Why Astrophysicists are Questioning Einstein’s Theory of Space-time
Image: Al Poniente
As in history, revolutions are the lifeblood of science. Bubbling undercurrents of disquiet boil over until a new regime emerges to seize power. Then everyone’s attention turns to toppling their new ruler. The king is dead, long live the king.
This has happened many times in the history of physics and astronomy. First, we thought Earth was at the center of the solar system — an idea that stood for over 1,000 years. Then Copernicus stuck his neck out to say that the whole system would be a lot simpler if we are just another planet orbiting the sun. Despite much initial opposition, the old geocentric picture eventually buckled under the weight of evidence from the newly invented telescope.
Then Newton came along to explain that gravity is why the planets orbit the sun. He said all objects with mass have a gravitational attraction towards each other. According to his ideas we orbit the sun because it is pulling on us, the moon orbits Earth because we are pulling on it. Newton ruled for two-and-a-half centuries before Albert Einstein turned up in 1915 to usurp him with his General Theory of Relativity. This new picture neatly explained inconsistencies in Mercury‘s orbit, and was famously confirmed by observations of a solar eclipse off the coast of Africa in 1919.
Instead of a pull, Einstein saw gravity as the result of curved space. He said that all objects in the universe sit in a smooth, four-dimensional fabric called space-time. Massive objects such as the sun warp the space-time around them, and so Earth’s orbit is simply the result of our planet following this curvature. To us that looks like a Newtonian gravitational pull. This space-time picture has now been on the throne for over 100 years, and has so far vanquished all pretenders to its crown.
The discovery of gravitational waves in 2015 was a decisive victory, but, like its predecessors, it too might be about to fall. That’s because it is fundamentally incompatible with the other big beast in the physics zoo: Quantum theory.
The quantum world is notoriously weird. Single particles can be in two places at once, for example. Only by making an observation do we force it to ‘choose’. Before an observation we can only assign probabilities to the likely outcomes. In the 1930s, Erwin Schrödinger devised a famous way to expose how perverse this idea is. He imagined a cat in a sealed box accompanied by a vial of poison attached to a hammer. The hammer is hooked up to a device that measures the quantum state of a particle.
Whether or not the hammer smashes the vial and kills the cat hinges on that measurement, but quantum physics says that until such a measurement is made, the particle is simultaneously in both states, which means the vial is both broken and unbroken and the cat is alive and dead.
Such a picture cannot be reconciled with a smooth, continuous fabric of space-time. “A gravitational field cannot be in two places at once,” said Sabine Hossenfelder, a theoretical physicist at the Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies. According to Einstein, space-time is warped by matter and energy, but quantum physics says matter and energy exist in multiple states simultaneously — they can be both here and over there. “So where is the gravitational field?” asks Hossenfelder. “Nobody has an answer to that question. It’s kind of embarrassing,” she said.
Image: Take 27 Ltd
Try and use general relativity and quantum theory together, and it doesn’t work. “Above a certain energy, you get probabilities that are larger than one,” said Hossenfelder. One is the highest probability possible — it means an outcome is certain. You can’t be more certain than certain. Equally, calculations sometimes give you the answer infinity, which has no real physical meaning. The two theories are therefore mathematically inconsistent.
So, like many monarchs throughout history, physicists are seeking a marriage between rival factions to secure peace. They’re searching for a theory of quantum gravity— the ultimate diplomatic exercise in getting these two rivals to share the throne. This has seen theorists turn to some outlandish possibilities.
Arguably the most famous is string theory. It’s the idea that sub-atomic particles such as electrons and quarks are made from tiny vibrating strings. Just as you can play strings on a musical instrument to create different notes, string theorists argue that different combinations of strings create different particles. The attraction of the theory is that it can reconcile general relativity and quantum physics, at least on paper.
However, to pull that particular rabbit out of the hat, the strings have to vibrate across eleven dimensions — seven more than the four in Einstein’s space-time fabric. As yet there is no experimental evidence that these extra dimensions really exist. “It might be interesting mathematics, but whether it describes the space-time in which we live, we don’t really know until there is an experiment,” said Jorma Louko from the University of Nottingham.
Partly inspired by string theory’s perceived failings, other physicists have turned to an alternative called Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG). They can get the two theories to play nicely if they do away with one of the central tenets of general relativity: That space-time is a smooth, continuous fabric. Instead, they argue, space-time is made up of a series of interwoven loops — that it has structure at the smallest size scales.
