1

Albert Einstein: The Earth Mover How Einstein Made the Earth Move 

(…When All the Experiments Showed it Didn’t Move) 

Inhis1881and1887experiments,AlbertMichelsondiscoveredtheEarthwasnotmovingaround thesun.AsMichelsonhimselfdescribed the resultsofhisownexperiment: “Thisconclusion directly contradicts the explanation…which presupposes that the Earthmoves.”1 But since his colleagues, including Albert Einstein, were die‐hard Copernicanswho didn’t want to believe that Michelson had discovered a motionless Earth, theyproposedhis experimental apparatuswasdistortedby theEarth’smotion throughspaceand thusMichelson’s apparatus onlymade it appear as if it wasn’tmoving. In scientificparlance,wecallthisthefallacyofpetitioprincipii,thatis,usingasproof(amovingEarth)theverythingoneistryingtoprove(amovingEarth).Letmeexplain.

Michelson found the Earth wasn’tmoving by using the speed of twolightbeamsagainstoneanother.

1 Albert A. Michelson, “The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 22, August 1881, p. 125.

2

The first lightbeamwaspointedwestwardbecause itwas thepresumeddirectionof theEarth’smovementaroundthesun.ThesecondlightbeamwaspointednorthwardandthusawayfromthedirectionofthepresumedmovingEarth.

ThefirstlightbeamshouldhavebeenaffectedbytheEarth’smovementthroughspaceifittheEarth ismoving around the sun at the accepted speedof 66,000mph. If so, the firstbeamwouldhavetraveledslowerthanthesecondlightbeam.

Butthatdidn’thappen.

Bothlightbeamstraveledatnearlythesamespeed.AccordingtoMichelson,thefirstbeamtraveledonlyaboutone‐sixthoftheretardedspeedneedediftheEarthwasmovingaroundthesun.2Theconclusion,asMichelsonnotesabove,shouldhavebeenthattheEarth isn’tmovingaroundthesun.

DesiredResult(ifEarthismovingaroundthesun) ActualResults(showsEarthisn’tmovingaroundthesun)

2 The equations used in the calculation are as follows: calculates it: Δt - Δt΄ = (l1 + l2) v

2/c3. Now we take v = 3.0 × 104 m/s, the speed of the Earth in its orbit around the Sun. In Michelson and Morley’s experiment, the arms l1 and l2 were about 11 m long. The time difference would then be about (22m)(3.0 × 104 m/s)2/(3.0 × 108 m/s)3 ≈ 7.0 × 10-16 s. For visible light of wavelength λ = 5.5 × 10-7 m, say, the frequency would be f = c/λ = (3.0 × 108 m/s)/(5.5 × 10-7 m) = 5.5 × 1014 Hz, which means that wave crests pass by a point every 1/(5.5 × 1014 Hz) = 1.8 × 10-15 s. Thus, with a time difference of 7.0 × 10-16 s, Michelson and Morley should have noted a movement in the interference pattern of (7.0 × 10-16 s)/(1.8 × 10-15 s) = 0.4 fringe. They could easily have detected this, since their apparatus was capable of observing a fringe shift as small as 0.01 fringe.

3

Otherprominentphysicistshavenotedthesametruth:

“Therewas justonealternative; theearth’s truevelocitythroughspacemighthappentohavebeennil.”

Physicist,ArthurEddington3“The data [ofMichelson‐Morley]were almost unbelievable… Therewas only one otherpossibleconclusiontodraw—thattheEarthwasatrest.”

Physicist,BernardJaffe4“Thus,failure[ofMichelson‐Morley]toobservedifferentspeedsoflightatdifferenttimesof the year suggested that the Earth must be ‘at rest’…It was therefore the ‘preferred’frameformeasuringabsolutemotioninspace.YetwehaveknownsinceGalileothattheEarthisnotthecenteroftheuniverse.Whyshoulditbeatrestinspace?”

Physicist,AdolphBaker5“….Theeasiestexplanationwasthattheearthwasfixedintheetherandthateverythingelseintheuniversemovedwithrespecttotheearthandtheether….Suchanideawasnotconsideredseriously,sinceitwouldmeanineffectthatourearthoccupiedtheomnipotentposition in the universe, with all the other heavenly bodies paying homage bymovingaroundit.”

Physicist,JamesColeman6“The Michelson‐Morley experiment confronted scientists with an embarrassingalternative. On the one hand they could scrap the ether theorywhich had explained somany things about electricity,magnetism, and light. Or if they insisted on retaining theethertheyhadtoabandonthestillmorevenerableCopernicantheorythattheearthisinmotion. Tomanyphysicists it seemed almost easier to believe that the earth stood stillthanthatwaves–lightwaves,electromagneticwaves–couldexistwithoutamediumtosustainthem.Itwasaseriousdilemmaandonethatsplitscientificthoughtforaquartercentury.Many new hypotheseswere advanced and rejected. The experimentwas triedagain byMorley and by others, with the same conclusion; the apparent velocity of theearththroughtheetherwaszero.”

Historian,LincolnBarnett,forewordbyAlbertEinstein7“Whathappenedwhentheexperimentwasdonein1887?Therewasnever,never,inanyorientation at any time of year, any shift in the interference pattern; none; no shift; nofringe shift; nothing.What’s the implication?Herewas an experiment thatwas done tomeasurethespeedoftheearth’smotionthroughtheether.Thiswasanexperimentthat

3 Arthur Eddington, The Nature of the Physical World, 1929, pp. 11, 8. 4 Bernard Jaffe, Michelson and the Speed of Light, 1960, p. 76. 5 Adolf Baker, Modern Physics & Antiphysics, pp. 53-54. 6 James A. Coleman, Relativity for the Layman, p. 37. 7 Lincoln Barnett, The Universe and Dr. Einstein, p. 44.

4

wastentimesmoresensitivethanitneededtobe.Itcouldhavedetectedspeedsaslowastwomiles a second instead of the known 20mps that the earth as in its orbitalmotionaround the sun. It didn’t detect it. What’s the conclusion from the Michelson‐Morleyexperiment?Theimplicationisthattheearthisnotmoving…”

Physicist,RichardWolfson8“MichelsonandMorleyfoundshifts intheinterferencefringes,buttheywereverymuchsmallerthanthesizeoftheeffectexpectedfromtheknownorbitalmotionoftheEarth”

Physicist,JohnD.Norton9“This ‘null’ result was one of the great puzzles of physics at the end of the nineteenthcentury.Onepossibilitywasthat...vwouldbezeroandnofringeshiftwouldbeexpected.But this implies that the earth is somehow a preferred object; onlywith respect to theearth would the speed of light be c as predicted by Maxwell’s equations. This istantamounttoassumingthattheearthisthecentralbodyoftheuniverse.”

