Einstein Was Wrong

This paper is being continually updated with revisions and new findings. I began writing this back in 2011, and I have been adding to it ever since then.

In each of the four experiments, which were conducted in fall 2005 and spring 2006, ideological subgroups failed to update their beliefs when presented with corrective information that runs counter to their predispositions. Indeed, in several cases, we find that corrections actually strengthened misperceptions among the most strongly committed subjects.

– When Corrections Fail: The persistence of political misperceptions


It is often claimed that Einstein’s theories of relativity have withstood every test thrown at them. This article attempts to challenge that claim by presenting a list of predictive failures, falsifying observations, and alternative explanations that better agree with the general rule of Occam’s razor. In science, it is generally accepted that the theory with the least amount of hypothetical postulates is superior to one with more. It was primarily on this basis that Einstein’s version of relativity won out over Lorentz’s, as Einstein was able to demonstrate a way to calculate relativistic mechanics without the need for an aether. However, as time has progressed, the amount of hypothetical entities required by Einstein’s theories has grown exponentially.


• The LIGO gravitational wave observatory never detected a gravitational wave up to 2016. LIGO (on the fourth science run [S4]) and GEO600 together did not detect any gravitational waves. On LIGO’s fifth science run [S5], which had all three interferometers running continuously in triple-coincidence for an entire year, did not yield any gravitational wave candidates.

Now suddenly, the LIGO team claims to have discovered gravitational waves.  As the NYT article points out, different scientists made the same claim back in 1969, and again in 1974, and again in 2014.  Each time the claims were later overturned.  Supposedly the event they detected this time was “50 times greater than the output of all the stars in the universe combined.”  Of course, no visual or x-ray observatory data of such an event taking place exists. Dr. Hilton Ratcliffe provides an excellent skeptical overview of the results here.  A 2018 New Scientist article casts further doubt on this dubious finding.

• The CDMS project has never detected any observational evidence of dark matter despite years of trying[6], nor has the much more sensitive Xenon 100 experiment.[7] This directly refutes the notion that dark matter exists and is the supposed “missing mass” of galaxies. This non-detection directly refutes previous theory and stands in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity.  It’s often said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.  Claiming that 95% of the universe is composed of undetectable matter and energy is an extraordinary claim.  To-date, no solid laboratory based proof of dark matter or dark energy has been presented.

• Observed locations of dwarf galaxies undermine cold dark matter models of the universe.  Marcel Pawlowski, a postdoctoral researcher in the astronomy department at Case Western Reserve University, is quoted as saying, “The chance to have two galaxies with such huge disks of satellite galaxies is less than one in 100,000.” [115][116]

• A recent study of Quasars shows them to be devoid of all effects of time dilation.[8][9] This non-detection directly refutes previous theory and stands in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity. Article on the subject here.

• The cepheid mass discrepancy problem has no solution in the standard model of stars. Recent findings by the ESO confirm that the standard model of stellar evolution is wrong.[10][11]

• Frame dragging has never been definitively proven despite numerous attempts to look for it using numerous satellites. The most famous of which is Gravity Probe B. The final report issued by the Gravity Probe B team highlights problems created by the effects of “contact potential difference” induced error on the gyros. The raw data showed no signs of any frame dragging at all. [2]

comment on the findings by an astrophysicist:

Of the 4 gyroscopes (centering on the frame-dragging effect) 3 of them (#1,#2, and #3) show errors that admit values compatible with predictions closer to 0 mas/yr than to the -39 mas/yr prediction. One of them (#2) is compatible with a null result. Gyroscope #4 is compatible with -60.6 mas/yr . And these are the numbers achieved after more than 5 years of fitting the raw results to something tolerable.

A 2008 NASA review of the GPB project gave it a failing grade and made the point that:

“the reduction in noise needed to test rigorously for a deviation from general relativity ‘is so large that any effort ultimately detected by this experiment will have to overcome considerable (and in our opinion, well justified) skepticism in the scientific community’.”

The geodetic effect can be explained within a steady state Lorentz relativity.  The failure of the experiment to definitively confirm the Lense-Thirring effect calls General Relativity into question.

• The WMAP has shown the existence of large scale cold and hot spots in the supposed “cosmic background” from the big bang.[12] These cold and hot spots were not predicted and stand in direct contradiction to predictions made by the theory of general relativity.[13] Further, as the ACG so eloquently states:

“It seems that there are spurious temperature anisotropies that are comparable with the entire anisotropy found in the WMAP team’s maps. Therefore the entire analysis of cosmological parameters based on these maps is wrong. Indeed it seems very puzzling that an analysis that is so contaminated with errors should come up with parameters anywhere near those expected by LCDM models.”[14]

•The observed surface brightness of galaxies is too high. Quoting Lerner:

If the universe is expanding, the surface brightness (apparent luminosity divided by apparent surface area) of distant galaxies will be much less than that of nearby ones. But if it is not expanding, the surface brightness will be the same. It turns out that the surface brightness is, in fact, the same. The conventional, Big Bang, explanation of this observation is that the distant galaxies have extremely high intrinsic surface brightness but with cosmological dimming, by coincidence, they appear to have the same surface brightness as nearby ones. One of the big problems with this explanation is that the implied intrinsic surface brightness is much larger than that observed for any nearby galaxies and may be physically impossible.[13][15]

• “Magnetic reconnection,” as it applies to its use in explaining the Sun and the auroras, violates conservation laws of physics. MHD theory is incapable of accounting for the dynamics of double layers and other known properties of astrophysical plasma that can only be accounted for by circuit theory. A paper by Don Scott demonstrates this.[16] This was also shown to be unnecessary by Falthammar here and Alfven himself rejected this idea in Cosmic Plasma and in this paper here.[17][18][19]  Alfven makes the point that:

As neither double layer nor circuit can be derived from magnetofluid models of a plasma, such models are useless for treating energy transfer by means of double layers. They must be replaced by particle models and circuit theory.[20]

Fälthammar further explains:

The second concern is that the construct of moving field lines is sometimes confused with the concept of moving flux tubes. A flux tube can be thought of as an ensemble of field lines that are identified by their low energy plasma, which moves at the E×B/B2 velocity. Some researchers have asserted that as the plasma moves from region A to region B at this velocity, the field lines that were at A are later at B, so the magnetic field lines moved together with the plasma. This conclusion is wrong for two reasons. First, it is meaningless to assert that a field line that was at A is now at B, because there is no way to identify or distinguish one magnetic field line from another. Second, the concept of moving magnetic field lines is reasonable if it is used only for visualizing the temporal evolution of the magnetic field, and then, only if equation (2) is satisfied. This point is emphasized by the fact that there are an infinite number of field line velocities that produce the correct temporal evolution of the field when equation (2) is satisfied [Vasyliunas, 1972].[17]

The integration of two plasma parcels across space and time violates the rule Fälthammar has so eloquently described for us, which is how the MHD theory describes a reconnection event.

