions? In any event, the ability to doublethink has come to the rescue of many physicists in the face of such a potentially disastrous situation, and they have done the only thing possible. They have ignored the dilemma.

At this stage, it is interesting to note how a well-known science fiction writer has handled this clock paradox of relativity. This particular individual, a typical orthodox scientist, has been essentially a mouthpiece for the scientific community over a long period of time. He has written over 200 books covering a wide variety of subjects. His fame initially came through his science fiction writings. He is now looked upon as an authority on all things of a scientific nature. It will become increasingly apparent as the reader continues that this "authority" should have confined his activities to science fiction only. This is essentially about all that he wrote anyway. Much of his writings have merely been improperly labeled. An article of his on the time paradox appeared recently in a science magazine of considerable popularity.

He began the discussion with the false and highly misleading statement that the theory of relativity has met all tests without exception, and so triumphantly that no physicist now doubts its validity. These "tests" and their alleged confirmation will be discussed shortly. This writer tackled the paradox by avoiding the real issues. He admitted that the Special Theory of Relativity is inadequate to deal with the situation, since it is supposed to apply only to objects traveling at a constant velocity. According to him, this means the two systems, having flashed by each other, must continue to separate forever if the Special Theory is to be involved. They can never come together again to match clocks. Therefore, there is no paradox!

To the less gifted readers of this article, this specious evasion may have appeared to take the special theory off the hook, but did it? The theory is supposed to apply to any velocity below that of light. Therefore, the ve locity can change, and during the change the theory should still hold for any velocity assumed at any instant during that change, and afterwards. The paradox thus remains, despite the ostrich type of thinking that tried to sweep it under the rug.

Attention was then focused from the Special Theory to the General Theory which Einstein proposed in 1916. Armed with this aspect of relativity including accelerated objects, our resourceful and daring writer tackled this time paradox again. He argued that the General Theory of Relativity shows it is the ship that undergoes acceleration that experiences a real change in the rate of time. The ship that undergoes acceleration will end with its clock behind when the two systems approach and compare. The system called A that doesn't accelerate will notice that only B, the accelerating system, will appear to accelerate while B is the only one accelerating relative to the universe and A likewise. By this argument, the slowing of time is supposed to be real. This means the occupants of a space ship that accelerates up to near the speed of light and maintains this velocity will show little or no tendency to age. During the process, their clock will seem to them to be ticking the seconds off as rapidly as before.

It might appear this much-loved and respected writer resolved the time paradox. During his vacuous arguments, he carefully avoided the case of the two spaceships undergoing identical accelerations in opposite directions, before coming together once more and stopping. This brings the paradox back to life again with as much vigor as it ever had. Other scientists with less daring and "erhaps more wisdom have remained silent on the issue. No doubt with Lii.. hope that if they closed their eyes, it would go away. The identity of this distinguished writer is already apparent to most readers. He is, of course, Isaac Asimov, a perfect example of the typical academic scientist whose peculiar mental characteristics and vacuity will be thoroughly analyzed and demonstrated during the unfolding of this treatise.

The time paradox, of course, is only one aspect of the contradictions and basic fallacies of the special theory. For example, one of the conclusions is that the mass of a body increases with its velocity and approaches infinity as the velocity nears that of light. This contention is easily disproven. AUimes, hypothetical experiments are extremely useful to illustrate a principle, or demonstrate the fallacies of a concept, even though Einstein tried it on occasion, but never with effect. This method will be employed to demonstrate the absurdities in the above idea.

Consider a closed system or one in which no energy in any form can enter or leave. Inside this system are two bodies heavily charged with the same electricity. Being of like charge, they have a tendency to repel each other. They are prevented from flying apart by a string holding them together. Assume that a little demon with a knife cuts this string. The two charged bodies then fly apart at a high velocity. According to Einstein, these bodies have gained in mass. This means an increase in the total mass energy of the system and also the total energy available in same. This violates the energy conservation law, and something has been created out of nothingness.

Although this adequately demonstrates the fallacy of the relativistic increase of mass with velocity, the author was surprised to learn it did not satisfy all members of the scientific community. For example, one distinguished scientist argued that during the bringing of the two charges together, the energy of the system increased! This, of course, violates the original premise. Also, this gentleman apparently overlooked the fact that basically energy exists in two forms, potential or static energy and kinetic energy. One transforms into the other and vice versa. Two other proofs of this fallacy will now be given which are even more convincing than the one just presented.

