Fritz Danner There are no absolute inertial systems in SRT. Einstein never claimed in SRT that rotating reference systems are relative. Forces occur in rotating reference systems, they are actually accelerated reference systems. Such reference systems can...Show more

Manage

Like

· Reply · 21 hrs.

Philip Mikas Fritz, nicely obfuscated! But if anyone here hasn't understood the proof, it's probably you! This isn't about a rotating reference system, but about the relativistic consideration of a rotation! Good morning!

Manage

Like

· Reply · 10 hrs.

Fritz Danner Philip Mikas So you really take the above "proof" seriously? It almost looks like it, even though I can hardly believe it! And it's really not meant ironically? In that case: The relativistic consideration of a rotation in the sense of your example is a rotating reference system! In short: Your refutation is absolutely correct, it just refutes something that Einstein never claimed, rather it refutes an erroneous understanding, or also a deliberately constructed error regarding what is claimed in SRT. Because it should only apply to inertial systems. It takes a "relatively" ;-) enormous arrogance to understand so nothing about RT (it's not very much for me either, but at least some basics and some mathematics), to then accuse an interlocutor in a response that explains the difference between inertial reference systems and others of "obfuscation". Why do you speak of these things without the slightest clue about them? This would explain quite well how fundamental an inertial system is for SRT, and what characterizes an inertial system. http://homepage.univie.ac.at/.../SRT/Ressourcen/RELATIV1.pdf (page 1 is enough). Spouting any "wisdom" based on zero knowledge has nothing to do with science or spirituality, but exclusively with arrogant self-promotion. But maybe it's an ironic joke after all, and you're seeing how far you can push it by simply continuing to play it seriously. You would have succeeded excellently with me then ;-)! Chapeau!

Manage

Like

· Reply · 9 hrs. · Edited

Philip Mikas The relativistic consideration of a rotating train is NOT a rotating reference system! You don't seem to be clear about the definition of "relativistic", namely "interchangeable, equivalent". One can consider uniform motion optionally from outside or inside, without being able to distinguish who is moving. Example train: is my train moving or the one I see from the window? When I sit in the rotating train, I assume the train is at rest (this has nothing to do with "rotating reference system", if this is where your error in thinking lies!) and the environment rotates. But exactly that no longer works relativistically. There's a whole treatise about this problem on Wikipedia, it's just not so trivial (like your error in thinking).

Manage

Like

· Reply · 7 hrs.

Fritz Danner Philip Mikas Of course a wagon on a turntable is a rotating reference system, if I want to assume from there that it's at rest and the world around it is rotating. And that's exactly the difference between an inertial system and a non-inertial system, as a rotating reference system is. In an inertial system, without view to the outside (wagon without windows, for example), I cannot know whether it moves uniformly or not. In a rotating wagon without windows I can know about the rotation. Forces occur, centrifugal forces, and when I move, also Coriolis forces. If the train rotates very slowly, I might not be able to feel it directly anymore, but I could still measure it. If it rotates fast, it becomes immediately and directly perceptibly clear. - What kind of treatise is that on Wikipedia, I don't find one that claims anything different, so a link would be helpful.

Manage

Like

· Reply · 59 min.

Philip Mikas You are indeed sitting on an error in thinking: "Of course a wagon on a turntable is a rotating reference system, if I want to assume from there that it's at rest." What now: rotating or at rest? Do you see the contradiction? 😁🤔

Manage

Like

· Reply · 39 min.

Fritz Danner A reference system, is related to itself, neither rotating nor moving, that's probably obviously clear. In your sense there wouldn't even be moving reference systems. Logically, rotating reference system (like moving ones too) can only be seen as such from another reference system, e.g. from an inertial one. But, that makes absolutely no sense here anyway! In that sense I'm now retiring - quite in the sense of the above quote - into silence.

Manage

Like

· Reply · 20 min.

Philip Mikas In my sense there would of course be moving reference systems, but that has nothing to do with the relativistic way of looking at things based on the respective reference system, which above all means the equivalence / interchangeability of the observer's standpoint. But your error in thinking is of a quite fundamental nature: 1. If you claim that rotation cannot be considered relativistically, you have already restricted RT to translations! 2. If you claim that rotation can only not be considered relativistically from a certain observer's view, you have again violated the principle of relativity. As I said, Wikipedia tries to explain away the fundamental problem with a long obfuscation paragraph, BECAUSE it is indeed serious.

