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.

How would you test this hypothesis? Well, the method of testing is suggested within the hypothesis itself. If your conjecture is that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, then obviously, to support your hypothesis, you must test the laws of physics in all reference frames, or at least a statistically significant proportion thereof.

In what way is relativity falsifiable? Like the means of testing, the means of falsification is suggested within the hypothesis. If your tests of the laws of physics do not yield identical results when tested in multiple reference frames (replication), then your hypothesis is obviously incorrect. It has been falsified.

Now, before such tests are even begun, it should be noted that if the laws of physics are shown to not be the same in all reference frames, then there must de facto be a privileged, absolute reference frame. Further, according to all current observation, Earth seems to be at rest within that frame.

Since relativity must necessarily incorporate the one frame (the Earth-centered frame) that, if it can be shown to exist, would disprove the relativity hypothesis, then the existence of that special frame must be ruled out before relativity can be considered a valid theory. That special frame therefore represents the disproof, or the falsification of relativity.

Meaning that relativity includes a non-absolute geocentric reference frame. Relativity necessarily includes such a frame. The alternative to relativity is that the relativistic, non-absolute geocentric frame is non-relative and absolute, i.e. we are absolutely at the center of the universe. If for relativity’s sake, you’re pretending that the Earth is not in motion, and yet relativity includes a relativistic geocentric frame, within its plethora of reference frames, then first of all, before you can move any further, you have to disprove that you are not in the absolute Geocentric reference frame.

There are two geocentric reference frames: relativistic and non-relativistic. If relativity is incorrect, we are in an absolute, non-relativistic reference frame. So before you can move on to relativity, the first step is to show that we are not in an absolute, non-relativistic Geocentric frame. How do you do that? One thing you do not do is conduct your experiments solely from within the geocentric reference frame, whether it be relativistic or non-relativistic, because both frames are, for all we know right now, identical. So to distinguish between those two and determine if relativity is true, you have to move a significant distance away from the Earth. Light years away, to other solar systems. You have to get a significant distance away from the Earth, which is quite possibly the center of the universe, to prove that it is not.

You cannot conduct your experiments about physical laws from within any sort of geocentric reference frame, because you don’t know which type you are in, relativistic or non-relativistic. You could be in either one as far as we know right now.

According to all observations -- all astronomical observations, all physical observations -- we appear to be at the center of the universe. A relativistic geocentric frame would only be one of many equivalent frames, but we cannot distinguish between relativistic and non-relativistic geocentric frames as of the writing of this book. So before relativity can claim victory, observers must move away from the center of the universe. They must move out of the Earth’s reference frame.

Further, since Earth must reside within that special frame if it exists, then the relativity hypothesis must be tested outside of that special frame. So not only must the hypothesis of relativity be tested in multiple reference frames, it must also be tested a cosmologically significant distance from Earth, or from the center of the universe if Earth and the center of the universe are not coincidental points.

To put it another way, the geocentric frame is sort of the control frame, i.e. the only frame, if relativity is false, in which we would expect to get the experimental results that we do when we test the laws of physics. Meaning that if relativity is false, the absolute, non-relativistic Geocentric reference frame is the only reference frame where we’re going to get the results that we do. Whatever experiments we perform here on Earth on physical law, if we go into another reference frame, or away from the center of the universe, we will get different results, if relativity is false. To date, such testing external to this frame of falsification has not been carried out. All observation has been done from within the very reference frame that represents the disproof of relativity! In other words, all tests of relativity have been carried out relative to the Earth. All observation has been made from within an Earth-centered reference frame. You cannot deny this. It is inarguable. Rather, you can argue it all you like, you can deny it all you like, but you’re wrong.

Interferometer experiments

Interferometer experiments, such as those carried out in the 19th century by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, were originally conceived to detect the motion of the Earth against the light-carrying medium.

These experiments failed to detect such motion. (Actually, they weren’t null. There was a very slight reading, but it’s considered null because it has to be null for relativity, even though there was a slight positive reading. It just wasn’t the magnitude they expected, so they just decided to zero it out and call it a wash).

One interpretation of that failure is that the Earth is not moving. If you’re trying to detect the motion of the Earth against the aether, and you fail to do it, one interpretation of that is obviously that your assumption that the Earth is moving against the aether is incorrect.

