"In his presentations of the complete version of General Relativity in late 1915 and the overview paper in 1916, Einstein presented his calculations of the three experimental tests. These were the rate of precession of the perihelion of the planet
Mercury, light bending close to the Sun and the gravitational redshift. He showed the Mercury orbit correction was in excellent agreement with observation, solving a long-standing problem. He repeatedly emphasized that there was no freedom in his theory
to adjust the predictions (no free parameters)..." https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsnr.2020.0040

Einstein's no-adjustments lie is repeated here:

"Einstein was able to predict, WITHOUT ANY ADJUSTMENTS WHATSOEVER, that the orbit of Mercury should precess by an extra 43 seconds of arc per century should the General Theory of Relativity be correct." http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p10/gr/
PrecessionperihelionMercury.htm

Sometimes the truth resurfaces even in post-truth science. Here Michel Janssen describes countless ad hoc adjustments made again and again until "excellent agreement with observation" was reached:

Michel Janssen, The Einstein-Besso Manuscript: A Glimpse Behind the Curtain of the Wizard: "But - as we know from a letter to his friend Conrad Habicht of December 24, 1907 - one of the goals that Einstein set himself early on, was to use his new theory
of gravity, whatever it might turn out to be, to explain the discrepancy between the observed motion of the perihelion of the planet Mercury and the motion predicted on the basis of Newtonian gravitational theory. [...] The Einstein-Grossmann theory -
also known as the "Entwurf" ("outline") theory after the title of Einstein and Grossmann's paper - is, in fact, already very close to the version of general relativity published in November 1915 and constitutes an enormous advance over Einstein's first
attempt at a generalized theory of relativity and theory of gravitation published in 1912. The crucial breakthrough had been that Einstein had recognized that the gravitational field - or, as we would now say, the inertio-gravitational field - should not
be described by a variable speed of light as he had attempted in 1912, but by the so-called metric tensor field. The metric tensor is a mathematical object of 16 components, 10 of which independent, that characterizes the geometry of space and time. In
this way, gravity is no longer a force in space and time, but part of the fabric of space and time itself: gravity is part of the inertio-gravitational field. Einstein had turned to Grossmann for help with the difficult and unfamiliar mathematics needed
to formulate a theory along these lines. [...] Einstein did not give up the Einstein-Grossmann theory once he had established that it could not fully explain the Mercury anomaly. He continued to work on the theory and never even mentioned the
disappointing result of his work with Besso in print. So Einstein did not do what the influential philosopher Sir Karl Popper claimed all good scientists do: once they have found an empirical refutation of their theory, they abandon that theory and go
back to the drawing board. [...] On November 4, 1915, he presented a paper to the Berlin Academy officially retracting the Einstein-Grossmann equations and replacing them with new ones. On November 11, a short addendum to this paper followed, once again
changing his field equations. A week later, on November 18, Einstein presented the paper containing his celebrated explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury on the basis of this new theory. Another week later he changed the field equations once
more. These are the equations still used today. This last change did not affect the result for the perihelion of Mercury. Besso is not acknowledged in Einstein's paper on the perihelion problem. Apparently, Besso's help with this technical problem had
not been as valuable to Einstein as his role as sounding board that had earned Besso the famous acknowledgment in the special relativity paper of 1905. Still, an acknowledgment would have been appropriate. After all, what Einstein had done that week in
November, was simply to redo the calculation he had done with Besso in June 1913, using his new field equations instead of the Einstein-Grossmann equations. It is not hard to imagine Einstein's excitement when he inserted the numbers for Mercury into the
new expression he found and the result was 43", in excellent agreement with observation." https://researchgate.net/publication/251531298_The_Einstein-Besso_Manuscript_A_Glimpse_Behind_the_Curtain_of_the_Wizard

See more here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

In 1924 Eddington calculated the "Einstein shift" and commanded two observatories to confirm his estimate (by that time he was an all-powerful boss in post-truth physics). For half a century, the fraudulent test was deemed the most solid confirmation of
Einstein's general relativity:

"Consider the case of astronomer Walter Adams. In 1925 he tested Einstein's theory of relativity by measuring the red shift of the binary companion of Sirius, brightest star in the sky. Einstein's theory predicted a red shift of six parts in a hundred
thousand; Adams found just such an effect. A triumph for relativity. However, in 1971, with updated estimates of the mass and radius of Sirius, it was found that the predicted red shift should have been much larger – 28 parts in a hundred thousand.
Later observations of the red shift did indeed measure this amount, showing that Adams' observations were flawed. He "saw" what he had expected to see." http://puritanreformed.blogspot.bg/2010/08/fallible-nature-of-supposed-objective.html

"In January 1924 Arthur Eddington wrote to Walter S. Adams at the Mt. Wilson Observatory suggesting a measurement of the "Einstein shift" in Sirius B and providing an estimate of its magnitude. Adams' 1925 published results agreed remarkably well with
Eddington's estimate. Initially this achievement was hailed as the third empirical test of General Relativity (after Mercury's anomalous perihelion advance and the 1919 measurement of the deflection of starlight). It has been known for some time that
both Eddington's estimate and Adams' measurement underestimated the true Sirius B gravitational redshift by a factor of four." http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010AAS...21530404H

"...Eddington asked Adams to attempt the measurement. [...] ...Adams reported an average differential redshift of nineteen kilometers per second, very nearly the predicted gravitational redshift. Eddington was delighted with the result... [...] In 1928
Joseph Moore at the Lick Observatory measured differences between the redshifts of Sirius and Sirius B... [...] ...the average was nineteen kilometers per second, precisely what Adams had reported. [...] More seriously damaging to the reputation of Adams
and Moore is the measurement in the 1960s at Mount Wilson by Jesse Greenstein, J.Oke, and H.Shipman. They found a differential redshift for Sirius B of roughly eighty kilometers per second." http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1980QJRAS..21..246H

Jean-Marc Bonnet-Bidaud has a breathtaking hypothesis. According to him, initially Einsteinians were all fraudsters but the fraudulent period ended in 1971 when Eddington's second (Sirius B) major hoax was exposed. Then, in the 1970's, all Einsteinians
became extremely honest:

"Le monde entier a cru pendant plus de cinquante ans à une théorie non vérifiée. Car, nous le savons aujourd'hui, les premières preuves, issues notamment d'une célèbre éclipse de 1919, n'en étaient pas. Elles reposaient en partie sur des
manipulations peu avouables visant à obtenir un résultat connu à l'avance, et sur des mesures entachées d'incertitudes, quand il ne s'agissait pas de fraudes caractérisées. Il aura fallu attendre les années 1970 pour que de nouvelles méthodes
parviennent enfin à fournir des preuves expérimentales solides de la relativité. [...] Autour de l'étoile brillante Sirius, on découvre une petite étoile, Sirius B, à la fois très chaude et très faiblement lumineuse. Pour expliquer ces deux
particularités, il faut supposer que l'étoile est aussi massive que le Soleil et aussi petite qu'une planète comme la Terre. C'est Eddington lui-même qui aboutit à cette conclusion dont il voit vite l'intérêt : avec de telles caractéristiques,
ces naines blanches sont extrêmement denses et leur gravité très puissante. Le décalage vers le rouge de la gravitation est donc 100 fois plus élevé que sur le Soleil. Une occasion inespérée pour mesurer enfin quelque chose d'appréciable.
Eddington s'adresse aussitôt à Walter Adams, directeur de l'observatoire du mont Wilson, en Californie, afin que le télescope de 2,5 m de diamètre Hooker entreprenne les vérifications. Selon ses estimations, basées sur une température de 8 000
degrés de Sirius B, mesurée par Adams lui-même, le décalage vers le rouge prédit par la relativité, en s'élevant à 20 km/s, devrait être facilement mesurable. Adams mobilise d'urgence le grand télescope et expose 28 plaques photographiques pour
réaliser la mesure. Son rapport, publié le 18 mai 1925, est très confus car il mesure des vitesses allant de 2 à 33 km/s. Mais, par le jeu de corrections arbitraires dont personne ne comprendra jamais la logique, le décalage passe finalement à 21
km/s, plus tard corrigé à 19 km/s, et Eddington de conclure : "Les résultats peuvent être considérés comme fournissant une preuve directe de la validité du troisième test de la théorie de la relativité générale." Adams et Eddington se
congratulent, ils viennent encore de "prouver" Einstein. Ce résultat, pourtant faux, ne sera pas remis en cause avant 1971. Manque de chance effectivement, la première mesure de température de Sirius B était largement inexacte : au lieu des 8 000
degrés envisagés par Eddington, l'étoile fait en réalité près de 30 000 degrés. Elle est donc beaucoup plus petite, sa gravité est plus intense et le décalage vers le rouge mesurable est de 89 km/s. C'est ce qu'aurait dû trouver Adams sur ses
plaques s'il n'avait pas été "influencé" par le calcul erroné d'Eddington. L'écart est tellement flagrant que la suspicion de fraude a bien été envisagée." http://bonnetbidaud.free.fr/ce/relativite2008/pdf_CE/RELATIVITE-052-456.pdf