This is a bit like a length of cloth. At first glance it looks like one smooth fabric. Look closely, however, and you’ll see it is really made of a network of stitches. Alternatively, think of it like a photograph on a computer screen: Zoom in, and you’ll see it is really made of individual pixels.
The trouble is that when LQG physicists say small, they mean really small. These defects in space-time would only be apparent on the level of the Planck scale —around a trillionth of a trillionth of a trillionth of a meter. That’s so tiny that there would be more loops in a cubic centimeter of space than cubic centimeters in the entire observable universe. “If space-time only differs on the Planck scale then this would be difficult to test in any particle accelerator,” says Louko.
You’d need an atom smasher a 1,000-trillion-times more powerful than the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN. How, then, can you detect space-time defects that small? The answer is to look across a large area of space.
Light arriving here from the furthest reaches of the universe has traveled through billions of light years of space-time along the way. While the effect of each space-time defect would be tiny, over those distances interactions with multiple defects might well add up to a potentially observable effect. For the last decade, astronomers have been using light from far-off Gamma Ray Bursts to look for evidence in support of LQG.
These cosmic flashes are the result of massive stars collapsing at the ends of their lives, and there is something about these distant detonations we currently cannot explain. “Their spectrum has a systematic distortion to it,” said Hossenfelder, but no one knows if that is something that happens on the way here or if it’s something to do with the source of the bursts themselves. The jury is still out.
To make progress, we might have to go a step further than saying space-time isn’t the smooth, continuous fabric Einstein suggested. According to Einstein, space-time is like a stage that remains in place whether actors are treading its boards or not —even if there were no stars or planets dancing around, space-time would still be there. However, physicists Laurent Freidel, Robert Leigh, and Djordje Minic think that this picture is holding us back.
They believe space-time doesn’t exist independently of the objects in it. Space-time is defined by the way objects interact. That would make space-time an artifact of the quantum world itself, not something to be combined with it. “It may sound kooky,” said Minic, “but it is a very precise way of approaching the problem.”
The attraction of this theory — called modular space-time — is that it might help solve another long-standing problem in theoretical physics regarding something called locality, and a notorious phenomenon in quantum physics called entanglement. Physicists can set up a situation whereby they bring two particles together and link their quantum properties. They then separate them by a large distance and find they are still linked.
Change the properties of one and the other will change instantly, as if information has traveled from one to the other faster than the speed of light in direct violation of relativity. Einstein was so perturbed by this phenomenon that he called it ‘spooky action at a distance‘.
Modular space-time theory can accommodate such behavior by redefining what it means to be separated. If space-time emerges from the quantum world, then being closer in a quantum sense is more fundamental than being close in a physical sense. “Different observers would have different notions of locality,” said Minic, “it depends on the context.” It’s a bit like our relationships with other people. We can feel closer to a loved one far away than the stranger who lives down the street. “You can have these non-local connections as long as they are fairly small,” said Hossenfelder.
Freidel, Leigh, and Minic have been working on their idea for the last five years, and they believe they are slowly making progress. “We want to be conservative and take things step-by-step,” said Minic, “but it is tantalizing and exciting“. It’s certainly a novel approach, one that looks to “gravitationalize” the quantum world rather than quantizing gravity as in LQG. Yet as with any scientific theory, it needs to be tested. At the moment the trio are working on how to fit time into their model.
This may all sound incredibly esoteric, something only academics should care about, but it could have a more profound effect on our everyday lives. “We sit in space, we travel through time, and if something changes in our understanding of space-time this will impact not only on our understanding of gravity, but of quantum theory in general,” said Hossenfelder. “All our present devices only work because of quantum theory. If we understand the quantum structure of space-time better that will have an impact on future technologies — maybe not in 50 or 100 years, but maybe in 200,” she said.
The current monarch is getting long in tooth, and a new pretender is long overdue, but we can’t decide which of the many options is the most likely to succeed. When we do, the resulting revolution could bear fruit not just for theoretical physics, but for all.
See more here: livescience.com
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.
Mark Tapley
| #
The rabid Zionist Jew Einstein plagiarized the work of real scientists and his first wife who had the education he did not. That is why when awarded the Nobel prize he gave the money to her. Read “Einstein’s Plagiarism of the Theory of Relativity” also “Mileva Einstein Marity, Einstein’s Partner In Crime” by Christopher Bejerknes.
