Social Icons

22 Juni 2017


“Imagination is more important than knowledge” (Albert Einstein)
Unfortunately, Einstein’s imagination lead him to the biggest blunder in modern physics for more than 100 years.

 Mercury-Photo by NASA

Ask Ethan #106: We know that Einstein’s general relativity is superior to Newton’s gravity, but where did Newton go wrong?

Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity rules over Newton’s Laws. We get that.

What I would like to know is this; Using Newton, there is a discrepancy in the precession of Mercury’s orbit. What are we observing? Is there more gravity than we calculate by Newton, or less? Or is the problem something else?

But this question goes a little further. As you can see, above, every planet that orbits in our Solar System goes around the Sun. In particular, it goes around not in a perfect circle, but rather in an ellipse, as Kepler noticed nearly a full century before Newton. The orbits of Venus and Earth are very close to circular, but both Mercury and Mars are noticeably more elliptical, with their closest approach to the Sun differing significantly from their greatest distance.

Mercury, in particular, reaches a distance that’s 46% greater at aphelion (its farthest point from the Sun) than at perihelion (its closest approach), as compared to just a difference of 3.4% from Earth. This part of the story has nothing to do with anyone’s theory of gravity; this is merely the conditions which these planets formed under that led to these orbital properties.

And that’s the story of not only Newton’s gravity being superseded, but in what way(s) Newton’s theory came up short. There have been many other victories for general relativity since (and, honestly, no failures as of yet), but in all the cases where Newton’s and Einstein’s theories differ, it’s Einstein — with stronger gravitational effects close to massive bodies — who emerges victorious. Science marches forward, but sometimes each new step takes a very long time! 

Where did Newton go wrong? Not only Newton’s gravity being superseded, but in what way Newton’s theory came up short. (How, exactly, did Newton fail?)

"Not only Newton’s gravity being superseded, but in what way Newton’s theory came up short."  This statement is not correct. Until now, we still use Newton's gravity, so far.

For example, if knowing mass of Sun, mass of Earth, mass of Moon, distance Earth to Sun, and distance Earth to Moon; can someone calculate gravitational force (F) Sun to Earth and Moon to Earth using units and measurement of Einstein’s gravity ? And can someone predicts tides in Oregon, USA, at the day of 2017 solar eclipse, August 21; using units and measurement of general relativity?

If anyone can, I will agree that Einstein’s theory of gravity superior than Newton’s theory of gravity. If nobody can do it, “Einstein’s theory of gravity superior than Newton’s theory of gravity” is nonsense. Because Newton’s theory of gravity predicts tides very accurate, for example in Oregon or in all places/harbor in the world.

Thanks to Sir Isaac Newton

Some Applications of Newton's Laws of Gravitation

1.Solving Fnet = ma problems with multiple bodies
2.Forces and circular motion
4.Kinetic Friction
5.Static Friction
6.Gravity between planets
7.Gravity near the earth
8.Determining G
9.Determining Tides: Hydrographic Office

The Hydrographic Office

Today we receive about 400 hydrographic surveys a year, in various forms, including those by the Royal Navy Surveying Squadron, contract survey companies and other contractors and developers. Though the quality of these surveys varies, all are registered and copied before being evaluated by the relevant chart branch, then placed in the archive with their accompanying field data.
The Hydrographic Office has been collecting surveys since 1795 and we hold an estimated 60,000 examples, mainly executed by the Royal Navy. Many have been published in their entirety, or included in part, in printed Admiralty charts. We predominantly hold survey information from 1830 to the present.(

For example, Singapore Tide Table Year 2017

This 275-page book contains Tidal Height and Tidal Stream Predictions covering stations in Singapore Port waters and selected stations along the Malacca and Singapore Straits. Mariners, shipping communities, port users and other interested parties will find this book useful.

The predictions consist of 5 main segments to facilitate easy reference:
1.High and Low Water Predictions
2.Hourly Tidal Height Predictions
3.Hourly Tidal Stream Predictions
4.Maximum and Slack Tidal Stream Predictions
5.Malacca Strait - High and Low Water Predictions

GPS doesn’t need Einstein‘s relativity

There is an application of Einstein’s relativity that is often proud, if Einstein’s relativity is not used then the GPS would be inaccurate.

