Einstein Disproves Einstein!

“If the velocity of light is even a tiny bit dependent upon the velocity of the light source, then my entire theory of relativity and gravitation is false.” – Albert Einstein

Since the red and blue shift of light coming from distant stars is thought to be the result of the movement of those stars it would appear that these observations means that, according to Einstein, Einstein’s theories are wrong.

Even is these shifts are not caused by the motion of the sources but in the transmission of the light, it still means that Einstein’s theories are wrong. According to Einstein’s constant speed of light there is no time at the speed of light and therefore there can be no change. Either way the change of the spectrum of light coming from an atom means that Einstein’s theories are wrong.

Isn’t it ironic that cosmology is based on Einstein’s theories with its black holes, expanding universe, dark matter, dark energy, and the measurement of distance in light years but these beliefs are the result of evidence that proves those theories to be wrong?

The changing of the spectrum of light predates Einstein’s work when in 1896 Pieter Zeeman showed that a large magnetic field could cause a change in the spectrum of light emitted from an atom and later, in 1913, Johannes Stark experiments showed the same results from a change of an electric field.

Knowing that a change in the strength of a magnetic field would cause a change in the spectrum of light emitted by an object why would Einstein propose in 1905 that the speed of light is constant in the vacuum of space when space contains magnetic fields of varying strength and why would scientists accept his contention when Zeeman and Lorentz had been awarded the Noble Prize in physics in 1902 for showing the effect of magnetic fields on electromagnetic waves?

In the 1910s discoveries of this shift in light coming from distant stars led Edwin Hubble to develop the expanding universe with the Hubble constant (a speed change by 179km/sec per light year). Despite this changing velocity Einstein’s assertion that the movement of a source of light could not affect the light being emitted was still not questioned and his theories were accepted and became dogma.

Why wouldn’t Einstein raise objections or questions to this obvious contradiction to the premise of his theories? You cannot accept both the theories and the data as true. The evidence of the shifts is undeniable so the conclusion can only be drawn that Einstein was correct when he said his theories were wrong.

All this contradiction disappears if light is a wave traveling in the magnetic and electric fields emitted by objects in the universe. Unfortunately this also causes the photon, constant speed of light, expanding universe, black holes, time dilation, neutrinos, and most of what modern physics considers as reality to also disappear. It is pointless for physicists to keep creating more illusions in order to preserve their delusions and try to make reality conform to theory.

The reality is that light is a wave and the creation of the photon to explain the photoelectric effect is not proof of a particle nature of light. The photoelectric effect is another example of the piezoelectric effect where the distortion of an ionic bond (by a changing electric and magnetic field) causes electrons to flow.

There is no one reference frame, like the speed of light, for comparing everything. Every object is determined by the fields it emits and the position, movement, and characteristics of things within those fields, is referenced to the center of those fields. Objects in the Earth’s field like, the moon, are referenced to the center of the Earth while on the moon the reference frame is from the center of the moon. The unit formed by the combination of the fields from the moon and Earth has a different reference center when it comes to its position and movement in the sun’s fields.

The size of an object is not determined by its matter but the area or fields it emits. These fields the object emits will expand, decreasing with distance, until they encounter the fields emitted by other objects that are of equal strength and equilibrium is established. The size of an object is determined by the fields of its neighbors and when they change so does the size of all neighboring objects.

The Earth (including the moon) radiates fields in all directions until its fields equalize with the fields radiated by the sun. This means the Earth is not round but tear shaped, with short but condensed fields facing the sun and a longer fields pointing away from the sun

The fields that determine the size of our solar system expand until they equalize with fields coming from other neighboring solar systems. A disturbance within these fields will be transmitted through the fields decreasing in speed, frequency, and amplitude with the weakening fields, until it is transferred to a neighboring field, where its speed and frequency will increase as the strength of those fields increases.

The changing speed of a disturbance as it moves from one object’s fields to another’s will result in refraction or a change of direction of the spreading light. In a field that is decreasing the energy (amplitude) of the disturbance will be transmitted from one source to multiple neighboring fields resulting in the light diverging and creating a red shift. In a strengthening or increasing field the disturbance will move from more objects to fewer objects causing an increase in energy/amplitude, creating a blue shift.

The energy of light is not a function of its frequency, as Planck asserted, but the amplitude of the wave. The wavelength and frequency of the energy which other objects absorb is determined by the structure of the object absorbing the energy, not the energy of the energy field.

