In view of the extensive evidence in favor or Einstein’s theory, it is reasonable to conclude that the evidence for the Theory of Relativity deserves Pope Leo’s adjective “irrefutable.” And according to this theory, the Universe is between 10 and 20 billion years old.
It is amazing to me that a scientist of Dr. Mullan’s credentials can make such sweeping conclusions. That he actually believes a mere theory is “irrefutable evidence” upon which the whole world must hang its hat is quite incredible. Being in the field of astrophysics, he must be aware of at least some of the scientific evidence against Einstein’s theory. Moreover, he must know that the so-called “proofs” do not determine whether Einstein’s vision of the universe is correct, but merely that Einstein offered one possible mathematical model of what we observe. But then again, it doesn’t surprise me that Mullan would think as he does. Much of the scientific community has invested far too much in Einstein the last hundred years to admit to any anomalies or errors in his theories. To them, Einstein is the god of science, and anyone who dares challenge him will incur the wrath of his followers. Let’s find out why.

Although some biographers toy with the idea that Einstein believed in God, the fact is he was an agnostic. Any notions he had of God were of an entity completely impersonal and uninvolved with human affairs. It is no coincidence that, after Einstein’ instruction up until the age of twelve at the Bavarian schools which included teaching on the Catholic faith, especially of the six-day creation, Einstein said that after “reading of popular scientific books” he “soon reached the conviction that much in the stories of the Bible could not be true.”(89) When Einstein reached his heyday in the world, Cardinal O’Connell of Boston saw right through the anti-Christian elements of Relativity theory, stating that it “cloked the ghastly apparition of atheism” and “befogged speculation, producing universal doubt about God and His Creation.”(90) Quite a surprise came to Einstein, however, when his wife Milvea and their children converted to Catholicism in 1905, the year he made headlines in the scientific community. None of this affected Einstein, however. To his confidante Professor Hurwitz he writes: “They’ve turned Catholic. Well, it’s all the same to me.”(91)

As I stated in previous installments, little does the world know that Einstein’s theory of Relativity was originally formulated as an apologetic for the fact that the 1887 Michelson-Morley experiment showed that “the earth was standing still in space,”(92) since their experiment detected no aether drift against the earth. If science were to admit this experimental evidence, then the whole Copernican revolution would have experienced an abrupt reversal. Since science was not willing to accept a motionless earth, the only other alternative was to say that everything was in motion. If everything is in motion, then there can be no absolute point in space, no center, nothing upon which to measure everything else, and thus the whole universe must rest in a sea of “relativity.” But this meant that the whole science of physics up until 1887 had to be scraped. A new physics had to be invented to save the world from having to go back to pre-Copernican days. Einstein descended from Mt. Olympus and took the challenge.

Rather than make the earth the constant, Einstein decided to make light’s speed the constant (for even in a “relative” universe you still need at least something that doesn’t change, otherwise there is no hope of ever being able to make sense of anything). As physicists D. and S. Birks state:

Einstein theorized...that the movement of light is a mathematical absolute for any circumstance of motion...Where Ptolemy theorized a geocentric universe, Einstein (upon the basis of the Michelson-Morley experiment) theorized a ‘light-centric’ universe...In essence, Einstein theorized a ‘self-centric’ universe, where the entire universe of the individual conforms to the individual’s motion.(93)
Nothing less than a total upheaval of the prevailing scientific views could answer the null result of Michelson/Morley. That the necessity to answer Michelson/Morley was one of the chief motivators for Einstein is revealed in several key comments he made regarding the experiment.

It is no doubt that Michelson’s experiment was of considerable influence upon my work insofar as it strengthened my conviction concerning the validity of the principle of the Special Theory of Relativity.(94)
In a conversation with another colleague, Einstein stated: “If Michelson-Morley is wrong, then relativity is wrong.”(95) The fact is, as stated earlier in this essay, although Einstein based his theory of Relativity on the null result of the Michelson-Morley experiment, the experiment actually showed a small positive result, not a null result, but the positive result was small enough that it was considered insignificant.(96) But the same and better results were obtained by a host of other experimenters in the following years, all of which were ignored or silenced by Einstein and his adherents.