Physicist,DouglasC.Giancoli10

Butthedie‐hardCopernicansofthatdaywerenotabouttoaccepttheprimafacieresultsofMichelson’s experiment. They knew the catastrophic scientific, cultural, and religiousimplications if it was experimentally shown that Earth is fixed in space. In a word, thewholeworldwouldhavebeenturnedupsidedown,literallyandfiguratively.

Pressuredtoprovidea“scientific”answertotheworld,theysearchedforawaytomakeitappear that the first light beam did, indeed, provide six‐sixths of the retarded speedrequiredforanEarthmovingaroundthesun.Todosotheythoughtupaningenious(butdevious)explanation.Asnotedabove,theyclaimedtheEarth’smovementaroundthesuncontractedthemetalenclosureinwhichthefirstlightbeamtraveled.

Ifthelengthofthehousingiscontracted,thenthefirstlightbeamdoesnotneedtotravelasfaraswhenthehousingisnotcontracted.Thiswouldaccountforthewhythespeedofthe

8 The Teaching Company, episode taught by Professor Richard Wolfson of Middlebury College. 9 The Origins of Special Relativity, www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_ 0410/chapters/origins/index.html, p. 14. 10 Douglas C. Giancoli, Physics: Principles with Applications, 1985, pp. 613-614 and 1980, p. 625.

5

twolightbeamsdidnotdiffermuch.Withthiscontrivedexplanation,theyproposedtotheworldthatthecontractionofMichelson’sapparatuswasthereasontheEarthappearedtobemotionless.

Ineffect,ifsomeonesaidtothem,“YouclaimtheEarthismovingbutyouadmityoucannotdetect that movement by any experiment,” they would retort, “Well, we can’t detect itbecauseeverytimewetrytodoso,thelengthoftheexperimentalapparatusshrinksjustenough to conceal the movement, which makes it impossible to measure the Earth’smovement.”

Again,weseethefallacyofpetitioprincipiiisinplay.

From start to finish the whole enterprise was ad hoc. Length contraction wasn’t evencontemplated previously, much less was it an established fact of science. But in thisemergency situation, length contraction was invented on the spot so that the scienceestablishmentwouldhaveatleastsomehypotheticalanswerwhyMichelson’sexperimentshowedtheEarthwasmotionless.Everyonecouldbreatheasighofrelief.Theirony,asofthisdate,isthatnoonehaseverdetectedalengthcontractioninamovingobject.Infact,modern physicists can’t even agree on what length contraction is or how it would bemanifested.11

11 So far, there are eight different views of length contraction proposed, none of which have actually proven it exists: (1) “The contraction is real.” Lorentz stated in 1922 that the “contraction could be photographed” (Lectures on Theoretical Physics, Vol. 3, Macmillan, p. 203); C. Møller writes: “Contraction is a real effect observable in principle by experiment…This means the concept of length has lost its absolute meaning” (Møller, The Theory of Relativity, 1972, p. 44); Wolfgang Pauli: “It therefore follows that the Lorentz contraction is not a property of a single rod taken by itself, but a reciprocal relation between two such rods moving relatively to each other, and this relation is in principle observable” (The Theory of Relativity, Dover Publications, 1958, pp. 12-13); R. C. Tolman: “Entirely real but symmetrical” (Relativity Thermodynamics and Cosmology, pp. 23-24); (2) “The contraction is not real.” E. F. Taylor and John Wheeler write: “Does something about a clock really change when it moves, resulting in the observed change in the tick rate? Absolutely not!” (Spacetime Physics: Introduction to Special Relativity, p. 76); (3) “The contraction is only apparent.” Aharoni writes: “The moving rod appears shorter. The moving clock appears to go slow” (The Special Theory of Relativity, p. 21); McCrea writes: “The apparent length is reduced. Time intervals appear to be lengthened; clocks appear to go slow” (Relativity Physics, pp. 15-16); Nunn: “A moving rod would appear to be shortened” (Relativity and Gravitation, pp. 43-44); Whitrow: “Instead of assuming that there are real, i.e., structural changes in length and duration owing to motion, Einstein’s theory involves only apparent changes” (The Natural Philosophy of Time, p. 255); (4) “The contraction is the result of the relativity of simultaneity.” Bohn writes: “When measuring lengths and intervals, observers are not referring to the same events” (The Special Theory of Relativity, p. 59). See also William Rosser, Introductory Relativity, p. 37; and A. P. French, Special Relativity, p. 97; and Stephenson and Kilmister, Special Relativity for Physicists, pp. 38-39; (5) “The contraction is due to perspective effects.” Rindler writes: “Moving lengths are reduced, a kind of perspective effect. But of course nothing has happened to the rod itself. Nevertheless, contraction is no illusion, it is real” (Introduction to Special Relativity, p. 25); (6) “The contraction is mathematical.” Herman Minkowski writes: “This hypothesis sounds extremely fantastical, for the contraction is not to be looked upon as a consequence of resistances in the ether, or anything of that kind, but simply as a gift from above, – as an accompanying circumstance of the circumstance of motion” (“Space and Time,” in The Principle of Relativity: A Collection of Original Memoirs on the Special and General Theory of Relativity by H. A. Lorentz, A. Einstein, H. Minkowski and H. Weyl, translated by W. Perrett and G. B. Jeffery from the original 1923 edition, Dover Publications, 1952, p. 81); (7) “The contraction is

6

Since they insist the Earth is moving around the sun yet cannot detect it moving,nevertheless,theyneededsomephysicalandmathematicalwayofaccountingforit,sincethere is obviously a difference between motion and non‐motion. So length contractionbecametheirconvenientscapegoat.ThisistheessenceoftheSpecialRelativitytheorythatEinstein invented in 1905. It was invented solely to answerMichelson’s experiment. AsEinsteinhimselfsaid:

“…to thequestionwhetherornot themotionof theEarth in space canbemadeperceptible in terrestrial experiments. We have already remarked…that allattemptsofthisnatureledtoanegativeresult.Beforethetheoryofrelativitywasputforward,itwasdifficulttobecomereconciledtothisnegativeresult.”12

Whereas in 1892 Hendrik Lorentz had hypothesized that the ether of space was whatcausedthecontraction,Einsteindecidedtodispensewithetherandattributethecauseto“relativemotion.” In effect, Lorentz at least proposed a physical cause for his claims oflength contraction, but Einstein never explained how “relative motion” could shrinkobjects.Hence,duringhisday,variousphilosophersaccusedhimofviolatingtheprincipleof“causeandeffect.”

So, whatever the cause of the contraction, in order to give the ad hoc theory somesemblanceofcredibility,therequiredamountforthemetalenclosuretocontractwasputintoamathematicalequation,called“theLorentztransform.”