---

The oscillating tilting work requires considerable energy. This can only come from the axis rotation itself (the only distinguishing factor). After 4,000,000,000 tilting cycles (estimated Earth age), the initial energy of the axis rotation would have long been exhausted. However, the Earth cannot have become even slower if it cooled down while shrinking from a slowly rotating gas cloud, but would have had to, on the contrary, strongly accelerate its rotation (pirouette effect). Conclusion: The assumption of a semi-annual tilting movement of the Earth's axis means a massive violation of the law of conservation of energy!

"Mikas's contradiction proof" against Earth's rotation

For simplification, we imagine a rotating axis instead of a full sphere, one pole of which is directly inclined toward the Sun and which orbits the Sun in 365 days (we consider in principle only the red component of the axis vector inclined toward the Sun at 23.5°, not the black component perpendicular to the orbit).

1. If the axis does NOT rotate, the same pole (here the South Pole) always points toward the Sun when orbiting the Sun.

2. If the axis rotates (as a gyroscope), the pole begins to tilt and points toward and away from the Sun every 6 months, with the axis standing tangential to the orbit in between.

3. The only distinguishing factor between tilting (motion) and non-tilting (motionlessness) is the rotation. The tilting movement (i.e., the RELATIVE difference in movement behavior) must therefore draw its ENERGY from the rotation.

4. The age of the Earth is said to be 4 billion years, and it is supposed to have orbited from the beginning. This means 4,000,000,000 axis TILTS have already been performed, whose energy comes at the expense of rotation and must have massively slowed Earth's rotation.

5. The Earth cannot rotate many orders of magnitude slower than at the beginning of its formation, since a cooling gas mass loses diameter significantly. According to the law of conservation of angular momentum, the Earth had to become much faster instead (pirouette effect: when drawing in outstretched arms, the dancer becomes faster). The assumption of a tilting movement of the Earth's axis means a massive violation of the law of conservation of energy!

Q.E.D.

The Earth is not a rod, but if it rotates, then its axis becomes a "rod" whose vector component pointing toward the Sun is subject to the Sun's gravitational gradient. Such a "rod" would - if it did not rotate - ALWAYS point toward the Sun during its orbit! It only fails to do so because it rotates. But: energy is continuously required for this resistance against the gravitational gradient.

English:

Believe it or not, one of the greatest "anomalies" remains Earth's rotation. Here's a proof against it, using the law of conservation of energy. Please refute!

Amber, darsith, gauragopala, randy, meesha, lilith, jodi, fur khan, haralambos, riza bahrami, innana freesoul, grigorii, hannibal, fab ian, doan, gerii, smeringa, justen, matthew, vassili, anke cat, van dinh, bobby howell, arijita, rüya, Paul cyriel, marty, praesent, mankevich, stan tenen, fatih, rajay R, maryam zohoori, wal thornhill, arenhold, parulava, steeger

The oscillating work requires considerable energy. This can only originate from the axis rotation itself (the only distinguishing factor). After 4,000,000,000 inclination cycles (estimated age of earth), however, the initial energy of the axis rotation would have long been consumed. The earth, cannot have been slowed down if it was originating from a slowly rotating, cooling down and thus shrinking gas cloud. On the contrary: its rotation would have had to accelerate sharply (pirouetting effect). Conclusion: The assumption of a half-yearly tipping movement of the earth's axis means a massive violation of the law of conservation of energy!

"Mikas's contradiction proof" against the earth's rotationFor the sake of simplification, we imagine a rotating axis instead of a full sphere, one pole of which being directly inclined to the sun, and which revolves around the sun in 365 days (we consider, in principle, only the red component of the axis vector which is inclined towards the sun at 23.5°, not the black vector perpendicular to the orbit).1. If the axis does NOT rotate, the same pole (here the South Pole) always points to the sun when orbiting around the sun.2. When the axis rotates (as a gyro), the pole begins to tilt and points every six months to and fro from the sun, in between the axis shows tangential to the orbit.3. The only distinguishing factor between tilting (movement) and non-tilting (motionlessness) is the rotation. The tipping movement (ie the RELATIVE difference in the movement behavior) must therefore receive its ENERGY from the rotation.4. The age of the Earth is estimated at four billion years, and it is assumed to have circulated from the beginning. That would means that 4,000,000,000 axis TILTS have already been carried out, the energy of which is at the expense of the rotation and must have have slowed down earth's rotation massively.5. The earth cannot rotate much more slowly than at the beginning of its formation, since a cooling gas mass loses its diameter. According to the law of conservation of angular momentum the earth had to rotate much faster (pirouette effect: when the dancer contracts the spread arms she is spinning much faster). The assumption of a tilting movement of the earth axis means a massive violation of the law of conservation of energy!Q.E.D.