All observations of “magnetic reconnection” can be explained very simply using standard circuit theory in the form of an exploding double layer.[20][21]  Alfven provides us with the answers yet again:

A simple mechanism of explosion is the following.  The double layer can be considered as a double diode, limited by a slab of plasma on the cathode side and another slab on the anode side.  Electrons starting from the cathode get accelerated in the diode and impinge upon the anode slab with a considerable momentum which they transfer to the plasma.  Similarly, accelerated ions transfer momentum to the cathode slab.  The result is that the anode and cathode plasma columns are pushed away from each other.  When the distance between the electrodes in the diodes becomes larger the drop in voltage increases. This run-away phenomenon leads to an explosion…

Carlqvist ( 1969, 1982a,c) finds that in a relativistic double layer the distribution of charges Zn +(x) and n_(x) can be divided into three regions: two density spikes near the electrodes and one intermediate region with almost constant charge density. The particles are mainly accelerated in the spikes; whereas, they move with almost constant velocity in the intermediate region. Examples are given of possible galactic DL voltage differences of 10 _2 V. This means that by a straightforward extrapolation of what we know from our cosmic neighborhood, we can derive acceleration mechanisms which brings us up in the energy region of cosmic radiation.[20]

See this paper and these papers for more information on the types of electromagnetic radiation emitted by the double layer mechanism.[22][23] from pdf page 97, document page 91:

“It should be noted that before the ignition of BPD, the double layer becomes unstable, and large amplitude potential fluctuations are observed. Figure 9a shows the fluctuations in the local electric field as measured by the diagnostic electron beam. The electric field fluctuates at a frequency of approximately 1 kHz.”[23]

• There are no such things as “frozen in magnetic fields in plasma.” Such a plasma is purely abstract formalism and cannot be demonstrated in a lab. A simple discharge tube experiment proves that plasma is not an ideal conductor (a superconductor with zero-valued resistance). Voltage in a real plasma never drops to zero and therefore resistance never drops to zero, ergo plasma is not an ideal conductor. Hence, any theory that relies on plasma being regarded as an ideal conductor having “frozen in” magnetic fields is in error. This is also covered in the above point, but I feel it needs to be highlighted in a separate point. The use of MHD models to describe entire systems of plasma interaction is a classic example of “reification.” It is interesting to note that the man who won the Nobel prize for creating MHD theory (Alfven) flatly disagrees with its use in modeling astrophysical phenomena.    Because plasma is quasi-neutral it MUST obey Kirchhoff’s circuit laws.  Any complete theory of a plasma system must close the circuit, even if the location of the input and output currents are unknown to us at this time.

As Don Scott says:

Laboratory measurements demonstrate that a nonzero-valued electric field in the direction of the current (E parallel > 0) is required to produce a nonzero current density within any plasma no matter what mode of operation the plasma is in. Negative-slope regions of the volt-ampere characteristic (negative dynamic resistance) of a plasma column reveal the cause of the filamentary properties of plasma, but all static resistance values are measured to be > 0.

Thus, although plasmas are excellent conductors, they are not perfect conductors. Weak longitudinal electric fields can and do exist inside plasmas. Therefore, magnetic fields are not frozen inside them.[16]

• Standard galaxy formation models require the use of black holes and dark matter to achieve approximate model fit to observation. These hypothetical entities have never been proven to exist.[6][7] Los Alamos Plasma Physicist Anthony Peratt has demonstrated super-computer formulations of plasma using standard classical physics to produce a galaxy formation model that does not require any hypothetical entities. His model agrees with observations.[24]  Thornhill has followed suit with a paper that equates the evolution of barred spirals to a DPF.[25]

• The M87 galactic jet has been observed to eject matter at speeds faster than the speed of light. Theories proposing orientation as a solution for this do not agree well with observation. Peratt has shown how charged plasma can account for all observations of the M87 galactic jet without the need to invoke ‘black holes’. Indeed, Peratt’s theory, which is based on Alfven’s work, can account for the double jets we observe in some AGNs – which I believe remains unexplained in the standard model. Double radio sources were predicted by Alfven before their discovery. Paper showing this to be true can be found here. Further supporting evidence on the role of particle beams in space plasmas and their effects can be found here.[26][27][28][29]

• Abell 3376 emits massive amounts of x-rays in a halo estimated thermally to be at over 60 million degrees Kelvin. There are no plausible explanations for this outrageous amount of heat and x-ray emission that encompasses the entire galaxy cluster using standard shock and gravity theory. The so-called shock “injection problem” in proposed solutions to these observations is ignored. Collisional heating of neutral gas can not generate 60 million degree temperatures. Mechanisms for the creation and maintenance of the required magnetic fields and the associated plasma have not been addressed. The Sun doesn’t even get that hot. That’s over 20 times hotter than the hottest point of the solar corona and over 10,000 times hotter than the surface of the Sun. The electric model of galaxy formation offers an obvious solution to this problem as well as the unaccounted for magnetic fields.[30][31][32]

• Galaxies have been observed to be moving in dark flows. This observation stands in contradiction to the standard model of galaxy and universe formation. Such movement can be well accounted for in an electric model.[33][34]

