Relativity is imaginary. And I can prove it.

Jerry Smith · Jun 8, 2002

Unfortunately, in this country the satanic school systems are selling our kids the lie called "relativity." Their Prophet, Einstein, has admitted that relativity is all just vain imaginings and fantasy. It has been used to deceive our children, to try to get them to believe that moral absolutism is unscientific. I am here to prove that relativity is just a vain imagining and doesn't belong in the public schools.

First, a few confessions from the Einstein himself, the relativists Hero and Prophet:

"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination. Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
"What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck," for the October 26, 1929 issue of The Saturday Evening Post.

Einstein's very candid and frank admission of dishonesty:

"The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources."

Science is the century-old endeavour to bring together by means of systematic thought the perceptible phenomena of this world into as thorough-going an association as possible. To put it boldly, it is the attempt at a posterior reconstruction of existence by the process of conceptualisation.

Conceptualisation: read that "imagination".

Relativity is just guessing, "hey, I think time slows down when you go faster...and things get shorter and heavier". But how do things know to get shorter and heavier? Who is telling them to get shorter and heavier? Have you ever seen anything get shorter and heavier when it is going faster?

Proof is here: http://www3.sympatico.ca/wbabin/paper/webdoc1.htm

Relativity was accepted first because it supported moral relativism. Relativity says that any inertial frame of reference is equally valid to any other inertial frame of reference. This led to ideas of relativism like this:

In ethics, this amounts to saying that all moralities are equally good; in epistemology it implies that all beliefs, or belief systems, are equally true.

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/r/relativi.htm
This from ardent relativists!

Jerry Smith · Jun 8, 2002

There can be no more clear definition of hoax than what went on in the Tropics back in May 29, 1919. What is particularly clear is that it is probable that Eddington fudged the data to make it conform to Einsteins work on general relativity. Let us address the issues set forth by G. Burniston Brown in What is wrong with relativity, also the highly detailed work by Paul Marmet called, Appendix II The Deflection of Light by the Suns Gravitational Field: An Analysis of the 1919 Solar Eclipse Expeditions Internet article and finally, the equally detailed work of P. Marnet and C. Couture called, Relativistic Deflection of Light Near the Sun Using Radio Signals and Visible Light and The Deflection of Light As Observed At Total Solar Eclipses by Charles Lane Poor.
The work of Poor is particularly disturbing for an ethical scientist. First, his summary from J. Opt. Soc. Amer (173-211), The mathmatical formula, by which Einstein calculated his deflection of 1.75 seconds for light rays passing the edge of the sum, is a well known and simple formula of physical optics. Not a single of the fundamental concepts of varying time, or warped or twisted space, of simultaneity, or of the relativity of motion is in any way involved in Einsteins prediction of, or formulas for the deflection of light (emphasis added). The many and elaborate eclipse expeditions have, therefore, been given a fictictious important. Their results can neither prove nor disprove the relativity theory.... (emphasis added)
From Brown we learn that Eddington couldnt wait to get out to the world community that Einsteins theory was confirmed. What Eddington based this on was a premature assessment of the photographic plates. Initially, stars did appear to bend as they should as required by Einstein, but then, according to Brown, the unexpected happened; several stars were then observed to bend in a direction transverse to the expected direction and still others bent in a direction opposite to that predicted by relativity (Brown). The utter absurdity of the data collected during the eclipse of 1919 was demonstrated by Poor (1930) who pointed out that 85% of the data was discarded from the South American eclipse due to accidental error i.e. it contradicted Einsteins scale constant. By a strange coincidence, the 15% of the good data was consistent with the Einsteins scale constant. Somehow, the stars that did not conform to Einsteins theories conveniently got temporarily shelved and the myth began. Even to this date, the discredited experiment by Eddington is still quoted as gospel by some writers (see David Levy in Parade Magazine, Summer of 2000). The real question though is, Where was Einstein in all this? Surely, he must have known of the work of Poor. Why didnt he go on the record and address a paper that directly contradicted his work? How much have the followers of Einstein tried to set the record straight with respect to the bogus data of 1919 and 1922?
What makes this so suspicious is that neither the instrumentation nor the physical conditions were conducive to make these measurements of such great precision i.e. on a good day with everything perfect as far as instruments and the weather both on earth and on the sun. For example, just the difference in temperature between day and night that day was way beyond the 10 degrees (75-97 degrees) that was the upper limit of range of permissible temperatures for the instruments. Add to this severe limitations imposed by the crude (compared to modern instruments) nature of the 4 object glass and the astrographic and the reliability of this primitive equipment. It appears that Eddington was claiming precisions of .02 of an arc when a more realistic precision due to the turbulence in the suns atmosphere was 2-3 arc (Marmet).