Reply
MIKE SEMOFF
| #
I’ve successfully treated many patients like you. Don’t listen to those voices, please.
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Semoff:
I hear no internal voices (other than the tinnitus). Nor do I accept the MSM narrative. It seems your “treatments” must originate with with the Jew shyster Schlomo Freud. Only one good thing to say about this sex obsessed quack. Even he never diagnosed people he had not met.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
When your beliefs lead to insanity the solution is not in creating more insanity but to determine where the insanity began. The current insanity goes back before Einstein and Newton to the acceptance that the force between magnets is equal to the products of the magnets divided by the distance to their centers squared. In reality the formula should be the force of the combining magnets is equal to the sum of the two magnets divided by the distance from one magnet to the magnetic field of the other magnet.
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
The insanity stems from the traditional understanding of special relativity. Cure that, and everything becomes quite clear.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Ken,
I believe this part of insanity started with an unsupported contention that there is a constant speed of light and that light is a particle. If light is a wave traveling in the magnetic and electric fields radiated by all objects and the speed varies with the strength of the fields everything becomes sane.
Herb
Reply
Lit
| #
A photon has never been observed outside of mass. Measuring a photon requires a sensor, and a sensor only shows the response of matter when interacting with the field. So, a photon is not a particle of light, it´s the quantized response of matter. To me, this indicates that light is not quantized, it´s matter that´s quantized.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Maybe the best place to start is by burying the concept that G is a constant throughout the universe. If we replace this with a theory of Gravispheres I think we are getting closer to the truth. See https://principia-scientific.com/publications/PROM/PROM-Beatty-Gravispheres.pdf
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Thank-you Robert Beatty, very probable! 🙂
This would lead to the progress of time being conditional with its local surrounding Gravispheres, and hence such anomalies like blue shift (and excessive red shift) are better explained.
Reply
Colin Henderson
| #
In an expanding universe how can gravity at any one point be constant?
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Good points Colin and Tom,
If G is not constant, we can ignore half the equations used to predict what is happening in the universe.
Reply
MattH
| #
If G is a product of mass, what role is played by the speed of rotation of that mass?
If the sun or planet earth did not rotate would they still produce gravity, and if a non rotating planet earth did produce gravity how much less gravity would it produce than a spinning planet earth?
Reply
MattH
| #
The moon does not rotate on it’s axis. I must think before asking dumb questions.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
G is the only thing that associates gravity with mass. The data (Kepler’s Law) just says that the energy (v^2) of an orbiting object time its distance (d) from the object is constant, it doesn’t”t say that the constant is mass.. Newton created G to provide a source (mass) for his force.If you are making G a variable are you making the mass of the elements (protons, neutrons, and electrons) variable? Simpler to say the energy associated with mass varies depending on the energy fields from neighboring objects. (A field expands (decreases) until it meets another field of equal strength.)
Herb
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Herb,
Thanks for your thoughts. Kelper’s Law can be derived from Newton, as previously discussed. It is a function of conditions in our solar system where the value for G is fairly constant due to our gravity system’s barycentre being 3,343 light years away. G will require different values for mass at different points in a Gravisphere, as you predict, and as evidenced at black hole regions. This happens is due to the concentration of “Gravitons” associated with the atomic elements of the mass at each point in space. Where the much sort after Gravitons form is also very interesting. See https://bosmin.com/PSL/NEGATRONS.pdf
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
Newton used Kepler’s law to develop his theory of gravity, so to say that Kepler’s law can be derived from Newton has it backwards.
Instead of a force between masses there is an equalization of energy. That is why the speed of a falling object or the velocity of an orbiting satellite have nothing to do with their mass, only their altitude and the strength of the energy field they are in.
Herb.
Reply
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Herb,
“the strength of the energy field” sounds like another way if saying ‘concentration of “Gravitons” associated with the atomic elements of the mass’
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
Yes they are very similar but for me mass resists motion (inertia) while energy causes motion. Energy and mass are the two indestructible ingredients that form the universe. The strength of energy is greater than the electric force of matter and displaces electrons giving them motion creating atoms.
Herb
Robert Beatty
| #
Hi Herb,
Gravitons form a vital connection between QM and GR which is well studied and generally understood. You will need to start from scratch to develop a cogent theory based around your e-thing. Good luck.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
GR and QM may be well studied and accepted but they defy reason.
