Einstein’s Theories Are Based On Negative Evidence
A prediction that does not happen tells you that your belief is wrong. It does not tell you why you are wrong or what is right, only that your current theory is not based in reality
Because people want answers to questions there is a tendency to make up excuses instead of finding reasons, in order to stop the questions.
Questions require thought and answers will put an end to thinking.
The result of excuses instead of reasons is a compounding of errors and an increasing reluctance to admit that so much you believe is wrong.
It is far preferable to continue to play a fool than to be exposed as a fool.
The result of this ego is the continuous creation of new excuses in order to silence any of the new questions that emerge, because excuses are not causes.
When a science that is supposed to be based on evidence and reality reaches the point where they claim that over 90 percent of the subject of their science is invisible and undetectable, they no longer have a connection to reality and are creating a make believe reality.
As technologies improve and knowledge progresses the erroneous beliefs built on these past excuses are exposed as false. Unfortunately the exposure of fallacies does not result in the correcting of the error but either ignoring it or the creation of even more excuses.
The Earth’s magnetic field was believed to be the result of a magnetic iron core. This let to an estimate of the mass of the Earth.
When it was discovered that the temperature of the Earth’s interior was far greater than the Curie point, where iron loses its magnetic properties, this evidence was ignored and the accepted beliefs on the structure and mass of the Earth continues to this day.
Newton’s theory of gravity holds that gravity is a function of mass even though the evidence, Keppler’s law of orbiting bodies, dv^2=C, has no reference to mass.
Newton needed a source for his force so he chose mass, not recognizing the existence of energy as a fundamental component of the universe or that Keppler’s law was evidence that energy declined with distance from its source.
The formula he devised for the force between objects, F=GM1M2/d^2, is questionable because the data from Keppler shows that the attractive force from an object decreases linearly, not as the square of the distance.
It did match the observed data so it was accepted as an answer, even though it is the wrong formula. The correct formula for the attractive force of energy (magnetism, gravity) should be Fe = S1/d1 + S2/d2 where d1 and d2 are the distance from the sources to the equilibrium point between the sources.
Objects do not have the ability to know what the mass of another object is and adjust their radiated force to account for it.
The incorporation of Newton’s incorrect theory involving mass, where none is indicated in the data, became a “law” and its use with the incorrect guess of the mass of the Earth led to determining the masses of the sun, planets, and orbiting objects that are still being used today, despite the abundant evidence that the calculated masses are wrong.
The existence of binary asteroids is proof that the formula is wrong.
Three satellites, attempting a soft landing on Mars, crashed because engineers used the incorrect mass for Mars. The excuse provided for the crashes was the error was a result in a mix up between the metric and English units.
This excuse is utter nonsense, the acceleration and speed of a satellite has nothing to do with the satellite’s mass, whether its kilograms or pounds, only the mass of the source of gravity.
The plumes resulting from the impact of the Shumaker-Levi comet fragments hitting Jupiter are the result of them hitting a solid surface, not entering a gas. The “gas giants” are composed of the same elements as the “rock planets” and other objects in the solar system.
Einstein identified that Newton’s law was wrong but for the wrong reason and did not find the correct cause, continuing with the belief that gravity was a function of mass.
The incorrect answer he provided has become the basis of beliefs that has completely divorced physics from reality and has turned the study of physics into training to ignore reason and common sense and accept nonsense as being true.
The first negative evidence that led to Einstein’s false theories was the lack of delay in the propagation of an electric current in the photoelectric effect. The question he was trying to answer was, is light a wave or a particle?
The observation of an interference pattern produced by light cast doubt on the existing theory that light was a particle. An interference pattern is a result of waves, so light producing these patterns would indicate that light is not a particle but an electromagnetic wave.
The trouble with light being a wave was the question that if light is a wave what is the medium in which it travels in, since we observe nothing in space? The existence of the electric and energy fields being emitted from objects and permeating the universe was unknown and they are the medium in which light waves propagate.