Consider a planet of near infinite size with no atmosphere. A certain mass is raised to a given height above the surface and allowed to drop. By the time it reaches the surface it will have acquired a kinetic energy equal to the energy or work required to raise it to the altitude from which it was dropped. This is in accordance with the energy conservation law. Now the kinetic energy equals one half the mass times the square of the velocity. This means that the mass must remain constant in order for the conservation law to hold. According to Einstein and other relativists, gravity doesn't discriminate. This assumption is an integral part of the theory.

Therefore, the acceleration of the mass as it falls will remain constant regardless of any increase in mass! Therefore, the kinetic energy of the falling body will exceed the energy required to raise the mass to the required elevation. This also demonstrates an inherent contradiction in the relativity theory. It is apparent that the velocity will increase without limit depending on the height from which it is dropped. As the mass approaches infinity, the gravitational pull will keep pace and exert a force approaching infinity. It will be shown later that the velocity under these conditions will reach a limit, but it will be many times that of light.

The behavior of light shows conclusively that mass does not increase with velocity. Photons of light, of course, travel at the velocity of light but display a finite mass and momentum. Relativists get around this paradox by assuming a rest mass of zero. However, if this is so, then they will also have a zero mass at any velocity less than the velocity of light in free space. Photons moving through the atmosphere travel at a lower velocity than this, yet they show the same mass and momentum!

Physicists will argue that particle accelerators demonstrate this relativistic increase in mass. Such experiments, instead of confirming Einstein, actually demonstrate a very important principle providing a better understanding of many physical phenomena.

It is an established fact that a magnetic field develops around a charged body when it is given a velocity. Where did the magnetic field come from? Consider again the experiment just described. As the bodies moved, magnetic fields developed around them. Since the total energy of the system remains constant, there can be only one conclusion. The magnetic field developed at the expense of the electrostatic field. This is a transformation of one form of energy into another, or potential energy into kinetic energy. What really takes place in the particle accelerators can now be understood. As the charges in the accelerators increase their velocity, the magnetic field around them increases, while the electrostatic charges decrease. This means during the acceleration of the particles, their mutual magnetic attraction increases, while the electrostatic repulsion decreases. By now, it isn't difficult to see what creates the illusion of an increase of mass with an increase in velocity, and the apparent vindication of Einstein. At speeds approaching that of light, ever larger clusters of particles become more tightly bound together by powerful magnetic fields. By this time, the electrostatic charge on the particles is practically non-existent, and the accelerating force, which is dependent upon charge of the particles, approaches the vanishing point. This seemed to support relativity, because the particles can't exceed a certain limiting velocity. When all the electrostatic charge has been transformed. into magnetic fields, the accelerating force dependent upon the charge becomes zero, and the particle cannot be accelerated any further. This limiting velocity will be shown in Part III to equal the velocity of light relative to its source.

The extremely heavy concentrations of magnetic fields, brought about by the particles being clustered together inside accelerators, requires the application of far more intense magnetic fields to hold the clusters in their circular paths inside the accelerators. It is a simple case of mathematics. It requires a certain magnetic flux to hold a single particle traveling at light velocity in the circular orbit. If the particles are evenly distributed in the accelerator, the flux or intensity required to hold all of them in orbit will be considerably less than if the particles become bunched up in groups. Requiring a more intense magnetic field gave the illusion of an increase in inertial mass of the individual particles.

It is indeed ironic that, according to relativity, a material body cannot exceed the speed of light, as the particles in the accelerator seemed to indicate. This is false, as has already been indicated. It will be shown also in Part III that in spaceship propulsion an entirely different set of conditions exists, and it is possible for a material body to travel many times the speed of light.

Prior to the development of particle accelerators, the deflections of fast-moving particles in powerful magnetic and electrostatic fields showed the decrease of charge with increase of velocity. It was found that the ratio, e/m, where e is the charge on the particle, and m is the mass, decreased with velocity and approached zero as the velocity neared that of light. Of course, relativists interpreted this as an indication of an increase of mass with velocity. Since mass does not increase with velocity, such experiments proved the charge on a particle is a variable, and decreases as the velocity increases.