According to Einstein the speed of lights constant and gravity and acceleration are equivalent. If something moves faster and time slows distance must expand to keep c constant.
With gravity the stronger the gravitational force the slower time goes along with a corresponding increase in distance. This means the closer you get to a mass the greater the gravity, the slower time, and the greater the distance to the mass.
If you understand that you’re doing better than I am.
Herb
Robert Beatty
| #
Herb,
“If something moves faster and time slows distance must expand to keep c constant.”
My understanding is: S=VT If V increases and T reduces proportionately, S stays constant.
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Robert,
I do not know what “S” stands for, but velocity is distance over time so if you multiply velocity by time you get a distance and if the velocity of light is constant for any change in time there must be a corresponding change in distance to maintain the constant. If time expands distance expands of if time contracts distance contracts thereby keeping the same value for the speed of light.
Herb
tom0mason
| #
Everything in science is to be questioned, that IS what real science is about.
There is no “THE SCIENCE”! The scientific method is a process of continual refinement.
As Dr. Jacob Bronowski said …
Science is a very human form of knowledge. We are always at the brink of the known; we always feel forward for what is to be hoped. Every judgment in science stands on the edge of error and is personal. Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible. In the end, the words were said by Oliver Cromwell: “I beseech you in the bowels of Christ: Think it possible you may be mistaken.”
[my bold]
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello TomO:
Everything is to be questioned except official the official Zionist MSM narrative. Thats why Jew Tube and the ADL (founded in defense of child rapist and murderer Leo Frank) sensors all alternative science. You are not allowed to question the Zionist mantras of climate change, over population or the fake virus. You just need to focus on white hate crimes and anti-Semitism as our FBI director Christopher Ray (Black Rock Shill) points out before our shabbas goy aIPAC, ADL congress of puppet actors.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Mark Tapley, please stop, I find you continual raving about jews and zionist inappropriate and often offensive.
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Tom,
Mark believes that the Bible is literally true and is the final authority of truth. Sciences like paleontology, geology, physics, etc. that contradict the Bible are plots by those who are trying to discredit his belief system. He is trying to defend his beliefs, which is expected, by attacking those he believes are attacking him.
Herb
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Hello Herb:
The comments I made to mason have no reference to the Bible but are only dealing with the blatantly obvious censoring of information by the governing power structure. The fact of where we are headed should be transparent to anyone who cares to do the most cursory investigation.
You and mason may think that the climate change fraud and the ridiculous fake virus are coincidences but as PSI has pointed out numerous times it has all been planned for decades. Even the well established lawyer Fuellmich says that their are about 3,000 people running the whole operation with ap. 6,000 other key operatives. Actually as with all the elite organizations, it is controlled at the top by no more than 300.
These elite are now in the process of transitioning from the industrial society and capitalism over to a global technocratic Neo feudalism. There are many like you and mason that will deny this until the herd is relegated to the austerity and deprivation of Agenda 2030-21. There you may ruminate on your esoteric details while counting your allotted energy quotas. Many of you may be discomfited when your children or grand children ask “what did you do to stop this?”
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi TomO and hopefully other PSI Readers,
TomO, I usually respect what you write in your comments BUT: “Everything in science is to be questioned, that IS what real science is about.” The SCIENCE I practice is based upon REPRODUCIBLE OBSERVED FACTS. The SCIENCE I practice tries to explain the how or why of these REPRODUCIBLE OBSERVED FACTS by using my experiences and what I have read and accepted about other SCIENTISTS’s experiences.
I know that what Colin Stuart wrote–“As in history, revolutions are the lifeblood of science.”–is absolutely FALSE. The OBSERVED FACTS of HISTORY should never be questioned nor ignored.
In Stuart’s flash review of the history of physics and astronomy, he names Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein. I ask where is the historical fact that Galileo wrote a BOOK with the title DIALOGUES CONCERNING TWO NEW SCIENCES???
John O’Sullivan, a founder and the editor of PSI has tried to teach me to be brief. So, I stop here and await your answer to this question or possibly answers of other PSI Readers.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
tom0mason
| #
Hi Jerry, you wrote “The SCIENCE I practice tries to explain the how or why of these REPRODUCIBLE OBSERVED FACTS by using my experiences and what I have read and accepted about other SCIENTISTS’s experiences.”
and I largely agree with you 🙂 .