Lengthnew=Lengthold (1–v2/c2)‐1/2

It has become themost famous andmost used equation inmodern physics. Essentially,whatevertestsdisagreedwiththeirbeliefthattheEarthwasmovingaroundthesuncouldnow be mathematically “transformed” into their desired result, as well as give thesemblanceofbeing“scientific.”

real but invisible.” James Terrell writes: “…the Lorentz contraction will not be visible, although correction for the finite velocity of light will reveal it to be present” (“Invisibility of the Lorentz Contraction,” Physical Review, Vol. 116, No. 4, Nov. 15, 1959, p. 1041); (8) “The contraction is real and not real”: Einstein writes: “The author unjustly posited a distinction between Lorenz’s conception and my own with regard to the physical facts. The question of whether the Lorenz contraction really exists or not is deceptive. It doesn’t ‘really’ exist insofar as it doesn’t exist for a non-moving observer; it does ‘really’ exist, in that it can be proven principally through physical means for a non-moving observer” (“Zum Ehrenfestschen Paradoxon. Eine Bemerkung zu V. Variĉaks Aufsatz.” Physikalische Zeitschrift 12: 509-510.; Original German: “Der Verfasser hat mit Unrecht einen Unterschied der Lorentzschen Auffassung von der meinigen mit Bezug auf die physikalischen Tatsachen statuiert. Die Frage, ob die Lorentz-Verkürzung wirklich besteht oder nicht, ist irreführend. Sie besteht nämlich nicht ‘wirklich,’ insofern sie für einen mitbewegten Beobachter nicht existiert; sie besteht aber ‘irklich,’ d. h. in solcher Weise, daß sie prinzipiell durch physikalische Mittel nachgewiesen werden könnte, für einen nicht mitbewegten Beobachter.”) 12 “Relativity – The Special and General Theory,” cited in Stephen Hawking’s, A Stubbornly Persistent Illusion, 2007, p. 169.

7

Butthetransformoflengthrequiredanothertransform.Sincetheycontractedthelength,theyalsohadtodilatethetime,sinceifamovingobjecthasitslengthcontracted,itisnotgoing to get from Point A to Point B in the same time as when it is not contracted. Toincreasethetimeoftravel,theyusethesame“transform”equationasabove,butsincetheyareincreasinginsteadofdecreasing,theyturnthemultiplierintoadividertoget…

Timenew=Timeold÷(1–v2/c2)‐1/2

Ofcourse,justasthereisnoproofthatlengthcontracts,thereisnoproofthattimedilates.TheyjustneedittomakeeverythingappeartobalanceiftheyaregoingtoinsisttheEarthismoving around the sunwhen the empirical evidence says it is not. It’s easy for them.They just make up a theory and represent it by a mathematical equation to erase anydiscrepanciestheexperimentshowsagainsttheirtheory.

The“transforms”arenotover.Theymustalsoaddmassincrease,sinceifamovingobjecthas its lengthcontracted, then itwillhavea largermassperunitvolumewhen itgets topointB. So, tomake themass larger theyuse the same “transform”equationas for timedilation:

Massnew=Massold÷(1–v2/c2)‐1/2

InertialFrames

Often in the debate over the relevance of Michelson’s experiments, the issue of inertialframespresentsitself.Aninertialframeisoneinwhichanobjectisatrestorismovinginuniformmotionandnotacceleratingordecelerating.IftheEarthismovingaroundthesun,it isanon‐inertialframesinceit isaccelerating(NB:inphysics,allobjectsthatmoveinacircle are considered accelerating, even though they go the same speed). As such, one ishampered when doing experiments on Earth due to the effects of acceleration on theapparatus (a principle of which all scientists agree). So, in order to make Michelson’sexperimentvalid,thatis,onethattakesplaceinaninertialframe(asIFitwereatrest),aRelativistwillcreatetheinertialframebytheabove“transform”equations.

Onceagain,itiseasytoseethefallacyofpetitioprincipiiatworkintheirthinking.

Forthosewhoaccepttheprima facieresultsofMichelson’sexperiment(thattheEarth isnotmoving), theEarth is alreadyshown tobean inertial framebecause it is at absoluterest.ThusthereisnoneedtocreateinertialframesfortheEarth,andthusnoneedtousea“transform”equation.

8

ResidualEther

Incidentally,weshouldnoteonemoreimportantfacetoftheMichelsonexperimentbeforewe move on. We saw above that the experiment showed only one‐sixth of what wasrequired for an Earth moving around the sun. This one‐sixth is important for anotherreason.Itshowedthatspacewascomposedofsomethingsubstantive.Thenamegiventoitby Lorentz,Maxwell, and all other scientistswas “ether.”No one knewpreciselywhat itwas composed of, but they correctly deducted that space cannot be nothing, sincemetaphysically “nothing” cannot exist. Space must be a “something,” composed ofsomething physical, although like air we cannot see it because it is invisible. It doesn’tmatterwhat you call it. The fact is that itmust exist.Quantummechanicshas suggestedthat the ether’s basic component is Planck particles, which are 20 orders of magnitudesmaller than the electron. Another type of ether may be an electron‐positron dipoleparticle,whichwasdiscoveredin1932byCarlAnderson.

Inanycase,thesubstanceofspace,whichwewillcall“ether,”wasdetectedinMichelson’s1881 and 1887 experiments, as well as his 1897 experiment with an above‐groundapparatus. Since lightmoves so fast, it can serve tomeasure the effect on something assmallasetherparticles.Hisinterferometerwassoaccurateitcouldmeasureonehundredtimesmore than itwas required tomeasure. As such,Michelson’s interferometer didn’tmeasureenoughethertomatchanEarthmovingat66,000mpharoundthesun,butitdidmeasure a little ether, otherwise his results would not have shown one‐sixth, but zero‐sixthsofetherpresence.Michelsonnotedthissmallpresenceinhis1887paper.

ThiswasnotgoodforEinstein.Hecandidlyadmittedthatifanyetherwasdetected,evenalittlebit,histheoryofSpecialRelativitywouldautomaticallybefalsified.ThiswasnotedinEinstein’s statement to Sir Herbert Samuel in Jerusalem: “If Michelson‐Morley is wrong,

9

then relativity is wrong.”13 In other words, Einstein was forced to assume that becauseMichelsondidnotfindenoughetherforanEarthrevolvingaroundthesun,thenMichelsoncouldn’t have found any ether. But if this conclusion of Einstein’s was wrong, then hiswholerelativitytheorywouldbefalsifiedautomatically,sinceevenalittleetherwouldactas an absolute frame and thus nullify “relativity.” Noted physicist Charles Lane Poor ofColumbiaUniversityreiteratedtheproblem:

“The Michelson‐Morley experiment forms the basis of the relativity theory:Einsteincallsitdecisive…ifitshoulddevelopthatthereisameasurableether‐drift,then the entire fabric of the relativity theory would collapse like a house ofcards.”14

So Einstein was banking on the hope that since Michelson did not detect the requiredamount of ether for an Earthmoving around the sun, he could conclude that the ethersimply didn’t exist. Hence, the detection of one‐sixth of the required ether was thusconvenientlychalkedupto“experimentalerror.”