The next fallacy of the special theory is the idea that the observed velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source or that of the observer. There is no telling how often it has been disproved in laboratory experiments. At least one incident was given brief publicity about three decades ago. A naval research team photographed a spot of light moving across a cathode ray tube at a velocity of 202,000 miles/sec. The basis of this phenonemon was the interaction of particles moving about 16,000 miles/second. This is about the average velocity of the flow of electrons in the tube. This velocity, added to the velocity of light about "186,000 miles per second", produced the 202,000 miles per second. The results of this experiment were quickly hushed up and forgotten because it was an affront to something sacred.

An ingenious experiment providing direct proof that this basic assumption of special.relativity is false was given nor publicity. It is called the Saganac Experiment, and was performed in 1913. Two simultaneously emitted light signals were sent in opposite directions around a closed path, and a photographic plate was arranged to record the interference fringes at the place where the signals met. The apparatus from which the light source originated was supported on a turntable, which was free to rotate. The two light signals traveled identical distances, not along the turntable but the same distance along the surface of the earth.

The turntable was given a spin with a rotational velocity of vrelative to the earth. The signal moving in the same direction in which the apparatus was turning had an initial velocity of (v plus c) relative to the surface of the earth, where c is the velocity of light relative to its source. The signal moving in opposite direction of rotation had a velocity (c minus v). If the basic premise of relativity were valid, both signals would have traveled these equal distances along the surface of the earth in identical times. They did not. The signal which initially traveled in the same direction of rotation reached the point where the camera was set up before the other signal. This produced the expected interference fringes. When the turntable was stationary, no interference fringes were produced.

It was evident, by the time this experiment was performed, the special theory was too deeply entrenched in the consciousness of the scientific community for such an eventuality to be tolerated. This is not surprising. It will be proven many times throughout this treatise that the scientific community is far more concernedbout maintaining the status quo of science than in facing the truth.

Actually, there has been considerable indirect proof of the fallacy of the basic foundation of relativity before and after the Saganac Experiment. The photo-electric effect of light shows that light is transmitted as particles, and not transverse waves.

This automatically accounts for the results of the Michelson-Morely experiments. The particles of light which encounter no resistance in traveling through the ethers will have a velocity relative to the earth, independent of the direction they travel. In other words, the observed velocity of the particles will be the same, regardless of the direction in which they may be moving away from their source. Additional evidence that light is propagated as particles and not waves is the fact that a beam of particles such as electrons, protons, and even molecules produce the same interference and diffraction effects as light.

To an individual versed in the elements of physics and the origin of the relativity theory, such facts alone would be sufficient reason for him to reject the theory. But it has become painfully evident that orthodox physicists are not rational people. How did they react to such findings? They demonstrated once again their proficiency in doublethinking. They accepted both aspects, diametrically opposed to each other, and called it the dual nature of light. This dual nature supposedly causes light to behave both as waves arid particles. This has also been called the "wave particle paradox", because of the impossibility that a stream of particles would behave as transverse waves, of which light is supposed to consist. It will be clearly shown in Part III how a stream of particles can produce diffraction and interference effects. It will also become evident that such a demonstration is in accordance with other important principles, to be introduced in Parts II and III.

There is another incredible contradiction, which was mentioned earlier, inherent in the special theory that automatically invalidates it. Mass and energy are supposed to be equivalent and, therefore, energy has inertia, according to Einstein. Photons of light are described as packets of energy traveling at light velocity. This is the same as a mass traveling at the velocity of light, which is supposed to be impossible. Relativists get around the dilemma by claiming photons have a rest mass of zero and can only travel at light velocity. When light passes through a medium, it slows down and consequently the photons travel at less than light velocity during this period. The assumption that anything which has momentum or kinetic energy has a rest mass of zero is a crass violation of the energy conservation law.

Besides the behavior of particles in accelerators, Einstein's disciples have cited other experimental props for the Special Theory. For example, a jet plane carrying a highly sophisticated atomic clock and traveling at 30,000 feet for 24 hours supposedly demonstrated the contention that time slows on a moving system. After 24 hours, the clock lost 55 billionths of a second.