• Physicist Stephen Crothers has demonstrated Hilbert’s derivation of the field equations is incorrect. Black hole physics violates SR, which means it also violates GR. Even by the mainstreams own standards, black holes are an impossibility. SR forbids infinite point mass particles such as a black hole singularity. Further, Schwarzschild’s original paper that proposed the solution to the Mercury orbit problem, from which the black hole is supposedly derived, is regular in all of space-time. This absolutely refutes the notion of black holes. Schwarzschild’s original paper in English can be found here. Hilbert’s solution to the field equations is erroneous. Crothers undertook a long dialog with a Dr. Christian Corda, Editor-in-Chief of The Open Astronomy Journal, who freely admits that there is no such thing as black holes, but then refuses publication of Crothers’ papers based on ideological disagreements. It is interesting to note that black hole “non-believers” include Einstein, yet his name is continually put forth as a backer of this theory. Out of respect for his position, the use of Einstein’s name in conjunction with these objects should cease immediately.[35][36][37][38][39][40]

• All observational evidence of the Sun refutes the notion that the Sun is a gravitationally collapsing gas cloud that is powered by a hydrogen to helium fusion reaction. The surface of the Sun is only observed to reach around 6000 degrees, while the corona high above it can get into the millions of degrees. Sun spots are the deepest place we can see into the Sun, yet they are the coldest places we can measure. These observations directly refute the notion that heat energy is being released from the core of the Sun. Other observed anomalies that refute the notion the Sun is a gravitationally collapsing gas cloud: neutrino deficiency, neutrino variability, differential rotation by latitude, differential rotation by depth, sun spots, the sun spot penumbra, even magnetic field, etc… the list goes on. Alternative solar models by Alfven, Scott, and Juergens are proposed in several reviewed papers here that can account for these problems, as well as rebuttals to arguments against them.[41][42][43][18][44][45][46]

• Recent research has discovered that the convective flows in the Sun, which supposedly give rise to the Sun’s magnetic fields, move 100 times slower than the standard model of stars predicts.  This leaves no compelling theory to explain the generation of magnetic fields under the standard model.  This issue is resolved in an electric model of stars.[114]

• Neutron stars and pulsars violate the known laws of physics. The proposed density of neutrons in these stars by the standard model violates the Island of Stability in nuclear chemistry. Neutrons can not be packed together that densely without having them fly apart instantaneously. Also, in pulsars, rotation rates have been observed on the order of 1200 hz. This also flies in the face of standard theory. It is impossible that a star can rotate that fast. The outer edges of the star would be approaching appreciable speeds of light.

Given the ridiculous assumption of a meager 10 mile radius, the outer edge of a pulsar rotating at 1122 hz would be traveling at .37 c (almost half the speed of light). A 25 mile radius would mean the outer edge would be traveling at .9 c. Such compact bodies with such high rotation rates are utterly preposterous. The scientific community is telling the public that an object the size of an asteroid is spinning around at near light speed emitting a beam of energy detectable across galactic distances. THIS IS PREPOSTEROUS! Pulsar XTE J1739-285 must be made entirely of neutrons if its spin rates are to be believed.

The Vela pulsar was found to ‘glitch’, with a changing periodicity.  This ‘glitch’ is a direct falsification of the ‘lighthouse’ model of a rotating beacon emitting a beam of energy.  The torques and energies involved in instantaneously changing the rotation rate of such  a supposedly massive object boggle the mind.

Previous theory held that ~700 hz was the maximum attainable spin rate for a pulsar. Healy and Peratt offer a far simpler explanation that doesn’t violate any laws of physics. Such an explanation can also account for Jupiter’s millisecond radio pulses.[47][48][49][50][51]

• Stars have been observed that are too cold to possibly host nuclear fusion. These stars are called brown dwarf stars and may be the most numerous stars in the galaxy. The explanation of these objects by the standard model is poor. If the star is too small to gravitationally ignite a fusion reaction, it stands to reason they shouldn’t be cooling at all. They should be simple gas giants. Accretion and fragmentation models are blatantly falsified by observations of our own solar system and by models of neutral dust acting in the vacuum of space. However, they are well explained and predicted by the electric star hypothesis, as presented in the previous point.[52][53][54][55][44]

• Stars located at the center of the galaxy do not agree with the standard model of galaxy star formation. They are too young by the standard model of measuring a star’s age to have formed at the locations observed. Theories that attempt to account for this are orders of magnitude improbable. One NASA press release even goes so far as to say that explanations of these out-of-place young stars “seem like science fiction.” The electric model of stars taken in conjunction with the electric model of galaxy formation resolves this problem.[56][57][24][58]

• All comet nuclei that have been directly observed have proven to be rocky with no visible water present on the surface.[59][60][61][62][63] The so-called “jets” of comets are observed to be highly collimated.[63] The dust of comets is observed to be extremely fine.[60] Samples of comet dust show particles that have undergone intense heating.[64] The impact excavation of Tempel1 showed H2O spectra far below that required by the “dirty snowball model”.[60] These observations refute the standard theory of comets being a dirty snowball ejecting sub-surface water ice and dust via sublimation. No in situ experiment has ever demonstrated how photodissociation can occur at the rates assumed by cometary models.

Comets are also observed to emit x-rays and have filamentary tails. This is unexplained by the standard model, yet these observations were predicted by cosmologists that took electric forces into account. Supporting articles from a wide range of sources can be found here.[65][66][67][68][69][70][71][72][73]

• All comets observed falling into the Sun or passing very near the Sun have subsequently been followed by coronal mass ejections, some of which actually “disconnected” the tails of comets from the nucleus. This is not explained at all by the idea a comet is a dirty snowball, yet this is well explained by electric cosmology’s view of comets. Also, comets have observed to brighten at distances too far from the Sun to possibly be attributed to sublimating ice. This too is explained well by electric cosmology’s view of comets.[74][75]

Further, magnetic reconnection is invoked to explain tail “disconnection” events and other obviously electrical phenomena observed in comets. As was demonstrated in a previous point, magnetic reconnection violates conservation laws in physics and is nothing more than a blatant reification of MHD simulations.