---

Refutation of the Theory of Relativity

Refutation of the Theory of Relativity

Introduction

Albert Einstein is considered the founder of special (1905) and general relativity (1916). The theory of relativity has significantly influenced our conception of reality and provided philosophical relativism with a quasi-scientific basis.

Max Planck already noted:

"A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it." - Max Planck (Scientific Autobiography, 1948)

Logical Refutation of the Theory of Relativity

The Rotation Paradox

RT states that there would be no absolute reference point in the universe that is at rest. For non-accelerated translations this may apply: A train passenger cannot verify whether the train or the landscape is moving. Both observer standpoints are equally valid.

The decisive paradox, however, arises with rotational movements: If the same train were rotating on a turntable around itself, the passenger could still think of the environment as stationary, but not optionally think of the train as stationary - because that would mean that distant objects would have to move around the train at many times the speed of light. However, this contradicts the RT requirement that no object with mass can move faster than the speed of light.

It follows: In an infinite universe there are indeed reference points with v=0 - all rotation centers! Since in the real world practically no "mathematically straight-line translations" occur, RT thus does not apply to reality.

Wikipedia Confirmation of the Problem

The Wikipedia article on General Relativity confirms the rotation problem:

"For example, even an observer on a rotating chair can maintain the position that he himself is at rest and the cosmos rotates around him. This creates the paradox that the stars and the light they emit move computationally at superluminal speed in the coordinate system of the rotating observer..."

The "solution" occurs by abandoning fundamental RT principles: The constancy of the speed of light is relativized and relativistic interchangeability is abolished.

Einstein's Logical Errors

Einstein commits fundamental logical errors in his book "On the Special and General Theory of Relativity" (1916):

1. He claims the principle of relativity applies to "all natural phenomena," although it is only defined for translations (straight-line, non-accelerated movements).

2. He introduces Earth as an example of a uniformly moving system, although its assumed circular orbits represent multiply accelerated systems, for which the principle of relativity per definitionem does not apply.

GPS and Relativistic Corrections

The standard argument that GPS only works with relativistic corrections proves to be unfounded. Prof. Harald Maurer explains:

"The feared relativistic error is completely irrelevant because in truth it concerns corrections of much coarser and more drastic errors. This naturally cannot be accomplished with a change in oscillator frequency."

Alternative Explanatory Models

Aether Instead of Space Curvature

Instead of Einstein's space curvature theory, one could assume a concentric aether gradient in which light refracts according to Snell's law of refraction. The difference: Light curvature at the gradient is based on real 3D physics, while space curvature represents a mathematical surrogate for the aether field.

Le Sage Push Gravity

Swiss physicist George-Louis Le Sage (1724-1803) developed a theory of gravitation through pressure force that has never been refuted to this day and explains the distance law through optical-perspective geometry.

Propaganda Mechanisms

Lothar Pernes critically notes:

"It is well known that the theories of relativity literally slap common sense in the face, so illogical and absurd are they. This objection is always dismissed by relativists with the argument that one can forget common sense here [...] But this is exactly the equally cheap and 'ingenious' argument of the swindlers in the fairy tale of 'The Emperor's New Clothes'."

Historical Context

Max Planck and the Aether

In a 1944 lecture, Planck neutrally describes the aether as "force":

"All matter arises and exists only through a force which sets the atomic particles in vibration and holds them together as the tiniest solar system of the universe."

This definition coincides with Nikola Tesla's aether concept, although Planck paradoxically disputes its inexhaustibility with the argument that humanity would otherwise have already invented the "longed-for perpetual motion machine."

German Physics vs. Theory of Relativity

Experimental physicists like Johannes Stark and Philipp Lenard (both Nobel Prize winners) advocated a mechanical, aether-based explanation of natural phenomena. The conflict culminated in the public confrontation between Lenard and Einstein in 1920 in Bad Nauheim.

Conclusions

The theory of relativity proves to be inconsistent under precise logical analysis. The principle of relativity only applies to straight-line movements that do not occur in nature. The theory possibly represents a bulwark against aether-based gravitational theories that could lead to practically usable free energy.