The result of this experiment involved a principle diametrically opposed to relativity. When one body is given a velocity relative to another, a magnetic field develops around the former, as a result of its kinetic energy. This applies to a so-called uncharged body, as well as to a charged one. The reasons for this will appear in Part III. This magnetic field distinguishes it from the other body, and so it does matter which is considered the moving system. (As indicated earlier, physicists have partially come around to this way of thinking. The author suspects this is due to ideas he has been expounding for over two decades, which include this concept. Prior to this, the consensus was it did not matter which was considered the moving system. As mentioned earlier, the Lorentz equations make no distinction). The magnetic field which resulted from the kinetic energy of the plane and everything moving with it, including the clock, although extremely minute, interfered with the moving parts of the clock and slowed down their action slightly.

Another experiment which allegedly confirmed the time dilatiqn of moving bodies was the fact that high speed mesons last longer than those traveling at a lower velocity. So-called mesons are highly unstable particles and, after being created by artificial means, quickly disintegrate. The actual reason for this phenomenon should have been apparent to even the most obtuse physicist. The faster a particle travels, the stronger the magnetic field that develops around it. The pinch effect of the magnetic field tends to hold the particle together. It follows that the faster the meson travels, the greater the tendency of the magnetic field to keep it from disintegrating.

One of the most incredible aspects of the odd thinking of relativists is that the Special Theory is actually based on the concept of an ether. Yet, Einstein and his colleagues rejected this concept. This is like sawing off a limb on which one is sitting.

By now, it should be thoroughly apparent to the reader, assuming he or she is not a doublethinking member of the scientific community, that the Special Theory of Relativity is completely devoid of substance. It has been established, as well as any truth can be, that the Special Theory is a ridiculous fantasy based on very bad logic, without a shred of experimental evidence to support it.
The intelligent reader, whose sensibilities have been shocked by what has been revealed thus far, should brace himself before being exposed to the following analysis of the General Theory of Relativity. This theory is supposed to provide an insight into the nature of gravity and cosmology One of the main foundations of the theory is the famous equivalence principle. It states that gravitational and inertial mass are equivalent. This idea is based in part upon the fact that the weight of a body is directly proportional to its inertial properties, and that the proportion is always a constant.
     Incur irvcrtih1e Flaws in the Theory at J?e/a!ivilr                                                        35

As expected, Einstein combined a fact with a fallacy, and ended up with a concept far removed from reality. For example, according to the equivalence principle, there is no way the occupants of a closed room could tell whether they were on a constantly accelerating spaceship or on the surface of a planet. The force holding them to the floor is supposed to be the same, regardless of whether it is the result of a gravitational pull or of being accelerated. According to Einstein, there is no experiment that could be performed which could show the difference.

Once again Einstein demonstrated a mental prowess that was less than acute. There are several experiments that could be performed to show the difference. If the room were on the surface of a planet, a sensitive gravity meter would show a difference in weight, if it were moved a short distance above the floor. On an accelerating spaceship or elevator, there would obviously be no difference. This is the least significant test. A ball held up in the air and dropped would fall to the floor in identically the same manner, regardless of whether it was on the planet or the accelerating spaceship. However, there would be one essential difference. If this occurred on the surface of a planet, a steadily increasing magnetic field would develop around the ball, as it appeared to fall. If the ))all were dropped on the spaceship, the ball would not be subjected to an acceleration as the floor moved up to contact the ball. Therefore,rlio additional magnetic field would develop around the ball while it was in the air. To render the argument even more convincing, it could be assumed the ball was heavily charged with electricity. In addition, a charged ball resting on the floor would develop a steadily increasing magnetic field if it were on the elevator or accelerating spaceship, since it would experience a steady increase in absolute velocity. Obviously, this wouldn't occur on the surface of a planet, since the accelerating force is directed toward the floor, preventing an increase in velocity. The specious arguments Einstein employed to establish the equivalence principle have been hailed as some of the greatest achievements in the history of human thought! Yet, it has just been proven that the equivalence principle is a fallacy based on inferior logic.

Einstein used the equivalence principle to derive another weird concept. It is the idea that a gravitating mass produces warps or curvature in the space around it. This is probably the origin of the idea of "space warps" used in science fiction and various illogical speculations. It does seem strange that something formless and without substance, and obviously independent of time, should possess some of the properties of matter and also time, as indicated by his term "space-time continuum."

According to this theory, when one body is attracted to another or viceversa, it follows certain warped lines in space.

It follows, according to this odd concept, that nothing can travel in a straight line. Straight lines do not exist and anything that moves, including light, goes along some space-warp line. Therefore, the universe is closed and shaped something like a cylinder.

