The Elephant in the Room
This article addresses why Einstein's theory is a failure, why I use this harsh comment to break the Personality Cult Fever, and why you don't need to be Jewish or Israeli to be part of the Cult. Most, if not all, scientists live in adoration of Einstein and his beautiful theory.
I explained that if someone told me that Leonel Messi was the greatest soccer, I might object. The reason is national pride (I am originally from Brazil, Pele played in my city soccer team - The Santos Football Club, and I taught him everything he knew about kicking the ball...:)
Then I finished my comment by stating that despite those circumstances, I would stop my objection if "Messi being the Greatest Player Ever" was a requirement for Science and Mankind to move forward.
In other words, despite my respect and adoration for Einstein and his beautiful theory, I can see that it is wrong, not Fundamental, and blocking the progress of Science.
I should also add that I created a replacement for Einstein's theory of General Relativity and the rest of Physics. I will be happy to explain everything if given the opportunity.
########################################
########################################
In my prior article, I described the Elephant in the Room, namely, the fact that despite evidence unveiled by Dr. Alan Asange, Dr. Kapahi that the average angular size of galaxies does not obey Einstein's General Relativity, the general population is not aware of that.
The way to understand this data is by imagining a Gaussian Distribution of galaxy angular sizes overlaying each of those curves (model predictions). For Einstein's model (of space stretching) to overlap with the data, the corresponding population must be composed of extremely small galaxies and thus have extremely high surface brightness!
WHAT DID JAMES WEBB SPACE TELESCOPE DISCOVER?
JWST discovered several galaxies with redshifts varying from z=11 to z=13
Two of the farthest galaxies seen to date are captured in these JWST images of the giant galaxy cluster Abell 2744. The galaxies are not inside the cluster but many billions of light-years farther behind it. The galaxy labeled (1) existed only 450 million years after the big bang, and the galaxy labeled (2) existed 350 million years after the big bang. Although both are tiny compared to our Milky Way, their size and brightness exceed predictions from consensus models of galaxy formation in the early universe. Credit: Science: NASA, ESA, CSA, Tommaso Treu (UCLA); Image Processing: Zolt G. Levay (STScI)
ANOTHER ARTICLE EXPRESSING THE DISAGREEMENTS NUMERICALLY
Using General Relativity, one would conclude that these galaxies were "150 times smaller than Milky Way. Its surface brightness- would be 600 times that of the brightest galaxy in the local universe."
#########################################
Well... Scientists cannot explain the existence of a galaxy that is 150 times smaller than the Milky Way with a 600 times higher surface brightness. It is just plain wrong.
###########################################
ASIDE: DID I SAY THAT GENERAL RELATIVITY IS WRONG?
I try to be clear that I don't object to Einstein's local predictions. My theory makes the same predictions and (can) use the same model. The reason is the local homology between the LightSpeed Expanding Hyperspherical Universe (LEHU) Topology. Unlike Einstein's GR, I have the Universe expansion occurring inertially at the speed of light:
Here you see yourself at position A, looking into the sky and seeing photons coming from a distant galaxy at the position when the Universe was smaller, denser, and more homogeneous.
The cross-section of LEHU showcases the homology:
Einstein's successes were obtained just by imposing the Geodesics Paradigm (geodesics mapped to Keplerian Dynamics) and the conservation of volume (spacetime volume). That conservation is expressed by making use of the?vacuum field equations:
R_{alpha, beta}=0
where R is the Ricci tensor. That is how one recovers the Schwarzschild Metric starting from the geodesics equation.
In other words, one does not use Einstein's equations, designed for describing the Universe, in explaining local phenomena.
So, one can explain Einstein's local successes using a local homology and the Geodesic Paradigm (as a model and not as a faithful representation of reality) while refuting Einstein's equations.
The model works because it is faithful to LEHU and Minkowski Spacetime.
Does HU refute General Relativity and Relativity?
Yes, because in my model, one uses an Absolute Reference Frame.
IS IT DISRESPECTFUL TO EINSTEIN?
Compared with the utter reverence expressed by everyone else, yes. It is kind of disrespectful to say that Einstein was wrong in fixing the Universe as an unembedded 3D Spatial Manifold plus time and that he succeeded because he used Minkowski and the Geodesic Paradigm. That said, that is not a Fundamental Theory. It misses a full spatial dimension (LEHU), a better model for matter (Fundamental Dilators), and a quantum law of dynamics (Quantum Lagrangian Principle).
That is why I decided to be direct and forceful while challenging Einstein's work. That is the only way to snatch Physics of the Jaws of Einstein's Personality Cult and change Physics. That position arouses a lot of grievances among insecure people. That is unfortunate.
