Image from Wikipedia
Hans C. Ohanian’s Einstein’s Mistakes: The Human Failings of Genius:
Almost all of Einstein’s seminal works contain mistakes. Sometimes small mistakes — mere lapses of attention — sometimes fundamental failures to understand the subtleties of his own creations, and sometimes fatal mistakes that undermined the logic of his arguments.
The book was reviewed positively in a recent Wall Street Journal article.
A theoretical physicist by training, Mr. Ohanian doesn’t write like one. He recounts his chronicle of errors in clear and engaging prose, giving us in the process a short course in the history of modern physics and a witty and provocative account of his subject’s life. Anyone who has read the recent biographies of Einstein by Walter Isaacson or Jürgen Neffe may find some of the material familiar, but on the whole “Einstein’s Mistakes” is original and fresh. Nor is Mr. Ohanian one of those petty biographers who delight only in turning up the failings — or turning out the dirty laundry — of great men. Rather he notes Einstein’s errors for a purpose, showing us why his achievement was all the greater for them.(Divided by zero)
Invalidity hypothesis of general relativity
Einstein’s Special and General Theory of relativity is widely known as theories in modern physics, as they said, that are pass of every tests for more than 100 years. Stephen Hawking said: “General Relativity was a major intellectual revolution that has transformed the way we think about the universe. It is a theory not only of curved space, but of curved or warped time as well.”
I’ve found there are at least 5 logical fallacies of Einstein’s theory of relativity. Of course, some invalid arguments of Einstein as the founder of theories make a great impact to the validity of the two theories: Special and General Theory of Relativity. For example, the experimental test of general relativity called deflection of light by the Sun.
That terms deflection of light by the Sun meaning the deflection as seen from space:
“From these purely theoretical considerations Einstein concluded that light, like any material object, travels in a curve when passing through the gravitational field of a massive body” (Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr.Einstein, London, 1949, Foreword by Albert Einstein himself, page 78).
Actually, that is different between the deflection of light by the Sun as seen from space; and deflection of light by the Sun as seen from the Earth.
“He suggested that his theory could be put to test by observing the path of starlight in the gravitational field of the Sun. Since the stars are invisible by day, there is only one occasion when Sun and stars can be seen together in the sky, and that is during an eclipse. 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.”
If the deflection of light by the Sun as seen from the Earth; of course, the effects of Earth’s atmosphere can not be ignored. A worthwhile meaning should be noted here; if as seen from the Earth, it is not deflection of light by the Sun but deflection of light by the Earth’s atmosphere.
“According to his theory, the light from the stars surrounding the Sun should be bent inward, toward the Sun, in traversing the Sun’s gravitational field; hence the images of these stars should appear to observer on earth to be shifted outward from their usual positions in the sky.”
From the discussion above is clearly noticeable two fatal mistakes of Einstein; he wants measuring deflection of light by the Sun; but he proposed test measuring deflection of light by Earth’s atmosphere; he had not realized about that. Ironically, this test is not scientifically correct and deeply wrong.
In facts, the eclipse experiment was conducted seven times; 1919 eclipse experiment was error, but repeated in the year of 1922, 1929, 1936, 1947, and then in the year of 1952, and again in the year of 1973. All the eclipse experiments with results Einstein’s general relativity was right. Here a big question: Repeating the wrong method for decades, how could it be happen in modern science?
Astronomical data of eclipse in the year 1919–1973
In theory Einstein’s equations allow you to work out exactly how massive objects, such as planets, stars, galaxies, or even black holes affect the spacetime they sit in. In practice though, things aren’t quite as straight-forward. Einstein’s equations are incredibly difficult to solve — supercomputers are needed to find solutions and coming up with new solutions is an active field of theoretical physics. One of the big current challenges is to figure out what happens to space-time when two very heavy objects, like black holes, collide.
How do we know that Einstein’s theory is correct? In the hundred years since its publication, the theory has passed every test it has been subjected to.(David Tong)
Is it true the theory has passed every test it has been subjected to?
If David Tong is correct in his statement, that means the 1921 Nobel Committee is incorrect in his statement:
“without taking into account the value that will be accorded your relativity and gravitation theories after these are confirmed in the future”
This meant that the 1919 eclipse experiment was deemed unable to confirm as announced by Arthur Eddington through London News, November 22, 1919.