The other interpretation is that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames.

One interpretation fits all currently available empirical evidence.

The other interpretation fits all currently available empirical evidence if it can be proven that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. It has not yet been proven.

Occam’s razor, as well as the scientific method, says that the former interpretation is correct, meaning the non-relativistic, absolute Geocentrist interpretation.

A violation of both Occam’s razor and the scientific method says that the latter interpretation is correct, namely Einstein’s theory of relativity.

i want to stress that last point. You’ve got two possible interpretations of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was originally conceived to detect the motion of the Earth against the light-carrying medium. The first interpretation is that the Earth is not moving against the light-carrying medium. The first interpretation of the failure of that experiment to detect the motion of the Earth against the aether -- the first interpretation is that the Earth is not moving. And if the Earth is not moving, Earth must be absolutely at the center of the universe. The first interpretation fits all currently available empirical evidence.

The second interpretation of the failure to detect the motion of the Earth against the aether fits all currently available evidence if it can be proven that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. And that has not yet been proven.

You’ve got one interpretation of the results that works just fine without anything extra. An unmoving Earth fits all currently available evidence. Works just fine, explains everything just fine.

You’ve got another explanation that fits all available empirical evidence if it can be proven that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. But that “if” has not been tested. That “if” is a hypothesis that has not yet been through the scientific method. It has not been tested scientifically.

Occam’s razor, as well as the scientific method, says that the first interpretation of the results of Michelson-Morley is correct: Earth is not moving against the aether.

A violation of both Occam’s razor and the scientific method says that the second interpretation is correct: there is no aether and the Einstein was right.

Currently, it’s all relative to Earth

The idea that we are at the center of the universe, and that things behave strangely when in motion relative to the Earth, has been empirically supported to an astonishing degree.

Unfortunately, this vast wealth of empirical observation does nothing for the relativity hypothesis. The relativity hypothesis has never been put through its paces as required by the scientific method. Instead, the hypothesis has been assumed to be true, slapped with the label “principle” to disguise the fact that it remains an untested hypothesis, and hailed as the most rigorously and thoroughly tested hypothesis in the history of science.

As things stand now, empirical observation says, “Earth is at rest at the center of the universe.”

The hypothesis of relativity essentially says, “From a certain point of view, Earth is at rest at the center of the universe.”

But the hypothesis’s caveat “from a certain point of view” cannot be attached to any statement of empirical observation until the hypothesis has been appropriately tested.

The definition of pseudoscience

According to Wikipedia, “pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method…”

How does that not sound exactly like relativity? Relativity is based on a hypothesis that has not been validly tested in multiple reference frames (which is the only way one could possibly test the assertion that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames), yet it is presented as scientific. Yep. Sounds like relativity to me.

Therefore, because relativity has bypassed the testing requirement of the classic scientific method that we all know and love, relativity thus falls into the category of pseudoscience.

The only truly reasonable and scientific attitude toward relativity is to adopt the stance, “It could be a valid theory, but I am awaiting the results of experimental replication in multiple reference frames. Until then, only the non-relativistic, absolute Geocentric reference frame is currently supported by observation.”

Sadly, the majority of mainstream “scientists” have not adopted that stance, having instead chosen to become missionaries for—and practitioners of—pseudoscience.

So Einstein states the principle of relativity, which is that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, and then goes on to outline all the consequences of that principle (read “hypothesis”). Those consequences are basically the theory of relativity. He starts off with the hypothesis that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, and everything else he says after that point is a development of the idea that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, based upon the unproven assumption that that base hypothesis is true. He has never proven that initial hypothesis. It has never been experimentally proven. And therefore, the theory of relativity is pseudoscience.

Geocentrism is insanity (he said ironically)

Modern scientist/John Q. Public: “Everyone knows that it was definitively proven long ago that the Earth isn’t at the center of the universe. All the evidence points to the contrary. Anyone who believes Earth is at the center of the universe is insane and wants to take us back to the Dark Ages.”

This is an incorrect notion. The most serious blow that has every been struck against Geocentrism is that the Geocentric model of Copernicus’s day erroneously had the orbit of Venus centered incorrectly around the Earth. A simple modification of that orbit makes the Geocentric model fit observation.