The wave theory of light was also challenged by the photoelectric effect where light striking a metal or crystal produces an instant current. The reason for the doubt being that a wave would require a passage of time to transfer enough energy to an atom to dislodge an electron from an atom thus creating a current. No such delay was evident.
This lack of evidence resulted in Einstein’s “excuse” of the photo where light could be both a wave and a particle depending on what was needed to explain its behavior. This is nonsense. A particle without mass is not a particle.
This duality excuse was accepted as being an acceptable answer but the mistake stemmed not in the behavior of light but in the belief that there must be a delay before a current is produced.
There are electrons in metals and crystals that are not associated with atoms but are held in place by ionic or metal bonds. There doesn’t need to be enough energy to dislodge the electron from an atom, only enough to distort the bond holding it.
We see this in the piezoelectric effect where mechanical pressure distorts a bond in a crystal while in the photoelectric effect an electromagnetic wave of the right size distorts a bond.
Light is a wave that travels in the electric/matter and magnetic/gravity/energy fields radiated by all objects and those fields permeate the universe. Energy is associated with mass, not a function of mass as Newton proposed.
Energy is attracted to positive matter and dislodges negative matter. Both the electric force from matter and energy are the subatomic forces that create the universe.
This is binary structure is shown by the neutron which, like the alpha particle, is a subatomic molecule composed of matter, protons and electrons.
Unlike an alpha molecule a neutron, not within a nucleus, will spontaneously quickly split back into a proton, an electron, while producing enough energy to overcome the attraction between those opposite charges (thus preventing them from recombining) and also emit energy as gamma radiation.
This would seem to be a violation of the first Law of Thermodynamics that states energy and matter cannot be created or destroyed but are eternal. How can both the formation and destruction of a neutron produce motion/energy?
A neutron molecule is held together by a strong force that should make it stable and giving it mass or resistance to motion. How can mass that resists motion also create motion? If the inertial mass and gravitational mass are equal then no motion could be created from mass.
The question is how can a stable indestructible piece of matter be broken apart and produce energy? An alpha molecule is stable and indestructible even though it contains a repelling force from similar positive charges, so why would a subatomic molecule containing no internal repelling force be unstable?
The reason/cause is that a stronger force is acting on the neutron but not the alpha molecule. That force is from the other eternal component of the universe, energy. Energy is attracted to positive matter and being a stronger force than the force of matter it is able to separate negative matter/electron form positive matter/protons.
The result is that the exposed electron in a neutron molecule is dislodged and the neutron molecule is converted into a hydrogen atom which contains both energy and matter.
The alpha molecule is stable, like other stable atoms, because the electrons it contains are surrounded by protons which prevent the force of energy from acting upon them. As long as the negative matter is not exposed to energy and the internal repelling force between protons is not too great, a nucleus is stable.
When an electron in a nucleus is exposed the force of energy around the nucleus will expel it, creating a nucleus that contains more internal repelling force but also has greater external energy force thus forming a stable nucleus.
If there are not enough or too many electrons in a nucleus the pressure from the external energy force will cause it to break, producing smaller pieces of matter. There is no need for creating the excuses of strong and weak nuclear forces when the two forces of energy and matter will explain what we observe.
Atoms are a result of the interaction of the force of matter/electric and energy/gravity. They are both subatomic forces resulting from both energy and electrons being attracted to protons.
Matter tries to rid itself of energy (radiate energy) creating inertia while energy produces change/motion causing electrons to orbit nucleus. It is the orbiting electrons that convert the radiated energy from non-directional radiation of gravity into magnetism (directional) and create the spectrum of energy radiating from a nucleus.
Hydrogen and helium are not the fuel for radiated energy from the sun but the ashes from the interaction of matter and energy.
The next assertion made by Einstein supported by negative evidence was that the speed of light is constant in a vacuum and is the reference for all other measurements. This is absurd and the result of the excuse that light is a particle.