• The Pioneer space probe speed anomaly can not be explained by standard model physics. Electric cosmology offers a proper explanation.[76][77]

• Saturn’s rings are observed to emit radio waves. This is not well explained at all by gravitational models of ring formation. Further, to quote the KTH paper on Saturn’s rings:

We present several independent in-situ measurements, which provide evidence that charged dust in the E-ring interacts collectively with the dense surrounding plasma disk of Saturn, i.e., form a system of dust-plasma interaction.[55]

Such interaction was well predicted by Alfven who died long before Cassini took Langmuir probe measurements of the rings. Alfven also managed to predict Uranus’s ring before its discovery.[55][78]

Further, Peratt has demonstrated in the laboratory how electron beam vortices can account for Saturn’s hexagon. This of course goes hand in hand with Birkeland’s, and later Alfven’s, theories of how and why auroras are formed.[79][80]

• Io’s volcanoes are observed to move around the surface and leave burn marks behind them. Also the volcanoes plumes exhibit filamentation and exhibit heat far in excess of standard predictions. Peratt and Dessler demonstrated how electric forces could account for Io’s oddities.[81] Furthermore, “[the] Galileo [spacecraft] detected electrical currents flowing along magnetic field lines above two areas of volcanic activity on Io.”[82]

• Quasars with low red shift have been proven to be related to their host galaxy. This follows Halton Arp’s ejection model of quasar formation. Paper proving quasars relate to their host galaxies red shifts, with the odds of correlation 1.5 in a million, can be found here. Further, high and low red shift objects are observed to be interacting with each other. The odds of quasar/galaxy quartet NGC 7603 being a random chance alignment are on the order of billions to one. However, NGC 7603 does not stand alone; dozens of other interacting objects have been observed.[83][84][85][86][87]

• Quasar red shift is observed to be quantized, as is shown in the published papers listed here. This means the Earth must be at the center of the universe in order for the Big Bang model to be true. Quantization is shown to be related to the harmonic 0.062 in quasar and galactic red shift here. This relationship is also demonstrated in Arp’s paper above.[83] This harmonic finding has never been refuted to my knowledge. Arp notes that quantization becomes evident when a quasar cluster’s red shift is transformed into the rest frame of the galaxy of origin. [88][89]

• Quasars brightness does not correlate to their observed red shift as it does with galaxies. This refutes the notion of “expanding space” and the big bang. High red shift quasars can be well accounted for with known properties of light acting in the plasma vacuum of space. Several papers in support of this here.[90]

• Quasars with low red shift along with galactic red shift can be explained by the CREIL effect, a property of light acting in the plasma vacuum of space interacting with diffuse hydrogen. This effect can account for all the effects of galactic red shift caused by “expanding space.”[91]

• Quasar Q2237 “The Einstein Cross” – this quasar directly refutes the notion of gravitational lensing. This quasar is supposedly ONE quasar being lensed into FOUR images. The individual quasars are observed to change in brightness independently. They are not oblong in shape. They are are visibly connected by plasma to the galactic core. They are observed to change position. All of these observations are in direct contradiction to gravitational lens theory. The proposal that this is one quasar being lensed into four images is preposterous! The notion that gravitational micro-lenses are the cause of this effect are at such extreme odds that it is next to impossible for them to properly account for the variations observed over time. Recent papers on lensing read like a science fiction novel with a nearly infinite number of hypothetical postulates propping up the theory.[92][93][94][95]

In conjunction with this argument:

If you agree that gravitational lensing is caused by black holes, it follows that you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lenses.

If you agree that all super-massive black holes must exhibit gravitational lensing, then explain why we don’t see any lensing effects at the center of the Milky Way. High mass objects bend light according to GR as was supposedly demonstrated in the 1919 eclipse paper here, given that, the measurement arm excuse seems to fly in the face of standing theory. In fact, gravitational lensing theory has so many contradicting theories in support of it, one can not find a single standard view of lensing to even refute. I could attempt to refute one model, only to face conflicting data from another model, and so forth – of course none of the models are backed up by any laboratory experimentation.[96]

Further, if we look strictly at the observational evidence in support of lensing, excluding red shifts, we find that halo structures are all that’s left to explain. If the assumption is made that red shift is caused by some other property beside expanding space, all one needs to do is explain the observed halo effects and light refraction. There exists in our own solar system such a massive halo effect that is not caused by gravitational lensing. The Phoebe ring of Saturn is a great example of a non-gravitational lensing halo. Also on the galactic scale, the Abell 3376 galaxy cluster exhibits a ring system that is not due to “gravitational lensing” as do numerous other galaxies and galaxy clusters such as Hoag’s object. Ring formations are a common occurrence in space, the majority of which are totally unrelated to any proposed “lensing.”[97][30][98]

Further, given that we know its possible to bend light here on earth without gravity, it stands to reason that there is probably some real property of plasma acting in space that can account for what is observed. Magneto-optical effects such as self-focusing have not been thoroughly reviewed as a possible cause of the observed visual distortions around the Sun. Given the electric model, it seems such effects could possibly account for the observed refraction of light.[99]

• Physicist Eric Lerner has demonstrated that element abundance predicted by big bang models does not fit with observations and has presented a model of element creation that well agrees with observation based on Alfven’s work. Rebuttal to arguments against his findings published here.[100][101][102][103]

• Gravity is not constant. Every attempt to measure gravity has resulted in changes over time. No method of measuring gravity has ever proven gravity to be constant as is mandated by the general theory of relativity. Also, it has been demonstrated that gravity propagates at a speed faster than that of light if one assumes gravity propagates outward from the Sun,[104] which is forbidden by Special Relativity. Newton’s equations assume gravity propagates at an infinite speed, and it is Newton’s equations (not Einstein’s) NASA uses to calculate orbits. This is direct falsifying observational evidence that Einstein’s version of gravity is wrong. Attempts to measure gravity have resulted in variations by as much as .7%.[105] Atom interferometry shows variations outside of acceptable limits. Further, one has to question the use of atoms to measure gravitational forces. Common sense tells us the most accurate measurement would be by an object that is strongly effected by it.[106]

