Albert Einstein Failed in Three Classical Tests
“Einstein’s Law of Gravitation contains nothing about force. It describes the behaviour of objects in a gravitational field — the planets, for example — not in terms of ‘ attraction ‘ but simply in terms of the paths they follow. To Einstein, gravitation is simple part of inertia; the movement of the stars and the planets arise from their inherent inertia; and the courses they follow are determined by the metric properties of space — or, more properly speaking, the metric properties of the space-time continuum “ (Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, London, June 1949, page 72 ).
At his theory on general relativity, Einstein concluded that the light just as other material objects, moved in curve if gravity field of an object was massive.
Albert Einstein proposed three tests of general relativity, subsequently called the classical tests of general relativity, in 1916:
1.the perihelion precession of Mercury’s orbit
2.the deflection of light by the Sun
3.the gravitational redshift of light
He also mentioned with comments:
“….If a single one of the conclusions drawn from it proves wrong, it must be given up; to modify it without destroying the whole structure seems to be impossible.”
1.The Perihelion precession of Mercury’s Orbit
General Relativity is probably the most famous physical and mathematical theory in history and it has been combed and extolled by all the most famous figures of the 20th century. Which makes it almost impossible to believe that it contains flaws that are so elementary.
These are not flaws embedded in difficult manipulations of the tensor calculus or in difficult motions of curved space, they are flaws of simple reasoning and number assignment. As an example and teaser, Einstein assigns his famous number .45 to precession per year while having no mathematical or theoretical reasons for that time assignment. By checking all his famous papers on GR, we find that he certainly found the number .45, but we find nothing in his equations that makes that per year. He simplyassumed the period of precession, since his number matched historical equations. As I show, this assumption was false, since his number .45 applied to the curvature of his field at the distance of Mercury’s orbit.
That is, it was a constant, applying during one second or one century. He needed more math in order to apply that curvature to the precession problem, but he never did that math. He simply applied the curvature number directly to precession. This is not only mathematically disallowed, it is gloriously negligent. I don’t know — and probably no one knows or ever did know — whether this was an oversight or a purposeful fudge. It may be that he couldn’t see how to get from the curvature to the precession, so he just took what he had and ran with it. Because his audience was already monumentally confused, no one noticed.(Mercury)
2.The Deflection of Light by the Sun
“Einstein proposed therefore, that photographs be taken of the stars immediately bordering the darkened face of the sun during an eclipse and compared with photographs of those same stars made at another time.”(Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, London, June 1949, Preface by Albert Einstein Himself, page 78 ).
Einsten’s proving method is not scientific and deeply wrong:
1.Deflection of light is the different angle between true position and apparent position of stars or the different of altitude. In astronomy, true position and apparent position of stars are three dimensionals.
All the photographs be taken of the stars are two dimensionals.
In this case Einstein ignored ‘The Space and Time’ or Celestial Sphere (Celestial Coordinate System), the fundamental concept of celestial bodies coordinate in astronomy.
2.All the photographs be taken of solar eclipse ( the Sun and stars ) are photo of the apparent positions of the Sun and stars. From these photos can not be use to calculate the deflection of light. No one can determine the correct angle of the deflection of light.
In this case Einstein clearly ignorance of the experimental techniques
3.In astronomy, all calculations to determine the true position and the apparent position of a certain star at the sky is only applicable at a certain time and at a certain place on which such observation is performed.
To compared the photos taken during an eclipse with photos of those same stars made at another time is not scientific.
Conclusions:
Einstein’s proving method for his hypothesis the deflection of light by the Sun is not scientific and deeply wrong. General relativity has been wrong since the beginning.
3.The Gravitational Redshift of Light
The galaxy’s redshift is used with Hubble’s Law in order to determine its position in three-dimensional space.
Hubble’s law is considered the first observational basis for the expansion of the universe and today serves as one of the pieces of evidence most often cited in support of the Big Bang model. The motion of astronomical objects due solely to this expansion is known as the Hubble flow.
Although widely attributed to Edwin Hubble, the law was first derived from the general relativity equations by Georges Lemaître in a 1927 article where he proposed the expansion of the universe and suggested an estimated value of the rate of expansion, now called the Hubble constant.Two years later Edwin Hubble confirmed the existence of that law and determined a more accurate value for the constant that now bears his name.Hubble inferred the recession velocity of the objects from their redshifts, many of which were earlier measured and related to velocity by Vesto Slipher in 1917.(Wikipedia).
Several ways can be conceived to explain this quantization. As noted earlier, a galaxys’ redshift may not be a Doppler shift, it is the currently commonly accepted interpretation of the red shift, but there can be and are other interpretations. A galaxys’ redshift may be a fundamental property of the galaxy. Each may have a specific state governed by laws, analogues to those in quantum mechanics that specify which energy states atoms may occupy. Since there is relatively little blurring on the quantization between galaxies, any real motions would have to be small in this model. Galaxies would not move away from one another; the universe would be static instead of expanding.(Red Shift Riddles)
Albert Einstein’s proving method for his hypothesis the deflection of light by the Sun isn’t scientific and deeply wrong. Deflection of light was caused by refraction, not gravity. Thus redshift, lensing, and time-delay of light are caused by refraction. Redshift phenomena isn’t Doppler effects, and nothing to do with gravity. Gravitational redshift is false.
Thus, Albert Einstein failed in three classical tests.
References:
1.Lincoln Barnett,Universe and Dr.Einstein,London,1949.
2.John P.Budlong,Sky and Sextant,London,1981.
3.Wikipedia
4.Web:CsUncEdu.
5.Web:MileMathis.