More here: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Richard Feynman: "A very interesting example of the slowing of time with motion is furnished by muons, which are particles that disintegrate spontaneously after an average lifetime of 2×10^(−6) sec. They come to the earth in cosmic rays, and can also
be produced artificially in the laboratory. Some of them disintegrate in midair, but the remainder disintegrate only after they encounter a piece of material and stop. It is clear that in its short lifetime a muon cannot travel, even at the speed of
light, much more than 600 meters. But although the muons are created at the top of the atmosphere, some 10 kilometers up, yet they are actually found in a laboratory down here, in cosmic rays. How can that be? The answer is that different muons move at
various speeds, some of which are very close to the speed of light. While from their own point of view they live only about 2 μsec, from our point of view they live considerably longer - enough longer that they may reach the earth." http://www.
feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/I_15.html

Einsteinians fraudulently call 2×10^(−6) sec "lifetime of muons at rest". Actually, this is the postcatastrophic lifetime of muons that have crashed into the detector at a speed close to the speed of light and naturally disintegrate faster than muons
in flight (similarly, the postcatastrophic lifetime of car drivers "at rest" is shorter than the lifetime of drivers in motion):

"The lifetime of muons at rest [...] Some of these muons are stopped within the plastic of the detector and the electronics are designed to measure the time between their arrival and their subsequent decay. The amount of time that a muon existed before
it reached the detector had no effect on how long it continued to live once it entered the detector. Therefore, the decay times measured by the detector gave an accurate value of the muon's lifetime. After two kinds of noise were subtracted from the data,
the results from three data sets yielded an average lifetime of 2.07x 10^(-6)s, in good agreement with the accepted value of 2.20x 10^(-6)s." http://cosmic.lbl.gov/more/SeanFottrell.pdf

"In order to measure the decay constant for a muon at rest (or the corresponding mean-life) one must stop and detect a muon, wait for and detect its decay products, and measure the time interval between capture and decay. Since muons decaying at rest are
selected, it is the proper lifetime that is measured. Lifetimes of muons in flight are time-dilated (velocity dependent), and can be much longer..." https://www.scribd.com/document/266379869/Muon-Rutgers

See more: https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

Pentcho Valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

The GPS fraud: One calculates the distance between the satellite and the receiver by multiplying the time by Einstein's CONSTANT speed of light, obtains a wrong value (because the speed of light is VARIABLE, not constant), and "adjusts the time" in order
to fix the wrongness. Finally, Einsteinians inform the gullible world that Einstein's relativity is gloriously confirmed:

"Your GPS unit registers the exact time at which it receives that information from each satellite and then calculates how long it took for the individual signals to arrive. By multiplying the elapsed time by the speed of light, it can figure out how far
it is from each satellite, compare those distances, and calculate its own position. [...] According to Einstein's special theory of relativity, a clock that's traveling fast will appear to run slowly from the perspective of someone standing still.
Satellites move at about 9,000 mph - enough to make their onboard clocks slow down by 8 microseconds per day from the perspective of a GPS gadget and totally screw up the location data. To counter this effect, the GPS system adjusts the time it gets from
the satellites by using the equation here." https://www.wired.com/2011/06/st-equation-gps/

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

Einsteinians fraudulently teach that the gravitational redshift, as measured in the Pound-Rebka experiment, gloriously proves Einstein's gravitational time dilation:

David Morin: "The equivalence principle has a striking consequence concerning the behavior of clocks in a gravitational field. It implies that higher clocks run faster than lower clocks. If you put a watch on top of a tower, and then stand on the ground,
you will see the watch on the tower tick faster than an identical watch on your wrist. When you take the watch down and compare it to the one on your wrist, it will show more time elapsed. [...] This GR time-dilation effect was first measured at Harvard
by Pound and Rebka in 1960. They sent gamma rays up a 20m tower and measured the redshift (that is, the decrease in frequency) at the top. This was a notable feat indeed, considering that they were able to measure a frequency shift of gh/c^2 (which is
only a few parts in 10^15) to within 1% accuracy." http://www.personal.kent.edu/~fwilliam/Chapter%2013%20General%20Relativity.pdf

Question: "What is the greatest Physics experiment that has ever been done and why is it so good?" Jim Al-Khalili: "For me it was an experiment carried out by two Americans in the early 1950s and regarded as one of the classic tests of Einstein's General
Theory of Relativity. Their names were Robert Pound and Glen Rebka and they proved that gravity really slows time down." https://www.harriswestminstersixthform.org.uk/87/jim-al-khalili-obe

Actually, the opposite is true: the gravitational redshift DISPROVES Einstein's gravitational time dilation. Some Einsteinians unwittingly hint in this direction:

Albert Einstein Institute: "...you do not need general relativity to derive the correct prediction for the gravitational redshift. A combination of Newtonian gravity, a particle theory of light, and the weak equivalence principle (gravitating mass equals
inertial mass) suffices. [...] The gravitational redshift was first measured on earth in 1960-65 by Pound, Rebka, and Snider at Harvard University..." http://www.einstein-online.info/spotlights/redshift_white_dwarfs.html

Banesh Hoffmann (p. 139): "The gravitational red shift does not arise from changes in the intrinsic rates of clocks. It arises from what befalls light signals as they traverse space and time in the presence of gravitation." http://www.amazon.com/
Relativity-Its-Roots-Banesh-Hoffmann/dp/0486406768

The gravitational redshift, as measured in the Pound-Rebka experiment, proves that the speed of light falling in gravity varies as per Newton. This implies that gravitational time dilation, the miracle Einstein fabricated in 1911, does not exist:

R. V. Pound and J. L. Snider, Effect of Gravity on Gamma Radiation: "It is not our purpose here to enter into the many-sided discussion of the relationship between the effect under study and general relativity or energy conservation. It is to be noted
that no strictly relativistic concepts are involved and the description of the effect as an "apparent weight" of photons is suggestive. The velocity difference predicted is identical to that which a material object would acquire in free fall for a time
equal to the time of flight." http://virgo.lal.in2p3.fr/NPAC/relativite_fichiers/pound.pdf

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

A truly idiotic "confirmation" of Einstein's relativity was devised by Alväger and is cited by Einsteinians as "unambiguous":

Michael Fowler, University of Virginia: "There is another obvious possibility, which is called the emitter theory: the light travels at 186,300 miles per second relative to the source of the light. The analogy here is between light emitted by a source
and bullets emitted by a machine gun. The bullets come out at a definite speed (called the muzzle velocity) relative to the barrel of the gun. If the gun is mounted on the front of a tank, which is moving forward, and the gun is pointing forward, then
relative to the ground the bullets are moving faster than they would if shot from a tank at rest. The simplest way to test the emitter theory of light, then, is to measure the speed of light emitted in the forward direction by a flashlight moving in the
forward direction, and see if it exceeds the known speed of light by an amount equal to the speed of the flashlight. Actually, this kind of direct test of the emitter theory only became experimentally feasible in the nineteen-sixties. It is now possible
to produce particles, called neutral pions, which decay each one in a little explosion, emitting a flash of light. It is also possible to have these pions moving forward at 185,000 miles per second when they self destruct, and to catch the light emitted
in the forward direction, and clock its speed. It is found that, despite the expected boost from being emitted by a very fast source, the light from the little explosions is going forward at the usual speed of 186,300 miles per second. In the last
century, the emitter theory was rejected because it was thought the appearance of certain astronomical phenomena, such as double stars, where two stars rotate around each other, would be affected. Those arguments have since been criticized, but the pion
test is unambiguous. The definitive experiment was carried out by Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964)." http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html

Here is Alväger's paper:

Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region, Alväger, T.; Farley, F. J. M.; Kjellman, J.; Wallin, L., 1964, Physics Letters, vol. 12, Issue 3, pp.260-262 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031916364910959

High energy particles bump into a beryllium target. As a result, gamma photons leave the target and travel at c relative to the target. Antirelativists do not see how this can refute the emission theory but Einsteinians do. They teach that initially a
pion is generated inside the beryllium target and this pion travels at 0.9999c inside the target. It decays into two gamma photons inside the target and therefore this pion is a moving source of light. And since the source travels at c inside the target,
the gamma photons must travel at 2c if the emission theory is correct. But they don't - they travel at c.

