Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
Einstein's ridiculous
universe

    1.0   Moon orbits don’t measure up to Einstein’s theory

    In 1915, Einstein mathematically derived that gravity is a result of space-time geometry. He proposed an
    equation that predicts quite accurately the degree to which Mercury’s orbit shifts, thus solving a problem first
    tackled by LeVerrier almost 100 years earlier. Relativists continue to regard this equation as strong evidence
    that General Relativity is essentially correct.

    You can visualize Einstein’s warped space mechanism as a cork swirling in the whirlpool that is generated
    when water rushes down a drain. The Sun weighs down the canvass of space-time in its vicinity coercing tiny
    Mercury to trace a rosette-like pattern with its shifting elliptical itineraries.

    “ General relativity gives a different meaning to gravitation than does Newton’s theory. A
       simple model will give us a foretaste of what is to come. Imagine, once more, that we are
       in a two dimensional space represented by a sheet of rubber stretched over a horizontal
       frame. This is a non-curved Euclidean space. In the middle, place a heavy ball to represent
       the Sun; the rubber stretches, of course, and the ball then sits in a wide hollow. This hollow
       represents the curvature of space which the Sun’s mass causes …Now let a small ball be
       a planet going round the Sun. It can be projected tangentially around the hole, with an
       adequate velocity, and it will then travel in a circle round the side of the hollow. This model
       shows us how gravitation works according to general relativity: the Sun curves the space
       in its vicinity, and a planet has to follow the contours of that curvature.” (pp. 76-77) [1]

    Relativists explain the reason for the orbit of the Earth and of the other planets via a similar analogy.

    At first glance, there is something terribly disquieting about this theory. Why would the Sun have the
    propensity for weighing the space-time canvas ‘downwards’, meaning in the direction in which the Sun
    must push space around Mercury to induce the planet to orbit around the plane of the ecliptic (the Sun’s
    ‘equator’)? As far as we can tell there is no up, down, left or right in space. The Sun could just as well push
    the invisible canvas outwards or to the side.

    But let’s concede direction for the sake of argument and assume that the Sun weighs the canvas
    ‘downwards’. Now the problem is that Einstein’s theory is restricted to a two-object system in which the
    primary is static. Weighing the canvas ‘downwards’ explains, for example, why the Earth, Uranus, and Pluto
    orbit our star in a counter-clockwise (CCW) direction as viewed from ‘above’. (I define this as an arbitrary
    standard for the purposes of discussion). If we further assume that the solar ‘gravity well’ also induces
    Earth to weigh the canvass ‘downwards’, this would explain as well why the Moon orbits Earth more or less
    around the planet’s equator and causes eclipses every now and then (Fig. 1 - Scenario A).

    Now let’s look at Uranus and its system of satellites and rings. The moons of Uranus by strange coincidence
    travel around the giant planet’s equator also. The trouble is that Uranus is lying down on its belly and has its
    South Pole pointing towards the Sun! Unlike the rings of Saturn, which are near-parallel to the Sun’s equator,
    the rings of Uranus face the Sun head-on (i.e., perpendicular to the ecliptic!). Uranus does not spin East-West
    like Earth, but think of it more like North-South if we use Earth as a reference. Imagine that the Earth’s
    equator ran from pole to pole and the Moon orbited our planet in such a way as to generate a bull’s eye
    pattern as seen from the Sun (Fig. 1 - Scenario B). To be consistent with General Relativity, Uranus would
    have to push the canvas ‘outwards’ from our star in order to generate the necessary gravity well in its
    vicinity that would induce its satellites to orbit facing the Sun. What abstract Mathematics can relativists
    concoct to explain why Earth pushes the canvas ‘downwards’ whereas Uranus pushes the canvas
    ‘outwards’? The onus shifts to relativists to prove why the Sun’s ‘gravity well’ affects planets unequally
    since this violates their own logic. It appears far more natural to assume that the orbit of a satellite is related
    to the spin of the primary rather than to warped space.

    This argument becomes even more compelling when we consider the Pluto-Charon system. Charon does
    not orbit Pluto either like the Moon orbits Earth or like Oberon orbits Uranus. Charon orbits Pluto around its
    poles in a direction pointing ‘towards’ the Sun (Fig. 1 - Scenario C)! Like Uranus, Pluto spins around its
    poles, but unlike Uranus, Pluto does so in the direction of the Sun. By strange coincidence Charon also
    orbits Pluto in this direction and more coincidental yet, at the same speed that Pluto spins on its axis!
    Charon has a synchronous orbit around its primary, which clearly indicates that its orbit depends on the
    rotation of Pluto rather than on the static warped space mechanism proposed by Einstein. Indeed, with few
    exceptions involving captured asteroids, all satellites in the Solar System orbit their primaries along their
    equators (all of which are tilted with respect to the ecliptic) and in the direction in which the primary spins.
    These facts refute the relativity theory that geometry is responsible for the motion of planets around the
    Sun. The space-time canvas analogy used by Einstein to explain the orbit of Mercury is simply dead wrong!
    The gullible morons of Mathematical Physics are staring at an inexistent robe.
Fig. 1   Einstein’s Universe

    I have thus eliminated the last possible physical interpretation available to relativists. General Relativity as of
    this moment has no physical interpretation for gravity, which was the main reason we abandoned Classical
    Mechanics for relativity in the first place. What does it matter if relativists can describe the orbit of Mercury with
    some precise equation if they cannot tell us why the planet orbits as it does? What physical entity binds
    Mercury to the Sun? This is what Physics is about. This is what people want to know. Fig. 1 shows that it
    certainly cannot be due to Einstein's gravity well mechanism, and we certainly will not discover the physical
    mechanism through equations and numbers. Mathematics is not the language of Physics!


    2.0    Al's well is 3-D

    In closing, I will simply remind the reader that the gravity well or canvas is not an abstract analogy that the
    mathematicians can casually brush aside when it suits relativism. The gravity well mechanism described by
    relativists is no different than a tiny ball circling the roulette. In relativistic terms, the ball’s itinerary is 2-
    dimensional and the roulette is structurally 3-dimensional. Nothing in the vicinity of the Sun, from Mercury to
    Pluto, is structurally 4-dimensional, space included! If the reason given by Einstein to explain why Mercury
    doesn’t fly off into outer space is that there is a physical barrier, an invisible, curved wall of space obstructing
    the planet’s centripetal flight, the prosecutor has no excuse to elude an illustration of this wall. None of the
    participants in this hypothesis is a 4-dimensional object that inhibits visualization. The first law of Physics
    regarding structure is that if the factory can’t manufacture it, you execute the design engineers!

Planets roll around warped space,
Bill. Just like a roulette! That red
one that just went by is Mars. And
that one coming up is Jupiter.

    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008