http://einstein52.tripod.com/alberteinsteinprophetorplagiarist/id9.html

Late_Cretaceous · Jun 8, 2002

That was great. What a fine satire of anti-intellectual, anti-science, paranoid ravings. You really should set up a website called www.relativitydeception.com.

Starscream · Jun 8, 2002

LOL! You've perfectly mastered the tone of the stubborn and rude creationist!

I'm saving this one to the old hard-drive, it's a keeper!

Jerry Smith · Jun 8, 2002

To Starscream and LiveFreeOrDie:

The only reason you are mocking my post and calling it a "spoof" and a "parody" is because it is exposing the lies you guys have been trying to sell here for so long. If your "THEORY" had any evidence, you wouldn't have to resort to name-calling.

Let me ask you guys this, since you're so smart: why does your "theory" make the speed of light so fast that nobody can go fast enough to even test it? Are you afraid that if somebody had a car fast enough they might prove your theory wrong? I guess when they do make cars that can go the "speed of light," you'll just make the speed of light ten times faster and say your theory was still good, you just had calculated the speed of light too slow!

That's what happened when everybody thought you couldn't go the speed of sound! What happened, Chuck Yeager flew an airplane at the speed of sound & all of the sudden its not "the speed of sound" its "Mach 1". Now they can go two and three times the speed of sound and everybody says you can't make any planes go "Mach 5".

You people will never change.

Jerry Smith · Jun 8, 2002

And by the way... Why don't those planes going "Mach 3" ever fall out of the sky since they are supposed to be getting so much HEAVIER? Wait, I can hear the answer already - you IMAGINE that they are pushing the air so fast that the AIR is heavier too and so it can hold them up. Yeah right. I don't know why I even try.

chickenman · Jun 8, 2002

this is brilliant

RufusAtticus · Jun 8, 2002

Starscream · Jun 9, 2002

Please ... stop ... you're killing me.

DavidD · Jun 9, 2002

I guess happyday is now over grrrr

Ray K · Jun 9, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
To Starscream and LiveFreeOrDie:

The only reason you are mocking my post and calling it a "spoof" and a "parody" is because it is exposing the lies you guys have been trying to sell here for so long. If your "THEORY" had any evidence, you wouldn't have to resort to name-calling.

Let me ask you guys this, since you're so smart: why does your "theory" make the speed of light so fast that nobody can go fast enough to even test it? Are you afraid that if somebody had a car fast enough they might prove your theory wrong? I guess when they do make cars that can go the "speed of light," you'll just make the speed of light ten times faster and say your theory was still good, you just had calculated the speed of light too slow!

That's what happened when everybody thought you couldn't go the speed of sound! What happened, Chuck Yeager flew an airplane at the speed of sound & all of the sudden its not "the speed of sound" its "Mach 1". Now they can go two and three times the speed of sound and everybody says you can't make any planes go "Mach 5".

You people will never change.

You've got it all wrong. The proof of relativistic effects is overwhelming. As a "theological relativist", I think Flat-Earthers like you are giving the rest of us faithful a bad name!

Objects DO get heavier as they speed up and the fastest any object can travel is the speed of light. This has all been demonstrated experimentally.

