Has Einstein’s theory of relativity been proven?

                                                  -- Partha Sarathi Mishra

It has never been proven nor can ever be.

No competent scientist ever believed in relativity. Neither then nor today.

It’s not a scientific theory at all. It has no absolute standard for measurements. It’s a bunch of contradictory assumption compiled together as a theory.

A theory should have two things:
1. Logical consistency
2. Experiential correspondence.

Relativity fails the first one. It doesn't need a PhD to figure it out the irrational though experiments.

In general, a theory of measurement always assumes an absolute standard of measurement. The relativity theory begins with its first postulate by making the assumption that no such absolute conception exists. Therefore the theory is dead as a scientific theory of measurement, because no scientific theory at all can be built on the shifting sands of the assumption that any one and all inertial reference frames are equally valid as a frame within which the standards of measurement can be defined.

Such a theory is obviously a contradiction, since no clear meaning can be assigned to any measurement, since all are relatively absolute to each other at the same time.

It is NOT engineerable.

As it’s well documented that Einstein never conducted a single experiment in his entire life, just few oxymoronic though experiments. Guess why physicists worship him too much. He had no idea of the units and disciplines of measurement.

BACKGROUND
Relativity is NOT a single theory, rather collection of theories integrated into a package which is taught in textbooks. Different theories appear in different levels of textbooks. Introductory books try to keep the theory simple and closely follow the historical development and stress Einstein’s 1905 version of relativity while giving the student an introduction to the more challenging methods of the Minkowski space-time approach. Higher level books begin with the Minkowski approach and present Einstein’s 1907/1910 version in a more elegant form. The student is unaware that there are significant differences between these different interpretations that are inconsistent. Most textbooks present the Einstein version of relativity which has largely superseded the earlier versions of relativity pioneered by FitzGerald, Lorentz, Poincare, and Ives.

The theory is presented as if it is the creation of Einstein exclusively. But, Einstein incorporated these earlier versions into his theory. He changed the theory with each new publication of a paper. Following the introduction by Minkowski of a four dimensional geometry now called spacetime, the theory was radically altered in form and content. The problem for the critic of relativity is to determine the correct accepted version of relativity that is to be criticized. However, no single accepted definitive theory is defined as the true theory of relativity.

EXPLANATION
Einstein's approach is based on philosophical postulates and attempts to derive physical consequences based on mathematical deductions from the postulates.

STR is based on two postulates:
1. The laws of physics take the same form in all inertial frames of reference.

2. The speed of light in free space has the same value c in all inertial frames of reference.

The first one is common sense, but the second one is complete nonsense.

Relativists don’t understand that speed is a derived quantity. It is the ratio of distance traveled by a physical body with time elapsed. Claiming a derived quantity as absolute is absurd.

Einstein first invented an axiom of invariance of c, then did everything to keep the ratio same. This is not scientific approach, rather gibberish.

The problem is it changed units of measurement.

In a 3D space, if a point is in location P(x,y,z), the distance (r) formula for it from the center according to Pythagoras Theorem is:
x² + y² + z² = r²

So it a light wavefront travel from origin to P(x,y,z) with speed c and t, the equation becomes:
x² + y² + z² - (ct)² = 0

Relativists has a strange way of dealing with reality. They write:
x² + y² + z² - (ct)² = S²,

and call it equation of 4D spacetime, and claim S² not necessarily zero. S² = 0 is just a special case.

This is the spacetime concept(delusion). Its a direct violation of elementary geometry and Pythagoras theorem. S is always zero.

ct still has the dimension of distance. It’s NOT an independent quantity. It’s not a new dimension perpendicular to x, y and z. Adding Apples after Apples never gives an Orange. There is serious lack of understanding of dimension and elementary geometry here.

Hence spacetime is pseudoscience. It doesn’t exist.

This is not mathematics. This is mathemagic. Physicists dropped logic and common sense after following Einstein.

Now if x₁,y₁,z₁,t₁ are dimensions in frame S₁ and x₂,y₂,z₂,t₂ are dimensions in frame S₂, then the distance formula for two systems are:
x₁² + y₁² + z₁² - (c₁t₁)² = 0 ——(1)
x₂² + y₂² + z₂² - (c₂t₂)² = 0 ——(2)

If (x₁, y₁, z₁, t₁) and (x₂, y₂, z₂, t₂) refer to the same event in the wavefront, then equation (1) must transform into equation (2) in going from S₁ to S₂. But the substitution of a linear transformation in the LHS of equation (1) will yield a quadratic in (x₂, y₂, z₂, t₂), which must be merely a constant multiple of the LHS of (2) if equation (1) is to transform into equation (2). That is:

x₁² + y₁² + z₁² - (c₁t₁)² = k[x₂² + y₂² + z₂² - (c₂t₂)²] ——(3)

where k is a constant.