My point, which was poorly put, is that as our scientific experiences and measurement methods progress and improve, then evermore insight could be discovered about how the many elemental components of the natural universe function. Also as most measurement systems are not perfect, many observations (current and historical) are not absolutely accurate.
As far as I understand it, the scientific archives do not provide a complete record of all that should be known — can it ever? Obviously they can not be known until they’re discovered and measured. But how can it be verified that all elemental components of this universe have been found?
Neither do the scientific archives provide complete knowledge or understanding of how some components of our universe function — sometimes there are anomalies which happen so rarely they are not fully understood. Sometimes there are just errors that need to be corrected – see https://retractionwatch.com/ for some that have been weeded out. Nor do the scientific archives provide how all these components fit together as a complete, cohesive and verifiable group of scientific laws. Laws that should be able to explain all the functions of the all components and how they naturally interlock to form the whole universe that is observed and measured.
These are the scientific basics I meant and they should be questioned until all the scientific laws are known.
“Science is a tribute to what we can know although we are fallible.”
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi TomO and hopefully other PSI Readers,
TomO’s comment is why I respect him. We can have a discussion about differences without insulting anyone. And learn from each other.
TomO, you wrote: “Laws that should be able to explain all the functions of the all components and how they naturally interlock to form the whole universe that is observed and measured.”
The KNOWLEDGE of SCIENCE is BUILT on SCIENTIFIC LAWS but SCIENTIFIC LAWS EXPLAIN NOTHING. SCIENTIFIC LAWS are merely SUMMARIES of RELATIONSHIPS between REPRODUCIBLE OBSERVATIONS (sometimes MEASUREMENTS).
When you wrote: “As far as I understand it, the scientific archives do not provide a complete record of all that should be known — can it ever? Obviously they can not be known until they’re discovered and measured. But how can it be verified that all elemental components of this universe have been found?”, what you wrote is ABSOLUTELY CORRECT.
A good example of this was written by Richard Feynman in his New York Times BESTSELLER (“Surely You’re Joking Mr. Feynman!”) and not in a scientific journal. In the chapter titled ‘The 7 Percent Solution’ Feynman wrote: “Finally they get all this stuff into me, and they say, “the situation is so mixed up that even some of the things they’ve established for years are being questioned–such as the beta decay of the neutron is S and T. It’s so messed up. Murray says it might even be V and A.”
“I jump up from the stool and say, “Then I understand EVVVVVERYTHING!”‘
“That night I calculated all kinds of things with this theory. The first thing I calculated was the rate of disintegration of the muon and the neutron. They should be connected together if this theory was right, by a certain relationship, and it was right to 9 percent. That’s pretty close, 9 percent. It should have been more perfect than that, but it was close enough.”
Feynman goes on for two more pages. So I urge you, if you haven’t read this book, to get this book and read the end of the 9 percent solution and the entire book, And read the entire book, if you haven’t. After all, I doubt SCIENTISTS reading this book made it a bestseller. It is very interesting reading for NON-SCIENTISTS and you will learn much about SCIENCE which you maybe did not know.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi TomO and hopefully other PSI Readers,
In the morning I observe the maximum and minimum air temperatures be measured by our simple, inexpensive automated weather station and this morning it had cooled 20F to 55F since midnight. Our location is a common residential area which is several hundred feet above the airport only about 3 miles away. So yesterday our max temp was a couple of degrees lower than the airport’s reported 85F. And I often look at the RAWS (Remote Automated Weather Station) at William Finley Wildlife Reserve) data. (https://principia-scientific.com/the-corvallis-or-uscrn-site-a-natural-laboratory-part-two/) Where yesterday the max temp was about 84F and the min temp this morning 55F.
What I had never considered was when the maximum rate of cooling was from the max to near the min. At the RAWS site the temp had cooled to near the min by 7pm yesterday, at the airport it had cooled to near the min by midnight, and at our residential area it cooled 20F after midnight.
Now, this is not exactly a SCIENTIFIC LAW but it is OBSERVED DATA which needs to be explained (UNDERSTOOD).
And I challenge any PSI Reader of this (including TomO) to explain that which I should have observed years ago. Yes, I conclude that now I have observed it, I understand it. However, I could never have understood it until I had actually observed these temperature measurements.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Ken Hughes
| #
So now we have yet another contender for joining QM with GR. – Modular Space Time.
Maybe gravity simply operates at the larger scale while quantum mechanics applies only at the small (fast) scale. In which case you can never bring the two together in a single theory, but we do have to understand how these two theories are separated.