A refutation of RT would have far-reaching consequences: Gravity would again be a real force instead of a fictitious force, and aether-based explanatory models would be rehabilitated.

---

Against Flat Earth Theory

Flat Earth Theory: Discrimination of Climate Deniers through Cabaret Propaganda

It All Started with a Climate Speech by Obama

The original "Flat Earth Society" has existed since the mid-1950s. Its members believe in the disc shape of the Earth, as confirmed on their FAQ page operated since 2006. Through the massive production of "proof videos" for flat Earth theory that only began in 2014, after just two years there were 550,000 Google results for "flat earth" as well as 119,000 for "flache Erde".

The art movement began about a year after Obama's speech on June 25, 2013, on "Climate Change & Energy Policy" at Georgetown University, in which he equated climate deniers with the "Flat Earth Society":

"Nobody has a monopoly on what is a very hard problem, but I don't have much patience for anyone who denies that this challenge is real. We don't have time for a meeting of the Flat Earth Society. Sticking your head in the sand might make you feel safer, but it's not going to protect you from the coming storm."

Climate Deniers, Christians and Political Dissidents are the Target

In numerous flat Earth videos, a connection is made to other controversially discussed scientific topics - from the moon landing to climate change to 9/11 theories. This strategy aims to discredit healthy skepticism toward political course as "tin-foil-hat paranoia".

Many Christians find themselves in a dilemma between biblical faith and scientific worldview. Flat Earth theory was strategically chosen as a "nonsense theory" because the spherical shape of the Earth seems incontrovertible. Obama and John Kerry repeatedly used the "killer argument" of the Flat Earth Society to discriminate against dissidents.

It's noteworthy that as early as 1995, a card about future "Flat Earthers" existed in the Illuminati Card Game.

Climate Change Debate and Political Instrumentalization

The NGO "Sierra Club," the largest US nature conservation organization and Agenda 21 supporter, came under pressure in a 2015 hearing. Senator Ted Cruz confronted President Aaron Mair with the term "The Pause" - the lack of temperature rise over the last 18 years (until 2015) documented by satellite recordings.

Cruz, himself a climate skeptic and former presidential candidate, argues there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for human-caused global warming.

The Middle Ages Believed in the Sphere

The Earth as a disc has no tradition in human history. Already antiquity knew the spherical shape of the Earth:

"People in the Middle Ages are supposed to have believed the Earth was a disc [...] In reality, every serious medieval scholar assumed the spherical shape of the Earth. For poets and merchants, monks and priests, this knowledge was also completely self-evident [...] It was character assassination. In the Renaissance, Humanism and Enlightenment, scholars tried to separate the 'light' of their own cognitive achievements from the 'darkness' of their predecessors' ignorance."

• Focus.de, April 6, 2016

Questionable Explanatory Models

The most-watched flat Earth video (over 11 million views since late 2014) commits elementary logical errors regarding gravitation and centrifugal force. It questions nearly every established finding and impresses viewers without basic physics understanding through the sheer mass of about 200 "arguments".

Is Refuting Flat Earth Trivial?

Numerous arguments exist to refute flat Earth theory:

The most important refutations include:

1. Polaris and Southern Cross: These cannot be seen simultaneously, which refutes flat Earth theory.
2. Sum of interior angles: On a spherical surface it amounts to more than 180°, on a disc exactly 180°.
3. Solar observations: The sun does not change its apparent size according to flat Earth theory.
4. Flight times: Distances between various points do not correspond to flat Earth calculations.
5. Night shadow boundary: This runs in a straight line, not concave as would be expected on a flat surface.

Flat Earth - the Only Alternative Model?

The necessarily required rotation of the Earth sphere in the heliocentric worldview represents its greatest weakness. As an alternative to flat Earth theory, Cellular Cosmology exists, which offers empirically verified explanations for horizon effects, seasons and other phenomena.

Flat Earth theory represents a "dangerous half-truth" - an unsatisfying model between the full-sphere worldview and Cellular Cosmology, where more questions are raised than answered.

UFOs and "Extraterrestrials"

The heliocentric worldview developed gradually, but only in the 20th century did its dehumanizing consequences become obvious through world wars, social upheavals and mass society. Flat Earth theory could serve to discriminate against serious worldview questioners from the outset.

At the same time, the topic of "contact with extraterrestrials" is more present than ever. A staged "alien invasion" to abolish religions only works in the unproven heliocentric worldview. Cellular Cosmology, however, offers no room for infinitely many highly developed civilizations and makes such deceptions impossible.