A model of the universe would not be various points of matter dispersed in vast empty space but more like a foam composed of various sized bubbles, joined together in a continuous mass. The light being emitted from one bubble, with a weakening diverging field, would be transferred to neighboring bubbles where the disturbance would be condensed by convergence and then transferred to that bubble’s neighbors, creating larger units with fields from made from  the combined fields of  its internal parts. This results in planet-moon systems, solar systems, galaxies, and finally the universe.

When we look around us we see a solar system and galaxy with very little (close to zero density) matter and yet when we look through a telescope the density or matter increases. The more powerful the telescope the greater the density is. We can expect that when we spend billions of dollars on the next version of the James Webb telescope the image printed out will be a red piece of paper.

Light does not travel in straight lines but arcs and, being a change of energy, it doesn’t disappear unless absorbed by an object. The contention that we will be able to look out and see what the universe was like at its beginning assumes that there is something at the edge of the universe to reflect that light and there is nothing in the universe to absorb it.

When we look through binoculars objects get larger but they don’t get closer together. The reason density increases when looking through a telescope is because the light that has been emitted from a source has arced around and reversed directions so we see multiple images of the same object. It is akin to looking at the reflection of an object positioned between two mirrors but instead of the light being reflected, it is moving in circular paths with different diameters.

The universe is three dimensional, not two dimensional and there are no straight lines only arcs. It is the belief that objects and light travel in straight lines that has resulted in physics (including gravity) being disconnected from reality.

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.

Comments (17)

  • Avatar

    Geraint HUghes

    |

    I do not know of any method of increasing the speed of light, however, there have been many successful attempts at slowing down the speed of light, with one such attempt made where it was brought to a complete standstill. Herb, did Albert Einstein have anything to say about slowing down light and what that would mean?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Geraint,
      Einstein said that light had a maximum speed, c, and that speed occurred in a vacuum. Light traveled slower with an increase in density of the medium it was in, causing refraction in glass and water. In the experiment you referenced, where the speed slowed, the environment was very like empty space, extreme vacuum and temperature near absolute zero. Why would these conditions allow light to slow?
      If light were a wave traveling in the electric and magnetic (energy) fields one would expect it would be traveling faster in glass and water with their stronger fields and this would be the cause of the refraction.
      You are an experimental scientist so here is an experiment to see if light travels faster in denser material.
      Split a beam of light in two and adjust a receiver to eliminate any interference pattern so that when sending a signal through the carrier wave (fiber optics) you can get a wave pattern in the receiver By then place a glass rod, so the light of one beam passes through it, the wave will shift from the change in speed of the one beam. The distance that light beam travels will also change because of refraction. By using the refractive index of the glass you can determine the increased distance the light in the glass travelled and in which beam the light travelled faster.
      Herb

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Geraint HUghes

    |

    Herb,

    Another question for you. “The size of an object is determined by the fields of its neighbors and when they change so does the size of all neighboring objects.” You said this. If a planet say Jupiter, had some form of planet sized eruption and ejected a moon from it which say was ejected with enough force to reach say the asteroid belt. Would this have an effect on moving the other planets? Would they get bigger or smaller? Thanks.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Geraint,
      When the energy of an object increases or decreases the equilibrium point with neighboring objects moves towards or retreats, even though the source of the fields does not move.
      The asteroid belt is a result of the fields of Jupiter and the sun overlapping so the material in the belt was trying to equalize with two energy sources and never coalesced into a planet. If Jupiter ejected a mass into the asteroid belt it would then become a satellite of the sun and would be a loss of energy and size of Jupiter and an increase in the size of asteroid belt. The reason asteroids can orbit other asteroids, even though their mass would not allow this, is because the expansion of their fields due to the weakness of the sun’s fields. This allows for an asteroid to be contained by the field of another asteroid and become its satellite.
      Herb

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Ken Hughes

    |

    Einstein does not preclude the changing frequency of light. In fact, he predicted it. It is the WAVE FRONT that “travels” at “c”, irrespective of the frequency. You do not understand relativity.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Ken,
      Light is a result of an electron losing energy and moving from a higher energy state to a lower energy state. If the movement of the object emitting this light causes a red shift (loss of energy) by accelerating away from the observer then what causes the blue shift does it mean the electrons in the atoms of an object moving towards the observer are all gaining energy and moving to higher energy states? Why does perceived direction alter the atoms and not the increase in energy (acceleration) of the object? This is the insanity that means that no matter where you are in the universe you are at the center and the universe is expanding away from you.
      Herb