If the emission theory had predicted that the products of the disintegration of a particle continue with a speed twice as great as the speed of the particle, it would be the silliest theory in the history of science. The straw man built by Alväger & Co
is obviously idiotic, and yet the experiment is cited as most convincing, "unambiguous" confirmation of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

On Thursday, 10 February 2022 at 14:20:09 UTC, Pentcho Valev wrote:

A truly idiotic "confirmation" of Einstein's relativity was devised by Alväger and is cited by Einsteinians as "unambiguous":

Michael Fowler, University of Virginia: "There is another obvious possibility, which is called the emitter theory: the light travels at 186,300 miles per second relative to the source of the light. The analogy here is between light emitted by a source

and bullets emitted by a machine gun. The bullets come out at a definite speed (called the muzzle velocity) relative to the barrel of the gun. If the gun is mounted on the front of a tank, which is moving forward, and the gun is pointing forward, then
relative to the ground the bullets are moving faster than they would if shot from a tank at rest. The simplest way to test the emitter theory of light, then, is to measure the speed of light emitted in the forward direction by a flashlight moving in the
forward direction, and see if it exceeds the known speed of light by an amount equal to the speed of the flashlight. Actually, this kind of direct test of the emitter theory only became experimentally feasible in the nineteen-sixties. It is now possible
to produce particles, called neutral pions, which decay each one in a little explosion, emitting a flash of light. It is also possible to have these pions moving forward at 185,000 miles per second when they self destruct, and to catch the light emitted
in the forward direction, and clock its speed. It is found that, despite the expected boost from being emitted by a very fast source, the light from the little explosions is going forward at the usual speed of 186,300 miles per second. In the last
century, the emitter theory was rejected because it was thought the appearance of certain astronomical phenomena, such as double stars, where two stars rotate around each other, would be affected. Those arguments have since been criticized, but the pion
test is unambiguous. The definitive experiment was carried out by Alvager et al., Physics Letters 12, 260 (1964)." http://galileoandeinstein.physics.virginia.edu/lectures/michelson.html

Here is Alväger's paper:

Test of the second postulate of special relativity in the GeV region, Alväger, T.; Farley, F. J. M.; Kjellman, J.; Wallin, L., >1964, Physics Letters, vol. 12, Issue 3, pp.260-262 >https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0031916364910959

High energy particles bump into a beryllium target. As a result, gamma photons leave the target and travel at c relative to the target. Antirelativists do not see how this can refute the emission theory but Einsteinians do. They >teach that initially a

pion is generated inside the beryllium target and this pion travels at 0.9999c inside the target. It >decays into two gamma photons inside the target and therefore this pion is a moving source of light. And since the >source travels at c inside the
target, the gamma photons must travel at 2c if the emission theory is correct. But they >don't - they travel at c.

Another bit of fakery from Relativists. Their standard model couldn’t explain why a
high energy particle produced gamma rays when it collided with a non moving beryllium target.
Fortunately the neutral pion was invented. Not only did this imaginary particle
turn the failed standard model into a massive success😂,...it allowed relativists
to pretend that this imaginary never seen before moving non existent neutral pion
particle also proved that a moving source still emitted light at c in the experiment frame.
An odd bit of fakery considering what’s actually happening is a moving high energy
particle hits a non moving beryllium target. And the static beryllium atoms emit
gammarays at c in the beryllium target frame. A target which is at rest in the experiment frame. Confirming that a classical model of light has light travelling
at c always..in the source frame.

If the emission theory had predicted that the products of the disintegration of a particle continue with a speed twice as great as the speed of the particle, it would be the silliest theory in the history of science. The straw man built by Alväger &

Co is obviously idiotic, and yet the experiment is cited as most convincing, "unambiguous" confirmation of Einstein's 1905 constant-speed-of-light postulate.

Pentcho Valev https://twitter.com/pentcho_valev

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)