Only matter can have a constant speed and that occurs when it is in equilibrium with the energy force around it. The speed of a wave is determined by the strength of the medium in which it propagates. Speed is a result of energy, v^2, and not energy a result of speed.
When an object loses energy its velocity slows. Since energy declines with distance (Keppler’s Law) the speed of light will decline as it travels away from a source and increase when it enters a field coming from another source and travels towards that source (red shift-blue shift).
The only time that a speed is constant is when an object is in equilibrium with a source of energy like the planets orbiting the sun and since in space the medium in which light waves travel changes, so does their speed.
The negative evidence Einstein used to support his claim was the train thought experiment. A beam of light emitted from a moving train will never catch up with a previous light beam from a separate source, no matter how fast the train travels.
This negative evidences, instead of proving that the speed of light is the basic reference frame, confirms that light is not a particle, where kinetic energy add, but a wave where the speed is determined by the fields the disturbance in which the it propagates.
The force of energy (gravity and magnetism) and the force of matter appear similar but they have opposite behavior. When opposite poles of a magnets combine the size and strength of the radiated magnetic field increases, creating a larger magnet.
When opposite charges combine the size and strength of the radiated electric fields decrease creating a neutron.
When similar magnetic poles are forced together the size and strength of the radiated magnetic field decreases but when similar charges are forced together the size and strength of the radiated electric field increases.
For the forces of energy and matter the conversion between internal and external energy are opposite.
When an atom, composed of energy and matter, gains energy, the size and strength of the atom’s energy field increases thus causing the equilibrium point to shift towards neighboring atoms.
This causes compression or increase in density of the energy field of the neighboring atoms, as the inertia of the mass in the nucleus and the energy fields of other neighboring atoms around the atom resist movement.
This compression of the energy field also compresses the orbiting electrons, which it turn, increases the radiated electric force repelling the expansion the neighboring atom.
As the additional energy flows and is distributed to more atoms the increased repelling force causes the original atom to shift back, creating an oscillation that is an electromagnetic wave.
This is radiated energy and the strength of this wave depends on the change in amplitude of the energy fields, not the frequency which is a function of the energy field the atoms are in.
During convection, when objects collide, the radiated energy fields of the objects are penetrated and energy equalizes with the positive matter in the two objects.
The final negative evidence Einstein used that resulted in the complete separation of physics from reality was: Since no experiment can be performed, in and enclosed container with no outside reference, that can distinguish between acceleration and gravity they are the same and an increase in a gravitational field will produce the same expansion of time and distance that acceleration does. Untrue.
Here is an experiment you can do in your home to determine if you are experiencing gravity or acceleration. Along the top edge of a room place mirrors on opposite walls.
Affix a laser pointer to project a beam of light to reflect between the two lines of mirrors, maximizing the distance the light travels. Mark the wall at the point where the light strikes the wall at the end of one side.
If you are in a gravitational field, the spot on the wall will continue to hit the same spot. If you are in an accelerating room, the light will appear to move down the wall as the wall moves up, during the time the light is traveling between the walls.
The idiocy of acceleration and gravity being the same is, it means as you move towards a center of gravity and the gravitational field increases, time will expand and the distance to the center of gravity will increase.
Physics today has become a cult, not a science.
When it decided that things didn’t have to make sense, can be self contradictory, can exist as two things with completely different characteristics, that the observer makes the reality, that if evidence does not support theory, it’s OK to create new evidence to preserve theory, or the absurdity that experiments know when they were being observed and change the results when they are, it ceased to be science and became a make believe fantasy tale.
Please note: PSI does not necessarily endorse the views of each and every article we publish. Our intention is to encourage open, honest, scientific debate.
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Ken Hughes
| #
Well Andy, you are at loggerheads with Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Nicola Tesla, and many other well known and accomplished scientists.
Anyway, good luck with your new theory and with getting it published and accepted. IMO you don’t stand a snowball’s chance in hell.
By the way, I disagree with you on practically all the points you rant about.
