Geocentric vs. relativistic time dilation

Here is a quote from Wikipedia.com: Time dilation can be inferred from the observed fact of the constancy of the speed of light in all reference frames. - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

Just as accurately, the above quote could read: Time dilation can be inferred from the observed fact of light's unique speed relative the absolute Geocentric reference frame. 

That's right. Time dilation does not belong to relativity. I've posted a new YouTube video which explains how there are absolutely no Einsteinian concepts involved in time dilation. It is merely an a-relativistic theory which Einstein adopts for his own theory by declaring time dilation to be symmetric, or relative.

Time dilation can be derived exactly according to the same equations and diagrams used by relativists everywhere. 

GPS corrections, particle accelerators, cosmic ray muons - all easily predicted from within an absolute Geocentric reference frame by the exact same method Einstein uses, with no sleight of hand and no mathematical corrections. 

What does relativity's geocentric model look like?

I was asked a question on a YouTube forum about what the absolute Geocentric model of the universe looks like. I decided to turn the question around. Everyone seems quick and eager (CoolHardLogic, anyone?) to claim victory in debunking the geocentric reference frame. But hold on a second - relativity contains a geocentric reference frame. So if all the geocentric models put forth by absolute geocentrists can be debunked, then what exactly do the relativists think their own geocentric model is? Since they've got a geocentric reference frame, they MUST have their own geocentric model of the universe. So what does it look like? I explain EXACTLY what it looks like in the following two videos. And (spoilers ahead)surprise, surprise, it looks exactly like the most current geocentric models that the relativists have allegedly debunked. Brings to mind an image of Barney Fife shooting himself in the foot as he attempts to draw his pistol.

These are The Undeniable Facts:

1)   A relativist can only say that Earth is in relative motion. If you say something, such as the Earth, is definitely in motion, then you are in violation of relativity.
2)   We, the observers on Earth, are at the center of our own observable universe. This is what the empirical evidence says. Both relativists and absolute Geocentrists acknowledge this.
3)   Absolute Geocentrists say that our (we, the observers on Earth) observable universe is all that there is to the universe. There is nothing beyond our observable universe.
4)   If our own observable universe is the entire universe, and we are at the center of it, the Earth can be empirically shown (interferometer experiments) to be at absolute rest. Therefore if our own observable universe is all that there is, Earth is immobile at the center of the universe.
5)   According to standard Big Bang theory, anything beyond our (we, the observers on Earth) observable universe will be forever unobservable to us due to the expansion of space.
6)   Things that are unobservable do not exist as far as science is concerned. Therefore anything beyond our observable universe does not exist as far as science is concerned. How could it, since the ability to observe something is a requirement of the scientific method?
7)   If 4) is correct then relativity is false, because Earth is a preferred, special reference frame, defining an absolute rest frame.
8)   The only way 4) can be false is if there is a larger universe beyond our (we, the observers on Earth) observable universe.
9)   Therefore, both relativity and the Copernican principle require the existence of a universe beyond our observable universe, i.e. both require something that is beyond the scope of the scientific method and rational scientific inquiry.
10)  Mainstream science claims that there is a larger universe beyond our observable universe. They MUST claim this, because both relativity and the Copernican principle require it (see 9)) Google “the observable universe vs. the entire universe.”
11)  Relativity is presented to the public as scientific fact.
12)  Therefore, relativity is pseudo-science.
13)  The only options available to us are absolute Geocentrism or relativistic geocentrism.
14)  Relativity is a pseudo-science, therefore the only option available to strict adherents to science is absolute Geocentrism.

Earth is at absolute rest at the center of the universe as far as science is concerned. Relativists are the kooks, not the Geocentrists. Case closed, class dismissed.

Stephen Hawking, relativists and anti-geocentrists get taken to school

A little graphic I made today. If you right-click on the image and select "save image as," you can download this to your computer for easier zooming. The kid is me, of course, forty-some years ago.

Video Transcription: Part 1 of Death to Einstein! The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw

This is the first part of the transcription of my video Death to Einstein! The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw. It's a LONG video, and hence is going to be a long transcription, so I'm posting it in parts as I work on it. This first part covers about the first 1/3 of the video. 

Video on Youtube: https://youtu.be/U7oP1OfJ4_I

Video on Archive.org: https://archive.org/details/DeathToEinsteinTheCenterOfTheObservableUniverseFlaw

Again, this is unedited. Also, there's a lot going on in the video that doesn't translate to text, so some of the transcription might not make sense without the video, but I'm doing it anyway.

Death to Einstein! The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw

I did a Google here on “the observable universe.” The first result is Wikipedia: “The observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can in principle be observed from Earth at the present time.”

How big is the observable universe? 46.5 billion light years. How far is the edge? Something wrong with these figures here.

Anyway, there’s the observable universe. How big is the universe? The diameter of the observable universe is a sphere around 92 billion light years. Has a radius of 46 billion light years.

The observable universe is basically everything we can see. Let me pull up Wikipedia here just to have something to read.

 “The observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can in principle be observed from Earth at the present time because light and other signals from these objects have had time to reach the Earth since the beginning of expansion.”

So look, this diagram here is a bunch of stars enclosed in a sphere.

Video Transcription: Death to Einstein! The Pseudoscience Flaw

This is a transcription of my video Death to Einstein! The Pseudoscience Flaw
Also on Archive.org: https://archive.org/details/DeathToEinsteinThePseudoscienceFlaw

According to Wikipedia, “scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. Further, the overall process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions…The hypothesis might be very specific or it might be broad.”