Here is where the story really gets interesting. Just prior to Einstein’s revamping of the science of physics, three other scientists tried their hand at explaining away the Michelson-Morley experiment. Hendrick Lorentz (1853-1928) posited that the reason Michelson-Morley showed its peculiar results was not because the earth was motionless; rather, he claimed that Michelson and Morley weren’t really seeing what they were seeing, because, by some freak of nature he [Lorentz] never explained, their tools shrunk as they were performing the experiment!(97) Lorentz, being the esteemed icon of science that he was, would meet little opposition in this proposed solution. All he had to do to sell it to the scientific community, who would then sell it to the public, was put it in a mathematical formula (for no one ever argued with mathematical formulas!). Lorentz, and his comrade in arms, Fitzgerald, dubbed their results as “The Fitzgerald Contraction,” while Lorentz provided the mathematical formulas, which became known as “The Lorentz Transformation Equations.” The transformation equations were designed to reverse the effect of the so-called “shrinking apparatus.” Even Arthur Eddington, the person who later helped support Einstein’s theory by his 1920 eclipse photographs, said of Lorentz’s solution “...it was like the adventures of Gulliver in Lilliputland and Alice’s adventures in Wonderland.”(98) Einstein later developed his own formulas. He did so by eliminating the aether from Lorentz’s equations, but kept the “null” result of Michelson-Morley. To do so requires a mathematics so obtuse and complicated that the same Eddington, when asked if there were three people in the world who understood Einstein’s math, said, “I’m trying to think of who the third person is.”(99) Einstein learned this “special” math from Herman Minkowski who was the first to mix the hitherto unrelated quantities of time and space into the now accepted category of “space-time.” Let’s just say this is like mixing apples and oranges.

From then on, all science needed to do whenever they dealt with Michelson-Morley type experiments was to employ the mathematical fudge factors provided by Lorentz or Einstein, and nobody would know the difference. Incredibly, today’s science still holds to the same theory. They actually explain the anomalies of their world by claiming that measuring devices shrink when they move! You can read this in all the science textbooks today. Rest assured, not one of them has ever seen the instruments shrink. You must understand that this is all brought to you by the pliable world of mathematics. If the math says it can shrink, then by golly it shrinks. Even though the same math would allow the pre-Copernican earth or some similar explanation, that, of course, is unthinkable to science.

Now some of you are probably saying, “but hasn’t Einstein’s relativity theory been proven by the E=mc2 formula scientists used to make the atomic bomb? After all, wasn’t Hiroshima and Nagasaki proof of that formula?” Unfortunately, this is a total misconception foisted on the public. The formula E=mc2 has little to do with Einstein’s Relativity theory. Einstein himself showed this was the case in 1946 when he produced a number of equations arriving at E=mc2 that had nothing to do with Relativity theory. This is not surprising if one knows the history of E=mc2. Prior to Einstein, in his experiments with electricity and induction coils, Michael Faraday had already produced the reciprocal equation c2 = E/m, and in 1881, J. J. Thompson had produced E= 4/3mc2.(100) In 1903 the Italian scientist Olinto De Pretto had already published E=mc2, which Einstein included as a mere footnote in his 1905 paper on Special Relativity. Poincare had also used the formula long before Einstein commandeered it for Relativity.(101)