What is your background Andy? You appear to know very little about physics.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
‘Apologies Andy, I see it was Herb who wrote this garbage.
It would be best if PSI didn’t give the name of the “written by” as someone different than the true author?
Reply
Andy Rowlands
| #
No worries Ken, I can only see Herb’s name as author. I also agree with you, and disagree with most of what he writes here.
Reply
Aaron
| #
Thanks Herb
Most everything that ‘they’ tell us are lies, esp the in the sciences and history
Reply
Howdy
| #
“It is far preferable to continue to play a fool than to be exposed as a fool.”
Define fool Herb.
Is this in reference to one with thoughts so out there that the rest cannot comprehend them, where it is the rest that are fools, or an ‘obvious’ simpleton, still arguably more advanced than the rest?
Reply
Seriously
| #
I’ll simplify the statement for all
A fool,
who believed the msm, took in the fear porn and made it manifest, ALLOWED an unproven, previously 100% unsuccessful mrna substance(in animal testing – they ALL died) to be administered into their body, based on ‘the evidence ‘ given by said msm, government, doctor and celebrity endorsement.
Despite mounting evidence, deaths of the young, massive heart attacks occurring in 20 something year olds, despite the fools own weird, strange new symptoms that appeared after the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd…shot, he cannot countenance that SOMETHING IS WRONG, that they were wrong…and continue to trumpet that they needed the shot to ‘keep them safe’…this from a friend who’s a SCIENTIST, whose wife is experiencing menstrual bleeding in her 70’s!
A fool is simply the definition of a human unable to accept reality as it is, as it evolves, if it proves he was wrong in his conviction of prior belief, thought, even if the only one exposed is their own mind. For whatever reason, 90% of humans seems mechanically unable to admit they were wrong and they will obstinatey cling to false evidence rather than admit new possibilities. Being part of the ‘group’ is absurdly clung to…evidently part of human DNA, for survival, no doubt. I have always been ‘the 1st monkey’ or at least in the first 10, the new habit adopted by the rest of the monkeys to follow..
Keep on keeping on Herb, you are definitely one of the 1st monkeys! And I look forward to everything you have to say…
Reply
Howdy
| #
Not even close Seriously. You simply class others who don’t subscribe to your pattern of thinking as lesser.
What are the proper reasons you are not the fool, instead of others?
Reply
Seriously
| #
Not even close? But no qualification…
I can admit when I’m wrong. I seek out evidence to prove or deny the thinking of my original mind…of which we all possess. Rational, logical thought, not playing the crowd. As you offered no evidence that Herb is wrong, other than others theories that prevail but provide no evidentiary proof, I will say this equals a fool:
a closed mind
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
A fool is someone who acts like something is correct even when they know it’s wrong.
Herb
Reply
Howdy
| #
All the answers I am getting are based on a simplistic view, that a fool is simply in the wrong. This is not the case by default.
As I alluded in my question comment, when the claimed fool who is actually the clever one because the others do not comprehend the behaviour/information given, why is it not the rest who are fools?
To put it another way:
“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.”
Isn’t this simply arrogance on the part of the person saying it when the fault may actually be theirs for lack of understanding or insight?
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Howdy,
Everybody gets fooled but a fool doesn’t accept they were wrong. We fool ourselves all the time in defense against reality. A lot of people buy lottery tickets thinking it could solve all their problems.
When I was in the army my brother-in-law was killed in Viet Nam and I was given escort duty. My mother-in-law refused to believe that the body was her son even though everybody else knew it was. The acceptance of reality was so horrible she could not do it and chose to fool herself to save herself. We all fool ourselves and get fooled, it’s a learning process. A fool is one who doesn’t learn and recognize reality.
Herb
.
Howdy
| #
What is reality?
A true fool is the wise, this is one of the reasons a King would have one, but so named by others because the fool is the misunderstood.
Watch the video, Herb
Shawn Marshall
| #
My mother told me once as a lad “Son”, she said, “You ain’t the sharpest knife in the drawer. You’ve got a lot of rough edges so when you meet a problem just saw your way through it.”
