The Fraudulent Life of Albert Einstein and Relativity

[Musicology]

The fraudulent life of Albert Einstein and the invention of the 'theory' of Relativity.

http://www.reformation.org/einstein-unmasked.html

[Scheherazade]

Musicology> Please present your arguments yourself instead of posting links to other websites without accompanying explanations or discussions.

[Musicology]

Scheherazade,

Thank you for your advice. There are some things so elegantly simple they tend to speak for themselves. To anyone prepared to study them. But of course that doesn't mean they are accepted by everyone.

The facts are as follows. The Earth on which we live can be proved to be fixed in space and does not orbit around the Sun as we suppose. Indeed, as the bible indicates, it is the Sun which moves around the Earth. So too the planets and the stars. So, at least, says the evidence. As anyone can see for themselves. The implications of this fact are enormous. They expose the fraudulent world of supposed 'science'. It exposes the construction of 'theories' which are no theories, including that of Relativity. And, sure, enough, when we examine the career of Einstein we find his entire career was faked with the assistance of Jesuit Princetown University, just as the career of Charles Darwin had also been faked. (The latter with the assistance of occultists of the Lunar Society and with the full assistance of the elites of the British occultist fraternity - who have infiltrated and dictated the teaching of so-called evolutionary 'science' ever since). An 'evolution science' which, today, still dominates the British Museum and which cannot be allowed to be criticised. (It was of course the Jesuit Thielhard de Chardin who was associated with one of the many fakes of Darwinian 'evolution' in the case of the notorious Peking Man).

As for relativity, contrary to our textbooks, the equation E=MC2 was already known in 1875!! It is still another fact that is ignored. Because it was discovered by those who knew physics. Einstein did not.

In a book published in London in 1875, British scientist Samuel Tolver Preston, stated the relationship of matter moving at the speed of light. Preston believed in the existence of an ether which the theory of relativity denies:

To give an idea, first, of the enormous intensity of the store of energy attainable by means of that extensive state of subdivision of matter which renders a high normal speed practicable, it may be computed that a quantity of matter representing a total mass of only one grain, and possessing the normal velocity of the ether particles (that of a wave of light), encloses a store of energy represented by upwards of one thousand millions of foot tons, or the mass of one single grain contains an energy not less than that possessed by a mass of forty thousand tons, moving at the speed of a cannon ball (1200 feet per second); or otherwise, a quantity of matter representing a mass of one grain endued with the velocity of the ether particles, encloses an amount of energy which, if entirely utilized, would be competent to project a weight of one hundred thousand tons to a height of nearly two miles (1.9 miles).

This remarkable result may serve to illustrate well the intense mechanical effect derivable from small quantities of matter possessing a high normal velocity, the extremely high value of the effect depending on the fact that energy rises in the rapid ratio of the square of the speed.

(Samuel Tolver Preston, 'Physics of the Ether', p. 115).

The question now is simple. Does there exist within the modern academic world a single physicist, astronomer, or scientist who can deny the above is true in respect of the fixed position of Earth ? Or in respect of the collapse of Einstein propaganda ? Since, if reality is the issue, reality is saying the bible is right and their 'science' is fiction. Should we be surprised ? Should we be surprised if the elegant simplicity of these facts may continue to be ignored by ignorant men ? I suppose not. What is ignorance except a product of ignoring ?


Musicology> Please present your arguments yourself instead of posting links to other websites without accompanying explanations or discussions.

[The Atheist]

Outstanding stuff, thanks, Musicology! I never knew Einstein's wife did all the work, but now I do.

Am I correct in guessing these sites you direct to are your own work? Fascinating stuff. If it's an April Fool's joke, it's by far the most elaborate one I've seen.

As a longtime network builder, I'd like to offer you a little advice; using racial stereotyping and pejoratives just doesn't look good.

A website containing logical fallacies and ad hominem alongside factual errors just isn't going to gain much traction.

For instance, the pejorative use of quotation marks at the very start:


"Professor" Albert Einstein is the DARLING of the evolutionists and atheists who deny the existence of JEHOVAH....They LOVE to quote him in their books as they seek to overthrown the Genesis account of the creation of the universe!

I have no issue with you calling Einstein a "Scientist", even though "scientist" isn't even a proper noun, but Einstein was, demonstrably, a Professor. His employment records in public employment can be offered as proof.

These are not so good either:


Jesuits are always found where the Biblical story of the creation of the universe is under attack!


All the Serbs are GIFTED with high intelligence

Stereotyping just looks out of place which really detracts from such excellent and telling observations as these:


"Scientist" Einstein attended a séance at the Sinclairs!!


Einstein was enthralled by the paranormal which the "scientific" community calls parapsychology


Einstein knew nothing about nuclear physics

[Janine]

I saw a documentary the other night on Einstein; many things people believe about him are not true - such as he was responsible for the atom bomb. I just read about M=MC2 in Wikipedia and this line stood out.

"Einstein was not the first to propose a mass–energy relationship (see History). However, Einstein was the first scientist to propose the E = mc2 formula and the first to interpret mass-energy equivalence as a fundamental principle that follows from the relativistic symmetries of space and time."

I think it is pretty well known that he was not the first to think of the relationship but he was the first scientist to propose the actual formula.

[Musicology]

With respect, Einstein was not a good student of science. Nor was he first to suggest the formula E-MC2. That dates from far earlier. From the 1870's, in fact. But the fixed Earth could never be admitted by 'science'. So Einstein was brought it as an 'eccentric professor' to produce the dogma of Relativity. The belief that light velocities were affected by Earth in motion around the Sun. A fiction, but one which Einstein's theory is designed to cover over.