By combining this idea of space warps with the Special Theory, Einstein was able to make certain cosmological determinations deviating only slightly from those of the Newtonian method. These "deviations" supposedly accounted for certain precise astronomical measurements which did not conform with those derived from Newton's approach. Since it has already been shown that Newton missed the mark by a wide margin, it is not difficult to see what this fact alone does to Einstein.

According to Einstein, light from stars near the sun's disc would be bent by the gravitational space warps produced by the sun. (It has already been shown that gravity can in no way affect light or bend it, since gravity has been proven to be caused by electromagnetic radiations within a certain frequency range.) He calculated the amount of light would be bent by the sun's field. This has been tested many times by eminent scientists during eclipses of the sun, and they reported that Einstein's Theory has been confirmed almost exactly. This alleged vindication of Einstein has been the main factor in making his name a household word

A closer examination of the facts reveals these reports were entirely misleading. Integrity has continually been proven not to be one of the scientific community's most redeeming qualities. These particular cases have done nothing to alter this viewpoint. Charles Fort provided evidence that the observation of eclipses did not confirm Einstein. The truth about this was inadvertently revealed in the May, 1959, issue of Scientific American, on pages 152 and 153. A diagram showing the stars' positions observed during the total eclipse of 1952 indicate the predicted positions of the stars, compared to the actual positions. It was admitted that changes in star positions agree only roughly with those predicted by the General Theory of Relativity. This was a gross understatement. At least one-third of them were displaced in a direction opposite to the one they were supposed to be! There were considerable variations in the extent o

agreement for those that were displaced in the right direction. It is extremely significant that the stars closest to the sun show the best agreement between observed shifts and predicted shifts.

There are three factors the scientists did not take into consideration during these tests. They are the atmospheres of the sun, the moon, and the earth. Any one of these is sufficient to render the alleged confirmation invalid. Consider first the earth's atmosphere. The refraction effect of our own atmosphere is variable and indeterminate. This makes precise astronomical measurements impossible. This has been thoroughly demonstrated by the errors made in the time and position of eclipses of the sun, as mentioned earlier.

Charles Fort continually mentioned the difficulty astronomers have in making ?ccurate determinations with only our own atmosphere to contend with. In the case of detecting the amount the stars are displaced during an eclipse, they also have the dense atmospheres of the moon and sun to consider. With all of this taken into consideration, a close to random displacement of stars further from the sun's disc may be expected. This means that some of them will be displaced in the direction opposite to that in which they were supposed to be, as the diagram showed. For stars closer to the periphery of the sun, where the atmospheres become progressively more dense, there should be a closer agreement with the calulated values. This is because light passing close to the sun and moon will have a greater tendency to be bent toward them by refraction. This pattern was confirmed by the diagram appearing in Scientific American, which actually disproved Einstein, instead of vindicating him.

Other alleged confirmations of General Relativity are even more ludicrous. Consider the case of the advance of the perihelion of Mercury's orbit. According to astronomers, the application of the Newtonian Concept of gravity to the calculated amount of the advance of the perihelion was off by 43 seconds of arc in one century from the true and observed amount. The General Theory allegedly accounted for this 43-second discrepancy! The degree of precision required to establish such a minute error is mind boggling. Remember, 43 seconds is only slightly more than one percent of one degree, and it requires over 400 orbits of Mercury, for even this amount of error to show up. There is a far greater margin for error in making such a determination, than in establishing time and position of eclipses. Their relatively big errors in this department have already been discussed.

Once again, the integrity of the scientific community is called to question. It seems they will go to any length to create the image of infallibility. The advance of the perihelion, if it exists, is completely unknown, it there is such a thing and another prop for relativity has been dissolved.

Efforts to prove Einstein correct have been greatly accelerated in recent years with the development of more sophisticated devices. Instruments employing the Mossbauer Effect have allegedly confirmed the gravitational red shift predicted by Einstein. Light moving against a gravitational field will drop down in frequency, while light moving in the opposite direction will experience an increase in frequency. This seemed to be verified by directing gamma rays up a 75-foot tube and then down the tube. Gamma rays moving up the tube did seem to shift toward the red end of the spectrum, and when directed down the tube the shift was in the opposite direction.