None of the lesser arguments put forth against Geocentrism (Focault’s pendulum, particle accelerator experiments, GPS satellites, geosynchronous and geostationary satellites, the moons of Jupiter, etc) disprove Geocentrism. All they prove is that strange things apparently happen when you move relative to the Earth.

And anyway, proponents of relativity must recognize that all current empirical evidence fits the relativistic geocentric (note the lower-case g) reference frame. If they claim there is evidence that “disproves” the geocentric frame, then they are claiming that the laws of physics are not the same in all reference frames, contradictory to their hypothesis and thereby invalidating relativity, and thus leaving us with a non-relativistic, absolute Geocentric frame.

Relativists are fine with a non-absolute geocentric reference frame. They have to be, because relativity requires them to be fine with it. They are only against an absolute Geocentric reference frame (again, note the use of upper-case G as opposed to the lower-case g).

The only way they can disallow the absolute Geocentric reference frame (which is supported by hundreds of years of empirical observation) is to bypass the scientific method and loudly proclaim that the hypothesis of relativity has been irrefutably supported by empirical evidence (which it most definitely has not), thereby transforming relativity into pseudoscience, and also thereby making Geocentrism the only empirically supported model of the universe.

If you’re still confused as to why I’m claiming relativity is pseudoscience, ask yourself the following questions while keeping in mind relativity’s hypothesis that physical laws are the same in all reference frames:

1) Have relativists made empirical observations of physical laws from outside of an Earth-centered reference frame?

2) Have the tests of physical laws been performed, and the results replicated, in a statistically significant number of reference frames?

3) Have we been to other solar systems and gathered observational evidence about physical laws from that vantage point?

Obviously the answer to each of those questions is a resounding “No.”

But in order to satisfy the scientific method, thereby qualifying as a scientifically tested theory, the answer to each of those questions must be a resounding, “Yes.”

Since proponents of relativity choose to untruthfully answer each of those questions with a resounding “Yes” anyway, relativity qualifies as pseudoscience, and its proponents are pseudoscientists.

So contrary to popular belief, it is NOT insane to say that Earth is at the center of the universe. At this point in history, it is actually the only empirically supported, scientifically allowable thing to say. To say that Earth is at the center of the universe is the very model of scientific rationality and strict adherence to the scientific method.

Relativity is founded upon a pseudoscientific hypothesis, and thus, relativity is fatally flawed right out of the gate.

Notable quotes:

“…for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest.”  — Stephen Hawking, The Grand Design, pages 41-42.

“I have two things to say that might surprise you: first, geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and second, heliocentrism is not any more or less correct.”  — Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer

Phil Plait distinguishes between relativistic geocentrism and non-relativistic, absolute Geocentrism by using either a capital-G or a small-g. Captial-G is bad, small-g is good. Which is exactly backward, because his statement that “heliocentrism is not any more or less correct” is a pseudoscientific statement, since the hypothesis that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames has not yet been tested.

“For example, strictly speaking one cannot say that the Earth moves in an ellipse around the Sun, because that statement presupposes a coordinate system in which the Sun is at rest, while classical mechanics also allows systems relative to which the Sun rectilinearly and uniformly moves…” — Albert Einstein, Dialog About Objections Against the Theory of Relativity

So I’ve given you the statements of three highly respected scientists acknowledging the relativistic geocentric reference frame. If there was any evidence against a relativistic geocentric reference frame, do you think they would be making such statements? I think it’s safe to say that they would acknowledge that if such evidence could be put forward, then relativity would be disproved. And if relativity is disproved, we are left with the non-relativistic, absolute Geocentric interpretation of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments.

Going back to those three questions, you might say, “You’re just making up those questions to fit what you’re trying to say.” If you think that, you haven’t been paying attention to what I’ve been saying. Relativity’s main hypothesis, its core hypothesis, is that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. Just look in the first few pages of “Relativity.” Before he even starts talking about time time dilation and the relativity of time dilation, Albert Einstein talks about the “principle of relativity in the restricted sense.” He calls it a principle, but it’s actually a hypothesis. It’s labeled a principle because it’s never been proven. It’s an untested hypothesis. That principle says that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, and everything else Einstein says derives from that first, initial, unproven hypothesis. That’s what makes relativity pseudoscience, that and the fact that it is presented to the public as scientific. If it were a scientific theory, then it wouldn’t be based upon an untested hypothesis.

