Response to "A Geocentrist vs. Relativity" by Martymer81

Response to Youtube video “A Geocentrist vs. Relativity” by Martymer81

1:22 Have you actually read the original Michelson-Morley paper? I would say no, because your 5-point outline is a complete misrepresentation of it.
According to your bullet points, the hypothesis of Michelson-Morley is (1) “Light is a wave in a medium, the aether (or ether).” The alleged consequence of this hypothesis (2) is that “The Earth moves through the aether at at least 30 km/s, the Earth’s orbital velocity.”
(2) is actually NOT a consequence of (1). It is an assumption independent of (1), and was explicitly labeled as an assumption in Michelson’s 1881 paper, and implicitly labeled as such in Michelson-Morley’s 1887 paper. Both your prediction (3) and your conclusion (5) are dependent upon the truth of that assumption. Anyway, (1) was NOT the hypothesis of the Michelson-Morley experiment. The title of the 1887 paper was “On the Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminferous Ether,” which gives a pretty good idea of exactly what the experiment WAS about. Is the paper titled, “On the Question of the Ether’s Existence” or “On the Question of Whether Light is a Wave in a Medium”? No. The actual hypothesis of the 1887 experiment was one of Fresnel’s, that “the ether is supposed to be at rest except in the interior of transparent media.” It had to do with the question of whether the ether is entrained in objects moving through it, NOT with whether the ether actually existed. The existence of the ether was another assumption of the experiment. It’s even clearer in Michelson’s 1881 experiment: “The result of the hypothesis of a stationary ether is thus shown to be incorrect, and the necessary conclusion follows that the hypothesis is erroneous.” The conclusion of the 1887 paper: “It appears, from all that precedes, reasonably certain that if there be any relative motion between the earth and the luminiferous ether, it must be small; quite small enough entirely to refute Fresnel's explanation of aberration.” Part of Fresnel’s explanation being that the ether is stationary except in the interior of transparent media. Where exactly in the paper does it state that the conclusion of the experiment is that there is no ether? It isn’t even implied. Einstein, decades later, was the one who said there was no ether. The point: your 5-point outline of MM is riddled with errors and a conclusion based upon a biased misstatement of the true experimental hypothesis.
Here is a summary of the experiment inferred from your 5-point outline of it:
Light is a wave in a medium, the aether (or ether). Therefore the Earth moves through the aether at at least 30 km/s, the Earth’s orbital velocity. The experiment failed to detect Earth’s motion through the aether. Therefore the aether does not exist.
Completely illogical. Neither of the “therefores” follows from the assertion in their respective preceding sentences. A more accurate summary of the experiment, NOT a summary of the experiment as re-interpreted in hindsight by relativists to support their theory (which is what your 5-point summary is), is:
The aether is supposed to be at rest except in the interior of transparent media (according to Fresnel’s theory). Assuming the Earth moves against the aether at at least 30 km/s, the experiment will detect such motion. The experiment failed to detect such motion. Therefore, Fresnel's explanation of aberration (stationary ether -- NOTE: NOT NO ether) is entirely refuted.
You have misrepresented/misstated/mischaracterized the entire experiment to fit your biased interpretation of the results. Use it as evidence in favor of relativity if you’d like, but at least give an honest summary of the experiment. Is your position so weak that it can’t withstand an honest summary? 1:36 “And you do realize that the experiment has been repeated with more sensitive equipment, right?”

So they just have more accurate data that there is no relative motion between the Earth and the ether. Or that Fresnel’s hypothesis of a STATIONARY ether is incorrect. So what? Repetition of the same experiment with more sensitive equipment does not change the hypothesis of the original experiment or its conclusion. An increase in the accuracy does not change the fact that the experiment is only designed to detect the relative motion of the Earth and the ether, NOT to detect whether the ether actually exists. You DO realize this, right? As I said to some other commenter, the failure of a car’s speedometer to detect relative motion between the car and the road is not evidence that there is no road. It is evidence that there is no relative motion. Anything more is your own explanation of WHY there is no relative motion.