I haven’t the education or the intellect to deal with Herb’s essay. I find it delightful anyway. I can say I do not believe time exists as a physical entity- it is merely an abstraction we use to sequence events. I am also highly skeptical that the speed of light c is a constant. I do think light is a wave and thus travels along a ‘medium’ of some kind. I have no idea what gravity is. Maybe I’m a fool but I salute Herbs bold and challenging ideas.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb.
“Einstein’s Theories Are Based On Negative Evidence” (Herb) “A prediction that does not happen tells you that your belief is wrong.” (Herb) NO! “A prediction that does not happen tells you that your REASONING is wrong.” (Jerry)
“If you can’t explain it simply; you don’t understand it well enough.” (Einstein). Herb, your long, long article seems to support this Einstein quote, “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” (Einstein). In your long, long article, my computer’s finder app didn’t find the word ‘experiment’.
“The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.” (Einstein) Many know that he was debating with himself if GRAVITY bent light. However, there is natural phenomena known to beed light. So he predicted how much the light of a distant star would be bent when placing near our Sun without calling attention to the known natural phenomena he used to predict the magnitude of the leight bend. So, the next total solar eclipse many astronomers position themselves to measure the bend predicted and concluded that gravity did bend light just as Einstein had predicted. But Einstein knew that this experimental result proved to his satofaction (I assume) that gravity did not bend light.
Herb and any readers, I ask: what known natural phenomena did Einstein hide?
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
“The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources”
An ‘allegory’ that the man was not the talent he appeared?
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
jerry,
Get a new computer finder or try reading the article.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
You too ignore my scientific question which has a factual answer.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Jerry,
When light enters a different medium it bends (refracts). This is not because of gravity but because the medium 9electric and magnetic fields) changes. Once it passes through the transparent medium its path will un-refract to the path it was on before entering the medium. Do you think that maybe the electric and magnetic fields around the sun could have somehow change the path of light? Did Einstein’s prediction of light bending from gravity include changes resulting from the fields emitted by the sun?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I thought we agreed that Einstein didn’t use gravity to bend the star’s light.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and Herb,
Yes, Herb does have a better than average knowledge of scientific principles. Yes, the principle used by Einstein to explain what the astronomers observed was refraction. Yet one needs to recognize the ability and scholarship efforts required (used) by Einstein to predict that which the multiple astronomers MIGHT observe on the basis of the principle of refraction and the calculated atmosphere of the SUN. And I doubt if Herb and Howdy have recognized this knowledge and the time required to produce the product which Einstein produced. Everything is easy if others do the work.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Howdy and PSI Readers,
When you reply to my comment where I asked a question, which you have ignored, and instead made a negative statement about Einstein; what are you doing? Only you know.
For those who might not know, Einstein could not get an academic position after he had earned his doctorate degree. Hence he was possibly a bit offended by the academic community. However, by experience as a patent clerk, he learned that the clerk position was a blessing. As sometime later (I assume) he stated: “Science is a wonderful thing if one does not have to earn one’s living at it.”
Have a good day
Reply
Howdy
| #
Come off it Jerry, I asked a question. Indeed, your later quote “The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources” – it reeks of subterfuge.
Try answering the posted response instead of instinctively protecting the target of the thread.
There is a problem here of getting true answers, if any answer at all. Too scientific for my tastes…
Reply
Seriously
| #
I’ll simplify the statement for all
A fool,
who believed the msm, took in the fear porn and made it manifest, ALLOWED an unproven, previously 100% unsuccessful mrna substance(in animal testing – they ALL died) to be administered into their body, based on ‘the evidence ‘ given by said msm, government, doctor and celebrity endorsement.