Reply
SadiJevons
| #
No matter how humans are unlucky fossil fuels deplete over time, humans are very lucky indeed they will run out of fossil fuels so fossil fuels-run Physics and Science stop being circular.
Today, outgoing 20th Century Physics is not pending a new Physics but rather a new Social Contract.
The new 21st Century Physics (and beyond) has already, strongly and clearly expressed itself – “Energy, like time, flows from past to future”.
Reply
Doug Harrison
| #
SadiJevons,You begin with a fallacy viz ” Fossil fuels”. Oil and gas do not come from fossils; they are a product of heat and pressure at the base of the earth’s crust and therefore a renewable resource. Whether they renew at a rate fast enough to make up for the current rate of use is debatable. However the Western World is not interested in this as the current fallacy that oil and gas are derived from fossils suits the oil companies just fine
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Harrison, you know that we have to be running out of everything while destroying the planet with CO2 emissions. If not for our wonderful leaders we would all be dead now from all those viral pathogens dropping out of the sky. It will be much safer when a place is provided for all the livestock in the Sustainable Development Initiative Agenda 2030-21.
Reply
yougottaloveme
| #
Three articles on Principia demonstrate that fossil fuels don’t exist as such. Evidently the Russians figured this out long ago. Oil is produced from iron oxide and calcium carbonate reacting at high pressure and temperature in the depths of Earth’s mantle.
Deep Ocean Discovery Casts Doubt on Fossil Fuel Theory (March 27, 2013)
Russians & NASA Discredit 'Fossil Fuel' Theory: Demise of Junk CO2 Science (November 12, 2014)
Oil is NOT a fossil fuel and AGW is non-science (April 29, 2021)
Reply
Mark Tapley
| #
Just basic common sense is all it takes to refute the fossil fuel nonsense. There are many areas of the world such as in the Caspian See region that have been producing large amounts of oil for well over a hundred years. West Texas would not be far behind. Many areas that were “pumped dry” are now producing again,
Thats a lot of dinosaurs. And a lot of propaganda from the same elite MSM.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
David Brewster wrote a brief biography titled: THE MARTYRS OF SCIENCE (1840). His three MARTYRS OF SCIENCE were Galileo, Tycho Brake, and John [Johannes] Kepler.
If you are really interested in some little known HISTORY of these MEN, I suggest you read this inexpensive book which readily available.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb and hopefullY PSI Readers,
Herb (5/30/2021 at10:19): “Sciences like paleontology, geology, physics, etc. that contradict the Bible”
When there seems (appears) to be a conflict with what ‘I’ read in the Holy Bible I go with the Holy Bible. For I know that the Scientific Idea that continents have drifted was first rejected by the Scientific Establishment and then, when the OBSERVED EVIDENCE became so overwhelming now, ’embraces’ the idea once rejected. And I know it is a FACT that in e Holy Bible I read: “Two sons were born to Eber: One was named Peleg, because in his time the earth was divided; his brother was named Joktan.” (Genesis 10:25 NIV)
Of course there is the well known case of Galileo and the Pope who believed that the Earth stood still. For in the Holy Bible the Pope read: “Joshua said to the LORD in the presence of Israel: “O sun, stand still over Gibeon, O moon, over the Valley of Aijalon.” So the sun stood still, and the moon stopped, till the nation avenged itself on its enemies. as it is written in the Book of Jashar.” (Joshua 10: 12-13 NIV)
Now a fact which the Pope and I know. The Book of Jashar is not any other part of the Holy Bible for some reason. And we know because of the OBSERVED FACTS that the Earth does not stand still. For we observe that it rotates about its polar axis as it revolves about the SUN.
Finally, to keep this comment brief, I call attention to the Biblical fact: “And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky.” So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged birds according to its kind.” (Genesis 1:20,21 NIV)
And compare this with what Darwin wrote: “…Natural selection acts only by taking advantage of slight successive variations; she can never take a great and sudden leap, but must advance by short and sure, though slow steps.” Thus, Darwin conceded that, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.”
Most of us know that after a female bird, of her kind, lays her eggs, the eggs must be instinctively incubated (kept near the bird’s body temperature) until little birds hatch. If you doubt this, watch this video (shortly after 50sec) about the nesting bald eagles at Smith Rock State Park.
This unquestionable evidence proves Darwin’s idea of evolution to be absolutely FALSE by his own admission.