The facts show otherwise, however. Every interferometer experiment performed fromMichelson in1881 to Joos in1930—which is 50 yearsof the same results fromadozendifferentexperimenters—detectedone‐sixthtoone‐tenth.Einsteinwassobotheredbythisfact that he hiredwhat can be called a ‘scientific hitman,’ Robert Shankland, to seek todiscredittheexperiments,especiallythemostcomprehensiveinterferometerexperimentsperformedbyDaytonMillerbetween1908and1921.

13 Einstein: The Life and Times, p. 107. 14 Gravitation versus Relativity, p. 261.

10

But at thispoint in time (the1910sand1920s) theworldwasonly toohappy to acceptEinstein’s theories and reject anyone who challenged them. After all, Einstein was theEarth‐Mover. He made the Earth move around the sun and thus saved mankind fromhavingtoadmitthatpopularsciencehadmisledtheworldforthe500yearsprior.

Forthegeocentrist,theonlythinglefttoansweris:fromwhencedidtheone‐sixthofetheroriginate?Thesimpleansweristhatsincetheuniverse,withitsether,isrotatingaroundafixedEarth,someofthatetherspilledintoMichelson’s1887interferometerwhenhewastryingtodetectiftheEarthwasmovingaroundthesun.ThisisconfirmedbythefactthatMichelsondidanotherexperimentin1925inordertomeasuretheethermovementforthedaily rotation between space and Earth. In that experiment he found six‐sixths of therequiredetherforadailyrotation.Henceitislogicaltoassumethattheone‐sixthhefoundin1887camefromthesameetherhelaterdetectedinhis1925experiment.Sincetheetherin the 1887 experiment hit the interferometer orthogonally instead of linearly, itwouldonlypickupone‐sixthofthetotaletherinspace.“Electromagnetism”

YouwilloftenhearmoderndevoteesofEinsteinclaimthatheinventedSpecialRelativityasananswertoMaxwell’sequationsofelectrodynamics.Theydothisbecausetheydon’twantto admit that Einstein invented Special Relativity for the express purpose of making itappeartheEarthwasmovingaroundthesun.Theywanttomake itappearthatEinsteininventedSpecialRelativityoutofpuremotivesandan independent thoughtprocess.Thetruth is far different. Einstein himself admits that the only reason he invented SpecialRelativitywasduetoMichelson’sdiscovery.Hewritesin1922:

Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about themotion of the Earthwithrespecttotheetherisincorrect,ifweadmitMichelson’snullresultasafact.Thiswasthefirstpathwhichledmetothespecialtheoryofrelativity.15

Bethatas itmay,thereasontheRelativistwantstointrudeonMaxwell’selectrodynamictheoryisbecause,asitstands,electromagnetismdoesn’tshowanycharacteristicsofbeing“relative.” Maxwell’s experiments from 1865 show us that the effect of an electric coilmoving over a stationary magnet is different than a magnet moving over a stationaryelectric coil, and Maxwell appropriately represented these different reactions by twodifferentequations.

15 Speech titled: “How I Created the Theory of Relativity,” delivered at Kyoto University, Japan, Dec. 14, 1922, as cited in Physics Today, August, 35 (8), 45, 1982, by Yoshimasa A. Ono.

11

Maxwell’sexperimentandhistwoequations(actuallyfourequationsaltogether,butwithtwomainequations)thusshowusthatspaceandthereactionsthatoccurinitareabsolute,notrelative,sinceitdistinguishesbetweenthetwodifferenteffectsoftheelectriccoilandthemagnet,respectively.

Since a Relativist does not like anything absolute, Einstein sought to make Maxwell’sexperiment“relative”justashetriedtomakeMichelson’sexperiment“relative.”Todoso,he used the same “transform” equations that he used to make it appear the Earth wasmoving. As such, the Relativist can make it appear that the effect of electricity onmagnetismisthesameasmagnetismonelectricity,butinrealitytheyarenotthesame.

WestilluseMaxwell’sequations today,because theyarecorrect.ButwhentheRelativistusesthemhemustinvariablyinjectthe“transform”equationsinordertomakeMaxwell’stwo absolute reactions into Einstein’s one “relative” reaction.16Without the “transform”equation,Maxwell’sfindingsarediametricallyopposedtoEinstein’srelativitytheory.

Notsurprisingly,EinsteinwaswellawarethatMaxwell’sfindingofthedifferentreactionsbetweenanelectriccoilandamagnetarerelatedtoMichelson’s“unsuccessfulattemptto 16 This is also why Relativists tout the idea of an “electromagnetic wave” to describe light. The term“electromagnetic” gives the impression that light is electricity and magnetism combined into one entity.Hence thismakes electricity andmagnetism dependent and relative instead of independent and absolute.Einstein did this because previously it was understood that light traveled in waves of ether. But sinceEinstein’s Special Relativity dispenses with ether, he then claimed that light made its own medium byorthogonaloscillationsofelectricityandmagnetism.

12

discover any motion of the Earth.” In his famous 1905 paper, he seeks to make theirrespectiveabsoluteeffectsinto“relative”effects(i.e.,thesame).Hewrites:

ItisknownthatMaxwell’selectrodynamics—asusuallyunderstoodatthepresenttime—whenappliedtomovingbodies,leadstoasymmetrieswhichdonotappeartobeinherentin the phenomena. Take, for example, the reciprocal electrodynamic action of amagnetandaconductor.Theobservablephenomenonheredependsonlyontherelativemotionofthe conductor and the magnet, whereas the customary view draws a sharp distinctionbetweenthetwocasesinwhicheithertheoneortheotherofthesebodies is inmotion.Forifthemagnetisinmotionandtheconductoratrest,therearisesintheneighborhoodof themagnetanelectric fieldwithacertaindefiniteenergy,producingacurrentat theplaceswherepartsoftheconductoraresituated.But if themagnet isstationaryandtheconductor inmotion, no electric field arises in the neighborhood of themagnet. In theconductor, however, we find an electro‐motive force, to which in itself there is nocorrespondingenergy,butwhichgivesrise—assumingequalityofrelativemotion in thetwo cases discussed—to electric currents of the same path and intensity as thoseproducedbytheelectricforcesintheformercase.