Now let’s see what exactly happened with the 1919 eclipse experiment. The test was done according to Einstein’s proposed test methods, the result will always be wrong; because Einstein ignores the effects of refraction of light: i.e. astronomical refraction and terrestrial refraction.
Einstein calculated the degree of deflection that should be observed and predicted that for the stars closest to the Sun the deviation would be about 1.75 sec. arc. The important things to be noted, the amount of 1.75 sec.arc without mentioning the altitude of the Sun as the object of observation. This is a fatal mistake; or something like a joke; because the deviation of starlight will always vary depending on the altitude of the object of observation from the sea level.
Moreover, the amount of deviation is very small, and the ability of the telescope at that time, will be very difficult to determine the value of less than 2 sec.arc.
In addition, since the 18th century astronomers published the Nautical Almanac that can be used to facilitate calculations related to starlight deviation. That’s really hard to understand they ignore Nautical Almanac of 1919.
Astronomical data of 1919 solar eclipse
We’ll easily able to see in the Nautical Almanac of 1919; the deviation of a certain star that closest to the Sun during maximum solar eclipse. Apparent altitude of maximum eclipse is about 70,6 degrees, the astronomical refraction is about 21 sec.arc, it more than 10 times greater than Einstein’s prediction.
Figure 1: Eclipse data of eclipsewise.com
Moreover, if calculated taking into account the deviation caused by terrestrial refraction which is value depend on elevation of the place of observation, and always greater than astronomical refraction, as shown in Figure 1; deviation is about 189 sec.arc, it’s more than 10 times greater than Einstein’s prediction.
In Figure 1 the terrestrial refraction/DIP value is calculated with the minimum height of eye 2, 5 meters.
Figure 2: Eclipse data of eclipsewise.com
In Figure 2 we find astronomical data of 1919 eclipse in Brazil, maximum eclipse is about 21.7 degrees. Astronomical refraction in Brazil is about 153 sec.arc; it’s more than 7 times greater than the value in West-Africa. This proves the invalidity of Einstein’s prediction of 1.75 sec.arc without mentioning the altitude of the Sun as the object of observation. DIP or terrestrial refraction is about 168 sec.arc, its the value of height of eye correction.
Astronomical data of 1922 solar eclipse in Australia
Figure 3: Eclipse data of eclipsewise.com
Altitude of maximum eclipse is about 24.7 degrees; astronomical refraction and DIP/terrestrial refraction is shown in Figure 3 that prove Einstein’s prediction really doesn’t work.
Astronomical data of 1929 solar eclipse in Sumatra
Figure 4: Eclipse data of eclipsewise.com
With all due respect I must say again: “Einstein’s prediction really doesn’t work.”
Astronomical data of 1952 solar eclipse in Sudan (Africa)
Figure 5: Eclipse data of eclipsewise.com
With all due respect I must say: ‘Einstein’s prediction does not work again.” From the astronomical data of 1952 solar eclipse as an observer in Sudan may be can see the North Star of Polaris during the maximum solar eclipse. Altitude of Polaris is the same with latitude of Sudan; it about 14.5 degrees. Astronomical refraction for apparent altitude Polaris of 14.5 degrees is about — 3, 7 minutes or — 222 sec. arc. This value is greater than astronomical refraction of the star that being closest to the Sun as seen in Figure 5. It means spacetime is false
In general relativity, the curvature of spacetime can be expressed mathematically in terms of a spacetime metric. In this section, we review a simple example of this: the metric for an Ellis wormhole; and then we discuss the metric for the Double Negative (Dneg) wormhole that we designed for Interstellar.(Kip Thorne).
Astronomical data of 1973 solar eclipse in Mauritania (Africa)
Figure 6: Eclipse data of eclipsewise.com.
Altitude of Polaris star is about 17.64 degrees; astronomical refraction is about -2,95 minutes or -177 sec.arc, it’s greater than astronomical refraction of the star that being closest to the Sun as seen in Figure 6. Astronomical data of 1973 eclipse in Mauritania (West-Africa) prove Einstein’s prediction does not work, and spacetime is nonsense.
If hypothesis is not valid and spacetime (Einstein’s gravity) is false, what’s then?
“The chief attraction of the theory lies in its logical completeness. 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.”
Read More:Click Here