So if we want to make c₁ = c₂, either k =1, which states both the frames are same, or units of measurement in both the frame are different which directly contradicts the first postulate of principle of relativity.

Now let’s see the Lorentz transformation concept.

If (x₁,y₁,z₁,t₁) are dimensions for stationary frame S₁, then (x₂,y₂,z₂,t₂) are for moving frame S₂.

So according to Lorentz transformation (if motion is along x-axis):
t₂ = β(t₁ - vx₁/c²) ——(4)
x₂ = β(x₁ - vt₁) ———(5)
y₂ = y₁
z₂ = z₁

From eqn(4) and (5):
t₂ = t₁/β - vx₂/c²

Einstein wanted both coordinated to coincide for his clock synchronization.

So if,
x₂ = 0,
then,
t₂ = t₁/β

But if t₁ = 0,
t₂ = -vx₂/c²

Now t₂ becomes a function of position x₂. Making t₁=0 doesn’t make x₂ = 0.

If we make t₂ = 0, then:
x₂ = t₁c²/vβ

So for every t₁ > 0 in the stationary frame S₁, there exists a point x₂ in the moving frame S₂ where t₂ = 0. Following Einstein's own synchronization principle, this is impossible.

Einstein's method of clock synchronization is inconsistent with Lorentz transformation.

Einstein lack the understanding of time vs clock. Einstein believed clock defines time. Clocks are physical, time has no physical existence. Clock is a proxy to time. They don’t measure time directly. They measure it using a calibration factor according to a reference. Changing a clock doesn’t change time. Time is universal. That’s how the practical measurement and analysis is done.

Lorentz transform changes units of measurement. It cannot be engineered in anyway. Hence it meaningless.

First Einstein assumed that the measured length in frame S₁ and S₂ are identical using the same units and standards. Then the moving length, usually assumed to be a rigid rod, is measured from S₁ in terms of the S₁ scale of measurement. The result is a contradiction because the measurement shows that the rod is contracted in motion with respect to its length at rest. This contradiction is labeled as paradox, by metaphysical assumptions of time and space and its measurement. But it doesn’t changes the reality.

Despite 100 years of argument that there is no fallacy, the fallacy is not difficult to detect and identify. Einstein assumes one thing and concludes the contradictory opposite as true. This is problem when you have too much imagination but zero practical competency. You disconnect yourself totally from reality. But physicists love this. Guess why? Greed and incompetency. It’s a swindle.

Newton’s concepts of absolute time, absolute space, and a centripetal force, and Einstein’s notions of a merged spacetime, and of relativity of simultaneity, are mutually exclusive and contradictory ideas. We cannot accept both of these opposing views at the same time.

Einstein’s incorrect theory of units of measurement, and the procedures of conducting measurements is not directly capable of verification by valid measurement procedures. Such theory cannot be translated into a physical theory. So in its essential nature, the theory is fundamentally not a theory of physics capable of empirical verification.

Einstein’s theory of relativity “Relativity: The Special and The General Theory” in English in 1920 was supposed to be understandable by all, as the book claims. Later Einstein joke with the polish physicist Leopold Infeld that, the description “generally understandable” on the book's cover should be changed to “generally not understandable”.

GPS Don’t Use Relativity
Most propagator of relativity use GPS as a confirmation of the theory. None of them have every worked in any GPS project or talked to anybody who works in the field.

GPS is affected by speed and also by gravitational potential gradient. The correction due to speed is claimed to be the proof of SRT, but it’s wrong.

First, SRT doesn’t support any absolute reference. Also SRT needs symmetry.
If A see B as slow, then B should also see A as slow. This invariance is necessity, otherwise it’s not SRT. This seems unrealistic, but that’s what the theory claims.

GPS is not like that. All the satellites are synchronized with ground station as an absolute reference, which is a violation of SRT.

Secondly the satellites are not corrected for relative velocities among themselves. This will give multiple conflicting results if you will implement as per SRT.

Yes, the velocity correction factor is $\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}}$
But this factor has nothing to with relativity. It’s a well known factor in electricity and also for doppler shift, as both sound and electricity’s propagation depends on medium.

So logically incompetent people cherry pick this correction factor and project it as a proof of relativity without considering the violation of invariance.

Even the co-inventor of atomic clock Dr Louis Essen rejected relativity.
Dr Louis Essen Inventor Of Atomic Clock Rejects Einstein’s Relativity Theory

“... the continued acceptance and teaching of relativity hinders the development of a rational extension of electromagnetic theory.”

—-Louis Essen, inventor of atomic clock.