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Kay Kiser

    |

    Very interesting points. Light is affected by electromagnetic fields which fill the known universe, much like your foam analogy. I noticed you didn’t mention gravity. Light is bent and stretched by the gravity of other bodies as it passes. Red shift may only tell us how many high gravity bodies and how many fields it has encountered as it passed, and therefore indicates the time in transit from its origin. Edwin Hubble discovered the link between red shift and distance, but only considered nearby systems. Recent red shift calculations exclude nearby systems due to local gravity effects. He later realized that the correlation was not good and spent the rest of his life trying to convince other scientists that the Big Bang Theory and the expanding universe were wrong. Fritz Zwicky proposed loss of energy over time as gravity effects from systems passed. He and Hubble were both sidelined (and Einstein), in spite of their important contributions, because they did not follow the “party line.” See my book Perverted Truth Exposed: How Progressive Philosophy Has Corrupted Science, T. Kay Kiser, 2016, Chapter 5 and references to original works by these men.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      T. C. Clark

      |

      Light is not “bent and stretched” by gravity. Gravity affects space-time and light follows space-time. Light has no mass – mass tells space-time how to bend and space-time tells mass how to move. Einstein has been reviewed by thousands of physicists for over a century….Herbphysics is only known by one person and is mildly amusing…very mild. The visible light – Red Orange Yellow Green Blue Indigo Violet are different frequencies but all move at the same speed. A prism will reveal these colors but all move at the same speed. Herbphysics should attempt to explain Einstein’s 1905 statement that it is by convention that we accept that light moves at the same speed in all directions because no one knows how to measure the light speed in ONLY one direction…all the accurate measurements involve a mirror to reflect the light back to the source before a measurement.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Kay,
      I’m not one who believes in a force of gravity. The bending of light is a result of the change in strength of the matter (electric) and energy (gravity/magnetic) forces with distance from their source.
      If mass produces both inertia (resistance to movement) and gravity (impetus for movement) and gravitational mass is equal to inertial mass, how can gravity ever cause something move?
      The behavior of a force of gravity is so bizarre (different force between the sun and every object in the solar system) that it (as well as the nuclear forces) lacks credibility. The two components of the universe (matter and energy) have forces that have opposite behavior. When opposite magnetic poles approach each one the size and strength of the radiated force increases (bigger magnet). When opposite charges approach each other the size and strength of the radiated electric fields decrease in size and strength (neutron). The opposite occurs when like poles/charges approach each other. The energy force is stronger (probably by a factor of the golden constant, phi,) and is attracted to positive matter and repels negative matter. Energy is the strong compressing nuclear force while the electric force is the weak nuclear force. This is what causes beta decay and the electrons in orbits convert the radiated attractive energy force into a directional magnetic force.
      Objects in orbits are in equilibrium with the force being radiated from the source. Newton’s first law (An object will move in a straight-line unless a force misapplied to it.) should be an object will maintain its energy unless energies added to it or lost by it. Hence orbits and the addition of energy results in a larger orbit and the object with less energy while a removal of energy results in a smaller orbit and the object having more energy.
      It was believed that Andromeda was the closest star to our solar system because of its brightness. It turns out that Andromeda is not a star but a cluster so how could it be that close? The brightness of objects is not just a result of the light emitted but of lensing due to the bending if light by the electric and energy fields.
      If you do the calculations on binary asteroids using their masses, distance between them, and the velocity of the orbiting asteroid you find they can’t be.
      Herb

      Reply

  • Avatar

    T. C. Clark

    |

    There is a theory in quantum mechanics that everything is a field – it is not widely accepted.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi T.C.
      Why I don’t believe in quantum physics (the laws of physics are uniform and don’t change due to our perception of size) I do believe everything is a result of fields and their interactions. What we refer to as mass is just how tightly a positive field is held in an energy field. Positive field attracts energy, negative field repels energy hence the difference in mass of a proton and an electron despite identical charges.
      With race cars there must be an aerodynamic design to maintain traction with the pavement because at high speeds gravity does not hold it to the pavement. The gravity of the Earth doesn’t change, the mass of the car does.
      Herb

      Reply

      • Avatar

        T. C. Clark

        |

        Let’s see….there’s Electric Universe…Herbphysics…how about MagicVerse? Magic Man has a Huge Magic Wand…makes everything happen? That race car is all about aerodynamics…it is definitely not velocity that makes it “lighter” and thus prone to leave the road.