Examplesofthissort,togetherwiththeunsuccessfulattemptstodiscoveranymotionoftheearthrelativelytothe“lightmedium,”suggestthatthephenomenaofelectrodynamicsaswellasofmechanicspossessnopropertiescorrespondingtotheideaofabsoluterest.Theysuggestratherthat,ashasalreadybeenshowntothefirstorderofsmallquantities,thesame lawsofelectrodynamicsandopticswillbevalid forall framesofreference forwhichtheequationsofmechanicsholdgood.

Inotherwords,sinceEinsteinfirmlybelievestheEarthismovingaroundthesunandyetherealizesthathemusthaveananswerforallthe“unsuccessfulattemptstodiscoveranymotionoftheEarth,”heproposesthatthisdiscrepancycanbedealtwithby:

(1) Assuming, as a fact, that electrodynamics and mechanics did not show states ofabsoluterest(i.e.,MichelsondidnotshowusamotionlessEarth,andMaxwelldidnotshowustheabsolutestatesofelectricityandmagnetism)

(2) WearethusobligatedtochangewhatappearedtobeabsoluteframesinMichelson’sandMaxwell’s experiments into relative frames (which isnoted inhisphrase, “allframes of reference”). In order to do so, that is, in order to make “all frames ofreference” tobe“valid,”Einsteinwilluse the“transform”equation,whichappearsonpage7ofhis1905paperasfollows:

β =

or, the same equation can be written as:

13

β=1÷(1̶ v2/c2)-1/2

ThisisthepreciseequationusedbyLorentztoclaimthatthearmofMichelson’sapparatushadshrunkby1 (1 ̶ v2/c2)-1/2,withEinsteinalsoaddingtimedilationby1÷(1̶ v2/c2)-1/2.

Thesectionof thepaperwhere this “transform”equationappearsbeginsonpage5withthetitle:

§ 3. Theory of the Transformation of Co‐ordinates and Times from a StationarySystem to another System in Uniform Motion of Translation Relatively to theFormer

Alas,wedon’tneedtogosearchingforit.Einsteintellsusquitecandidlywhatheisdoing.He is “transforming” space and time from a “Stationary System” (e.g., a fixed Earth) to“another System,”oneof “Relativity.” In fact, theword “transformation” appears twenty‐four times in his paper as he applies it to every phenomenon from time, space,motion,electricity,magnetism,theDopplereffect,stellaraberration,energyoflightwaves,electronacceleration,tomassincrease.Itbecamethequintessentialmeansto“relativize”thewholeuniverseandforeverbanishthethoughtofamotionlessEarth.

Aswe can see, it is all donebymathematics.There isnotone iotaofphysical, empiricalproof to the theory. In the Relativist’s mind, of course, there is no need to prove theirfindings or to justify using the “transform.” Since everyone “knows” the Earth ismovingaroundthesun,theneverythingismovingandthereisnoobjectatrestandthusthewholeuniverseis“relative.”

In effect,whenever the experiments showanabsolute result, theRelativist canwavehismagicwandandchangeitintoarelativeresult.ThisistheessenceoftheSpecialRelativitytheorythatEinsteininventedin1905.

That Einstein believes the Earth is moving, but has no proof for it is noted in hisstatement…

“I have come to believe that themotion of the Earth cannot be detected by anyopticalexperiment,thoughtheEarthisrevolvingaroundtheSun.”17

Einstein’sadmissionmerelybegsthequestion: If,onascientificbasis,hecan’tdetecttheEarthmoving,howdoesheknowtheEarth ismoving?The truth is,hedoesn’tknow.Hejustassumesittobeso,sincethatiswhathehasbeentaughtsincechildhood.Ineffect,the“transform”equationistheninvokedtomakeitappearasiftheEarthismovingaroundthe

17 Speech titled: “How I Created the Theory of Relativity,” delivered at Kyoto University, Japan, Dec. 14, 1922, as cited in Physics Today, August, 1982.

14

sun, but in reality the “transform” equation is just an equation and has no ability orauthoritytodeterminetheissue.HenceEinsteinwouldalsoadmitin1938…

Thepossibilityofsolvingthesedifficultiesdependsontheanswertothefollowingquestion.Canweformulatephysical lawssothattheyarevalidforallcoordinatesystems,notonlythosemovinguniformly,butalsothosemovingquitearbitrarily,relative to eachother? If this canbedone, ourdifficultieswill be over.We shallthenbeabletoapplythelawsofnaturetoanycoordinatesystem.Thestruggle,soviolentintheearlydaysofscience,betweentheviewsofPtolemyandCopernicuswould then be quite meaningless. Either coordinate system could be used withequaljustification.Thetwosentences:“thesunisatrestandtheEarthmoves,”or“the sun moves and the Earth is at rest,” would simply mean two differentconventionsconcerningtwodifferentcoordinatesystems.18

That is, hewill employ arbitrary “coordinate systems” tomake the absolute state (i.e., afixedEarth)intoarelativestateinwhicheithercoordinatesystemcanbeused(i.e.,afixedEarthoramovingEarth).All the“coordinatesystems”arecreatedmathematicallyoutofthinairbyusingthe“transform”equation.Iftheydidn’tusethetransformequation,thentheywouldbestuckwithonlyone“coordinatesystem,”theoneMichelsonfoundin1887whentheexperimentalevidenceshowedtheEarthwasn’tmovingaroundthesun.

IfyouaskaRelativist for thescientificvalidityofusing the “transform”equation,hewillsimplyretort,“Well,thetransformequationwasproventobevalidwhenMichelsondidhisexperimentin1887.”

Again,thefallacyofpetitioprincipii isreadilyapparentsinceheisusinganunprovenfact(anEarthmovingaroundthesun)asthebasisformakingtheconclusionthattheEarthismovingaroundthesun.

The cause of the fallacy, as Einstein admitted above when he said “though the Earth isrevolvingaroundtheSun,”isthattheyinsistonusingamovingEarth(whichtheyclaimto“know intuitively”) as the indisputable authority to interpret Michelson’s experiment.Consequently,ifonefirmlybelievestheEarthismoving,buttheexperimentsshowitisnotmoving, then ones interpretation of the experiment will force one to find some way tomakeitappearasiftheEarthismoving.

In effect, any experiment that shows the Earth is not moving will be math‐magicallytransformedintoamovingEarthbythe“transform”equation.The“transform”equationis

18 The Evolution of Physics: From Early Concepts to Relativity and Quanta, Albert Einstein and Leopold Infeld, 1938, 1966, p. 212.

15

like amagicianwaving his wand over the experiments so that the system one does notpreferistransformedintosystemonedoesprefer.