That Einstein’s theories are so far from even being close to “irrefutable,” then or now, is noted in the significant opposition to his views from the major players in the field of physics. In fact, Einstein’s theories were beat up so badly by his contemporaries that Einstein ended up changing his mind on a whole host of issues that were originally essential parts of his Relativity theory. Walter Ritz, who at first collaborated with Einstein, was already expressing his doubts about Special Relativity as early as 1909.(102) Evidence shows that Einstein was being slowly persuaded by Lorentz that aether did indeed exist (which, as we noted above, would have dismissed Relativity theory entirely). In 1913 Georges Sagnac had performed an interferometer experiment similar to what Michelson-Morley had performed in 1887, and which in fact was more accurate. Sagnac showed (and which hasn’t been explained or disproved by modern physics today) that there was an absolute state of motion, which could only be explained by the presence of some type of medium in space (i.e., aether). Either the aether was moving against a stationary earth, or the earth was moving through a stationary aether. In 1925, Michelson teamed up with Gale and Pearson, and found the same result as Sagnac. It is understandable, then, why Einstein makes reference neither to Sagnac’s or Michelson-Gale-Pearson’s work in any of his papers. Without their experimental evidence, Einstein was simply on a wild goose chase.

Between 1925 and 1933, Dalton Miller, who often teamed up with Michelson, also performed the same type of experiments, over 100,000 of them compared to 36 from Michelson-Morley’s 1887 experiments, and again found that there was indeed an aether drift around the earth. The correspondence between Einstein and Miller is most enlightening. Einstein did everything he could to suppress Miller’s results, eventually hiring Robert H. Shankland to do an “investigation” on Miller, upon which Shankland discarded all the results in Miller’s experiments that contradicted Einstein’s theory. Of Miller’s experiments Einstein said: “...assuming that the Miller experiments are based on a fundamental error, otherwise the whole relativity theory collapses like a house of cards.”(103) To Shankland, Einstein wrote: “...This is more so as the existence of a not trivial positive effect would affect every deeply the fundament of theoretical physics as it is presently accepted.”(104) Other such experiments performed by Kennedy-Thorndike (1930), Joos (1930), Ives (1943), O’Rahilly (1965), Marinov (1974) all show that Einstein’s interpretation of the data is wrong.

Still clinging to his idea that space was a vacuum, Einstein’s next embarrassment was the results of Carl Anderson’s 1932 experiments. Anderson found that when 1.02 million electron volts were administered anywhere in space, one electron and one positron appeared, which suggested that space was filled with electron-positron pairs that could be jolted out of alignment. But because Einstein was forced by his “null” interpretation of the Michelson-Morley experiment, and his rejection of Lorentz’s aether, into thinking that space was a vacuum, he could only account for Anderson’s experiment by postulating that matter was created from energy, which of course went against science’s cherished belief that neither matter nor energy can be created or destroyed.

Willem de Sitter (1872-1934) also set Einstein back a peg or two. Using Einstein’s own equations, de Sitter showed that Einstein’s universe had to be an expanding one, not the static one that Einstein originally envisioned.(105) Previously, Einstein had used his famous fudge factor, “The Cosmological Constant,” to keep the universe from expanding (remember, this is all done with math, they don’t actually see these things happening), which he now had to abandon. Alexander Freidmann (1888-1925) came along after de Sitter and showed that the same equations would produce either an expanding or contracting universe, and thus the confusion mounted. In 1930, Edwin Hubble, one of the world’s most famous and respected astronomers, showed Einstein photographs of the starry universe, which, in turn, convinced Einstein against his concept of a static, immobile universe. But not only did Einstein have to abandon his static universe, he also had to abandon the “curved space” concept that went along with it. Prior to this, Einstein employed the obtuse and theoretical non-Euclidian geometry of Reimann to help explain his “curved” universe, but now that de Sitter destroyed that model, Einstein was forced back to a Euclidean universe. Even Hubble, whose work was used by other scientists to claim that the redshift of starlight could be used to determine distances, says in his 1937 book, The Observational Approach to Cosmology, “There is no evidence of expansion and no restriction of the time scale, no trace of spatial curvature.”(106) Mind you, it was the concept of “time warp” and the “curvature of space” that made Einstein famous in 1920, but just a few years later a half-dozen scientists who knew as much or more than Einstein said his theory was false. And Mullan calls Einstein’s theories “irrefutable”?

1 2 3 4 5 6