Essen is one of the core contributor of GPS technology with his atomic clock. He understand time and measurements more than any of the armchair theorist who responded to this question.

See this publication:
https://worldradiohistory.com/UK/Wireless-World/70s/Wireless-World-1978-10.pdf

His explanations are ignored by those who never contributed anything useful.

As I said clocks don’t define time. Atomic clocks slow down due to gravitation potential gradient difference at higher altitude, NOT relativity. The Clock Second of an Atomic Clock is a function of the Gravitational Potential Gradient. This potential gradient alters the electronic configuration of Cesium-133 atoms. The clocks are being set to go slow during launch so that in the orbit they fun faster which is same as that of clocks on earth. No continuous adjustment of time is done. So GPS proves that time doesn’t change, which itself disproves relativity.

Ronald Hatch was(deceased) a GPS expert and worked in many GPS projects exposed relativity's connection with GPS.

GPS: The Global Positioning System:

See his papers:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/225572559_Those_scandalous_clocks[PDF] RELATIVITY AND GPS | Semantic Scholar

Former NASA scientist Dr Edward Dowdye has also given logical reasoning from observational data regarding how GPS has nothing to with relativity.

More you can read here:
http://www.extinctionshift.com/SignificantFindings08_C.htm

The general public is misled into believing that science is a mysterious subject which can be understood by only a few exceptionally gifted mathematicians. But the nature is straightforward. The theory is so rigidly held that scientists dare not openly express their doubts. Or else their career will come to an end. All competent physicists, engineers and scientist can understand what I wrote.

“No man really becomes a fool until he stops asking questions”

—Charles Proteus Steinmetz

FINAL VERDICT
Relativity was made famous to suppress the aether theory of electrical pioneers. Aether was a very dangerous concept for energy barons like Rockefeller etc. Most electrical pioneers are not physicists. So they felt happy when a person called Einstein said we don't need aether. It all started with electron concept. Electron concept was devised to suppress any further electrical research using aether which was quite dangerous for the oil baron like Rothschild.

Aether is the universal storehouse of energy which comprises the entire electric phenomenon. Every electrical pioneer (Faraday, Maxwell, Tesla, Heaviside, Steinmetz, Thomson etc) believe in aether, as it was inevitable and quite logical as per natural philosophy. All our foundation of modern electrical engineering is from them. We still use their equations. Modern physics has contributed nothing to electricity, as research on electricity has stopped since 100 years, to promote business science.

Destroying the concept aether ensure that free energy would never again threaten their monopoly.

Einstein knew nothing about electricity, which he himself agree.

I have now struggled with this basic problem of electricity for more than twenty years, and have become quite discouraged, though without being able to let go of it. I am convinced that a completely new and enlightening inspiration is needed.”
—-Albert Einstein, letter to Cornelius Lanczos, 14 Feb. 1938

You just cannot sit and struggle to understand everything (at-least electrical science). You need to get your butt off and engage in ration experimentation. Modern physicist are quite incompetent in studying nature and needs to be exposed. Einstein knew nothing about electricity. Research on electricity has stopped after death of Steinmetz. There is a growing movement to liberate psychics from the lies and to resurrect the work of natural scientists such as Tesla, Steinmetz, Maxwell, Heaviside, Thomson etc.

Hence relativity is essentially a pseudo-science, because the essential character of a science is its empirical verifiability. Its verification is beyond physical possibility, is proof that it is a metaphysical pseudo-science and not a true physical science.

The only application of theory of relativity is that it provide jobs to millions on physicists who are incompetent in creating anything useful and productive.

I apologize if I hurt anyone’s religious sentiments which I never mean to. As I know how much Einstein is worshipped as an infallible being. But science should be based on reality of nature, not victual reality.

I hope you get some enlightenment now.

Related: 

• The Michelson-Morley Experiment and Special Relativity
• Why don’t scientists dare criticize Einstein's theory of relativity? = https://easy-power-plan.blogspot.com/2024/05/why-dont-scientists-dare-criticize.html

Revealed At Last... Must watch!
Free Energy Magnetic Generator and synthesizes many other technologies imbued with Nikola Tesla's technological identity

✔ Nikola Tesla’s method of magnifying electric power by neutralizing the magnetic counter-forces in an electric generator

Generates Energy-On-Demand: 👉 Free Energy Will Change Our World Forever

✔ Combination of induction motor and alternator 
✔ Combine generators with induction motors - self-powered generators with rotary motion
✔ Various methods of generating high power immobile generators
✔ Or maybe called Overunity for the system. Mother Nature doesn't care about people calling or naming phenomena. Overunity/Free Energy, Zero Point Energy (ZPE) are just a few different words