Modernman certainly does not prefer a fixed Earth, since a fixed Earth would validatemuchofthehistoryandsciencepriortothemodernage,andwouldshowmodernmanthatheisnottheobjectiveandnon‐prejudicediconofsocietythathehasenjoyedthelastfewhundredyears.Heislittlemorethanamagicianwhohasbeenfeedingtheworldasteadydietofillusions.

LightastheAbsolute

Speakingofillusions,wehaveonemoretoexpose.Inordertodeterminetheyhavemadeanon‐inertial frame into an inertial frame (which ishard todo if everything is “relative”),ironically, you need something absolute! You need an absolute measuring stick todetermine the difference between the inertial and the non‐inertial. They can’t use theEarth,ofcourse,becausetheyhavealreadyinsisteditisacceleratingaroundthesun.Theycan’t use length, time, or mass because they have already said that they increase ordecreaseuponmovementandthusarenotabsolute.

The only candidate left is light. In order tomake light an absolutemeasuring stick, theyclaimthatitsspeedneverchanges.Butthereisnoproofforit.Theyjustassumeittobethecase(Einsteincalledita“postulate”).Inthisway,theymakelightserveastheoneandonlyabsolute in order to measure the amount of length contraction, time dilation or massincrease,andeventheratethattheEarthtravelsaroundthesun.

Again, this is the essence of Special Relativity. No proof, just made‐up postulates andmathematicalequationsthatgivetheappearanceoftruth.

Einstein’s“transform”equation,β=1÷(1 ̶ v2/c2)-1/2 isinterestinginitself.First,theeasiestwaytounderstanditisintheformofaratio.We’veoftenheardofa1‐to‐1ratio.Well,thisequationwas formulated tomake the right sidealways less thana1‐to‐1 ration, since1multipliedordividedbyanynumberlessthanitselfwillalwaysbelessthan1.Theamountitwillbelessthan1dependsonthevalueofv.Thehighervis,thehigherβwillbe.Second,c,whichrepresentsthespeedoflight,isusedinthedenominatorbecauseitisbelievedtobe constant and can thus serve as the absolute. Hence v is always measured against aconstantvalue forc;andv canneverbehigherthancbecause light isassumedtobethefastestknownspeed.Ifveverequaledc,then,thentheratiowouldbe1‐to‐1.Ofcourse,theRelativistsareassumingthatcisalwaysthesame,buttheyhavenoproofofthisclaim.

TheRelativistmayretortwith,“Yes,lightspeedisconstant,butonlyinaninertialframe.Itcanvaryinotherframes.”Bydoingso,heonlytrapshimself.First,iflightisconstantonlyinaninertialframe,butanEarthgoingaroundthesunisanon‐inertialframe,thenhowcan

16

theRelativistclaimthatthelightbeamsusedinMichelson’sexperimentonEarthwereinan inertial frame?He can’t, sohe employs the “transform” equation.But in this case theRelativist has again committed the fallacy of petitio principii, using as proof (an inertialframe)bytheverythingheistryingtoprove(that“transform”equationscreateaninertialframe).

Incidentally, one of the main questions Relativists have never answered (although theyhavebeenchallengedwithitpreviously),is:ifthephysicaldimensionsoflengthandmasscanbecontractedbymovement,andtheessenceandcalculationoftimecanbedilatedbythesamemovement,thenwhyisn’tlightcontractedbyamovingEarth?SincetheRelativistadmitsthatlightisaphysicalrealityof“photons”(courtesyofEinstein)shouldn’ttheyalsobeaffected insomeway?ThisveryquestionwasposedtoEinsteinbyMaxwellAbrahamandAugustFöppltotheRelativists,butwithoutananswerforthcoming.19

Inreality,theonlyreasonlightiskeptimmunefromtheeffectsofmotionintheRelativistsschemeofthingsisbecause,ironicasitis,theRelativistdesperatelyneedsanabsolutetomakeeverythingelse“relative”!

Inhismind,hehastwochoicesfortherequiredabsolute:(A)thefixedEarththatMichelsonfound,or(B)thepresumedconstantspeedoflightthatEinsteinwants.IfhechoosesAashisabsolute,itmeansBwouldvary.IfhechoosesBashisabsolute,itmeansAwouldvary.But choosingA as the absolutewouldmean certain death for the science establishment,since it would affirm the Church’s decision against Galileo. Choosing B would allow thecharadeof“scientific”authorityovertheChurchtocontinueindefinitely.

Which one do you think has the greater chance of being chosen by the reigning scienceestablishment?

Thegeocentristsaysthatthechoiceiseasy.Theprimafacieevidenceofthe1887and1925MichelsonexperimentsshowtheEarthisn’tmovingaroundthesun,butthereisarelativedailyrotationbetweenEarthandspace.Hence,theEarthistheabsoluteinertialframeandthe absolutemeasuring stick. If so, then the universe is absolute, not relative. Since themotionlessEarthisalreadyanabsoluteinertialframe,thenthereisnoneedtointroduceadhoc “transform”equations toturn it fromanon‐inertial frame intoan inertial frame,andthusthereisnoneedtocontractlength,dilatetimeorincreasemass.Nomagicisrequiredforgeocentrism. 19 As Pauli puts it: “For this purpose we shall discuss the Michelson interferometer experiment….Now,becauseoftheLorentzcontraction….itwouldthereforeseemthatanobservertravellingwithK’measuresavelocityof light…different fromthatmeasuredbyanobserver inK.AccordingtoAbrahamthere isnotimedilation.Abraham’spointofviewisconsistentwithMichelson’sexperiment,butitcontradictsthepostulateofrelativity,sinceitwouldinprincipleadmitofexperimentswhichwouldallowonetomeasurethe‘absolute’motionofasystem.(MaxwellAbrahamandAugustFöppl,TheoriederElektrizitāt,Vol.2,2ndedition,Peipzig,1908,p.367,citedinW.Pauli,TheoryofRelativity,page14,fn.41).

17

Additionally, they cannot assume the speed of light is constant or unaffected bymotionsinceiftheEarthisn’tmoving,thenthereisnowayforthemtomakesuchadeterminationfromMichelson’stwoexperiments,especiallywhenotherexperimentsandevidence,(e.g.,Sagnacin1913andtheGPSsystemthatshowsa50nsdifferenceinlightspeedgoingeast‐to‐west)showlightspeedisnotconstant.ItisobviousthattheRelativistismakingtheseunproven ad hoc “transform” adjustments simply because he refuses to believe thatMichelson’s1887experimentshowedtheEarthisatrest.