• GPS clocks and all other phenomena that supposedly “proves” Einstein’s version of relativity can be accounted for better using steady state models of the universe. Lorentz’s model can well account for observations in a steady state universe. Physicist Tom Van Flandern lays out the evidence here. An alternative theory based on Lorentz’s work that accounts for why the MM experiment showed a null result, as well as all other aberrations, can be found here. Similarly, physicist Randal Mills has demonstrated predictive success with a model solely based on classical physics. The simplicity of these models and accuracy of their predictions merits further review.  The models presented are predicated on closed form classical physics, which is the only type of model that is fundamentally tied to reality. [107][108][109]

• Fossil records indicate the Earth’s gravity was far less during the time of the dinosaurs. David Esker has put together a site detailing many of the findings. Esker seems to think atmospheric pressure can account for this, but we all know that’s bunk. There is only one thing that makes sense, and that’s a lower gravity field. Some of the highlights include:

the largest dinosaurs wouldn’t have been able to lift their heads due to the heart not being strong enough to pump blood up to the head.

the largest dinosaurs’ bones would have crumbled under the stress of their weight.

the largest flying dinosaurs would not have been able to propel themselves into the air

This gravity variation can only be accounted for with an electric theory of gravity.[110][111]

• The “Le Grand K ” (otherwise known as the international prototype kilogram) is losing mass, which violates Einstein’s relativity.

• The double star “W13″ weighs “40 times as much as the sun—more than enough to form a black hole. Dr. Simon Clark of the ESO makes a rather ridiculous claim to explain away this discrepancy which has no rational explanation within Einsteinian relativity:

So why is it not a black hole? The only explanation Dr Clark can think of is that the star must have somehow shed nine-tenths of its mass before it exploded as a supernova. Unfortunately, that does not make astrophysical sense.

• The Ehrenfest Paradox: Consider a spinning hoop, where the tangential velocity is near the speed of light. In this case, the circumference (2πR) is length-contracted. However, since R is always perpendicular to the motion, it is not contracted. This leads to an apparent paradox: does the radius of the accelerating hoop equal R, or is it less than R?

• The Twin Paradox: Consider twins who are separated with one traveling at a very high speed such that his “clock” (age) slows down, so that when he returns he has a younger age than the twin; this violates Relativity because both twins should expect the other to be younger, if motion is relative. Einstein himself admitted that this contradicts Relativity.

• Based on Relativity, Einstein predicted in 1905 that clocks at the Earth’s equator would be slower than clocks at the North Pole, due to different velocities; in fact, all clocks at sea level measure time at the same rate, and Relativists made new assumptions about the Earth’s shape to justify this contradiction of the theory; they also make the implausible claim that relativistic effects from gravitation precisely offset the effects from differences in velocity.

• Based on Relativity and the failed 1887 experiment by Michelson-Morley to measure the aether, Einstein claimed in 1909 that the aether does not exist, but in order to make subatomic physics work right, theorists had to introduce the aether-like concept of the Higgs field, which fills all of space and breaks symmetries.

• Minkowski space is predicated on the idea of four-dimensional vectors of which one component is time. However, one of the properties of a vector space is that every vector have an inverse. Time cannot be a vector because it has no inverse.


Spacetime is defined as:

…any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single interwoven continuum. The spacetime of our universe is usually interpreted from a Euclidean space perspective, which regards space as consisting of three dimensions, and time as consisting of one dimension, the ‘fourth dimension’. By combining space and time into a single manifold called Minkowski space, physicists have significantly simplified a large number of physical theories, as well as described in a more uniform way the workings of the universe at both the supergalactic and subatomic levels…In cosmology, the concept of spacetime combines space and time to a single abstract universe.

From this summary we get the clear picture that spacetime is a purely mathematical construct used to build mathematical models.  In physical reality, there is no such thing as a substance called spacetime.  This important fact is often overlooked when scientific theories are presented to the public.

The spacetime concept merely defines a spatial coordinate and event system. The obtuse hieroglyphics often found in mathematical models which invoke this abstract mathematical universe are all related to defining where things are in relation to one another, as well as defining how objects move, their velocity, and the timing of events.

What often gets lost in the process of all this modeling is the fact that space itself has no physical properties that act upon matter. Often theories of bending space are presented as scientific fact, when in reality there is no such thing as bending space.  What scientists are really presenting are models of bending spacetime, which is a mathematical abstraction.

Some scientists confuse the properties of the model with the properties of real space.  The objectification of a model as being something real is called reification.  Again, I’ll go with Wiki’s description of this phenomena. Wiki states, “Reification generally refers to making something real, bringing something into being, or making something concrete.”  More specifically, the scientists are engaged in what’s called a reification fallacy, which Wiki defines as:

Reification (also known as concretism, or the fallacy of misplaced concreteness) is a fallacy of ambiguity, when an abstraction (abstract belief or hypothetical construct) is treated as if it were a concrete, real event, or physical entity. In other words, it is the error of treating as a concrete thing, something which is not concrete, but merely an idea.

Another common manifestation is the confusion of a model with reality. Mathematical or simulation models may help understand a system or situation but real life will differ from the model (e.g. ‘the map is not the territory’).

After nearly 100 years, Einstein’s theories have not been unified. They are not falsifiable. These two facts alone merit reconsidering their continued use. The lack of unification and lack of fundamental ties to reality demands explanation. The LCDM model of the universe has no less than 5 adjustable parameters that can arbitrarily be adjusted to account for observation. This is no different than Ptolemy’s epicycles that were continually adjusted to account for observation without providing any real explanation of the mechanics behind what is being observed.

At this point it is almost impossible for even a professional cosmologist to name all of the hypothetical entities required by Einstein’s theories. Occam’s Razor demands we follow the theory with the least amount of unnecessary entities.