Once again, physicists with their ignorance concerning the laws of nature have put the wrong interpretation on the results of their experiments. This experiment confirmed another kind of phenomenon far removed from relativity. The earth is being bombarded continuously by soft particles of all kinds from outer space, and these particles affect the passage of light. When the beam of gamma rays moved away from the earth, it was moving against the stream. This tended to slow them down with an apparent drop in frequency. When they moved toward the earth, this moved with the stream, and consequently, traveled at a higher velocity with the opposite effects. This will be explained in more detail after the nature of light and the properties of these soft particles have been thoroughly analyzed.

The slowing down of clocks on moving bodies, as predicted by Einstein, has been tested recently with Cesium clocks placed on commercial airliners traveling around the globe. It was believed a plane traveling east, or with the earth's rotation, would lose time relative to a stationary Cesium clock. A clock traveling west would gain time relative to the same fixed clock. After traveling around the world in an easterly direction, the clock had lost 50-billionths of a second, while the one that had gone around the world traveling west had gained l60-billionths of a second. This was allegedly in close agreement with the prediction of relativity.

It was assumed the real velocity dt the plane traveling east was equal to its ground speed plus the velocity of rotation of the earth. The fixed clock had a velocity equal to the rotational velocity of the earth, while the one traveling west had an actual velocity equal to the rotational velocity, minus the ground speed in the westerly direction. By now, the intelligent reader knows the cause of these differences could not have involved the relativity theory, and that one must look elsewhere for the causes. One does not have to look far. There are two factors that affect these clocks. One of them is the magnetic field developed by the kinetic energy imparted to the clock. The other, and the greater factor in this particular case, is the concentration of the subtle energies, or soft particles impregnating the mechanism of the clocks. These energies permeate all known space. The higher the concentration, the greater the tendency they have to affect the working parts of the mechanism. It is analogous to the friction of the atmosphere slowing down a moving projectile. A clock moving in the direction of rotation of the earth will tend to capture or concentrate more of these particles throughout the moving parts of the clock than a stationary one. A clock moving in a direction opposite to that of the earth's rotation will have a lower concentration than the other two clocks. Therefore, it will run faster than the others.

According to General Relativity, a gravitational field will tend to slow the passage of time. The stronger the field, the greater this tendency. It was found that Cesium clocks run faster at high elevations than those on the ground. This has been taken as another proof of the validity of Einstein's ideas. The concentration of soft particles is higher near the surface of the ground than at high elevations. (This will be shown later.) It follows that clocks at high elevations should run faster than those at ground level.
Another alleged confirmation of Einstein that occurred recently demonstrated once again a complete lack of insight and common sense of present-day researchers trying to confirm Einstein. Bureau of Standards researchers, with new, elaborate devices, once more supposedly checked out the hypothesis that the velocity of light is independent of the velocity of the source or that of the observer. They found that light traveled as fast in the direction the earth goes through space as it does in the opposite direction. The final conclusion, according to them, is "The speed of light is constant and Einstein's theory is right." Incredibly, all phases of their experiment took place in the same reference system. All they showed was that the velocity of light relative to its source was independent of its direction of propagation, regardless of the velocity of the source. This is as it should be, and is what the Michelson-Morely experiments actually indicated! Why didn't they revive the old Saganac Experiment of 1913 which provides direct proof that the observed velocity of light is dependent on the velocity of its source, and thus destroys relativity?

A question that may come to the mind of the more discerning reader at this time is: since the bombardment of soft particles to the earth produced the red shift, why isn't the velocity of light affected by a change in the direction in which light is propagated on this earth? A light ray traveling in the direction of rotation of the earth or its direction of revolution about the sun should encounter more soft particles, than when it travels in the opposite direction. The red shift noted was extremely minute and the degree of precision employed in such an experiment utilizing the Mossbauer effect was greater than in any experiment trying to confirm the constant light velocity hypothesis. Also, the velocity of the earth in its orbit was small compared to the average velocity of bombardment of soft particles to the earth. It was the high velocity of bombardment of these particles that made possible the detection of the red shift.

The reader has now been exposed to all of the essential facets, of what has been hailed as the highest achievement of the human mind, and the greatest advance toward our understanding of the universe, in the history of science. All of the universal accolades arid reverence heaped upon Einstein have made the fact that his achievement was a fallacy based on superficial reasoning and very bad logic all the more incredible.