        Reply

      • Avatar

        lloyd

        |

        So Quantum Entanglement does not exist, nor Schrodinger’s cat. please provide proof, not just your opinion.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Herb Rose

          |

          Hi Lloyd,
          Proof or more appropriately disproof is done using reason when a contradiction or disconnect from reality causes someone to accept that an ideas wrong. It is based on having a hierarchy of beliefs. If something violates the laws of thermodynamics it is shown to be untrue.
          With Quantum mechanics there is no proof because there is no reason or hierarchy and the cat can be both dead and alive and objects have cognition. The very idea that every answer is a right answer and it is the observer that chooses the reality is a denial of physics and that there is a common reality.
          Herb

          Reply

  • Avatar

    Jerry Krause

    |

    Hi Herb and PSI commeters,

    I commend you all for a good Scientific discussion. It had been sometime since I read or heard a discussion of the discussion about the red shift. About which learned from listening to some instructors of astronomy discussing it. And the only thing I learned (understood) about it, back in the 70s, or early 80s, was that there was a red-shift constant that was observed to not be constant as the lights of more distant stars were studied.

    But Herb, you titled your article ‘Einstein Disproves Einstein”. You just wrote: “The wavelength and frequency of the energy which other objects absorb is determined by the structure of the object absorbing the energy, not the energy of the energy field.” I have no idea (opinion) as to the validity of your statement but it clearly states that any observed red-shift is due to the instrument observing the shift.

    As I write this comment, I seem to remember the constant varied (was not constant as the the distance of the star from the telescope and the instrument measuring a star’s light spectrum increased. And I expect that the spectrum of the distance star was being compared with our sun’s spectrum. Which distant star light was a point of light instead of a disk of light.

    Have a good day, Jerry
    .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Herb Rose

      |

      Hi Jerry,
      Molecules have one or more bonds connecting atoms. The atoms vibrate at these bonds and a wavelength matching the size of the bond can receive energy from or transmit energy to the surrounding energy field depending on if the amplitude of the vibration in the molecule is greater or less than the amplitude of the field’s wave. The oxygen and nitrogen molecules in the atmosphere have bonds that are short and they will absorb the uv light coming from the sun but let the visible and longer waves pass through unaffected. CO2 will absorb three different wavelengths (temperatures) of IR radiation.
      The spectrum of an atom is a result of them absorbing energy causing their electrons to move into a higher energy level. When they lose this energy the electrons drop to a lower energy level and emit light with a wavelength determined by the energy change.
      Every element has a different electron configuration and emits a. unique spectrum of wavelengths determined by its electrons. A red shift or blue shift is where the unique patterns of wavelengths all get longer or shorter but he pattern remains the same. A hydrogen atom emitting light in a distant star will have the same pattern a hydrogen atom in a laboratory but the pattern will be shifted. (In chemistry I’m sure you’ve done spectral analysis to determine what elements are in a compound)
      A telescope is not absorbing the light but gathering it and transmitting it to another instrument (your eye, prism, or spectrograph) to be analyzed.
      Hubble’s constant, 179,000km/sec/lightyear is an attempt to determine how far away star is by the shift in the spectrum and whether the star is moving away (red shift) or towards you (blue shift).
      Herb

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Jerry Krause

        |

        Hi PSI Readers and Herb,

        I seldom totally agree with Herb’s ideas but often he helps (causes) me to see things which I have not really seen before.
        Here he wrote: “In chemistry I’m sure you’ve done spectral analysis to determine what elements are in a compound.” Yes, I have even taken a hydrogen gas discharge tube and an inexpensive diffraction grating so they could see the ‘line’ spectra of excited hydrogen atoms.

        Suddenly I finally saw that line spectra could not be that of hydrogen atoms in the sun. Why the hydrogen gas is near room temperature and its density (pressure) is not great. And we know the temperature of the hydrogen atoms in stars is very great; so great that the nuclei of are being squeezed together in a process known as nuclear fusion to form larger nuclei plus energy which is what creates the very high temperatures of stars and our sun. So, the chemistry in me causes me to ask the question: Why do we expect the red line spectra of hydrogen in stars to be even as close as it is to the red line spectrum of the gas discharge tube???

        And I certainly do not know the answer to this question.

        Have a good day, Jerry

        Reply

Leave a comment

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.
Share via