While the standard model may be able to formulate responses to the problems presented, it seems that electric cosmology offers a solution to all of the problems by simply adding ONE postulate to the universe – that current flows in space plasmas. Given the utter simplicity of this postulate and the overwhelming evidence in support of it, Occam’s Razor demands it be given full attention. Modern cosmology is engaging in what can broadly be categorized as scientific fraud. Nearly every explanation of astrophysical phenomena involves the use of frozen-in fields, an impossibility in any real plasma. Nearly every explanation involves the use of some totally unproven, unfounded, and baseless hypothetical form of matter or energy, be it dark energy, dark matter, or fictional black holes that blatantly violate Einsteinian relativity. Every attempt to prove the existence of these hypothetical entities has resulted in failure.

Because a steady state universe, as postulated by Lorentz, does not require unification and complies with Maxwell’s equations (which themselves assume an infinite universe and universal speed), this also resolves the long standing problem of unifying Einstein’s theories. And finally, a large collection of papers in support of the arguments made. Professor Donald Scott lays out the case for electric cosmology at the NASA Goddard Space Center’s Engineering Colloquia in this video. If you’re interested in why scientists ignore all of the above findings, here’s a sociological research paper on the mindsets of cosmologists.

Here are a few documentaries made by other scientists that question the standard model of physics.  Hopefully you’ll find these videos to be entertaining and enlightening.  Most of them are understandable to the lay person.

Michael Suede


    Eckart A., et al. ApJ, 602:760–769, 20 February 2004

  2. Gravity Probe B Science Results
    NASA Final Report, December 2008

  3. First joint search for gravitational-wave bursts in LIGO and GEO600 data
    Abbott B., et al. ,Class.Quant.Grav.25:245008, 2008

  4. LIGO Bids Farewell to S5 – Now onto Enhanced LIGO!
    Reitze D., h, The Gravitational Voice, No. 7, January 2008

  5. Search for gravitational-wave bursts in LIGO data from the fourth science run
    Abbott B., et al. ,Class. Quantum Grav., Vol. 24, pp.5343–5369, 2007

  6. Dark matter claims thrown into doubt by new data
    Shiga D. ,New Scientist, May 2010

  7. First Results from the XENON10 Dark Matter Experiment at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory
    Angle J., et al. ,Phys.Rev.Lett.100:021303, 2008

  8. Discovery that quasars don’t show time dilation mystifies astronomers
    Zyga L., PhysOrg, 9 April 2010

  9. On time dilation in quasar light curves
    Hawkins M. R. S., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16581.x

  10. The dynamical mass of a classical Cepheid variable star in an eclipsing binary system
    Pietrzynski G. et al. doi:10.1038/nature0959

  11. Eclipsing Cepheid Falsifies Stellar Evolution Theory
    Acheson M. Thunderbolts.info Nov 29, 2010

  12. Extragalactic Radio Sources and the WMAP Cold Spot
    Rudnick L., Brown S., Williams L. R. ,arXiv:0704.0908v1 [astro-ph]

  13. 2007 Year End Report
    Lerner E. ,BigBangNeverHappened.org, 2007

  14. The Alternative Cosmology Group Newsletter – June 2009
    The Alternative Cosmology Group Newsletter, June 2009

  15. Do local analogs of Lyman Break Galaxies exist?
    Scarpa R., Falomo R., Lerner E. ,arXiv:0706.2948v1 [astro-ph]

  16. Real Properties of Electromagnetic Fields and Plasma in the Cosmos
    Scott D. E., IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci., Vol. 35, No. 4, August 2007

  17. On the Concept of Moving Magnetic Field Lines
    Falthammar C. ,Eos, Vol. 88, No. 15, pp.169–170, 10 April 2007

  18. Cosmic Plasma
    Alfven H. ,Cosmic Plasma ,ISBN 90-277-1151-8

  19. On Frozen-In Field Lines And Field-Line Reconnnection
    Alfven H. ,Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol 81, No 22, August 1st 1976, 4019-4021

  20. Double layers and circuits in astrophysics
    Alfven, Hannes 10.1109/TPS.1986.4316626

  21. Stability of a spherical double layer produced through ionization
    Song, B.; D’Angelo, N.; Merlino, R. L. Journal of Physics D: Applied Physics, Volume 25, Issue 6, pp. 938-941 (1992).

  22. Electromagnetic Radiation from Double Layers
    N. Brenning, Contribution to the 12th ICPP, NICE, 25-29 October 2004

  23. A Laboratory Investigation of Potential Double Layers
    Leung P, et al. NASA Archive Papers

  24. Evolution of the Plasma Universe: II. The Formation of Systems of Galaxies
    Peratt A. L. ,IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.763-778, December 1986

  25. Dense plasma focus for laboratory astrophysics
    H. R. Yousefi 1,* , W. Thornhill, Iranian Physical Journal, 2-4, 17-20 (2009)

  26. Hubble Witnesses Spectacular Flaring in Gas Jet from M87’s Black Hole
    PhysOrg, 14 April 2009

  27. Evolution of the Plasma Universe: I. Double Radio Galaxies, Quasars, and Extragalactic Jets
    Peratt A .L. , IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. PS-14, N.6, pp.639-660, December 1986

  28. The Role of Particle Beams and Electrical Currents in the Plasma Universe
    Peratt A .L. , Laser and Particle Beams, vol.6, part.3, pp.471-491, 1988

  29. Superluminal Radio Features in the M87 Jet and the Site of Flaring TeV Gamma-ray Emission
    Cheung C. C., et al. ,arXiv:0705.2448v2 [astro-ph]

  30. VLA Discovers Giant Rings Around Galaxy Cluster
    Finley D. ,NRAO Press Release, 2 November 2006

  31. Fundamentals of Non-relativistic Collisionless Shock Physics: V. Acceleration of Charged Particles
    Treumanny R. A., Jaroschek C. H. ,arXiv:0806.4046v1 [astro-ph] 25 Jun 2008

  32. Advances in Numerical Modeling of Astrophysical and Space Plasma, Part II Astrophysical Force Laws on the Large Scale.
    Peratt A .L. ,Astrophys. & Space Sci., Vol. 256, pp. 51-75, 1998