“People often ask me ‘What good is Relativity?’. It is a commonplace to think of Relativity as an abstract and highly arcane mathematical theory that has no consequences for everyday life. This is in fact far from the truth.
The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system. For example, to counteract the General Relativistic effect once on orbit, the onboard clocks were designed to “tick” at a slower frequency than ground reference clocks, so that once they were in their proper orbit stations their clocks would appear to tick at about the correct rate as compared to the reference atomic clocks at the GPS ground stations. Further, each GPS receiver has built into it a microcomputer that, in addition to performing the calculation of position using 3D trilateration, will also compute any additional special relativistic timing calculations required, using data provided by the satellites.
Relativity is not just some abstract mathematical theory: understanding it is absolutely essential for our global navigation system to work properly!”

“The engineers who designed the GPS system included these relativistic effects when they designed and deployed the system.” This statement is also incorrect

Van Flandern goes on to discuss GPS clocks, which are often cited as being proof positive of Einstein’s relativity. It may surprise you, but the GPS system doesn’t actually use Einstein’s field equations. In fact, this paper by the U.S. Naval Observatory tells us that, while incorporating Einstein’s equations into the system may slightly improve accuracy, the system itself doesn’t rely on them at all. To quote the opening line of the paper, “The Operational Control System (OCS) of the Global Positioning System (GPS) does not include the rigorous transformations between coordinate systems that Einstein’s general theory of relativity would seem to require.” (Why Einstein was wrong and Newton was right)

As Mercury travels around the Sun its perihelion (the point at which it is closest to the Sun) advances a little bit. You can have a look at this process in the gif below. Note that while this “precession” is present in all eccentric orbits, since the planets of the solar system have nearly circular orbits this process is much slower than in the gif (though Mercury has a particularly eccentric orbit)

Truth about Mercury’s Orbit: Knowing the answer.

Its about Mercury’s orbits. that is not in harmony with the Newton’s gravity. But, actually, that is better than Einstein’s gravity where has no units of measurement. Einstein had no idea of the units and disciplines of measurement as the goal of using mathematics in physics. Einstein’s gravity is nothing about force, how did Einstein come true on Mercury’s orbits?

Here the answer:

Einstein’s Mercury orbit was challenged by several scientists including Dr. Thomas Van Flandern astronomer who worked at the U.S. Naval Observatory in Washington.

Excerpt of Tom Van Flandern Articles:

“Fact: The equation that accounted for Mercury’s orbit had been published 17 years earlier, before relativity was invented. The author, Paul Gerber, used the assumption that gravity is not instantaneous, but propagates with the speed of light. After Einstein published his general-relativity derivation, arriving at the same equation, Gerber’s article was reprinted in *Annalen der Physik* (the journal that had published Einstein’s relativity papers). The editors felt that Einstein should have acknowledged Gerber’s priority. Although Einstein said he had been in the dark, it was pointed out that Gerber’s formula had been published in Mach’s Science of Mechanics, a book that Einstein was known to have studied. So how did they both arrive at the same formula?

Tom Van Flandern was convinced that Gerber’s assumption (gravity propagates with the speed of light) was wrong. So he studied the question. He points out that the formula in question is well known in celestial mechanics. Consequently, it could be used as a “target” for calculations that were intended to arrive at it. He saw that Gerber’s method “made no sense, in terms of the principles of celestial mechanics.” Einstein had also said (in a 1920 newspaper article) that Gerber’s derivation was “wrong through and through.”

So how did Einstein get the same formula? Van Flandern went through his calculations, and found to his amazement that they had “three separate contributions to the perihelion; two of which add, and one of which cancels part of the other two; and you wind up with just the right multiplier.” So he asked a colleague at the University of Maryland, who as a young man had overlapped with Einstein at Princeton’s Institute for Advanced Study, how in his opinion Einstein had arrived at the correct multiplier. This man said it was his impression that, “knowing the answer,” Einstein had “jiggered the arguments until they came out with the right value.”