If relativity makes the exact hypothesis that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, how do you prove that? If you make that claim, you’ve got to go out into a whole bunch of different reference frames and test the laws of physics. Have we done that? No. We’ve only conducted those tests from within Earth’s reference frame. You can refer to particle accelerator experiments and say, “Oh, we’ve got these results that support relativity.” But those particles are only accelerated relative the Earth. GPS is done relative to the Earth. Sure you’ve accelerated things into other reference frames, technically, where things are going faster than they are on the Earth, so in that sense, you’ve gone into other reference frames. But as I said, if relativity is false, the hypothesis that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames is false, then the Michelson-Morley results still need to be explained, and the only way you can explain them is that the Earth is motionless. And if the Earth is motionless, the only way it fits all the observational evidence, the astronomical observational evidence, is that we are at the center of the universe as well.

Earth could just be motionless somewhere out in space, off center. Or it could be motionless at the center of the universe. But it has to be motionless at the center of the universe to fit with astronomical evidence that can only be explained away with the Cosmological Principle, which says that any vantage point in the universe will seem to be at the center of the universe.

So to test the hypothesis (I refuse to call it a principle) of relativity, it’s not enough merely to do tests in multiple reference frames. Not only do you have to do tests in multiple reference frames, you must do tests at a cosmologically significant distance from Earth to determine whether Earth is in a relativistic, non-absolute geocentric reference frame, or a non-relativistic, absolute Geocentric reference frame. At this point in history, we don’t know, and the only way to determine that is to move a cosmologically significant distance from Earth. Have we done that yet? Of course not, and that’s where I get those three questions. Have relativists made astronomical observations and empirical tests of physical laws from outside of an Earth-centered reference frame? No! Have the tests of physical laws been performed and identical results obtained (replication) in a statistically significant number of reference frames? No!

Have we been to other solar systems and gathered observations about physical laws from that vantage point, as well as astronomical observations from that vantage point? No, of course not.

The answers to those questions are obviously “No,” and yet those questions have to be answered “Yes” for the hypothesis of relativity to have been proven. And even when you answer “Yes” to those questions, you still have to ask, “Did we get the same results that you got on Earth?” If you answer “Yes” to that last question, then fine, relativity is true. But you have to carry out the tests far away from Earth in multiple reference frames, and in a statistically significant number of reference frames, and you have to get the same results that you got on Earth.

None of that is true for relativity. Relativity has not been properly tested through the scientific method, yet it is presented as scientific to the public. Therefore, relativity qualifies as pseudoscience. It passes the pseudoscience test with flying colors. It is founded upon an untested hypothesis. Going back to Wikipedia’s definition of pseudoscience, “Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method.”

You can’t deny that relativity is presented as scientific. It’s presented as such by Stephen Hawking, Brian Green, etc -- every respected, well known scientist, and other scientists that are lesser well known -- it’s presented as scientific. But that is an incorrect presentation, because relativity is not scientific, since it is founded upon an untested hypothesis that is only assumed to be true.

Relativity has all the hallmarks of pseudoscience. And any alleged scientist who professes relativity without saying, “It looks like a good theory, but I’m holding off my endorsement until it’s properly tested as Scott Reeves has outlined” is a pseudoscientist, because you are professing a pseudoscience. You are presenting as scientific a theory that has not been scientifically tested. You are a pseudoscientist, and relativity is pseudoscience.

When you’re talking about relativity, all these flaws that I’ve presented (elsewhere in this book), I shouldn’t even have to be talking or writing about them because relativity’s pseudoscientific nature should preclude the need to point out any further flaws in relativity. I shouldn’t even bother pointing out any further flaws because relativity goes wrong right at the outset. Relativity is proven to be wrong right out of the gate, right at Einstein’s presentation of the “principle” of relativity. I’ve gone further than is necessary.

There is no denying that relativity is pseudoscience. But of course mainstream scientists ARE going to deny my contention. In doing so, they are either being deliberately misleading or are lying, or they haven’t thought about it, haven’t considered it, and have just simply accepted relativity because authorities on the subject (college professors, respected “scientists,” etc) have said that relativity is valid and has over a hundred years of empirical verification to back it up.