  33. Mysterious Cosmic ‘Dark Flow’ Tracked Deeper Into Universe
    ScienceDaily, 11 March 2010

  34. A New Measurement of the Bulk Flow of X-Ray Luminous Clusters of Galaxies
    Kashlinsky A., et al. ,2010 ApJ 712 L81

  35. The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics
    Crothers S. J., sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com

  36. The Fictitious ‘Interior’ of the Black Hole
    Crothers S. J. ,24 July 2009

  37. On the Gravitational Field of A Sphere of Incompressible Fluid According to Einstein’s Theory.
    Schwarzschild K., arXiv:physics/9912033 v1 16 Dec 1999

  38. On the Gravitational Field of a Mass Point according to Einstein’s Theory
    Schwarzschild K., arXiv:physics/9905030 v1 12 May 1999

  39. David Hilbert And The Origin Of The “Schwarzschild Solution”
    Antoci S. ,arXiv:physics/0310104 v1 21 Oct 2003

  40. The singular points of Einstein’s universe
    Brillouin M. ,arXiv:physics/0002009 v1 3 Feb 2000

  41. Criticism of the Electric Sun Model
    Reference Web Site

  42. Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part I)
    Juergens R. E. ,Kronos Vol. VIII No. 1, Fall 1982

  43. Electric Discharge as the Source of Solar Radiant Energy (Part 2)
    Juergens R. E. ,Kronos Vol. VIII No. 2, Winter 1983

  44. A Solar Junction Transistor Mechanism
    Scott D. E. ,ICOPS 2007. IEEE 34th International Conference on Plasma Science, 2007

  45. The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars
    Thornhill W. ,IEEE Trans. Plasma Sci. Vol. 35, N.4, pp.832-844, August 2007

  46. An electrically powered binary star?
    Wu K. ,et al. ,Mon.Not.Roy.Astron.Soc. 331 (2002) 221

  47. Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment
    Healy, K. R. & Peratt, A. L. Ap&SS, Vol. 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 229-253

  48. Island of Stability
    Wiki Entry

  49. Evidence of 1122 Hz X-Ray Burst Oscillations from the Neutron Star X-Ray Transient XTE J1739–285
    P. Kaaret et al 2007 ApJ 657 L97

  50. A Radio Pulsar Spinning at 716 Hz
    Hessels J. W. T. ,Science 31 Vol. 311. no. 5769, pp. 1901 – 1904, March 2006

  51. Millisecond Radio Pulses from Jupiter
    Bart E. E. ,Nature, Vol. 211, pp.808 – 810, 20 August 1966

  52. Discovery of a cool brown dwarf
    T Nakajima, et al. Nature, Vol. 378, pp.463-464, 1995

  53. Three-Dimensional Simulations of Kelvin-Helmholtz Instability in Settled Dust Layers in Protoplanetary Disks
    Barranco J. A. ,arXiv:0711.4410v1 [astro-ph]

  54. 3D Modeling Shakes Up Planet-Formation Theory
    Hsu J. ,Special to SPACE.com, 27 January 2009

  55. Detection of dusty plasma near the E-ring of Saturn
    Wahlund J. E. ,Planet. Space Sci.,Vol. 57, Issues 14-15,pp.1795-1806, December 2009

  56. Results – The Dance of Stars
    Infrared and Submillimeter Astronomy Group at MPE, 7 December 2008

  57. Gravity Probe B scores ‘F’ in NASA review
    Hecht J. ,New Scientist, 20 May 2008

  58. NASA’S Hubble Shows Hyperfast Star Was Booted From Milky Way
    Harrington J.D.,et al. , NASA Press Release 10-175, July 22, 2010

  59. Comets
    Reference Web Site

  60. Deep Impact: Excavating Comet Tempel 1
    A’Hearn M. F. ,et al. ,Science, Vol. 310, pp.258-264, 14 October 2005

  61. Observations of Comet 19P/Borrelly by the Miniature Integrated Camera and Spectrometer Aboard Deep Space 1
    Soderblom L.A. ,et al. ,Science, Vol. 296. no. 5570, pp. 1087 – 1091, May 2002

  62. Surface of Young Jupiter Family Comet 81P/Wild 2: View from the Stardust Spacecraft
    Brownlee, D. E. ,et al. ,Science, Vol 304, pp.1764-1769, 18 June 2004

  63. Stardust encounters comet 81P/Wild 2
    Tsou P, et al. ,J. Geophys. Res.,Vol. 109, E12S01, 2004

  64. Comet 81P/Wild 2 Under a Microscope
    Brownlee D. ,et al. ,Science, Vol 314 ,15 December 2006

  65. Deep Impact Mission Results
    UMD Deep Impact Team Web Site

  66. Comet Borrelly: Dry and Hot
    Beatty J. K. ,Sky and Telescope, 23 July 2003

  67. Rockhard Stardust
    Mullen L. ,Astrobiology Magazine, 17 June 2004

  68. Deep Impact Was a Dust-up, Not a Gusher
    CFA Release No.: 2005-23, 8 July 2005

  69. Swift Detects X-Ray Emissions from Comets
    O’Neill I. ,Universe Today, 3 December 2008

  70. Synchronic Bands in Dust Tail of Comet Hale-Bopp
    Watanabe J. ,National Astronomical Observatory of Japan, Press Release

  71. The Electric Comet
    Thorhill W., Talbot D. ,Poster Presentation, IEEE 33rd ICOPS, Traverse City Michigan, 4-8 June 2006

  72. Predictions on “Deep Impact”
    Thunderbolts Team Predictions Web Site

  73. On the theory of comet tails.
    Alfven H. ,Tellus, 9, 92 (1957)

  74. First Direct Observation Of The Interaction Between A Comet And A Coronal Mass Ejection Leading To A Complete Plasma Tail Disconnection
    Vourlidas A. ,et al. ,ApJ, 668: L79–L82, 10 October 2007