ModernVersionsofMichelson’sExperiment

Onemorething:Relativists—thosewhobelievethatMichelson’s1887experimentshowednodifferenceinthespeedofthetwolightbeams—claimthatMichelson’s“null”resulthasbeen verified by modern versions of Michelson’s experiment that show no differencebetweenthespeedofthelightbeamsupto10‐18precision.20Butifyoueverwanttoseeashell game, this is it.Themodernexperimentsonly trap theRelativistsmore firmly thanMichelsondid.

Remember abovewe said Einsteinmaintained that the slight difference in the two lightbeamsofMichelson’soriginal1887experimentcanbechalkedupto“experimentalerror.”Ineffect,Einsteinwasclaimingthat therewasnodifference inthespeedofthetwo lightbeamsandtheresultwasthus“null.”Forthesakeofargument,let’sassumethattobethecase.Hence,ifthespeedofthelightbeamswasthesame,whatdidthissuggesttoEinstein?ItsuggestedtheEarthwasn’tmoving!WealreadysawwhatMichelsonhimselfsaidaboutthe presumed “null” result, namely, “This conclusion directly contradicts theexplanation…whichpresupposesthattheEarthmoves,”aswellastheotherscientistswequotedafterhim.Forfurtherverification,let’slookatwhatEinstein’sbiographersaid:

IntheUnitedStatesAlbertMichelsonandEdwardMorleyhadperformedanexperimentwhich confronted scientistswithanappalling choice.Designed to show theexistenceoftheether…ithadyieldedanullresult,leavingsciencewiththealternativesoftossingasidethekeywhichhadhelpedtoexplainthephenomenaofelectricity,magnetism,andlightorofdecidingthattheearthwasnotinfactmovingatall.21The problem which now faced science was considerable. For there seemed to be onlythreealternatives.The firstwas that theEarthwasstanding still,whichmeantscuttlingthewholeCopernicantheoryandwasunthinkable.22

Soifthenewsapphireoscillatorconfirmsthatthetwobeamsgothesamespeed,itdoesn’trelieve the Relativist one bit. In fact, it traps him all themore, since now an evenmore

20 http://m.phys.org/news/2015-09-precise-lorentz-symmetry-photon-constant.html 21 Ronald Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, 1984, p. 57. 22 Ibid., pp. 109-110, emphasis added. In the opposite vein, senator James W. Fulbright once remarked: “We must care to think about the unthinkable things, because when things become unthinkable, thinking stops and action becomes mindless.”

18

sophisticated andprecise experiment confirms that theEarth isn’t going around the sunsince the light beam in the oscillator that was supposed to be affected by the Earth’smovementisnotaffected.But insteadofadmitting,orat leastholdingoutthepossibility,thatthisresultshowstheEarthisn’tmoving,theyinsteadclaimthatthe66,000mphspeedhasnoeffectonthelightbeam,andtherefore,theyconcludetheEarthcouldbemovingandthelightbeamisconstant,regardlessthatitsframeismovingat66,000mph.ForthemthechoiceisafixedEarthorafixedlightspeed,andtheyhavechosenthelatterbecauseafixedEarthwas“unthinkable.”

Butwhentheymakesuchachoice,theymustalsoconcludethatSpecialRelativityallowsbothamovingsunaroundastationaryEarthandamovingEartharoundastationarysun.Asthearticleitselfadmits:

According to special relativity, there is no absolute space or absolute time. So if twoobjectsaremovingrelativetoeachotherinemptyspace,itwouldactuallybeimpossiblefor an observer to tell their absolute velocities—maybe only one of the objects wasmoving and the other was stationary, for example, but you wouldn't know which waswhichbecausetheirmovementsarerelativetoeachother,nottoanyexternalreferenceframe(assumingthereferenceframeisnon‐accelerating).23

Notice the corner intowhich theRelativist has paintedhimself.What theydiscovered isthatthereisapricetopayforchoosingafixedlightspeedoverafixedEarth.WithafixedEarthoneknowstheuniverseisabsolute,sincetheuniverserevolvesaroundanabsolute,fixedpoint,andeverythingcanbeaccuratelymeasuredfromthatfixedpoint.

Butwithafixedlightspeed,thereisnofixedpointandnooneknowswhethertheEarthismovingaroundthesunorthesunismovingaroundtheEarth.Obviously,iftheyclaimthatlightspeedisnotaffectedbymovement,thentheycan’tuselighttodeterminemovement,andthusallmovementisundeterminable. Ineffect, forall itsbravadoandsophistication,science is forced to conclude that science can’t answer the simple question of which ismovingaroundtheother,theEarthorthesun.

ButtheproblemsarenotoverfortheRelativist.Ifhecan’tdeterminetheprecisemotionbyusing light, then he must account for his inability, since it is a fact that out of the twopossibilities (i.e., the sunmoving around theEarthor theEarthmoving around the sun)only one can be the true reality. So he resigns himself, based on other criteria (mostlyphilosophical),tobelievingthattheEarthmovingaroundthesunisthetruereality,butheisincapableofprovingit.Thebesthecanhopeforisadrawduetohisincompetence.

Another issueconcernsthe lengthcontraction, thetimedilationandthemass increaseoftheoriginalLorentzandEinsteiniantheories.Dothesethreeeffectsapplytothesapphire

23 http://m.phys.org/news/2015-09-precise-lorentz-symmetry-photon-constant.html

19

oscillators?Iftheydo,thentheLorentz“transform”mustbeusedtoarriveata“null”resultiftheyinsistthattheEarthismovingaroundthesun.Ifthethreeeffectsarediscarded,thensomustEinstein’stheories.

The only question left to answer is,whydidMichelson’s 1887 experiment showat leastsome ether (e.g., Michelson said it showed one‐sixth), but the sapphire oscillators don’tshowanyetherdownto10‐18?Thereasonisverysimple.Thesapphireoscillatorsareputin an extreme vacuum, which essentially removes the ether that Michelson discovered.Michelson did not use a vacuum. In effect, the Relativists have to create an artificialenvironmentinordertoobtaina“null”result.Intherealworld,however—theonewithouta vacuum—some ether always shows up in the Michelson‐type experiments. In fact, inMichelson’s1925experiment,alltheetherinspaceshowsupintheexperiment.

In theend, it reallydoesn’tmatter, since if theoscillatorshowsnodifference in the lightbeams, then it shows precisely what Einstein believed Michelson showed, namely, theEarthisn’tmoving.Theonlywayoutofthatdilemmawastoclaimthattheinterferometershrunkand timedilated,but thesewerenothingmore thanpullinga rabbitoutof ahat.Consequently, if the Earth were moving, we would expect there to be a significantdifferenceinthespeedofthetwolightbeams,justasMichelsonfound.