Geocentrism: The Debates - Scott Reeves vs. NGC 6205 and CoolHardLogic, Part 1

Comments on YouTube video “TestingGeocentrism Part 2” by CoolHardLogic

NGC 6205 wrote:

I agree with you that a geocentric reference frame is a valid reference frame. I use it when I observe the night sky. However, you do not understand that the absolute geocentric reference frame is debunked by demostrating that there are other reference frames which are also completely valid. That's because absolute geocentricism, or capital G geocentrism claims that it is the only, One True Reference Frame. That's what absolute means. It claims that geocentrism is more valid than heliocentrism, which is false. It is actually no more valid than marscentrism or venuscentrism or jupitercentrism. If you were to build a "Neo-Tychonic" model (which I suppose you adhere to) with Mars at its center, and then go to Mars, it would make exactly the same number of successful predictions as a geocentric Tychonic model used on Earth. Furthermore, you can take a simulation of the Neo-Tychonian model and let it run. Pause it. Go to the Sun and fix your position (your view of the simulation) above the Sun. Unpause the simulation. What you would see is pure heliocentrism. That means that the Neo-Tychonic model is actually a heliocentric model in which the observer is fixed relative to the Earth, rather than the Sun. It also goes vice-versa: heliocentrism is a Neo-Tychonic model in which the observer is fixed relative to the Sun rather than the Earth. Besides the position of the observer, the two models are completely equivalent. This is why absolute geocentrism is false: because there are many different valid reference frames besides the geocentric one, while the capital G geocentrism claims that it is the one true reference frame, more real or correct than other reference frames. Special and general relativity are not required to prove that absolute geocentrism is false. And this is why you are biased and a pseudoscientist. You adhere to one reference frame absolutely and reject the others, despite the fact that other reference frames are completely valid. Only reason I can find for this is religious in nature. If your reason for adhering to geocentrism is not religious, then please tell me which is? Why are you adhering to geocentrism as more true than heliocentrism or marscentrism or jupitercentrism?

Scott Reeves wrote:

“However, you do not understand that the absolute geocentric reference frame is debunked by demostrating that there are other reference frames which are also completely valid.”

You are correct. I do not understand that the absolute Geocentric reference frame is debunked by demonstrating that there are other reference frames which are also completely valid. I do, however, understand that it is debunked by demonstrating that there are other reference frames which are also completely valid and equal to the absolute Geocentric reference frame. Which has not yet been done.

I completely understand the concept of reference frames, and I do not deny that every conceivable reference frame is a valid reference frame. But the simple existence of other valid reference frames does not mean that all valid reference frames are equal.

“That's because absolute geocentricism, or capital G geocentrism claims that it is the only, One True Reference Frame. That's what absolute means.”

That may be your concept of what absolute G means, but to me it refers to absolute rest vs. relative motion, and actual center vs. relative center. Relativistic geocentrism says that there is no actual center to the universe and all motion in the universe is relative, with no absolute motion, period; while absolute Geocentrism says the universe has a center and Earth is stationary there, and all motion in the universe is relative to the frame of absolute rest as established by the absolutely motionless Earth. That’s the distinction between absolute Geocentrism and relativistic geocentrism. Don’t quote me on that, though; what’s important here is the concept of absolute vs. relative motion, and an absolute center vs. a multitude of observer-dependent centers.

Geocentrism: The Debates - Scott Reeves vs. MomoTheBellyDancer, Part 1

My Comments from the YouTube video “TYCHO BRAHE Says No Spheres NoParallax No Planets - All Lies” by jeranism

Scott Reeves wrote (responding to MomoTheBellyDancer's comments to Last Trump):

“That is not an assumption [that the Earth is revolving around the sun]. The fact that we can observe stellar aberration is already plenty of evidence. Another piece of evidence is the fact that Newtonian physics perfectly describe the motion of planets, including earth.”

We can also observe and explain stellar aberration from a geocentric frame. Stellar aberration doesn’t speak to whether Earth is revolving around the sun. 

As for Newtonian physics, choosing to make Newtonian calculations using a non-geocentric coordinate system does not mean that the Earth is actually revolving around the sun. It simply means that you've chosen to make Newtonian calculations using a coordinate system in which the Earth is revolving around the sun.