If Stephen Hawking (or someone of that ilk) comes out and says, “No, Scott Reeves is wrong, relativity is not pseudoscience,” who are you going to believe? Are you going to believe Stephen Hawking, or are you going to believe me, Scott Reeves? Of course you’re going to believe Stephen Hawking, because he’s got his PhD and his reputation as a highly respected intellectual. He has authority that I don’t have. But that doesn’t mean he is correct. It means he is a well respected practitioner of pseudoscience who has, for whatever reason, been given authority over the masses in the field of science. And of course he’s going to tell you he’s not a pseudoscientist, or that relativity is not pseudoscience.

If you make a career of lying about something, or at least unintentionally and perhaps unknowingly deceiving the public, you’re not going to admit your deception, whether your deception is deliberate or unwitting. If you’re doing it deliberately, you’re not going to admit that you’re doing it. And if you’re not doing it deliberately, you’re going to say that I’m wrong simply because you don’t know any better. Either way, scientists are going to tell you that relativity is not pseudoscience. And I have no illusions that Stephen Hawking’s or someone else’s word is not going to carry more weight than mine. But I’m the one that’s correct in what I’m saying.

I should stress that I don’t think that Stephen Hawking and other scientists are deliberately lying about relativity. They may even admit that what I’m saying is correct, that relativity hasn’t been proven and it is just assumed that the hypothesis of relativity is true. In such a case, they would most likely say that it is a safe assumption, because the notion that we are in a special place in the universe is patently absurd. Which it actually is not. Is it patently absurd to go where the empirical evidence leads you?

Let he who has wisdom consider this: it’s not a case of “I’m right and you’re wrong and if you disagree with me you’re wrong.” This is not a case where it’s open to interpretation as to who is correct and who is incorrect. The principle of relativity has never been tested in the way that is required by the scientific method. The simple proof of this is that we have not been to other solar systems; we have not been a cosmologically significant distance from Earth. And this is a requirement, because right now we cannot determine whether we are in a relativistic or a non-relativistic geocentric frame. To make such a determination, we must travel a great distance outside of our solar system. The only way you can assert that relativity has satisfied the scientific method is to make the assertion that we have made such an extra-solar voyage. And if you make such an assertion at this time in history, you are obviously speaking an untruth, unless you are aware of some secret, advanced space program that is being concealed from the public.

Suppose I am absolutely wrong about everything I’m saying, and yet I’m insisting that it’s correct. I believe everything I’m saying is true, so when I say, “Yes, it’s true,” I’m not deliberately lying. It’s what I actually believe.

You may say, “Well, Stephen Hawking (or any other well-known scientist) believes the opposite of what you believe, because he’s so much more brilliant than you, and he can see that you’re wrong.” No. It’s not that. I would say that my brain’s abilities are equal to Stephen Hawking’s. He may have a more in-depth knowledge of the mathematical and more advanced aspects of relativity, but in my view, he simply has a more in-depth knowledge of a pseudoscientific theory. And that’s not necessarily a good thing.

What scientists in the public’s eye go to great lengths to combat a pseudoscientific theory? They don’t. They simply say, “I’m not going to waste my time,” turn up their noses, and move on. What sorts of pseudoscience do I have in mind? Creationism, for one. Creationism, in “credible” scientific circles, is regarded as pseudoscience. There are many other examples of pseudoscience, but I’m just using creationism as an example. So most scientists won’t even bother to rationally talk about the subject, other than to snicker and say, “Pseudoscience! Poppycock! I don’t need to refute pseudoscience, because it’s pseudoscience! It’s obviously untrue. I’m not going to waste my time with it.”

In the same vein, I shouldn’t waste my time by further debunking relativity, beyond saying, “It’s pseudoscience! Poppycock!” But unlike other scientists, I do “waste” my time with this particular pseudoscience.

We have two geocentric reference frames. One of them says, “We are absolutely at the center of the universe.” The other one says, “From a certain point of view, we are at the center of the universe.” If relativity is correct, you go with the latter statement. If relativity is not correct, you go with the former. So the former represents the falsification of relativity. So to falsify the relativity hypothesis, you MUST go to a cosmologically significant distance from Earth. Relativity has not yet done that, yet relativity is presented as correct and tested, which it most definitely has not been. Therefore, relativity is pseudoscience.