  75. Passing Comet in Suprise Flare-Up, Visible To Naked Eye
    Borland J. ,Wired Magazine, 25 October 2007

  76. Pioneer anomaly
    Wiki Entry

  77. A Mystery Solved – Welcome to the Electric Universe!
    Thornhill W., holoscience.com, 20 March 2002

  78. Electromagnetic Effects And The Structure Of Saturn’s Rings
    Alfven H. ,Lunar and Planetary Institute Meetings, 1981

  79. Microwave Generation from Filamentation and Vortex Formation within Magnetically Confined Electron Beams,
    Peratt A. L. and Snell C. M. ,Physical Review Letters, 54, pp. 1167-1170, 1985

  80. Magnetic-field aligned electric fields in collisionless space plasmas – a brief review
    Fälthammar C., Geofísica Internacional, Vol. 43, Num. 2, pp. 225-239, 2004

  81. Filamentation of Volcanic Plumes on the Jovian Satellite Io,
    Peratt A. L. and Dessler A. J. ,Astrophys. Space Sci. 144, pp. 451-461, 1988

  82. Jupiter’s Io Generates Power and Noise, But No Magnetic Field
    JPL Press Release, 10 December 2001

  83. Intrinsic Redshifts in Quasars and Galaxies
    Arp H., et al, Max-Planck-Institut fÄur Astrophysik, preprint 2010

  84. The nature of QSO redshifts
    Stockton, A. ,ApJ, Part 1, vol. 223, p. 747-751, 753-757, 1 August 1978

  85. Two emission line objects with z>0.2 in the optical filament apparently connecting the Seyfert galaxy NGC 7603 to its companion
    Lopez-Corredoira M. , Gutierrez C. M. ,Astron.Astrophys. 390 L15, 2002

  86. Evidence for Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies
    Russel D. G. ,Astrophys. & Space Sci.,Vol.298, No. 4, pp. 577-602, August 2005

  87. Further Evidence for Intrinsic Redshifts in Normal Spiral Galaxies
    Russell D. G. ,Astrophys. & Space Sci.,Vol. 299, No. 4,pp. 387-403, October 2005

  88. Red shift – Expanding Space
    Reference Web Site

  89. Discrete Intrinsic Redshifts from Quasars to Normal Galaxies
    Bell M. B ,arXiv:astro-ph/0211091v1 5 Nov 2002

  90. Dynamic Multiple Scattering, Frequency Shift and Possible Effects on Quasar Astronomy
    Roy S. ,et al. ,arXiv:astro-ph/0701071v, January 2007

  91. Propagation of light in low-pressure ionized and atomic hydrogen: application to astrophysics
    Moret-Bailly, J. ,Plasma Science. IEEE Trans., vol. 31, issue 6, pp. 1215-1222, December 2003

  92. Identifying Anomalies In Gravitational Lens Time Delays
    Congdon A. B. ,et al. ,ApJ 709 552, 2010

  93. Microlensing variability in the gravitationally lensed quasar QSO 2237+0305 . the Einstein Cross
    Eigenbrod A. ,et al. ,A&A, No. 8703, 1 February 2008

  94. Grey Matter vs Dark Matter

  95. The Einstein Cross
    Thunderbolts Jul 26, 2004

  96. Relativity and the 1919 eclipse
    ESA Press Release, 13 September 2004

  97. Saturn’s biggest halo revealed
    Sample I. ,Guardian.co.uk, 7 October 2009

  98. On the nature of Hoag-type galaxy NGC 6028 and related objects
    Wakamatsu, K.-I. ,ApJ, Part 1, vol. 348, p. 448-455, 10 January 1990

  99. Plasma Self-Focusing
    Wiki Entry

  100. On The Problem Of Big Bang Nucleosynthesis
    Lerner E. ,Astrophys. & Space Sci.,Vol. 227, p.145-149, May 1995

  101. Plasma Model Of Microwave Background And Primordial Elements
    Lerner E., Laser and Particle Beams, Vol 6, Part 3, p.457-469, 1988

  102. Dr. Wright is Wrong– a reply to Ned Wright’s “Errors in The Big Bang Never Happened”
    Lerner E. ,Rebuttal To Wright

  103. The Big Bang Never Happened
    Reference Web Site

  104. The Speed of Gravity – What the Experiments Say
    Flandern, T. Physics Letters A 250:1-11, 1998

  105. Determination Of The Gravitational Constant G By Means Of A Beam Balance
    Nolting F. ,et al. ,Europhysics News, July!August 2000

  106. The Newtonian gravitational constant: recent measurements and related studies
    Gillies G. T., Rep. Prog. Phys.,Vol. 60,p.151–225, 1997

  107. What the Global Positioning System Tells Us about Relativity
    Flandern T., Apeiron, Montreal, 1998

  108. Matter Is Made Of Waves
    LaFreniere G. ,Reference Web Site

  109. The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics
    Mills R. Academic Book

  110. The Paradox of Large Dinosaurs
    Esker D. ,Reference Web Site

  111. Scaling of Soaring Seabirds and Implications for Flight Abilities of Giant Pterosaurs
    Sato K. ,et al. ,PLoS ONE 4(4): e5400., April 2009

  112. Light-Controlled Self-Assembly of Semiconductor Nanoparticles into Twisted Ribbons
    Srivastava S. ,et al. ,Science, Vol. 327. no. 5971, pp. 1355 – 1359, 12 March 2010:

  113. Heat and mass transfer and duration of the desublimation of water vapor in vacuum
    Andreev E. F. and Lebedev D. P. , J. Eng. Thermophys, Vol. 27, No. 2, August 1974

  114. Researchers create MRI of the Sun’s Interior Motions
    NYU News, Press Release, July 9, 2012

  115. Co-orbiting satellite galaxy structures are still in conflict with the distribution of primordial dwarf galaxies
    Pawlowski M. S. et all,  arXiv:1406.1799v1 [astro-ph.GA]

  116. Map of universe questioned: Dwarf galaxies don’t fit standard model
    Phys.org, Press Release, Jun 11, 2014


posted from Michael's Substack

Include @BorkusA on a Dissenter comment to notify me of your post.
View Comments on Dissenter