Despite mounting evidence, deaths of the young, massive heart attacks occurring in 20 something year olds, despite the fools own weird, strange new symptoms that appeared after the 1st, the 2nd, the 3rd…shot, he cannot countenance that SOMETHING IS WRONG, that they were wrong…and continue to trumpet that they needed the shot to ‘keep them safe’…this from a friend who’s a SCIENTIST, whose wife is experiencing menstrual bleeding in her 70’s!
A fool is simply the definition of a human unable to accept reality as it is, as it evolves, if it proves he was wrong in his conviction of prior belief, thought, even if the only one exposed is their own mind. For whatever reason, 90% of humans seems mechanically unable to admit they were wrong and they will obstinatey cling to false evidence rather than admit new possibilities. Being part of the ‘group’ is absurdly clung to…evidently part of human DNA, for survival, no doubt. I have always been ‘the 1st monkey’ or at least in the first 10, the new habit adopted by the rest of the monkeys to follow..
Keep on keeping on Herb, you are definitely one of the 1st monkeys! And I look forward to everything you have to say…
Reply
Seriously
| #
Response to Howdy…came in at bottom instead of under his ‘fool’ comment
Reply
Climate Heretic
| #
I have read what you wrote Herb and here are some points for you to consider. about your article:
Lack of Cohesive Argument Structure:
The passage jumps from topic to topic, critiquing multiple scientific concepts (gravity, mass, light, photoelectric effect, etc.) without a clear logical flow. This scattershot approach makes it difficult for readers to follow or fully understand any single argument.
Unsupported Assertions:
The author frequently makes claims (e.g., “the correct formula for the attractive force of energy should be…”) without providing evidence, sources, or reasoning for why current accepted formulas are wrong. Scientific arguments generally require empirical data, experiments, or citations, which are lacking here.
Misinterpretation of Established Theories:
The passage demonstrates misunderstandings of established theories. For instance:
1)Newton’s Laws of Gravity:
Newton’s gravitational law, has been extensively tested and validated through observation and experimentation. The claim that Kepler’s laws imply a linear relationship rather than a squared one misunderstands the distinction between Kepler’s and Newton’s contributions to celestial mechanics.
2) Photoelectric Effect and Light Duality:
The criticism of the dual nature of light ignores that wave-particle duality is well-supported by experiments. Dismissing it as “nonsense” without addressing the supporting evidence is insufficient.
Misunderstanding of Scientific Concepts and Terms:
The passage misrepresents concepts like magnetic fields, gravity, mass, the speed of light, and acceleration due to gravity. For example, it claims that the presence of binary asteroids “proves” Newton’s formula is wrong without explanation. Binary asteroids are compatible with Newtonian mechanics and are well-explained by current gravitational theories.
Logical Fallacies and Misleading Comparisons:
1)False Analogy:
Equating scientific physics with “a cult” is a dramatic statement that doesn’t accurately reflect the rigorous methods used in scientific inquiry.
2) Argument from Personal Incredulity:
The passage relies on the author’s disbelief (e.g., “This is nonsense,” “absurd”) without offering substantive alternative explanations or empirical support.
Dismissal of Established Science without Evidence:
The passage criticizes major scientists (Newton, Einstein) and established theories without substantial evidence, relying on opinions rather than scientific methodology. The lack of experimental proof for alternative hypotheses weakens the critique.
Conflation of Theories and Misuse of Terminology:
Terms like “energy,” “mass,” “gravitational field,” “electric fields,” and “neutrons” are used imprecisely, leading to confusion. For example, the claim that “gravity and acceleration are not the same” misinterprets the principle of equivalence in Einstein’s general relativity.
Conspiracy-Like Tone:
Statements like “Physics today has become a cult” and accusations of deliberate ignorance imply that physicists are purposefully misleading the public, which is both an ad hominem attack and an unsupported conspiracy-like assumption.
To Improve, it would need to focus on one or two critiques, support those critiques with empirical evidence and address scientific theories accurately and with precise terminology.
Regards
Climate Heretic
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Climate Heretic,
Wish I could organize my thoughts as you have organized yours.