According to paper ‘The Perihelion Precession of Mercury’: ”It took me a while to get around to a full analysis of Mercury’s orbit, but now that I have done so I have managed to surprise even myself by the sheer number of errors I have uncovered — and I am not easily surprised by errors anymore. But the quality as well as the quantity of these errors is enough to impress anyone, as I hope you will agree by the end. I say quality, because the magnitude of these errors may be even more surprising than their number. As I will show, the most basic rules of math and logic have been flagrantly ignored in full view of history, and not one person has deigned to notice in almost a century”.

According to the book ‘Logical Fallacies of Special and General Theory of Relativity ‘:There are at least 5 logical fallacies of Einstein’s special and general theory of relativity. This book explains the invalidity of Einstein’s hypothesis,and tries to convey prediction using astronomical test of general relativity at 2017 total solar eclipse, Monday, August 21, in USA.. This book explains the fatal mistakes of Einstein’s theory; and explains all sorts of things that no one has ever explained before.

Acccording to Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies (AIAS): Fundamental Errors in the EFE

It is shown that there are several irretrievable errors in the Einstein theory of cosmology used in the standard model, and in all derivative theories thereof. The root cause of these errors is that Einstein’s theory used a connection in Riemann geometry that is symmetric in its lower two indices. 

The connection must however be antisymmetric in its lower two indices as shown in previous papers of this series ( The incorrect use of a symmetric connection means that the general relativity of the last ninety years or so is incorrect and should be developed with Einstein Cartan Evans (ECE) theory. All the major assumptions of Einsteinian cosmology are based on an assumed symmetric connection, notably the second Bianchi identity used in the field equation, and the geodesic method used by Einstein in deriving the Newtonian limit. Derivative theories such as the Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems also assume a symmetric connection, and are therefore mathematically incorrect and physically meaningless. All metrics of the Einstein field equation are incorrect. An error free cosmology based on ECE theory has been developed in earlier papers of this series. (Fundamental Errors in the Einstein Field Equation)

"Mathematics is nothing but a way of modeling patterns we see in the real world. If the model doesn't match up with reality to some degree, it's useless. The foundation of mathematics is based on assumptions. Changing the basic assumptions of mathematics would just make mathematics useless, in which case, no one would use it, and people would have an incentive to invent models that actually do match up to reality. This is in fact what happens repeatedly any time a new area of mathematics is formalized. Someone takes a guess at the assumptions that will result in a usable model, and then they discover some shortcoming of the model, so they revise it until it fits."(Quora).

A famous critic of Theory of relativity is Nikola Tesla, who called it a “…magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king … its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists, not scientists.

And Dr Louis Essen, inventor of atomic clock rejects Einstein’s Relativity Theory, wrote in 1988: “Einstein’s use of a thought experiment, together with his ignorance of experimental techniques, gave a result which fooled himself and generations of scientists.”

“Their measurement had been sheer luck, or a case of knowing the result they wanted to get.” (Stephen Hawking)
The biggest thing Einstein was wrong about, because Einstein had no idea on the basic of astronomy: Published on 1916, Einstein predicts light from a distance star passing by the limb of the Sun would be deflected by 1.75 arc seconds.This prediction without any explanation the altitude of star/the Sun during eclipse. Therefore, this prediction has no scientific meaning, because calculation for deviation of star all depend on the altitude of star.

Something weird and magical when experimental tests of general relativity; via eclipse using optical telescopes (1919, 1922, 1927, 1936, 1952, 1973) and test using radio telescope after 2004, the result is declared general relativity is correct.That is very embarrasing to the world of science. They are not aware of making themselves look so foolish: had no idea on the basic of astronomy.

And why didn’t they know the two fatal mistakes of Einstein? Einstein wants to measure 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, (Now you know Einstein was wrong, Newton was right)

How could things that wrong rule over things that right? How could a bird without wings can fly over a bird with strong wings? 

How could Newton can not be defeated happen? Here the answer: Standing upon the shoulders of giants


Blogger Templates