The flat Earth movement since 2014 never had the intention to explain phenomena through better theories, but to collect and discriminate against dissidents. Many "system critics" fall for this because they prefer quantitative "GoPro argumentation" to qualitatively high-quality arguments that require independent thinking.

---

Proof Against Earth Rotation

And Yet the Earth Does Not Move!

Basic Physical Considerations on Earth Rotation

The Earth sphere is supposed to rotate once around itself in 24 hours, which means a rotational speed of 1,666 km/h at the equator - supersonic speed. Nevertheless, there is no permanent "east wind," although the Earth allegedly rotates eastward. The standard explanation states that the atmosphere rotates completely synchronously, comparable to the air in a train cabin.

A physical proof against Earth rotation could be based on the law of conservation of angular momentum: L = rmv (const.)

Vertical Angular Momentum Change

The Cannonball Experiment

A 500g heavy ball is fired vertically upward in calm conditions and rises to 500m height. According to the law of conservation of angular momentum, the orbital speed of the ball should decrease with increasing distance from the Earth's center.

Calculation: - Earth radius: 6500 km - Ball's angular momentum at ground: L₈ = 6500 km × 0.5 kg × 1,666 km/h - At 500m height: L₄ = 6500.5 km × 0.5 kg × v₄ - Solved: v₄ = 1665.87 km/h

The ball flies 0.13 km/h slower at 500m height (3.6 cm/s). With a total flight time of 20.2 seconds, it should drift 36.36 cm westward.

Practical Examples: - An object from 30 km height should reach an eastern drift speed of 457 km/h - Drones at 100m height would experience a drift of 4 cm/s - Aircraft in north-south descent from 10 km height should drift eastward at 153 km/h

Atmospheric Water Masses and Air Pressure

Centrifugal force increases from the poles to the equator. Consequently, air masses should accumulate at the equator and create significantly higher air pressure. In reality, air pressure at sea coasts is the same worldwide.

Angular Momentum Conservation in the Gulf Stream

The Gulf Stream flows from the 24th northern latitude (Bahamas) to the 68th latitude (Murmansk). According to the law of conservation of angular momentum, the water masses at the target latitude should have a relative flow velocity of 3089 km/h - a physical impossibility.

The Foucault Pendulum and Coriolis Force

The Foucault pendulum rotates once daily at the poles, but not at all at the equator, although the greatest rotational force should act there. This suggests aether vortices around the poles, whose direction of rotation cancels each other out at the equator.

Solar Eclipse Refutes the Foucault Pendulum

Professor Allais demonstrated that paraconic pendulums perform strange angular changes during solar eclipses. On August 11, 1999, the Foucault pendulum swung 10° out of the expected range. This abrupt change contradicts the law of conservation of momentum if explained by Earth rotation.

The Earth as a Gyroscope

A miniature gyroscope with an oblique axis that rotates on a string does not attempt to maintain its orientation, but rotates uniformly around the center point. This contradicts the explanation for the origin of seasons through periodic tilting of the Earth's axis.

Comet Orbits as Counter-argument

Tycho Brahe observed that comets maintain their course unchanged - becoming neither prograde nor retrograde. The assumed Earth rotation should influence the apparent movement of comets, which was never observed.

Angular Momentum of Planets

If the planets developed from the sun, they should initially have had its rotational speed. It is inexplicable how the sun came to a standstill relative to the planets while they continued to drift away.

The Michelson-Morley Experiment

This experiment measured the speed of light once with and once against the assumed Earth rotation. The result was always a constant speed of light. From this finding, which would only be logical with a stationary Earth, Einstein developed the Special Theory of Relativity.

Refutation of Relativity Theory

Relativity theory contradicts itself: If the universe were to rotate relatively around an object during rotation, more distant galaxies would have to rotate at superluminal speeds. This contradicts relativistic mass variability, according to which no body can be accelerated to superluminal speed.

Scientific Historical Consideration

The history of the heliocentric worldview shows a chain of hypotheses that build upon each other without solving the fundamental contradictions. From Copernicus through Kepler to Newton, a mathematical system was developed that explains observations but is physically untenable.

The Holy Scriptures

The ancient scriptures assume a stationary Earth. These traditions could be based on a deeper understanding of cosmic order that was buried by the heliocentric worldview.

The physical contradictions of Earth rotation are so fundamental that they question the entire modern worldview. The law of conservation of angular momentum alone provides irrefutable arguments against a rotating Earth.