Onewaytotestthesapphireoscillator’scapabilityistopositionitontheframeofa1925Michelson‐Galeexperimentalapparatusinsteadofan1887Michelson‐Morleyapparatus.Asignificantdifferenceintheoscillator’sresultsmaybeseen.Thereason,ofcourse,isthatin1925 Michelson found 98% of the ether he needed to confirm a daily relative rotationbetweentheEarthandspace,butin1887Michelsononlyfoundafractionoftheetherheneeded foranEarth revolvingaround thesun (sincesomeof the rotationalether spilledintothe1887Michelsonapparatus).Thegeocentristsaysthatthisispreciselywhatshouldbe expected, since the Earth is not revolving around the sun; but ethereal space, whichmakesuptheuniverse,isdailyrotatingaroundafixedEarth.IfonaMichelson‐Galeframetheoscillatorshowsnodifferenceinthespeedofthelightbeams,thiswouldprovethattheoscillator cannot detect the relative rotation between Earth and space (but we knowpositivelythatthereisarelativerotation),andthusshowwhyitisalsonotabletodetectwhethertheEarthismovingaroundthesun.Itwouldprovetheoscillatortobeinertanddiscount it as being capable of detecting celestialmovement. It would then disqualify itfrom being used to determine that light speed is constant and also disqualify it fromclaiming“Lorentzsymmetry.”

WecouldalsoputthesapphireoscillatoronaGPSframetodeterminewhetheritsresultsarevalid.Presently, lightbeamssent fromGPSstations in theeast toGPSstations in thewestarefasterthanlightbeamssentfromGPSstationsinthewesttoGPSstationsintheeast,byatleast50nanoseconds,everyday,allday.(NB:Thisdiscrepancyiscoveredupby

20

Relativists since theypreprogram theGPS computers to adjust for thedifference so thattheycanthenclaimthatlightspeedisconstantaccordingtotheSpecialRelativitytheory).Ineffect,theGPSshowsthatlightspeedisnotinvariantandthereisnoLorentzsymmetry.Iftheoscillatoriscapableofdetectingthedifference,itwoulddetectthe50nanoseconds.Sinceweknowforafactthatthereisa50nsdifference,theniftheoscillatorcannotdetectit,theneithertheoscillatorisbeinghamperedbyitsvacuumstateortheoscillatorsimplycan’tbeusedtomeasurelightspeeddifferences.

Incidentally, the geocentrist can easily explain the 50 nanosecond discrepancy, since heholds that because space is daily rotating east‐to‐west against a fixed Earth, the inertialframeoftheGPSlightbeamsenteast‐to‐westismovingwestwardby1054mphbythefactthat space is rotatingaround theEarth, thus adding space’s rotational speed to the lightbeam’sspeed.Conversely,theGPSlightbeamtravelingwest‐to‐eastmusttravelagainsttheeast‐to‐west frameofspace’sdailyrotationandthuswillbeslowerthantheeast‐to‐westlightbeam.

BacktoMaxwell’sEquations:

If, as one Relativist claimed: “Special Relativity is for inertial frames of reference, a nonaccelerating frame of reference. They are the equations which keep the laws ofelectromagnetism invariant,” he is being deceptive (as is much of physics today). He ismakingitsoundasifthereissomenecessitytomaketheeffectofanelectriccoilmovingagainstamagnettobethesameeffect(“invariant”)asamagnetmovingagainstanelectriccoil.His“necessity,”ofcourse, isnothingmorethanhisdesireforabackupargumentfor“relativity”afterhehadalreadyrelativizedMichelson’sexperiment.ButMaxwell showedquiteconclusivelythathisresultswerenot“invariant.”Theyarevariantbecausenatureiswhat it is. Since theeffectsarenot invariant, then theuniverse is absolute,not relative.SpecialRelativity,because it seeks topromotearelativeuniverse tohide the fixedEarththatMichelsonfound,can’ttoleratetheabsolutenessofMaxwell’sexperimentalresults,soit uses its mathematical magic (the “transform” equation) to make Maxwell’s resultsrelative.

Deep in his heart the Relativist realizes that if Maxwell’s equations are left absolute, itmeans that Special Relativity cannot be applied to Michelson’s experiment and thusMichelson’s finding that theEarth ismotionlesswouldbevalid.But theRelativistwouldrather die a thousand deaths than accept a motionless Earth. It is “unthinkable.” So hecommandeers an untested, unproven ad hoc concept (e.g., length contraction) and itsaccompanyingmathematical equation (the “transform” equation) tomake it all go away.Einsteinisfamousforonething.Heisthemanwhomadeit“goaway,”andtheworldhasworshipedhimeversince.Hedidsobymakingthewholeuniverse“relative”when,infact,theempiricalevidenceclearlyshowedhimtheuniversewasabsolute.

21

Allinall,thehistoryoftheMichelsonexperimentsshowshowapreconceivedidea(i.e.,theEarthmovesaroundthesun)ismadethesoledeterminingfactorofhowamodernscientistisgoingtointerprettheresultsofanyexperiment.Inordertoholdontohispreconceivedidea,hewillintroducemitigatingfactorsontotheexperimentalresults,andusually,thisisdone by hypothetical concepts and fudged mathematics. The scientist thus convinceshimself that because he can invent a mathematical equation that can “transform” theempirical results,he cankeephispreconceived ideaofhowhe thinks theuniversemustoperate. In his mind, ‘The Ends Justifies the Means’ because he “knows” that the Earthrevolvesaroundthesun.

There was nothing that wouldmakemankind happier than to keep believing the Earthmovedaroundthesun,regardlessofwhattheexperimentsshowed.Otherwise,theywouldhavetobowtothepopeoftheCatholicChurchforcondemningGalileoforthesameerror.Their god from on high, Albert Einstein, showed them a magical way to avoid such apredicament, and the world has accepted Einstein as a god ever since. His “transform”equation has become the magic wand to turn an Earth‐fixed absolute universe into anEarth‐wanderingrelativeuniverse.AsthenotedEinsteinbiographer,AbrahamPais,putit:

Anewmanappearsabruptly,the‘suddenlyfamousDoctorEinstein.’Hecarriesthemessageofaneworder intheuniverse.He isanewMosescomedownfromthemountain to bring the law and anew Joshua controlling themotion of heavenlybodies….Thenewmanwhoappearsatthattimerepresentsorderandpower.Hebecomestheθεῖος ἀνήρ, thedivineman,ofthetwentiethcentury.24

Togetmoredetailsandmanyotherimportantfacts,youcanobtaintheDVDJourneytotheCenter of the Universe or the books Galileo Was Wrong and Geocentrism 101 atwww.jttcotu.com

Robert Sungenis August 9, 2016

24 Abraham Pais, Subtle is the Lord, 1982, 2005, p. 311. The phrase qei:oV ajnhvr is the Greek for “divine man.”