Look at it this way. Both geocentric frames, relativistic and non-relativistic, contain the phrase, “I am at the center of the universe.” The only difference between them is the caveat which relativity adds: “From a certain point of view.” But you cannot validly add on that caveat until you’ve traveled a cosmologically significant distance from Earth and determined, through proper scientific testing, that “From a certain point of view, I am at the center of the universe” applies universally to all points. I say again, relativity has not yet done so.

Say you’ve got a floor in a building with 100 rooms on that floor. One room is your office, and Ralph and Gerty pass through each morning. You make the statement, “Ralph and Gerty pass through every room each morning, so there’s nothing special about them coming through my office.” How are you going to test your statement? All you have is the one example where you know Ralph and Gerty come through your office each morning. You have verified that. But will you just assume that because they pass through your office, they also pass through every room on the floor? What if you assumed that, and then you decide to test your statement. You observe each room on the floor, and lo and behold! Ralph and Gerty do not pass through each room each morning as they do your office. Your office is special.

The point is, you’re just assuming that Ralph and Gerty go through each room every morning as they do yours. Until you actually observe all those other rooms and confirm your statement that “Ralph and Gerty pass through every room each morning, so there’s nothing special about them coming through my office,” your statement is mere speculation. But if you present it to your co-workers as scientifically proven fact before you’ve actually observed all other rooms, your statement, and any further conclusions based upon it, becomes pseudoscience.

A relativist is the guy in the office making wild claims about Ralph and Gerty’s morning ambulatory habits without actually having visited all the rooms on his floor.

You may say, “Your insistence that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames is not the heart of relativity; that isn’t the core hypothesis of relativity. You’re making that up. Relativity has to do with time dilation and light and length contraction. What’s this whole thing you’re talking about the laws of physics being the same in all reference frames?”

Well, for one, if you say that, you really need to study relativity a bit more.

For another, that IS the core hypothesis, the base of relativity. That’s where relativity starts, with the hypothesis of relativity. Again, I refuse to call it a principle. Call it what it is. It’s a hypothesis. The rest of that -- length contraction, time dilation, etc -- doesn’t come into it until Einstein says, “Okay, we have the principle of relativity in the restricted sense, which is Galilean relativity. Light appears to violate that principle, because we know it travels at a constant speed, yet we can’t detect our own motion relative to the the aether. So it looks like we need to throw out the principle of relativity. But no we don’t. Here is how you keep the principle of relativity and make it compatible with observations regarding light.” And then he goes on to describe his theory of relativity.

But instead of moving on to relativity, he first needs to question the assumption that the Earth is moving relative to the light-bearing medium. He fails to do so, and that failure is the downfall of relativity, because it leaves open the alternative which fits all available empirical evidence: “Hey, Earth is motionless at the center of the universe.”

Einstein simply glosses over this alternative, thereby bypassing the scientific method and taking relativity into the realm of pseudoscience, where he presents time dilation, length contraction, the relativity of simultaneity, etc.

But if you take the results of interferometer experiments at face value, namely that the Earth is motionless, you don’t have to go any further. Galilean relativity (at this point in our argument) doesn’t need to be thrown out, and you don’t have to come up with a theory to make light compatible with it.

The theory of relativity is an attempt to make the law of the propagation of light (that it moves at a constant velocity) compatible with Galilean relativity. That attempt assumes the validity of Einstein’s assertion that all observers regardless of their state of motion will measure the same speed for light (the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames). It simply assumes the validity, without adhering to the scientific method. And that makes relativity a pseudoscience.

You’ve got the hypothesis that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. If it’s true, you have relativistic geocentrism, and if it’s false, you have absolute Geocentrism. How do you tell if it’s true? Because absolute Geocentrism means, obviously, that you are definitely at the center of the universe and the laws of physics are not going to be the same in all reference frames. The only way to distinguish between geocentrism and Geocentrism is to go away from the center of the universe, whether it’s the relativistic center or the absolute center.

The only way to determine which sort of geocentrism we have is to go a cosmologically significant distance away from the center, and see if you still get the same results at these distant points that you get when you are on Earth. If you get the same results, you’ve replicated them, then you have proven that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, and you go with relativistic geocentrism. If you get to those distant points and the hypothesis turns out to be false, say, interferometer experiments actually detect a fringe shift that you’re expecting based on classical physics, then you have proven absolute Geocentrism.

