The life time of Minkowski and his former student Albert Einstein before the modern astronomy arise. They do not understand about 'The Space and Time', namely The Celestial Sphere, one of the fundamental concepts in the modern astronomy. They knowing not about Nautical Almanac as "holy book" in science of modern astronomy, that says refraction of light of celestial bodies can not be ignored.

That is why, in Special and General Theory of Relativity Albert Einstein ignored the celestial sphere and refraction of light.

A theory of four-dimensional space–time or 4D known as the "Minkowski spacetime" was misleading. There are no 4D, but 3D +1D in Modern Astronomy: Celestial Sphere Coordinate System. Einstein general theory of relativity was totally wrong.(GSA)

“Einstein’s Law of Gravitation contains nothing about force. It describes the behaviour of objects in a gravitational field – the planets, for example – not in terms of ‘ attraction ‘ but simply in terms of the paths they follow. To Einstein, gravitation is simple part of inertia; the movement of the stars and the planets arise from their inherent inertia; and the courses they follow are determined by the metric properties of space – or, more properly speaking, the metric properties of the space-time continuum “ (Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, London, June 1949, page 72 ).

Albert Einstein proposed three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the classical tests of general relativity, in 1916:

1.the perihelion precession of Mercury's orbit

2.the deflection of light by the Sun

3.the gravitational redshift of light

He also mentioned with comments:

"....If

**a single one**of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible."

**1.The Perihelion precession of Mercury's Orbit**

General
Relativity is probably the most famous physical and mathematical theory
in history and it has been combed and extolled by all the most famous
figures of the 20th century. Which makes it almost impossible to
believe that it contains flaws that are so elementary.

These are not
flaws embedded in difficult manipulations of the tensor calculus or in
difficult motions of curved space, they are flaws of simple reasoning
and number assignment. As an example and teaser, Einstein assigns his
famous number .45 to precession per year while having no mathematical or
theoretical reasons for that time assignment. By checking all his
famous papers on GR, we find that he certainly found the number .45, but
we find nothing in his equations that makes that per year. He simply

*assumed*the period of precession, since his number matched historical equations. As I show, this assumption was false, since his number .45 applied to the curvature of his field at the distance of Mercury's orbit.
That is, it was a constant, applying during one second or one
century. He needed more math in order to apply that curvature to the
precession problem, but he never did that math. He simply applied the
curvature number directly to precession. This is not only
mathematically disallowed, it is gloriously negligent. I don’t know—and
probably no one knows or ever did know—whether this was an oversight or
a purposeful fudge. It may be that he couldn’t see how to get from the
curvature to the precession, so he just took what he had and ran with
it. Because his audience was already monumentally confused, no one
noticed.

Read more: Mercury's Orbit

**2.The Deflection of Light by the Sun**

"Einstein proposed therefore, that
photographs be taken of the stars immediately bordering the darkened
face of the sun during an eclipse and compared with photographs of those
same stars made at another time."(Lincoln
Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, London, June 1949, Preface by Albert Einstein Himself, page 78
).

**Einsten's proving method is not scientific and deeply wrong:**

1.Deflection of light is the different
angle between true position and apparent position of stars or the
different of altitude. In astronomy, true position and apparent position
of stars are three dimensionals.

All the photographs be taken of the stars are two dimensionals.

In this case Einstein ignored 'The Space and Time' or Celestial Sphere (Celestial Coordinate System), the fundamental concept of celestial bodies coordinate in astronomy.

In this case Einstein ignored 'The Space and Time' or Celestial Sphere (Celestial Coordinate System), the fundamental concept of celestial bodies coordinate in astronomy.

2.All the photographs be taken of solar
eclipse ( the Sun and stars ) are photo of the apparent positions of the
Sun and stars. From these photos can not be use to calculate the
deflection of light. No one can determine the correct angle of the
deflection of light.

In this case Einstein clearly ignorance of the experimental techniques

In this case Einstein clearly ignorance of the experimental techniques

3.In astronomy, all calculations to
determine the true position and the apparent position of a certain star
at the sky is only applicable at a certain time and at a certain place
on which such observation is performed.

To compared the photos taken during an eclipse with photos of those same stars made at another time is not scientific.

To compared the photos taken during an eclipse with photos of those same stars made at another time is not scientific.

**Conclusions:**

Einstein's proving method for his
hypothesis the deflection of light by the Sun is not scientific and
deeply wrong. General relativity has been wrong since the beginning.

The galaxy's redshift is used with Hubble's Law in order to determine its position in three-dimensional space.

Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model. The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.

Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations by Georges Lemaître in a 1927 article where he proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, now called the Hubble constant.Two years later Edwin Hubble confirmed the existence of that law and determined a more accurate value for the constant that now bears his name.Hubble inferred the recession velocity of the objects from their redshifts, many of which were earlier measured and related to velocity by Vesto Slipher in 1917.(Wikipedia).

Several ways can be conceived to explain this quantization. As noted earlier, a galaxys' redshift may not be a Doppler shift, it is the currently commonly accepted interpretation of the red shift, but there can be and are other interpretations. A galaxys' redshift may be a fundamental property of the galaxy. Each may have a specific state governed by laws, analogues to those in quantum mechanics that specify which energy states atoms may occupy. Since there is relatively little blurring on the quantization between galaxies, any real motions would have to be small in this model. Galaxies would not move away from one another; the universe would be static instead of expanding.

Albert Einstein's proving method for his hypothesis the deflection of light by the Sun isn't scientific and deeply wrong. Deflection of light was caused by refraction, not gravity. Thus redshift, lensing, and time-delay of light are caused by refraction. Redshift phenomena isn't Doppler effects, and nothing to do with gravity. Gravitational redshift is false.

Thus, Albert Einstein failed in three classical tests.

New finding about Einstein's proving method that isn't scientific and ignored refraction of light, in accordance with - purely by chance - the invention of Professor R. C. Gupta, India, on his paper ‘Bending of Light Near a Star and Gravitational Red/Blue Shift: Alternative Explanation Based on Refraction of Light'. And at the same time could be as complement and explain as written in the Abstract.

From Abstract: "The new alternative explanation is based on refraction phenomenon of optics. It predicts that as the ray passes through/near the star’s atmospheric medium, it bends due to refraction phenomenon towards star core, like a ray bends while passing through a prism or water drop.."

arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409124.pdf

**3.The Gravitational Redshift of Light**The galaxy's redshift is used with Hubble's Law in order to determine its position in three-dimensional space.

Hubble's law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model. The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.

Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations by Georges Lemaître in a 1927 article where he proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, now called the Hubble constant.Two years later Edwin Hubble confirmed the existence of that law and determined a more accurate value for the constant that now bears his name.Hubble inferred the recession velocity of the objects from their redshifts, many of which were earlier measured and related to velocity by Vesto Slipher in 1917.(Wikipedia).

Several ways can be conceived to explain this quantization. As noted earlier, a galaxys' redshift may not be a Doppler shift, it is the currently commonly accepted interpretation of the red shift, but there can be and are other interpretations. A galaxys' redshift may be a fundamental property of the galaxy. Each may have a specific state governed by laws, analogues to those in quantum mechanics that specify which energy states atoms may occupy. Since there is relatively little blurring on the quantization between galaxies, any real motions would have to be small in this model. Galaxies would not move away from one another; the universe would be static instead of expanding.

**Read more: Red Shift Riddles**

**Bright star cluster NGC 3532 contains stars of bluish color and also red giants glowing**

**with an orange hue. Image released Nov. 26, 2014 (spacecom)**

Albert Einstein's proving method for his hypothesis the deflection of light by the Sun isn't scientific and deeply wrong. Deflection of light was caused by refraction, not gravity. Thus redshift, lensing, and time-delay of light are caused by refraction. Redshift phenomena isn't Doppler effects, and nothing to do with gravity. Gravitational redshift is false.

Thus, Albert Einstein failed in three classical tests.

**Edit:**New finding about Einstein's proving method that isn't scientific and ignored refraction of light, in accordance with - purely by chance - the invention of Professor R. C. Gupta, India, on his paper ‘Bending of Light Near a Star and Gravitational Red/Blue Shift: Alternative Explanation Based on Refraction of Light'. And at the same time could be as complement and explain as written in the Abstract.

From Abstract: "The new alternative explanation is based on refraction phenomenon of optics. It predicts that as the ray passes through/near the star’s atmospheric medium, it bends due to refraction phenomenon towards star core, like a ray bends while passing through a prism or water drop.."

arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409124.pdf

Albert Einstein proposed three tests of the general relativity theory. He also mentioned with comments: ".....If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible."

Actually error in the famous eclipse experiment of 1919, but F.W.Dyson writes:

"

**It seems clear that the effect found must be attributed to the Sun's gravitational field and not, for example, to the refraction by coronal matter**" (F.W.Dyson, F.R.S, A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun's Gravitational Field, from Observations made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919).**The above statement is incorrect**, because it is clear from Einstein's proving method - that photographs be taken of the stars immediately bordering the darkened face of the sun during an eclipse and compared with photographs of those same stars made at another time -

**this means that Einstein ignored the refraction of light. and ignored**

**the celestial sphere coordinates system**