As for Newtonian physics perfectly describing said motion of the planets – they didn’t perfectly describe the precession of Mercury, did they? So thy DON’T “perfectly” describe the motion of the planets.

“No, because you have to introduce massive amounts of unknown variables to make the geocentric model work, which simply disappear then you go with the heliocentric model. Occam's razor compels us to go with the model with the least amount of assumptions.”

Occam’s razor is a philosophical preference for simplicity, not a physical law that governs the universe. The geocentric frame IS just as valid as any other frame, unless you want to deny Relativity. What you’re basically saying is that Occam’s razor compels us to conclude that all reference frames are not physically equivalent, in violation of Relativity.

Perhaps you might object that you were referring to the geocentric MODEL as being invalid, not the geocentric REFERENCE FRAME. But how can you acknowledge the geocentric reference frame yet deny the geocentric model that goes with it? If you’re going to allow someone to assume the role of an observer within the geocentric reference frame, then that observer MUST have a model that describes the universe from his geocentric viewpoint, and that model MUST be as valid as any other model. If that model is not fully developed by such an observer, it MUST be possible to fully develop it, or else Relativity is an invalid theory. And I'm assuming you are not an anti-relativist.

MomoTheBellyDancer wrote:

"Stellar aberration doesn’t speak to whether Earth is revolving around the sun."

Then explain how we could get stellar aberration that way.

"choosing to make Newtonian calculations using a non-geocentric coordinate system does not mean that the Earth is actually revolving around the sun."

Then present a model in which the Newtonian calculations are correct, but in which the earth does not orbit the sun. Make sure it is at least as comprehensive as the heliocentric model, with as few assumptions as possible.

"Occam’s razor is a philosophical preference for simplicity, not a physical law that governs the universe."

 Irrelevant. It states that we should choose the model that works fine with the least amount of assumptions. Really, why would we throw in a lot of assumptions when a simpler model explains the same facts just as well, if not better?

Geocentrism: The Debates - Scott Reeves vs. Nope, Part 1

Comments on YouTube video “TestingGeocentrism Part 2” by CoolHardLogic

Scott Reeves wrote (in a general comment directed at CoolHardLogic)::

Einstein and Stephen Hawking, and many other reputable scientists, say geocentrism works, but we're supposed to believe you that it doesn't?

Nope wrote:

No, you're supposed to believe the evidence gathered through observations, which clearly points out that geocentrism is bollocks. Also, I'm pretty sure none of those fellas actually believed for a second that geocentrism is an even remotely plausible explanation, but who knows? Even Newton said hillariously stupid shit back then so yeah.

Scott Reeves wrote:

Here is the ColdHardTruth that all you relativity supporters are going to have to accept if you want to be relativists: there is absolutely not a single shred of evidence you can put forward to disprove the geocentric reference frame. The geocentric reference frame is a perfectly valid reference frame in relativity.

The only thing you can do is try to talk me and other Geocentrists out of advocating an absolute Geocentric reference frame. How do you do this? You point out that relativity forbids an absolute reference frame, and then try to convince us that relativity has a hundred years of empirical evidence behind it. You tell us that it is the most well-tested theory in the history of science, and only a fool would reject an argument with that magnitude of empirical weight behind it. And if those tactics don’t work, you begin to pile on the mockery and the public humiliation in attempt to silence us.

That is ALL you can do. You all keep trying to prove that the Earth is in motion and the geocentric reference frame is invalid. News flash: that is most definitely not going to happen. If you think it will, you do not understand relativity. Trying to disprove the geocentric reference frame by saying that the Earth is definitely in motion is just the opposite of what I do by advocating the absolute Geocentric frame: you are trying to prove a frame of absolute motion. So by denying geocentrism in any form you’re also working hard to try to disprove relativity.

Geocentrism: The Debates - Scott Reeves vs. EmperorZelos, Part 1

Comments on YouTube video “Heliocentric Vs ConcaveGeocentric Model Of Our Universe” by Godrules

Scott Reeves wrote in response to an earlier comment by Mike Vizioz:

"There is absolutely no reason to believe in something like that unless you are out to prove the validity of the bible."