Einstein has had his detractors even in the scientific community. Amazingly, none either inside or outside this distinguished body has ever put his finger on the real flaws of this celebrated concept. Yet, as the reader has been shown, the contradictions and infantile logic have been apparent for many decades. Why hasn't it been accomplished before? Perhaps one of the reasons is that it was too obvious. People in general, and especially students of science, have been brainwashed into thinking that common sense rules don't apply in the higher realms of physics. Consquently, scientists get away with all kinds of irrational behavior. If an average citizen were to consistently display such fatuity in everyday affairs, he would be in danger of being picked up by men in white uniforms.

The concept of time has been so badly abused by Einstein and his disciples that a simple and obvious look at its true nature is in order. This will render the fallacies of the relativity concepts even more apparent. Time is simply another aspect of activity, motion, or dynamics in the guise of a symbol. It actually denotes the amount of activity in terms of a definite unit using space as a background. This makes possible the correlating of events and the bringing of order in the universe. This is all that it is. This means that, being an integral part of activity or motion of all forms, it is inseparable from them. Consequently, it cannot take on any of the weird properties attributed to it by a host of fuzzy thinkers, including Einstein, in their futile attempts to account for unusual phenomena beyond their comprehension. It is one of the great mysteries that such an obvious and simple concept has been overlooked. Yet, it is adequate to count for all of the supposed anomalies associated with time. This will be done in later chapters, when many of the strange occurrences which led to the delusions about time will be cleared up.

Scientists like Einstein have not been the only offendeis u spreading misconceptions regarding the nature of time. Philosophers and metaphysicians are equally guilty. Readers in esoteric subjects are ontiually bombarded with prattle such as there is no time beyond time, and space; etc. The definition just given readers renders the absurdities in such caprices more than obvious.

It is thus apparent that time would cease to exist if, and only if, all thought and all motion throughout the universe came to a halt. The slowing of the passge of time on a moving system is now seen to be self-contradictory. This concept treats time as an entity, separate from activity or dynamics. With the General Theory of Relativity, Einstein carried this absurdity to unbelievable lengths when he talked about a gravitation field warping time and space. This inanity no doubt spawned such mental crutches as "time warps" and "space warps" to account for anomalies beyond the understanding of present day theorists and speculators. Such terms have also become a popular tool of science-fiction writers. When one discusses "time warps" he is actually prating about energy or motion warps. Whatever that is supposed to mean has never been made clear.

Some readers may feel that too much space has been devoted to shooting down the relativity theories, when any one of the topics presented would have done the job. In other words, it has been a case of overkill. As indicated earlier, the Einstein myth and the Special and General Theories will not die easily. These ideas have had, perhaps, a more stultifying influence on scientific thinking than any other theory. Such misconceptions have been clearly pointed out to leading scientists for many years. Instead of reacting as scientists are supposed to, according to the definition of the term "scientist," the scientific community has defended the old dogmas more vigorously than ever before. It seems they do not allow truth to stand in the way of such endeavors. Another indication that integrity is not one of their more noble attributes is given in an article entitled "Fraud Grows in Laboratories." It appeared in the June, 1977, issue of Science Digest. The article indicated that a high percentage of scientific data is falsified in order to make it conform with the results hoped for.

One can only speculate on how much of this was practiced during recent efforts to prove Einstein correct. There is another factor to consider concerning such tests, which require an amazing degree of precision. It has been shown repeatedly that the mind and thought forms can affect the behavior of various kinds of reactions. The phenomenon of telekenesis is not some science fiction writer's fantasy, s the scientific community would like to have the world believe. In any event, the experiments involving the relativity concept were not conducted with scientific detachment. There was always the great hope that Einstein would be vindicated. It is no stretch of the imagination to assume such strong desires did tip the delicate balance seemingly in favor of Einstein. Reports consistently stated the results agreed with -the calculated values almost exactly.

The case against relativity rests. It has been made clear that the Special Theory is based on the faulty interpretation of the Michelson-Morely experiments, which were set up to detect the drift. It was shown that the fact that light propagates as particles, not as transverse waves through an all pervading medium, violates the basic tenets of the theory. It was also proven that the brand of logic employed to establish the theory violated all the basic rules of rational thining. The absurdities and impossible conditions derived from the foundation of the theory were rendered self evident. The popular conception that the theory has a wealth of experimental evidence to support it has been thoroughly debunked.