So, I this is why I know by SIMPLE OBSERVATION (SCIENCE), which I can literally observe, that whatever I read about the NATURAL WORLD in the HOLY BIBLE is literally TRUE, Even if it is difficult for some to even BELIEVE.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Andrew Pilkington
| #
“If”, “May”, “Could”, “Might”, “Possibly”, “Theory” and the likes, over and over. ALL Imagination.
Now, if they ditch the ingrained Zionist “Globe” THEORY, just for a second and pay more attention to the extremely talented Nikola Tesla, they “may” have a better chance of solving their “Theories”?
For Starters, consider that our World is 100% PROVABLY Flat, Stationery and Immovable, with “Earth” at it’s centre, the Sun, Moon, Stars and Wandering Stars, all circling Polaris, at the Northern pole, as the Southern Pole is likely below our feet? Like a Spindle, for want of a clearer definition? And they are ALL very close indeed, i.e. The Moon: Using the diameter and distance they tell us “Officially”, we wouldn’t even know it exists or even where to start looking because our eyes do NOT have built in Zoom capabilities and it’s exactly the same with all the other Luminaries, we simply would not be able to see them or know they exist and another point they fail to share with us, is just how Beautiful they are, for anyone brave enough to question the logic of Mainstream Science and zoom a good Camera on them? Shimmering away like Plasma, in Liquid “Aether”, which experiments also Prove to be Real. It’s Flat 🙂
I apologise for a change of subject here, but there is something has cropped up requiring your undivided attention:
“We” are all being “Murdered”, including our kids and with Government’s Support and Funding.
PROOF? Read the label on a PCR Swab packet and see if you can see “Sterilised with Ethylene Oxide Gas (EO)” written there?
Look up what Ethylene Oxide is “Peer Review” Proven to do to Humans. It is a Proven Lethal Carcinogen and in particular regarding Brain Cancer? Be Worried.
Now consider who are getting these damned FALSE “Test” swabs rammed up to the Brain and how often they are having to have that done to them?
You may like to check where the Swab was made, too?
Along with blocking their Oxygen supply with Face Nappies all the time and making them unknowingly take part in Human DNA Experiments, in the guise of a “Vaccine”? They are Targetting our Children, our Military and Intelligence, our Police, our NHS, Healthcare in Every respect, our “Corrupted” Education Systems and Local Government, EVERYONE. What follows? Enemy troops on our Streets, Rounding up the rest of us?
I apologise for including all that, but I figure this Ethylene Oxide point, being “Slow Murder by Brain Cancer” etc., is an issue deserving Urgent attention as I’m hopefully off to sleep now and more people are being taken out while I’m out? 🙂 I hope you approve?
Just, Please, Check those Swab.
Also, get a “New” and “unused” Cheap / Free Face Mask and get it under a microscope. If you see any strange Black fibres, breathe some warm moist air on them and see if they respond? Nano tech, and you’ll likely find them on the Swabs too? Humour me on that one 🙂
Many thanks and best wishes to you all. Amazing talented people 🙂
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
The author of this article was Colin Stuart, a long time astronomy science author and speaker He began: “As in history, revolutions are the lifeblood of science.”
This comment is a critical review of his article which I began immediately after I had read the first several paragraphs of the article. However, I was not satisfied with anything I composed so began to make comments about TomO’s and other’s comments.
And if any Reader has read the comments I have already made, you, a Reader, should understand how it is that I am extremely critical of Stuart’s beginning statement. Which totally distorts what both HISTORY and SCIENCE should be established upon: OBSERVED FACTS.
And in the next few paragraphs continued on his thesis that there is nothing FACTUAL about SCIENCE as he wrote: “This has happened many times in the history of physics and astronomy. First, we thought Earth was at the center of the solar system — an idea that stood for over 1,000 years. Then Copernicus stuck his neck out to say that the whole system would be a lot simpler if we are just another planet orbiting the sun. Despite much initial opposition, the old geocentric picture eventually buckled under the weight of evidence from the newly invented telescope.” And continued: “Newton ruled for two-and-a-half centuries before Albert Einstein turned up in 1915 to usurp him with his General Theory of Relativity. This new picture neatly explained inconsistencies in Mercury‘s orbit, and was famously confirmed by observations of a solar eclipse off the coast of Africa in 1919.”
The first comment I intended to make was about the statement “was famously confirmed by observations of a solar eclipse off the coast of Africa in 1919.