How about a desire to be scientifically accurate? The choice is either absolute Geocentrism or relativity. Since relativity requires the existence of an unscientific concept, namely the unobservable universe, to be valid, relativity is not a scientific theory, yet is presented as scientific fact. Therefore the choice is either absolute Geocentrism or pseudoscience.

From a religious and Biblical perspective (yes, I am a Christian) I couldn't care less whether we're at the center of the universe or not. Makes no difference to my belief in God. I only want to follow the scientifically sound view of the universe, and protest all you want, that view is Geocentrism.

Scott Reeves wrote in response to an earlier comment by EmperorZelos:

Prove it. Have you gone to other points in the universe to check your assertion?

EmperorZelos wrote:

EVERY point of the universe will be seen as the center you idiot and big bang/ relativity does nto depend upon a larger universe. Go back to highschool

Scott Reeves wrote:

Prove that every point in the universe will be seen as the center. Get in your little spaceship and fly a few thousand light years away from Earth and start proving the Copernican principle. 

And Big Bang/relativity DOES depend upon a larger universe. If we're at the center of the observable universe, which science acknowledges that we are, then in order for us not to be motionless at the center of an absolute Geocentric universe, there MUST be a larger universe beyond the observable universe. YOU go back to high school.

Emperor Zelos wrote:

"Prove that every point in the universe will be seen as the center. Get in your little spaceship and fly a few thousand light years away from Earth and start proving the Copernican principle."

It's demonstrable by the laws of physics, they are frame independed which means all points are equal.

"And Big Bang/relativity DOES depend upon a larger universe"

It doesn't, it might be a conclusion but it's not a dependence.

"If we're at the center of the observable universe, which science acknowledges that we are"

It doesn't, cite a single peer reviewed article from a reputable journal that says we are the center.

"then in order for us not to be motionless at the center of an absolute Geocentric universe, there MUST be a larger universe beyond the observable universe. YOU go back to high school."

That's a non-sequitor.

The ceocentric model is dead and easily done so by simple newtonian physics because the earth moves around the sun, which moves around the center of the galaxy. We've measured these speeds and much else.

Geocentrism: The Debates Introduction

I'm going to start posting discussions I have had over the past month in the comments sections of various Youtube videos. Of course they're all on the subject of geocentrism and relativity. The illustrious CoolHardLogic even puts in a lengthy appearance.

In a lot of the cases, the other debate participant eventually dropped out, whether it was due to my craziness, their lack of time, or their growing tired of carrying the discussion onward. Or maybe they will eventually get around to responding to dangling response to their previous comments, and just haven't yet. For whatever reason, a lot of the discussions are left hanging, so I'm calling each one "part 1," even though there may never be a subsequent part.

I in no way mean to imply anything at all about the other participant's leaving the discussion; I know life gets in the way, or the debate eventually becomes pointless, or they think things have gotten a little too crazy, or they're in over their heads, or they think I don't know what I'm talking about. Whatever reason, nothing against the other commentor, and their leaving the debate shouldn't be construed as an admission of defeat on their part (although predictably and, being human, I do of course consider myself the hands-down winner of every exchange). I appreciate each participant having taken the time to respond to what they did. It has helped to me hone my own arguments.

It should also be noted that I have absolutely no idea who any of my opponents are in "real life." I don't know their educational background - nothing. So I didn't choose to respond to a comment they made because I researched them and found them to be knowledgeable; I merely wanted to respond to something they had said to some other commentor, and so our discussion began.

In each case, I'm going to identify myself and my opponent using "Scott Reeves wrote:" and "[insert name] wrote:" with each participant's section having the words of the opposing participant quoted in bold. 

Also, the presence of my comments in a particular video's comments section shouldn't be construed as either agreement or disagreement with the content of that video. Also, any spelling or grammatical errors have been left in and are the "fault" of whoever made them, including myself.

Also, a lot of these debates are quite long, so be sure to click the "read more" link at the bottom to read the whole thing.

Any copyrighted material is used under Fair Use.

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.