Science has shown that the Earth is NOT revolving around the Sun. Thus the need to create the bogus reputation and relativity theory of Einstein. Deflecting us from the truth. That the Earth is stationary. That it does not move. And that light never changes its speed. As was proved as early as the 19th century. Another theory was invented by the same fraudsters. The Big Bang. The expanding universe. That too is fiction.



I saw a documentary the other night on Einstein; many things people believe about him are not true - such as he was responsible for the atom bomb. I just read about M=MC2 in Wikipedia and this line stood out.

"Einstein was not the first to propose a mass–energy relationship (see History). However, Einstein was the first scientist to propose the E = mc2 formula and the first to interpret mass-energy equivalence as a fundamental principle that follows from the relativistic symmetries of space and time."

I think it is pretty well known that he was not the first to think of the relationship but he was the first scientist to propose the actual formula.

[Lulim]

With respect, Einstein was not a good student of science. Nor was he first to suggest the formula E-MC2. That dates from far earlier. From the 1870's, in fact. (...)
and could you kindly provide us with the name of the finder, and source thereof, where and when it was published?


That the Earth is stationary. That it does not move. (...)
... and she is not alone at that, obviously ...

[Musicology]

Lulim,

I do not know if you are aware of it but in the 19th century (late 19th century) there was general agreement amongst scientists of an ether. This was ignored by the occultists. Who wanted to ignore the fact that science soon indicated that Earth was fixed and stable.

In response to your question reference 'Einstein's' discovery of E=MC2 -

E=MC2 was already known in 1875!!

In a book published in London as early as 1875, British scientist Samuel Tolver Preston, stated the relationship of matter moving at the speed of light. Preston (as said) believed in the existence of the ether (which the theory of relativity flatly denies) -

To give an idea, first, of the enormous intensity of the store of energy attainable by means of that extensive state of subdivision of matter which renders a high normal speed practicable, it may be computed that a quantity of matter representing a total mass of only one grain, and possessing the normal velocity of the ether particles (that of a wave of light), encloses a store of energy represented by upwards of one thousand millions of foot tons, or the mass of one single grain contains an energy not less than that possessed by a mass of forty thousand tons, moving at the speed of a cannon ball (1200 feet per second); or otherwise, a quantity of matter representing a mass of one grain endued with the velocity of the ether particles, encloses an amount of energy which, if entirely utilized, would be competent to project a weight of one hundred thousand tons to a height of nearly two miles (1.9 miles).

This remarkable result may serve to illustrate well the intense mechanical effect derivable from small quantities of matter possessing a high normal velocity, the extremely high value of the effect depending on the fact that energy rises in the rapid ratio of the square of the speed.

(Samuel Tolver Preston, ''Physics of the Ether'', p. 115 - 1875).

And regarding the infamous light speed measurement experiment of Michelson experiment. (Whose results defied the dogmas of Copernicus) -

Michelson could find no drag on the transmission of light in any direction. He detected only the slightest shift in the interference fringes. Both halves of the split single beam of light were returning at virtually the same instant.
The data were almost unbelievable. The so-called ether wind had had no effect whatever on the velocity of light whether the beam was traveling with the "wind" or across it. There was only one other possible conclusion to draw—that the Earth was at rest. This, of course, was preposterous. (Jaffe, Michelson and the Speed of Light, p. 76).


and could you kindly provide us with the name of the finder, and source thereof, where and when it was published?


... and she is not alone at that, obviously ...

[OrphanPip]

Or, you the know the sensible conclusion that the ether doesn't exist, because it doesn't.

Given that there is loads of evidence the Earth is not stationary, and that there is no evidence that the ether exists.

[Musicology]

'Loads of evidence' ? Great.

Post some of it here. We want to see it. At last !! We are actually going to see some hard evidence.

Can't wait !!!

Thank You


Or, you the know the sensible conclusion that the ether doesn't exist, because it doesn't.

Given that there is loads of evidence the Earth is not stationary, and that there is no evidence that the ether exists.

[OrphanPip]

'Loads of evidence' ? Great.

Post some of it here. We want to see it.

Thank You

I've already given you the example of the Coriolis forces, you just ignore it because you're either delusional or a troll.

[Musicology]

OK, I've been posting dozens of posts and have not seen your reference to the 'Coriolis' forces. I will post on it tomorrow.

Meanwhile, do tell us your interpretation of the stellar images posted at the top of this thread. Thanks and bye for now.



I've already given you the example of the Coriolis forces, you just ignore it because you're either delusional or a troll.

[kiki1982]

I've already given you the example of the Coriolis forces, you just ignore it because you're either delusional or a troll.

Nono, he just ignores it because firstly he doesn't undertand, and secondly he doesn't want to understand. Ignoring it is the easiest.

It is very difficult to discuss something with someone who knows more about stuff than you... :D

[Musicology]

You are free to believe as you please. The difference is that I've produced evidence and you have only vaguely refered to evidence. You have 400 years of textbooks. Where IS your evidence ? You don't have any, do you ? All you have are dogmas and an attitude problem.

I have shared. It's up to you. I'm not here to argue with you. But to share. To ask you to consider the evidence. That's all.



Nono, he just ignores it because firstly he doesn't undertand, and secondly he doesn't want to understand. Ignoring it is the easiest.

It is very difficult to discuss something with someone who knows more about stuff than you... :D