As a sidenote, I’ve found that if you even refer to Wikipedia or use any of their diagrams, which are exact duplicates of diagrams that are used elsewhere in what are taken to be more “reputable” sources -- the moment you talk or write about a scientific topic and then refer to Wikipedia in the same breath, the attitude is, “Nothing you say can possibly be correct, because you’re referring to Wikipedia. You’ve gotten your education on relativity from Wikipedia. Anyone can put anything on Wikipedia. It’s not a valid source of information, so the very fact that you’re referring to it calls into question everything you say. Your knowledge is suspect.”

My response to that attitude is, “Whatever.” Wikipedia is a good source. I know enough to know whether what I’m reading is actually valid or not. I know when I’m being BS’d on Wikipedia. And I learned relativity long before Wikipedia was even the barest seed of an idea in the minds of Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. So if you disregard what I say or write because I happen to refer to Wikipedia -- not my problem. Wikipedia is fine, in this case.

Returning to the Wikipedia quote regarding scientific theories:

Based on the above, relativity (both the special and the general theories) makes the broad hypothesis that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, or alternately, that there are no privileged reference frames. This is the basic, core hypothesis upon which all other facets of relativity are based.

Is this a testable, falsifiable hypothesis? Yes, it is.

Starting to transcribe my YouTube videos

I've begun the long and laborious process of transcribing my YouTube videos. I'm going to post them here as I finish them. The transcripts are basically going to be unedited for the most part. These transcription posts are going to be LONG and there will probably a lot of repetition and rambling. When I'm done, I'll probably edit them and collect them into a new book, but for now, they're pretty much going to be raw. Not sure how long it's going to take, but probably quite a while. Years, maybe.

Why time dilation is a physical impossibility

I've put up a new YouTube video explaining why time dilation, whether relativistic or non-relativistic, is physically impossible. It's also on archive.org

This is a new idea, not something I've talked about in previous videos.

New YouTube videos - Relativity's Pseudoscience Flaw, and the End of Greatness

I've posted two new YouTube videos. One explains why relativity is pseudoscience. The other is on Geocentrism, the so-called End of Greatness that lies 300 million light years from Earth, and the astronomical observations of an extinct alien civilization billions of light years from Earth.

 

 

Are there two versions of relativity? And no, Virginia, I don't mean the special and the general.

In various places (Smashwords reviews, Amazon reviews, etc), I’ve been accused of attacking a simplified version of relativity, an 8th grade-level theory that is used to introduce beginners or laypeople to relativity, and that if I destroy such a simplified version, I’m not really destroying the “true” theory of relativity, because the “higher” version of relativity, the one that beginners eventually move on to and attempt to master, the one that requires a university major in relativity to comprehend, is not simple.

I always counter this by saying that no, relativity really is absurdly simple, and the so-called simplified, introductory version is the true meat and bones of the theory, and that the “higher” version is built upon the shaky, faulty foundations of this absurdly simple “introductory” theory. The “higher” version is where the mathematical acrobatics are introduced to mask the faults in the theory. Relativity is a house that should be condemned because it is unsafe to enter.

But when relativists object to my saying that relativity is a simple theory, what are they actually saying? They’re basically saying that relativity is not simple. But if relativity is not simple, then it must not be “elegant” (which is the scientist’s way of saying something is so simple it’s beautiful). Elegance, or synonymously, simplicity, is often presented by scientists as evidence of a theory’s truth (an elegant theory is more likely true than a similar, less elegant or inelegant one). So if relativity is not simple, not elegant, then by objecting to my statement that relativity is a simple theory, relativists are implicitly admitting that relativity has a strike against it.

Basically, imply the relativists, I’m attacking the beautiful, elegant version of relativity, but the true, ugly, inelegant version safely survives my assault.

Either that, or they’re trying to say that the “higher” version is the elegant version. So what does that make the so-called beginner’s version? A simpler than simple version, in which case, wouldn’t it be doubly elegant? Or does it make it an inelegant version that only becomes simple, or elegant, once you delve into the higher, mathematical version, which sort of streamlines that beginner’s inelegant version? In which case, why is the relativist accusing me of attacking a simplified version of relativity?

Or are they really saying that the beginner’s version is a “dumbed down” version of relativity, especially designed for idiots like me?

Whatever the case, it seems to me the objections that I’m attacking a “beginner’s version” of relativity, whether it’s characterized as an inelegant version, a dumbed-down version, or whatever, implicitly acknowledge that my attacks are succeeding in destroying the “beginner’s” version. It's like, "Ha! You destroyed that one, but guess what? It was only a decoy!"

The question then remains: is there actually a “beginner’s” version and a “higher” version of relativity, as implied by the objection, or are they one and the same, differing only in the depth and mathematical detail to which the subject is studied? (That's a rhetorical/sarcastic question).

Two new YouTube videos

I've put two new videos on YouTube. The first is more on what I call the Planck Length Problem, mixed with some stuff comparing relativity to the "oil culture" of the world. The second is on the announcement of Stephen Hawking joining the Breakthrough Listen project and a few other topics.

New video: The Paint Roller Problem of Special Relativity

I've put up a new Death to Einstein! video on YouTube, this one on what I call The Paint Roller Problem.

New video: The Planck Length Problem of Special Relativity

I've put up a new Death to Einstein! video on YouTube, this one about the Planck length problem of special relativity.

Internet Archive

Just because it's there, I've been putting all my videos and science-related books on Archive.org. The videos are on YouTube as well, of course, but now they're in more than one place. And two places, much like two heads, are better than one.

The Angled Emitter Problem of Special Relativity

I recently added a couple of videos to YouTube that I think demonstrate yet another fatal flaw in special relativity.