######################################
######################################
######################################
ARGUMENT SUPPORTING A DYSFUNCTIONAL SCIENTIFIC DISCOURSE ON THINGS RELATED TO ALBERT EINSTEIN
Now let me give you support to that statement:
If you read my work, you would know:
领英推荐
a) it predicts the same values for local predictions as GR and SR.
b) There is evidence that GR is wrong, at least since 2007 (see Kapahi paper) and attached figure. The Kapahi data shows that GR expected that the angular size (angle encompassing galaxies) should increase with distance. That clearly debunks Einstein's General Relativity (at least Einstein's equations), yet he didn't claim that.
Kapahi, V. K., Kulkarni, V. K., & Subrahmanya, C. R. (1987). On the Interpretation of the Observed Angular-Size-Flux-Density Relation for Extragalactic Radio Sources. J. Astrophys.Astr, 8, 33–50.
c) The plot I presented below comes from this article: https://physicsfoundations.org/data/documents/DU_EN_978-952-68101-3-3.pdf
a paper by Dr. Tuomo Suntola.
There you also don't see a claim that General Relativity is wrong, despite the data telling us that. Of course, no other scientist in any media ever refers to this data.
d) Here, you can read the repetition of the failure of Einstein's theory (fails the Tolman Test), and yet, the author does not name names. He doesn't say that the expectations are driven by General Relativity and that the theory failed.
"150 times smaller than Milky Way. Its surface brightness- would be 600 times that of the brightest galaxy in the local universe.?
So, the failure of Relativity has been showcased in the work of Kapahi, Suntola... It is called a failure of the Tolman test.
Using General Relativity, one would fail the Tolman test by a factor of 600.
And yet, you don't know that, and neither does anybody else.
That is the argument. Flaws are evident, and nobody mentions them. The public at large has no idea about them.
IN SUMMARY
JWST just shed light on something everyone should have known since 1987 (Kapahi, Sandage).
Since 1987, scientists should have been telling us that General Relativity does not describe the Universe. They misled the public and each other.
I go on a limb and say that the reason is fear (The Elephant in the Room). Scientists fear to say that Albert Einstein is wrong. They learned that saying that Einstein is right is Good. The opposite of Good is Bad... Scientists can make inferences.
I assigned that fear to the fear of possibly being labeled an antisemite. Of course, that label doesn't need to be applied expressly. The effect could appear in the form of grant denials, less collaboration, being shunned at conferences, not being asked to chair conferences or be part of journal editorial boards, etc. That is my opinion.
If you can provide a better explanation, I would love to hear it.
If Einstein is wrong, L-CDM is wrong, so all the research on Dark Matter and Dark Energy.
Also wrong is their work on m-branes, string theory…their books on Einstein and Relativity related topics…
All these forms what is called Network Externalities.
Network Externalities have been the reason for censoring my work since 2007.
PERSONAL EXPERIENCE
My personal experience also includes tribalism. People who somehow identify themselves with Einstein (because they read a book about him, have him as an ethnic or national hero, or are part of Einstein's Personality Cult) have objected to my theory and arguments.
I would never use the behavior as part of a scientific discussion. In other words, if someone makes a scientific point, I would never say, "You said that because of tribalism."
That said, some of the tribalistic reactions are nonscientific.
Below you can see utterances that have nothing to do with my scientific argument.
As you can see, Gavin Guerra didn't say a single word about my theory or my scientific argument.
That said, he showed plenty of tribalism and grievances.. of the unproductive kind. Despite his "argument," I still see nuances and believe my analysis is more meaningful.
Gavin's words are here because I otherwise would be hiding a counterpoint to my point. Also, there is a possibility that Gavin would come back and say something intelligent about Kapahi's, Sandage's, and Tuomo Suntola's work or the discoveries of JWST.
It is never easy to talk about the Elephant in the Room.
My final word is:
:)
I see that you have taken no lessons from our last encounter. You point to my tribalism and grievances without posting the part where you denied ever having said what I found objectionable, and accused me of not knowing how to read and unqualified to even comment. Then when presented with evidence of your own laughable hypocrisy you.. in true narcissistic fashion... DOUBLE DOWN with a brand new post and a personal attack! I never mentioned your science because what I found objectionable was not your math but rather your feeble attempt at a sociological construct. (No one dares to question Einstein in public because....he's JEWISH!) Still one of the dumbest things I've read online in some time. But please... do keep digging. But wait...there's more! You then write: "I would never say, "You said that because of tribalism.""... but that is PRECISELY what you are saying... you are clearly saying that people are defending Einstein out of tribalism and that others are scared into silence because of tribalism... Since you are soooo brave in taking on the Jewish cabal by putting forth your scientific model, at least own up to your societal claims... and those happen to be moronic and show a penchant for lazy thinking.