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Climate Heretic,
However, google: Dr. Jerry L. Krause. Scientist
I am proud of this.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Climate,
Thanks for the critique.
I’m sorry about the flow. I tried to see it in line with the negative evidence subject.
As to Newton’s law I’ve written in PSI about an experiment with magnets showing the formula is wrong, even though the answers are right.
The DART program was where a satellite was crashed into a binary asteroid. Using Newton’s formula you can calculate the mass of the orbited asteroid, just as it was used to calculate the mass of the planets. The velocity and distance of the orbiting asteroid are known. The mass of the orbiting asteroid can be determined by the change in its kinetic energy when the satellite with a known mass and velocity (ke) crashed into it, head on, in an inelastic collision (masses combine) changing its ke. See if the answers are reasonable. It is better to do the work yourself to verify the theory rather than have someone say it is so. When I tried to explain why the 2nd LoT was wrong nobody would believe until they did the calculations.
The experiment establishing the duality of wave-particle came to the conclusion that the experiment knew when it was being watched and changed the results when observed. How about when you emit a singe electron it produces a changing electric field which creates changing magnetic field, electromagnetic waves.
Newton’s premise that an object will travel in a straight line unless a force acts upon it is unsupported since nothing in the universe travels in a straight line. How about an object will maintain its energy until it gains or loses energy. There is not a separate force between the sun and every object in the solar system (product of masses over distance squared) but satellites are in equilibrium with the energy being radiated from the sun which decreases with distance (Kepler’s law).
A cult is a belief in philosophy as being true no matter the evidence. When evidence is found that does not agree or contradicts beliefs the evidence is created to maintain theory. e.g. neutrino.
I disagree that I misrepresented the equivalence of gravity and acceleration. Einstein sad they were the same and either acceleration or an increase in a gravitational field will cause time and distance to expand, even though one is a function of distance and the other is an inverse function of distance squared.
I am open to hear any explanation of why a neutron spontaneously decomposes into an electron, proton, and gamma radiation but there has been no mention of this seemly impossible occurrence. I would also like to hear an explanation of how beta decay can use energy to expel an electron from the nucleus, increasing the repelling force within the nucleus, and form a stable atom and why an alpha particle is stable.
Physicist do deliberately try to confuse the public. There is a term for it, gobbledygook. By not trying to communicate in easy to understand language they try to intimidate and assume authority by confusion rather than understanding. All matter absorbs radiated energy and all matter with energy radiate energy. Now you say it using entropy.
The interpretation of experiments and evidence is based on existing beliefs and people are loathe to consider that there beliefs are wrong and look at alternative answers. An example was the claim that the desynchronization of the atomic clocks on satellites proved Einstein’s theory was right when it actually showed he was wrong.
You believe that it is the particle property of light that dislodges an electron from an atom in the photoelectric effect, creating a current. I think it is the distortion of an electron, held in place by ionic or metallic bonds, by an electromagnetic wave with the right wavelength the causes the current. Do you see the similarity between the photoelectric effect and piezoelectric effect?
Herb
Reply
Allan Shelton
| #
I am a Herb Rose fan.
I have never been a Einstein fan.
Thanks Herb for your unput.
Reply
Seriously
| #
Ditto…😉
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Thanks Alan and Seriously,
I often think my efforts to figure out what is right are futile. Too many “scientists” just want to hear that they are right, instead of looking for what’s true.
Herb
Reply
Seriously
| #
The ‘first monkey’ doesn’t play to the crowd. Futile or not, we are out here, the rest, who seek to find what’s right as well. And I’m sure you don’t have a choice, as the rest of us don’t, the analytical minds, in following where our thought lead us. I’m never happier than when engaged and appreciate the ideas you put forth.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
HI Herb,
Actual SCIENTISTS acknowledge their ideas are always uncertain. But they know that WRONG IDEAS can be proven to be absolutely FALSE by a single REPRODUCIBLE observation. Hence, whatever remains MIGHT be correct.
Have a good day
Reply