The real mystery is how do objects know to get heavier and how do they know to stop accelerating before they reach the speed of light?

There is clearly an intelligence working here to enforce the intergalactic speed limit of 186,000 miles per second. Our "Intelligent Patrolman" theory provides the alternative mechanism to explain these relativistic effects.

Although we can't say for sure if the "Intelligent Patrolman" is God (wink, wink) or rather some super-powerful alien force, it is certainly as good of a solution as atheistic relativity. Therefore, we are pushing to have the IP theory presented in science classrooms as a legitimate alternative to relativity.

chickenman · Jun 9, 2002

I think its only fair that the intelligent patrolman theory be taught alongside atheistic relativity. We don't want our children thinking that there is an explanation for a phenomenon that doesn't require god.

Jerry Smith · Jun 10, 2002

Ray K, Chickenman,...

Newton, one of the greatest scientists of all time was anti-relativity. I can name dozens of others. It isn't necessary to try to twist the scriptures to fit the atheistic theory of relativity. There is no scientific support for relativity - it is a religion based on conjecture and Einstein's "imagination". God tells us in the Bible that the geometry of space is Euclidean ("four corners of the earth," what more do you need?).

I do think you're right about one thing: if they are going to teach relativity, they should give equal time to all of the ideas about space, including IP, TR, and CP.

theyre here · Jun 10, 2002

Originally posted by Jerry Smith
Ray K, Chickenman,...

Newton, one of the greatest scientists of all time was anti-relativity. I can name dozens of others.

Whew... wow... (Picking myself up off the floor after I was laugh uncontrollably)

Relativity wasnt around during Newtons time, however, relativity sprang from Newtons work.

There have been numerous measurements of objects gaining slight mass at extreme speeds. Additionally, there have been numerous measurements of the relativistic effects of speed and gravity on time.

Ray K, no mass can travel at light speed, for such an object would have infinite mass and thus, infinite gravity.

wow

Jerry Smith · Jun 10, 2002

Objects DO get heavier as they speed up and the fastest any object can travel is the speed of light. This has all been demonstrated experimentally.

The real mystery is how do objects know to get heavier and how do they know to stop accelerating before they reach the speed of light?

See, you just contradicted yourself. If they stop accelerating before they reach the speed of light, then how can they go the speed of light? That's the kind of twisted thinking it takes to support the lie of relativity. If you are a True Christian, you will see that the scriptures only support Classical physics, the atheistic lie of relativity.

Jerry Smith · Jun 10, 2002

Originally posted by theyre here
Relativity wasnt around during Newtons time, however, relativity sprang from Newtons work.

Relativity is an atheistic lie propagated to try to erase Newton from science because he was a Christian. If that's what "sprang from Newton's work" means to you, then yeah - I guess it did.

There have been numerous measurements of objects gaining slight mass at extreme speeds. Additionally, there have been numerous measurements of the relativistic effects of speed and gravity on time.

"Measurements"! Sure, you put a balance on a rocket so it could keep up with the "slight" mass gains at "extreme" speeds. Yeah right. You mean you "assume" that it is gaining slight mass, and you "assume" there are relativisitc effects of speed and gravity on time.

Sure, great proof.

Ray K, no mass can travel at light speed, for such an object would have infinite mass and thus, infinite gravity.

Are you forgetting that Ray K is a TR (theistic relativist)? Are you just assuming that God couldn't make an object go as fast as light? That's all relativity is, just one big lie, based on conjecture, imagination, and assumptions.

Relativity is imaginary. And I can prove it.

Fish out of water

Fish out of water

&lt;font color=&quot;#880000&quot; &gt;&lt;/font&g

Well-Known Member

Fish out of water

Fish out of water

evil unamerican

PopGen Grad Student

Well-Known Member

Active Member

Cogito ergo sum

evil unamerican

Fish out of water

Supreme Skeptic

Fish out of water

Fish out of water

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency

<font color="#880000" ></font&g