The General Theory of Relativity has been as thoroughly confuted as the Special Theory. The famous Equivalence Principle, on which the theory is largely based, has been proven to be false. The idea that gravity is produced by space warps has been shown to be a ridiculous fantasy. As with the Special Theory, it was established that there is not a shred of experimental evidence to support it and all of the alleged confirmations are explained in an infinitely more effective manner than with the General Theory. It is interesting to note the already experimentally proven fact that gravity is produced by a highly penetrating radiation in the electromagnetic spectrum completely demolishes the General Theory. Interestingly enough, well documented phenomena observed over the centuries also confutes the theory such as levitation. If gravity were produced by space warps, there is no way levitation could take place. Even the levitating beams employed by UFOs and observed on many occasions could not possibly work. The phenonemon of levitation will, of course, be explained later.

UFO sightings suggest there is a possibility that extraterrestrials are among us. Evidently, this likelihood has finally come to the attention of some prominent physicists, after more than thirty years. According to their way of thinking, if UFOs are visiting us, they would have to come from other solar systems. This strongly suggests faster-than-light spaceships. Unfortunately, the theory of relativity stands in the way of this concept. Since academic theorists would renounce their own flesh and blood before they would relativity, devious steps had to be taken to surmount the difficulty. One of the most distinguished among these physicists, John A. Wheeler, a devout Einstein disciple, came to the rescue with a theory which could permit faster-than-light spaceships without desecrating relativity.

Wheeler was given high acclaim for this theory, an account of which appeared in Saga magazine in March, 1972. He gets around the difficulty with an extension of the General Theory of Relativity. Briefly, the Wheeler Theory contends that space is not only curved, but is shaped like a doughnut. It is supposed to be infested with "wormholes" which lead to a hyperspace, where time and space do not exist! UFOs allegedly come to us through some of the wormholes. Perhaps the reader may already be speculating as to where these wormholes, if any, really do exist. Such an idea is stretching even irrationality beyond its elastic limits and enters the realm of hyperirrationality. How an object that occupies space can enter a region of no space and still exist has not been made clear. It seems that Wheeler has outdone his collegues who are only skilled in the realm of doublethink.

This is an interesting study in the avenues a brainwashed individual of the academic world will take in order to retain a cherished concept that has been threatened. What is equally incredible is that such an idea has been taken seriously by many outside the scientific community. They look upon Wheeler as the man who will point the way to interstellar space travel.

Another outgrowth of Einstein's ideas that has gained considerable popularity and wide publicity is the concept of "black holes." Practically all of the leading scientists have jumped on the bandwagon and have added some of their own flavor to theories involving black holes. The concept of black holes has already been discussed briefly and completely debunked. The confuting of the General Theory of Relativity and the fact that gravity has no effect whatsoever on the propagation of light, automatically wipe out the black hole concept. If black holes are a reality, there is only one place they could exist.

Another widely accepted concept is the big bang theory. It is based on the idea that the universe originated from a giant explosion a few billion years ago. Everything has been flying outward and away from the center of this explosion. This supposedly accounts for the expanding universe, which has seemingly been confirmed by the famous red shift. The red shift is defined as an apparent doppler effect indicating that the more distant stars are receding from us at higher velocities. According to astronomical observations, more of the light from distant stars is shifted toward the red end of the spectrum. This and other phenomena, improperly interpreted by astrophysicists, will be cleared up for the first time later in this treatise. During the process, it will become evident that the big bang theory is as devoid of sound thinking as the ideas already discussed. Such a thing is to be expected. The chief representatives of the scientific community have repeatedly shown that they are inept thinkers with an inability to look at more than one side of a problem.

One of the major stumbling blocks in academic thinking is the idea that natural phenomena are the result of chance and probability, and not the effect of intelligent design. Causality is sinking into the background. Absolute materialism is the general theme. Judging by the quality of thinkers in the academic world this also is not surprising.

A broad and logical examination of the facts shows conclusively that there is intelligent design behind the operation of the universe. As the title suggests, it is what this treatise is all about. The vast majority accept this truth on faith alone. Since this fact does become obvious from any intelligent look at the world around us, it can be stated categorically that materialists, who constitute the bulk of the scientific community, as well as atheists and even agnostics, are all of very limited mental capacity. ... " end quote from Joseph Cater - book: "The Awesome Force"

Mr Cater is perhaps about as diplomatic with conventional physics thinking as is Mr Winter.