You can definitely distinguish these two geocentric frames. You just can’t do it based on measurements performed on Earth alone.

And you must get a cosmologically significant distance away. If you say, “Oh, we’ll just go to Mars or somewhere close by and try our experiments,” that’s a little bit better. But if you go somewhere near to Earth, you’re still within spitting distance of the center of the universe, whether it’s the relativistic center or the absolute center, and you might not be able to achieve the appropriate sort of “resolution” in your experiments.

You may say, “You’re just trying to move the bar back further so that it will take us longer and make it harder to prove relativity.” No, I’m not moving the bar back to benefit my argument. That’s the way it has to be to satisfy science. If you merely go to Mars, or Jupiter, or Pluto, or somewhere nearby, you’re still a cosmologically insignificant distance from the center of the universe. You know, if Earth is right at the center, whether it’s merely a relativistic center or an absolute center, even Pluto might as well almost be at the center. It’s almost, but not quite. It’s not good enough.

So the bar is, go way distant from Earth. Light years distant. I don’t know how many light years would be significant, but it’s definitely not merely somewhere as nearby as Pluto.

That’s what makes relativity pseudoscience. The scientific method is bypassed by assuming the truth of the hypothesis without any properly performed experimentation, and is then presented to the public, and to scientists themselves, as true. And the mere fact that we have not been out of our solar system makes it blatantly obvious that the base hypothesis of relativity has not been tested. That’s the litmus test. “Have we been outside the solar system and performed interferometer and other experiments?” No. Obviously not. Therefore relativity is pseudoscience until, and not before, the honest answer to that question is yes.

Another argument that may be leveled against me is that my insistence that the relativity hypothesis has not been empirically verified is incorrect. “Focault’s pendulum! GPS satellites! Particle accelerators! Cosmic ray muons! Those all support, or prove, relativity, so you’re wrong, Scott!”

No, they don’t. Those things are not empirical verification of the hypothesis that physical laws are the same in all reference frames. Those things do not prove that hypothesis at all. For one thing, you’re making all those observations from within an Earth-based reference frame. For another, with these two types of geocentrism that we cannot yet distinguish between (for the purposes of this present argument), assuming that time dilation, length contraction, etc., are the proper interpretation of the results of various experiments, that interpretation does not speak to which type of geocentric reference frame we reside in, because you would expect to get those results in either type of reference frame.

The experiments that are widely touted as proving the hypothesis of relativity still do not distinguish between the two possible types of geocentric reference frame. It is perfectly plausible that if we are at the center of the universe, i.e. in a privileged place in the universe, and we move relative to the center of the universe, we’re going to get strange effects, and those strange effects might show up as time dilation and length contraction, etc. So those experimental are not incompatible with the Earth being absolutely at rest at the center of the universe. So the absolute Geocentrist is perfectly within his/her right to claim all those experiments as evidence that strange things happen when you move relative to the Earth. That’s all that’s been tested so far, or proven. Strange things happen when you move relative to the Earth. You’ve only made those observations, performed those observations, from within an Earth-based reference frame, whether relativistic or non-relativistic.

That’s why I insist, rightly so and correctly so, that the hypothesis of relativity has never been tested. It still has not distinguished between those two types of geocentric frames. And we won’t be able to distinguish between the two types (at least for the purposes of the present argument) until we are whizzing around the galaxy in starships, or going through Stargates.

Of course there are problems with relativity, as I show elsewhere in this book, that are fatal to the theory, and bring us to the inescapable conclusion that Earth is absolutely at the center of the universe. So I can, contrary to relativity and with much more empirical support for my position, that the laws of physics are NOT the same in all reference frames, at least as far as the behavior of light is concerned.

If it turns out that I am wrong in my contentions, my whole worldview is not going to fall apart. But the same cannot be said of mainstream scientists who refuse to look at relativity simply because it smacks of God. It’s going to affect their entire worldview. That’s one of the reasons they don’t want to so much as look in the direction of absolute Geocentrism. Even though it shouldn’t affect their worldview, if they are true scientists. They should be able to accept what the evidence says without any unscientific misgivings. But now I’m digressing into another topic, which I call “The God Flaw.”