My first critical comment is about the fact that Stuart never gave a READER, for whom he is writing, a hint of what was actually observed during this solar eclipse. It was during the eclipse the light of a distant star should be passing near enough to the Sun so its path (according to Einstein’s theory) might be bent. And this was observed to occur. Which observation seemed to SUPPORT (not PROVE) Einstein’s idea.
However, astronomers know that can see the disk of the Sun rise while the Sun is still below the Earth’s horizon. And it is generally accepted that the Sun’s (a star) is bent due to the well understood phenomenon of refraction due to the Earth’s atmosphere’s observed variable ‘density’ with increasing altitude.
Now, anyone who has observed a total solar eclipse, or seen a photo of a total eclipse sees light being scattered by something beyond the SUN’S DISK which could be described as ‘white cloud’. And, of course, when there are no clouds in the Earth’s atmosphere, we still know there is an atmosphere. So, it seems to reasonably follow that the Sun has an atmosphere which should refract (bend) the light of the star passing through its atmosphere. So this is another explanation for the observation the light of the star was BENT.
I have written this before but I have observed that many seem to pay no attention to what I write.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Andrew Pilkington
| #
Hi Jerry,
I know it may be no consolation whatever, Jerry, but I read what you wrote and can see your point of view, even though we may have slightly varying opinions.
All the very best, Jerry.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Andrew,
Thank you for your kind remark. I write my comments to share the knowledge of SCIENCE I have gained via 50+ years of experiences. And I know there are a few who regularly do not seem to miss anything I share and there is you whose name is not familiar.
And I conclude (assume), based on the observation–“All the very best, Jerry”–which is similar to mistakes that I routinely make.
Have a good day, Jerry
A couple of times I have written “Have a good idea, Jerry. Which I consider is okay too.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Jerry:
So, it seems to reasonably follow that the Sun has an atmosphere which should refract (bend) the light of the star passing through its atmosphere. So this is another explanation for the observation the light of the star was BENT.
I have written this before but I have observed that many seem to pay no attention to what I write.
James:
Nobody pays attention to what anybody writes, yourself included. Case in point, this notion that you bring up here that the sun has an atmosphere that explains the bending of light associated with the Eddington experiment is a notion that was relayed to you by myself (and to the best of my recollection you failed, at that time, to acknowledge it or even dismissed it). I myself got it from a YouTuber named Gary Mosher who goes by the moniker DraftScience.
it is not unlike when I first informed you of the fact that clear moist air does not contain gaseous H2O but instead contains invisibly small nanodroplets of liquid H2O. You were so stunned by the revelation–a revelation that is on the verge of causing us to rethink everything we think we know about meteorology–that it took over a year for you to even acknowledge it.
In my experience whenever any human is informed of an objective truth that contradicts a long-held belief the initial reaction is stunned silence..
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry and James,
Light bends because it is an electromagnetic wave traveling in the electric and magnetic fields of objects. In a stronger magnetic field, like that near the sun, it will travel faster causing it to refract. It has nothing to do with gravity attracting the non existent mass of the imaginary photon.
Consider light passing through a transparent medium like glass. It refracts then proceeds in a straight path through the glass preserving any image. If light were photons being attracted by mass, those photons passing closer to the nucleus of the atom would be bent more than photons at a greater distance, distorting any image passing through the glass. The light is transmitted through the electric and magnetic fields of the atoms where any distortion created by an increasing field strength is later reversed by a declining field strength.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi MattH and hopefully other PSI Readers,
MattH, while I assume I know the why of your comment about ‘dumb questions’, I must state my opinion is there is no such thing as dumb question. For your dumb question might cause a Reader to ask themselves: Does the moon rotate about an axis???
Do you know that the solid planet Venus has a period of rotation of 243 earth days and that its rotation is the opposite of the Earth (retrograde)? Of course you do. But just for the exercise I going to take one more step. All planets revolve in the same direction about the Sun. And we observed and understand that as the distance of the planet from the sun the increase its period of revolution increases. Hence, Venus revolves faster than the Earth.
So, Venus passes the Earth on the inside orbit and does not pass the Earth again for 584 Earth days. Now, I have read that the same side of Venus always faces the Earth as Venus passes nearest to the Earth just as the same side of moon always face the Earth as the moon orbits the Earth. Just a curious observed fact if we trust the person whomever wrote what I read.
Just some possible Trivia.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply