

Death to Einstein!

The Video Transcripts

Volume One

Books by Scott Reeves

The Big City

Demonspawn

Billy Barnaby's Twisted Christmas

The Dream of an Ancient God

The Last Legend

Inferno: Go to Hell

Scruffy Unleashed: A Novella

Colony

A Hijacked Life

The Dawkins Delusion

The Newer New Revelations

Apocalyptus Interruptus

Death to Einstein!

The House at the Center of the Worlds

The Miracle Brigade

Tales of Science Fiction

Tales of Fantasy

The Chronicles of Varuk: Book One

The Compleat Snowybrook Inn

Liberal vs. Conservative: A Novella

A Crackpot's Notebook, Volume 1

Zombie Galaxy: The Outbreak on Caldor

Flames of the Sun

Death to Einstein!

The Video Transcripts

Volume One

Scott Reeves

Death to Einstein! The Video Transcripts, Volume One

Copyright © 2017 by Scott Reeves.

All rights reserved.

Interior art by Scott Reeves,

Copyright © 2017 by Scott Reeves.

Introduction

Over the past several years, I have been keeping a video log of my thoughts on Relativity and Geocentricity. For the most part, they are a continuation of, a further development of, and an elaboration upon, ideas presented in my book _Death to Einstein!_ I have now amassed a hundred or more hours of video, and have begun the laborious process of transcribing them. So the present volume represents the first batch of such transcripts. Some of them I transcribed myself, and others were done by a transcription company.

I've done minimal editing on these transcripts, although in a few cases I have added a few words where I felt they were needed, for clarification. But since these transcripts are being presented pretty much "raw," the reader should perhaps expect a few spelling and grammatical errors. I also tend to ramble in these videos, and simply follow my thoughts wherever they go, so the reader also shouldn't expect a clearly and carefully planned laying out of ideas. And there is a lot of repetition as I sort of "spin my wheels" as I collect my thoughts, or in an attempt to say the same thing in several different ways in order to make sure I'm getting my point across. I do these videos off the cuff, unrehearsed and without a great deal of forethought, and mostly for my own purposes, to get my thoughts down as quickly and as easily as possible. And the transcripts of the videos will reflect that.

The transcripts have not been edited to improve conciseness and readability. There are simply too many videos, presenting too huge a task for transcription, for me to waste time with a proper job of editing. Especially since I intend to give these transcriptions away for free in electronic form, and simply for the cost of book printing in the case of a hardcopy.

If something is unclear, perhaps due to an error in the transcription process, or I mention something that seems to have a visual component, the actual videos can be consulted on YouTube, Vimeo.com or Archive.org. In many of the videos, I'm gesturing with my hands, or showing diagrams, or doing other visual stuff that might not translate into words, and so it might be helpful to view the actual videos. In fact, some of what I consider to be my best videos are so inextricably tied to custom animations and illustrations that a transcript would be unintelligible and so won't even be attempted (yes, I know, these current transcripts are unintelligible due to my idiocy, so you'd hate to see videos that I won't even attempt to transcribe, right?). These videos should most definitely be watched, as they are of course so incredibly informative and damning to Relativity.

The videos transcribed in this volume can be found by searching the aforementioned sites using the title of the chapters herein, as the chapter titles are the names I used for the videos.

Also, the transcripts are presented in no particular order, so the reader may skip around in the book without worrying that something crucial was missed in an earlier section.

With the preceding in mind, here is the first volume of the transcripts. Now I'm off to continue working on the transcripts for the second volume. And the third. And the fourth...

January 2017

Transcripts in this volume:

Why Physics MUST Combine Special Relativity's Two Main Thought Experiments

The Time Dilation Flaw

The Time Dilation Flaw II

The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw

The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw II

The Pseudoscience Flaw

More on relativitys Planck/Ant Man Problem, steel balls, length contraction vs. object compression

Burden of Proof: Geocentrism or Relativity?

It's Just Not True That Relativity Says Everything is Moving Relative to Everything Else

Also included are two non-video essays:

The Spherical Ship

Debunking Relativity: The Light Clock Problem

**As well as a comic strip** by Scott Reeves, _Stephen Hawking Gets Taken to School_

Why Physics MUST Combine Special Relativity's Two Main Thought Experiments

OK, just when I thought I was done...

One other thing I did want to add to what I was just saying about how, if the light pulse is moving along with the light clock, it precludes the possibility of the relativity of simultaneity. Why would I be saying that? By saying that, I'm viewing the photon as a point on a wave, or a sphere. Like an outward expanding ripple, or a wave, or a sphere of light. I'm not considering it as a single photon. So when it goes up like this, and it's moving along with the rocket, and it's remaining centered here...If that photon is moving along like that, that would mean that the center of the sphere where it's expanding from would have to be remaining at the center of the light clock too.

So the reason I say that it precludes the possibility of the relativity of simultaneity is because the photons are going to be traveling at the same speed going this direction as they are going that direction. So you've got a point (a photon) on the wave here, and you've got a point on the wave here, and you've got a point on the wave here, they're all traveling outward at the same speed, in different directions. If the center (the point of emission) is remaining coincidental with the source of emission, and the photons are all traveling outward at the same speed, then the one traveling opposite the direction of motion is going to hit the rear wall at the same time as the forward traveling photon is going to hit the front wall from the viewpoint of both observers, the outside stationary observer and the observer in the rocket.

In the example I gave, in which we were trying to find a situation in which the sphere would remain stationary relative to the inside observer while maintaining the outside observer's ability to derive time dilation, if the rocket is regarded as moving, and the photons are all expanding from a common point, or center of the sphere of expansion, and they're all traveling at the same speed in all directions, so the center must then be moving along too. So they're all keeping an equal distance from the center, and the center is moving on with the rocket so that the sphere remains stationary with respect to the inside observer, so there won't be any relativity of simultaneity, which is why I kept saying that.

The reason I am bringing this up is because if you're viewing it as a single photon, you might be tempted to say, "Well, there is still the possibility of relativity of simultaneity," because if you're examining each photon, if you're not considering that it's on a sphere, you are examining each one individually, separately, sort of just on its own merits, however you want to phrase that.

That's why I think my combined version of these thought experiments is more correct, because the photons are not independent. Light from a naked bulb will expand in a sphere. You can view it that way, and it seems to me that's the proper way to examine these thought experiments. Not with each individual photon treated separately from all the other photons on any particular wave, because that leads you to examine each individual photon without taking into consideration what the other photons that are equidistant from the point of emission, as measured by any particular observer, are doing. "I'm just going to pick this photon and examine what that one's doing, without considering that how I treat this photon affects how I treat this other photon, because I'm considering it individually," when in actuality all the photons need to be considered together, because those photons are all part of an expanding wave. Those photons are not individual photons. They are points on a wave, a sphere of photons. They're not individual photons. I don't believe you can consider them individually.

I mean, you CAN consider them individually, but this photon here is going to behave exactly like this photon up here, because they're individual, but yet they were all emitted at the same time. They were all emitted from a single point at the exact same time. If you're going to say, "Well, you can't say they were emitted at the exact same time from every observer's viewpoint" — yes, you can. Are you going to tell me that if I'm looking at a light bulb, no single photon was emitted at the same time as another?

Hopefully you can grasp the meaning of what I'm trying to say. I'm not sure how to put it into words. It's an emission event. It's a single event at single place. It's not like the emission of the photons is separate events separated widely in space. Like, you've got an event here where there's an emission of photons, and you've got one over there, i.e. two emission events separated in space, where you can kind of argue like relativity does, that events separated in space that are simultaneous in one frame might not be simultaneous in another.

This could even be the relativity of simultaneity example where the lightning bolt strikes either end of the train, and one observer is rushing toward one of the strikes...The emission of photons I'm talking about are not like that. They're not separate events in separate locations. The emission is a single event at one location. It's an emission like the one that occurs when you flip on a light bulb. There's no possibility that the photons on each wavefront, as it were, from such a singular emission event, are somehow not occurring simultaneously with the other photons on each particular wavefront, as seen by any possible observer.

This light bulb has its own timeline, obviously. its own sort of intrinsic timeline. If you've got two photons, they're emitted at the same point on that timeline. It's not like, this is an emission, and on down the timeline, this is another emission. It's not like you can say, "Well, this photon was emitted at an earlier time than this one on this light bulb's timeline, yet both photons are on the same wavefront, equidistant from the point of emission," because that's impossible. I don't think I'm explaining that very well, but it's impossible. There is no relativity of simultaneity thing to consider here in regards to the emission of the photons that comprise the same particular wavefront.

Any observer, regardless of reference frame, can choose two photons that were emitted at the same time, because the emission of both photons is a single event, not separated by space. The event is in the same place. It's not like you can't choose two photons that were emitted at the same place at the same time. That's why I'm saying that if you're considering a photon here, striking this wall, there's an corresponding photon, assuming you've got a naked like bulb or something and not a directed laser pulse — if you take a photon here at position A, there is going to be a photon up here at position M that has to be treated exactly identically to the one at A, and they're like points on a wave.

I think that's the way you have to examine those two classic thought experiments. Not as two individual photons, one of which you use to demonstrate time dilation, and the other to demonstrate the relativity of simultaneity. You have to consider them as points on a wave rather than single individual photons. You can't treat them as separate photons. You can't examine this photon, and then examine this one, because even as you're examining this one, you have to keep in mind that there is an corresponding photon up here that has to be treated identically, by which I mean realizing that it is the same distance as the other from the point of emission, from which point both photons were emitted absolutely simultaneously.

My whole point is that I started this saying that you might be tempted to take this photon individually and saying, "Well, why is Scott saying that if you have the time dilation, you can't have relativity of simultaneity?" The point was, you can't examine those photons individually. You have to take them all into consideration as part of a collection of photons that are all centered on a common point of emission. If one moves in this direction, there's another that is moving identically in the opposite direction, or the perpendicular direction and so on, at the same speed.

You can rotate the photon sphere. There is no "This one's going forward and this one is going backward." You can say, "This one is traveling along the direction of some other object's motion," but taken on it's own... You know, you can rotate this sphere, so there's really no difference between this photon going this way or going this other way. It's only going up this way in relation to the rocket. You can only say a photon is going perpendicular to the direction of motion or in the direction of motion of the rocket. Considering the photon shell or wavefront in isolation, solely considering the sphere and its constituents amongst themselves, any one photon is traveling at the same speed from the center of the shell or sphere as all the other photons that were emitted at the same time. It's a common center. They're all traveling away from that common point of emission at the same speed. And if they're emitted at the same time, like it's a light wave, they're emitted at the same time, then at any particular time subsequent to the emission event, they're all equidistant from that common point.

So if you're examining this photon, there is another photon up here and back here that you have to... How you consider this photon affects how you're considering the other ones. When examining this photon, if you're going to examine it individually, you have to take into account how this examination affects these other photons. If you're going to say that one photon has struck a wall or bulkhead that is the same distance from the common point of emission as another wall in the opposite direction, then you can't say, "Hey, the photon that has struck the wall has a companion photon that was emitted at the same time but has not yet struck the wall in the opposite direction." To say that is to claim that a physically impossible situation is occurring. But yet that is exactly what special relativity is saying with its two main thought experiments.

And it doesn't work to say that the space through which some of the photons are moving has undergone length contraction, since if one observer is measuring length contraction, he is going to be hard pressed to explain how certain photons emitted from a common point at the same time have traveled different distances in the same amount of as other "companion" photons. The distance value derived from ct cannot vary depending upon which photon on the sphere our observer is considering. This would mean that one of the most basic laws of physics is not the same within the same reference frame, let alone being the same in differing reference frames. So you can't examine the photons individually.

I'm just rambling here, now. Hopefully I've gotten out what I wanted to point out. Anyway. If you're examining this photon, you also have to examine...You're examining...You're assigning this photon a certain behavior. In examining this photon, you're saying that where it was emitted from is moving along. You're saying something about the center of where this photon was emitted from, because this photon up here always remains centered on its point of emission. And likewise, this photon back here... By examining this photon, you are saying something about where it was emitted, it's relation to its emission point. You're either saying its emission point is moving relative to the rocket, or it's stationary relative to the rocket, or the outside observer, or whatever.

If you're saying this photon moves along with the rocket, you're saying the point of emission also moves along with the rocket. Therefore, if you're saying the center of the sphere of photons, the point of emission, is moving along with the rocket, this photon will have another photon associated with it on the same wavefront that also has that same relation to the center, or the point of emission. If you're saying this photon moves along with the ship, you're also saying that its point of emission moves along with the ship. Therefore, any photon back this way, its point of emission moves along with the ship. Therefore, it's going like this. And therefore the front one is going like this. Therefore, there will not be a relativity of simultaneity, because both of these are going to hit the forward and the back wall at the same time from the viewpoint of any observer.

Because the common center of the sphere, the common point of emission of all these photons, is moving along with the rocket. This photon that strikes the front wall, and this photon that strikes the back wall — you are assigning their common point of emission a behavior. You're saying either this common point moves along with the rocket, or it doesn't. And if this common point moves along the rocket, there cannot be a relativity of simultaneity, because both photons maintain the same relationship to that common point of emission. After being emitted from that common point at the same time, they're both traveling away from it at the same speed. They're keeping the same distance from that common point, regardless of whether it's moving along with the rocket or not, and regardless of which observer you ask, a co-moving observer or a non-co-moving observer.

So if you say the center is moving along with the rocket, these photons are not going to have relativity of simultaneity. There is not going to be any disagreement among observers whether this one strikes the front wall first, or this one strikes the rear wall first. There is no disagreement. That's why, in the light clock experiment, if you say that this photon up here strikes the center of the top plate of the light clock... If the light pulse remains centered within the light clock, you know, it's bouncing up and down here, if it remains centered when the rocket is in motion from the viewpoint of an outside observer, you're saying that the point of emission is also moving along with the rocket. So you're saying that the point of emission is moving along with the rocket. And this is my whole point.

From the viewpoint of an outside observer, if he sees this light pulse bouncing up and down between the light clock plates, and it's remaining centered within the light clock instead of drifting slowly backward or drifting slowly forward — if the pulse remains centered in the light clock according to both observers, you're saying that the point of emission is moving along with the ship. In which case, that's all well and good for time dilation, where the outside observer says, "Well, I see the light pulse moving up and down along a longer path, therefore time dilation." But that same observer cannot also say... He's saying that the point of emission remains centered and is carried along with the rocket. That's how the light pulse remains bouncing up and down between the plates of the light clock, remaining centered and not drifting backward or whatever. By doing that, you're saying that the center of emission is moving along with the rocket. In which case, you can't have the relativity of simultaneity like I was saying, because the point of emission, the center of the sphere of photons, is being carried along with the rocket. So the frontward and backward moving photons also have a component of motion along the direction of the ship's motion. So they're going to strike the walls of the ship at the same time, according to both observers. One observer may not SEE both photons as striking at the same time, meaning that the photons don't return to his eyes simultaneously due to his motion. But nevertheless, both photons strike the walls simultaneously, as determined by their constant, similar relationship to their common point of emission. So there is no relativity of simultaneity when you're deriving time dilation.

This may be the best explanation of this I've done yet, maybe, I don't know. This is probably the most helpful one. Hopefully I'm starting to make sense here. Is it all becoming clear? Maybe it's taken me millions of words to explain something that is completely obvious. This is why Relativity is an invalid, untenable theory. Its two main thought experiments HAVE to be able to be combined, but they are incompatible, and so they can't. If you can't combine them, Special Relativity is invalid, and is disproved. And you can't combine them due to the problem I've identified above (AUTHOR'S NOTE: which problem in later videos I called a violation of what I labeled "The No Photon is an Island Principle"). It should be apparent by now why I'm saying you have to be able to combine those two thought experiments. Hopefully, it is absolutely clear by now.

Those two thought experiments are not two separate thought experiments. They are two aspects of the same experimental setup. You have to be able to take a single setup and derive both time dilation and relativity of simultaneity for Relativity to work. You have to be able to look at the exact same experimental setup to derive time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity. You have to be able to do that, and if you can't, then Relativity is disproved, for the reasons I've outlined.

Sorry I'm getting so excited. I'm just feeling like I've finally hit upon the right way to say something I've been trying to articulate for some time now. Special Relativity does not work. Maybe I'm just getting dizzy and delirious or something because I haven't had breakfast yet, and I'm kind of hyperventilating maybe.

Hopefully it is clear. Special Relativity doesn't work because you cannot combine those two thought experiments, and yet they have to be combined, because they have the exact same experimental setup. So you have to be able to look at the exact same experiment and derive time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity, and you can't do it as Relativity has set it up. You can derive one or the other from the same experiment, but you can't derive both simultaneously, no pun intended. Therefore Special Relativity is incorrect and does not work.

I've previously presented reasons why General Relativity doesn't work either. And I've presented other reasons why Special Relativity doesn't work, in addition to this one. Like The Photon Mapping Problem, and the thing about Galilean Relativity and how there actually is an absolute reference frame that is attached to the wall of the universe-sized room, as I called it. So this is just one more nail in the coffin.

Why am I even wasting my time bothering with this? Why does this bug me? Why do I spend so much time dwelling upon this? I don't know. I guess it's my life's passion or something. I write science fiction too, and I'm taking time away from that and other things to do this, which is kind of stupid, because I keep saying the same things over and over again. Haven't I gotten my point across yet? I guess maybe I feel like I haven't.

Let me think to make sure I'm done before I turn this off.

Another thing is, I'm not editing these videos. I've got poor lighting here. I've got probably poor audio possibly, but I'm not editing these videos either. Normally I would edit all this stuff out, but basically I don't have a good video editor, or a powerful enough computer to do good video editing. I've tried it in YouTube Video Editor, but the thing keeps crashing in my browser or something, so that's not working. So I'm just presenting these things absolutely raw, unedited, so you're going to see a lot of me sitting around and stuttering and looking and considering.

Well, I think I made my point. I don't want to keep rambling on and repeating myself, because I can't remember what I said already and what I didn't, but I think I pretty much said everything, so I'm going to turn it off now. Hopefully I won't have to come back. Can you hear my stomach growling? It wants breakfast, so I'm going to go feed it.

Okay, here I am back. I said I wasn't going to turn the camera back on today, but I just thought of something else.

I was saying how you cannot examine each photon individually. If you examine this one it affects how this up here... You have to take them all into account because they all share a common center, a common point of emission. So I was saying that if you're examining them individually, you might be tempted to say, "Well, I can examine them separately, and why can't I have relativity of simultaneity if I can have this?" That's a temptation of examining each one individually. But if you examine each one individually, and you're trying to keep the relativity of simultaneity, to keep it, you have to examine a different photon in a different wave. Remember, I said you consider this as a wave. Each photon, this photon here, is just a point on a wave. This photon is a point on the wave. So to keep the relativity of simultaneity, you would have to examine this one for the time dilation, then examine a later one for the relativity of simultaneity. For the relativity of simultaneity, you'd have to be examining an individual photon on different, successive wave.

I'm not sure exactly how to say this. On a different, successive wave instead of...

Anyway, it doesn't work. Even as you're examining this photon for time dilation, to simultaneously do relativity of simultaneity, you have choose a photon that is one the same wave, that is a point on the same wave as the photon you're using for time dilation. You can't say, "I'm going to do time dilation using this photon on this wave, and I'm going to do relativity of simultaneity using this photon on a successive wave." You can't do that. You have to examine both at the same time for the experiments. You can't use photons that weren't emitted from the same source at the same time. You may say, "Well, why do I say that?" It's because they are all points on the same wave. They have a common point of emission; the spherical wavefront that they together comprise is centered, obviously, on a single point. And like I was saying, you have to be able to have one single experiment that you can glance at to derive time dilation and do the relativity of simultaneity. You have to use the exact same experiment for both, at the same time. You can't use the same experimental setup one way to derive time dilation, then switch the way you're using it when you're ready to do relativity of simultaneity. Not because that's the way I want it to be in order to support my polemic against Relativity, but because that's just the way it has to be, because if you're examining this photon, it has a point of emission in common with other photons that are on the same wave, i.e. that were emitted at the same time from that common point.

It's not just this photon by itself. This photon came from a point, and there are other photons that came from that same point at the same time. So if there are other photons that came from a common point at the same time, even as you're examining one particular photon to derive time dilation, one of those other photons is the one you have to use in the relativity of simultaneity portion of your experiment. If that makes any sense. I know I'm right, and hopefully it makes some sense the way I'm saying it. But even if I'm being nonsensical, it's not a nonsensical thing I'm speaking of.

This photon comes from a point, obviously. It comes from the emitter. This photon is sourced from a point. This photon was emitted from a point, and that point has other photons traveling outward in all directions that were emitted at the same time as the photon in question. They all comprise a wavefront, a sphere, centered on that common point. That's why the time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity thought experiments, considered as two distinct experiments by relativists, have to be able to be combined into a single experiment. And Special Relativity can't combine them into a single experiment without destroying itself. If you do consider them as a single experiment, you find that you cannot have both time dilation and relativity of simultaneity. That's my whole point.

You have to be able to combine Relativity's two experiments for the reasons that I hopefully have made absolutely clear in this video if in none of the other ones. I think I've done a better job of explaining it in this video. But you have to be able to combine them, and when you combine them, you will see that you cannot have both time dilation and the relativity of simultaneity. In other videos, I go into some consequences of, like, what does Relativity look like if you keep one but throw out the other. You could keep this one and throw out that one, or vice versa, and what does Relativity look like then? I don't remember off hand, but there's some kind of additional problems that that brings up. Anyway, even if you keep one and throw out the other, you've still destroyed Relativity. You've at least partially destroyed it.

I guess I stressed what I wanted to stress. Once again, I forgot what started off this video. I'm trying to remember so I can make sure I've said what I wanted to say. I think I did. I'm just going to have to trust that I did. And if I didn't, that other people can look at the idea and figure out what I was trying to say.

Okay, I keep saying I'm not coming back, but I just realized one other thing I wanted to say. Regarding what I was saying previously — we're on my cube ship from previous videos. If you examine this photon, if you examine this other photon, and this one — when you examine any of these photons, you have to look and say, "Okay, this photon was emitted from here. There's a center here, a center of our sphere. Therefore there are other photons that share the common center. While I'm examining this particular photon, what is this other photon that's at an equal distance from that center because it left at the same time at an equal speed — equal distance, same center — what is this other photon doing in relation to the rocket? What is this third one doing in relation to the rocket? What's this fourth one doing in relation to the rocket?"

If you're studying time dilation, you have to look at that particular photon and say, "Okay, what is the other photon over here doing? The photon under consideration is doing this. I'm deriving time dilation here. By deriving time dilation, I'm saying something about the center from which this photon was emitted. And because I'm saying something about this center, I'm also saying something about other photons that were emitted from this common center at the same time that this photon I'm examining was emitted. And what are these other photons doing?"

And if you're doing time dilation, you're saying that this center is moving along with the rocket. Therefore, you are saying that this other photon, this equidistant photon, same speed and everything, is moving forward also, keeping an equal distance from the point of emission. Two photons that are on the same wavefront, the same surface of an expanding sphere. So by examining the time dilation photon, you're implicitly saying something about the position of the relativity of simultaneity photons. And if you're examining this other photon, you're saying something about the position of numerous other photons.

So you can't say in one case, "Okay, I'm doing time dilation. The time dilation photon is doing this, and this other photon is doing this. But now I'm going to switch to this other photon for relativity of simultaneity, a photon on wavefront successive to the one the time dilation photon is on." When you do that, by Relativity's rules, you're saying something different about the common point of emission than you were saying when you were examining the time dilation photon. And you can't do that. It doesn't work. I mean, you have to do that in order for Relativity to be valid, but it's a forbidden move. You're breaking the single experimental setup into two separate experiments, and using each setup differently in order to save the theory.

It's all one experiment, not two. You have to re-combine them to be consistent. For people who are asking why I'm insisting that you have to combine Special Relativity's two main thought experiments, and what do I mean that you have to combine them, THAT'S what I mean. And when you DO combine them, or re-combine them, however you prefer to look at it, Special Relativity breaks. And that is my whole point. That's why you have to combine them, and that's why when you do combine them, Relativity no longer works.

I feel like I'm being the most concise or understandable as I've ever been on this. I've written 50,000 more words on this subject in my two Death to Einstein! books. Hopefully I've gotten my point across better than ever before. I feel like I've finally managed to stammer out the complete, perfect explanation. That's why I keep trying to say these things in different ways, because I want to make myself absolutely clear, and I feel like this is the most understandable way I've yet managed to say it.

My point is, when you examine one particular photon, you have to examine all the other photons with it. Because when you examine any one, it says something about the positions of all the others. If you're doing time dilation, you're examining this one, which has struck the upper plate of the light clock, and you're also by implication examining the relativity of simultaneity photons, and all photons not involved in any of our experiments but yet are flying from the common center to all corners of our cube-shaped ship. They're all connected, and you can figure out the positions of all "brother" photons simply by examining a single photon and its position relative to the point of emission.

Trust me. Work through both experiments with all the preceding in mind, and you'll see that consideration of all the photons destroys Relativity.

The center of the photonic sphere, the common point of emission for all the photons on the sphere's surface, is the key to it all. And there are two possibilities for the disposition of that center. Either the center is moving along with the rocket, or the center is stationary relative to the rocket. What are you saying about the center? When you're doing time dilation, you're saying that the center is moving along with the rocket. Therefore, when you switch to the time dilation photons, you have to likewise say that the point of emission is moving along with the rocket also. If you're examining the time dilation photon, and you say that the center is moving along with the rocket, why would you switch to the simultaneity photons and then say that the center is not moving along with the rocket? It can't be both. One photon can't NOT be moving along with the rocket even as another of its brothers IS moving along with the rocket. It can't be both ways.

Of course, you could object and say that the time dilation photon and its point of emission are NOT moving along with the rocket, but that leads to other problems for Relativity, which I have elaborated upon in other videos and in the first _Death to Einstein!_ book.

I should also note that I'm not talking about Bell's Theorem, where if you measure the property of one photon, you're automatically and instantaneously assigning a property to a distant, entangled photon. That's not what I'm talking about here. Also, objections that the relativity of simultaneity photons are traveling along the direction of the rocket's motion and are therefore traveling through a warped space due to length contraction and so are NOT actually the same distance from the common point of emission as the time dilation photon — this objection is answered in other videos. Suffice it to say the objection holds no salvation for Relativity.

Death to Einstein! - The Time Dilation Flaw

Okay this is September 28, 2015. Before I get to the main subject, I want to comment about a couple of news stories that are making science headlines today. There is NASA's announcement that they've found direct evidence of liquid water on Mars. They're making a big hullabaloo about it everywhere. "We've found liquid water on Mars!" and to hear the news, it's a big huge thing going on. They've made a big deal out of it all weekend. "NASA is going to announce this major finding regarding Mars!" A major discovery and everything. You knew they were just going to announce water. There were people saying they were just going to announce water. Not that finding water on Mars this is trivial or anything, but it's not that big of a deal, not as big of a deal that they're making it out to be. I think it's being over-hyped.

The thing I really want to talk about was, one of the first stories I read about it was on the _Popular Mechanics_ website. This was hours ago after the news first broke that I was reading it. But I just recently looked at it again, just right before I turned on this video. But there's a story on _Popular Mechanics_ with the headline "Water is flowing on Mars even as we speak," or "right now" or something; now I can't remember what it said. But it was _Popular Mechanics.com_ reporting it. I think it was "Water is flowing on Mars even as we speak," and then the sub headline was "What does this mean? Could there be life?"

The thing that got me is — I swear I looked at it just a few minutes ago — it said "Could there be life?" in the subheading. But I swear, a few hours ago when I first looked at that story, it said "Could there still be life there?" They changed it. They took out that "still," and that's the thing that really ticked me off. When they first reported this, I swear — I have no proof of this, you just have to take my word for it — but it said "Could there still be life there?" was the first subheading. They've corrected it since then; I just checked a few minutes ago. But they've corrected it. But I swear when it was first announced it said "Could there still be life there?" Which implies there was life there in the past; could it still be there? We know it was there in the past; could it still be there?

That's one of the things that bug me. Obviously someone was just misreporting or something. It was just some stupid person making an error. But it was a huge error and apparently someone caught it, because they changed it. But it still makes a difference. The way it was originally phrased, it implied that life was there in the past and we already know that. So that annoyed me.

And then the other thing that annoys me is, it's kind of like they're announcing it like, "Well, if there's liquid water, it's a foregone conclusion that there's life on Mars." That's basically why I think they're making such a big deal about it. In the minds of these people it's sort of implied that, "Well, if there's liquid water, there has to be life." It's like it's a fait accompli that if there's liquid water, there's life. The argument is over; there is life on Mars. In their minds, they're not really announcing water; they're announcing life, because the two are synonymous. Where there's water, there's life.

So that's why think they're making such a big deal out of it. Because water is really not that big of a deal. I mean, it would be kind of surprising if you didn't find water on Mars, I would think. Or anywhere else in the solar system. Kind of surprising if you don't find water on some body in the solar system. Make a big deal about that. That would be the real news. "We didn't find any evidence of water on this place!"

So anyway that's my take on this whole thing. It's not that big of a deal. It's kind of ridiculous, the stink they're making about it.

The other thing in the news that caught my eye was the other story that's floating about. "After 11 years we've still not detected evidence of gravity waves," and they're kind of like, "We've got throw in the towel. We can't find the final piece of evidence in favor of Einstein. After 11 years of hard searching, we still can't find it." And it was kind of like an admission of failure or something. So I just thought that was interesting. All I can say is, "Okay. What does that say? Your biggest piece, the final missing piece and you can't find any evidence of it after 11 years! Whatever. That's my only comment.

Okay. The real purpose of this video is... I think I'm going to a call this... Well, let me give a bit of background on this. I did a video yesterday. I don't think I'm going to put it up on YouTube, but I had an idea while doing that other video. It's the idea I'm going to be presenting now. I'm going to be doing it differently now than I had originally conceived, but when I was first doing the video of it yesterday trying to explain it, I kept running into this thing where I was hanging up, and what I was saying was so obviously wrong, it was so completely obvious that what I was saying was wrong, and I kept...because I had this idea in my head and I was trying to get it out and was explaining it, and as I was trying to explain it, I knew it was so obviously, completely wrong. You know I was trying to explain and it was so obviously completely wrong. It logically just didn't work out, and so I kept hanging up on it and going, "Oh, how I can explain this? It's not working out the way I want it to work out." So anyway, that led me to what I want to talk about today. It actually led me to a good place. It still would've been a good place if that other video had worked out; it just didn't go where I thought it was going to go. It didn't work out, but it still works out as a blow against relativity, I think. I don't know if I'll ever put that video up on YouTube. I may, just as a record of... I know when I'm saying things that are incorrect, so I am not totally stupid. I know when I'm saying things that aren't making sense or don't work out; they're incorrect.

Okay, so I'm going to put this under the heading of a _Death to Einstein!_ idea. It's _Death to Einstein! The Time Dilation Flaw_ , is what I think I'm going to label it. The Time Dilation Flaw.

I've said in earlier videos, and I was saying yesterday, that I've never argued... You know, I've never had any problem with time dilation itself. I've only had a problem with reciprocal time dilation. The symmetrical time dilation as required by relativity. That's what I've been ranting against. The reciprocal or symmetric time dilation is physically impossible; it leads to physical impossibilities, and yet relativity requires the reciprocity, and therefore relativity can't be true. But I've never had any problem with time dilation itself, with asymmetric, non-reciprocal time dilation. It's a cool idea. I would like it. I would like time dilation to be true. So I've never really had a problem with time dilation itself.

But now I've changed my mind. I think I do have a problem with it. I don't think time dilation itself is an actual possibility. And that's what I want to get into today. I'm kind of really not even certain about this, because there's supposedly evidence of time dilation in particle accelerators when you move relative to the Earth. I've never had a problem with particle accelerators claiming time dilation happens, because those experiments are performed relative to the Earth, so that doesn't conflict with anything, because there can still be Geocentrism even in the face of particle accelerators. But now I'm thinking about it. What my mistake yesterday led me to is that I don't think that time dilation is actually, physically possible, and that's what I want to talk about today.

So I'm going to call this the Time Dilation Flaw. And it's not just a relativistic time dilation, which is symmetrical or reciprocal. This is time dilation itself, whether Relativity is correct or not. I don't think time dilation, even non-relativistic, non-Einsteinian time dilation, is even possible.

I should say that I'm not talking not talking about an acceleration or motion-induced time dilation with a high velocity. I'm just talking about gravitational time dilation today.

Just as a little thing to back me up on this, I'm going to be referring to _Einstein for Dummies_ by Carlos I. Calle, PhD.

I know what time dilation is; hopefully people listening do too. But just in case someone doesn't know what time dilation is, here is a quote from the final paragraph on page 217 of the aforementioned book: "...showed with great precision that time does slow down in the moving frame and in strong gravitational fields."

As a side note, about time slowing down: I've got another video make about that called The Time Slows Down Flaw. That's a subject for another video though, the notion that time _slows down_. I'll get into that in another video.

Back to the quote: "...with great precision that time does slow down in the moving frame and in strong gravitational fields." That's what I want to emphasize: time does slow down. For purposes of this argument, we're going to say time slows down, and that's what time dilation is. Despite my disagreement with the characterization that time is _slowing down_ , such phrasing works for our purposes right now, and I'll leave that argument for another video.

"...and in strong gravitational fields." So time slows down in strong gravitational fields. In my other video, I'm going to argue that time does not slow down; it actually accelerates. That's basically what I'm going to be saying in the other video. Time does not slow down as is generally held in relativity. Actually time dilation is not a slowing down of time; it's actually acceleration of time. But that's the other video. But for the purpose of the current discussion, time slows down. And I'm talking only about time dilation in a gravitational field right now.

So now a quote from Paul Davies' _About Time_. Paul Davies is a well respected physicists and everything. He's well respected in his field. He writes lots of popular science books and stuff. He presents relativity well, but I disagree with relativity, so I don't believe anything he's saying here, but he says it well. He says it well and he's good for learning relativity. I don't have any disagreement with his presentation or his presentation skills or anything, so it's nothing against Paul Davies. I just think what he's saying is wrong because I think relativity is incorrect, so if he's espousing relativity he is incorrect. But from the mainstream viewpoint, he's right.

With me, he's not. Anyway, on page 58...I don't know what edition this is. This is a hardback, hardcover. Regarding time dilation.

This is what Paul Davies says, "Well, as far as we can tell, all clocks _are_ equally affected (including the brain activity and hence temporal judgment of human observers). This must be so if the principle of relativity is to hold, or we would not have a means of determining whether certain clocks are moving or not, because clocks that are affected differently by motion would get out of synchrony. If you want to drop _that_ principle, then all bets are off."

What I wanted to emphasize there is just...Is time dilation real? According to the standard accepted interpretation of relativity, the standard presentation, time dilation is a real physical phenomenon that affects brain activity, and hence the temporal judgment of human observers.

It affects all physical processes, biological clocks, atomic clocks, everything. And that includes the brain activity and hence temporal judgment, so it affects physical processes. It supposedly affects muons, affects the decay rate of uranium. All physical processes would be slowed down; it's supposedly a real physical phenomenon.

I even say in other videos, "It has to affect the emission of light and everything." It's real. It's a real phenomenon. It's not some abstract notion that is only a mathematical slowing down of time. It's an actual physical effect. Time slows down when you are in a strong gravitational field or when you are moving at a high velocity.

Time slows down according to the way mainstream science accepts relativity. Time dilation is an actual physical phenomenon. I don't think anyone can argue with that. It affects all physical processes.

Again I'm talking about time dilation within a strong gravitational field. What got me started thinking about this, I was going back to an idea I had back in late 1990s, early 2000s, a thing I did called temporogravitism. It's copyrighted; it's under temporogravitics if you search at the Copyright Office.

What I was doing yesterday in this video, I was going back to some older ideas I've had. Where I was just trying to explain the difference, how gravity is caused by time dilation.

I was re delving back into one of my old ideas yesterday and I got into this thing. It wasn't working out, and I was trying to BS my way through, make it work like I thought it was going to work when I was just thinking about it lightly, but it didn't work out. Anyway, it led me to think about what I'm going to be talking about now.

Let's just imagine a beach, a section of beach, an isolated movable beach. There's a volleyball net and there's two gorgeous women with huge womanly parts. They're in tiny string bikinis. This is my thought experiment, that's how my thought experiment is.

There's two gorgeous women, one's a blonde and one's a brunette, I suppose. They've got huge woman parts and look really good in bikinis. They're playing volleyball on a beach, or maybe they're just tossing a beach ball back and forth. There doesn't even need to be a net. Forget the net. Just don't forget about the two women though. They're important in my fantasy, I mean my thought experiment.

They're tossing a beach ball back and forth on this beach, they're tossing a beach ball back and forth. They're jiggling, bouncing around and everything. The jiggling part is important also, the jiggling part is important to this thought experiment, it actually really is.

This is a movable beach. It could be a fake beach, maybe it's some kind of movie set or something. We can take this beach and these two girls and we can put them up high in the atmosphere, like at the edge of space where the gravitational field is less intense.

This could be Earth. We have a gravitational mass. It's a massive object, could be Earth. Or maybe it probably needs to be some other planet that has a super strong gravitational field. Not a black hole. Just something, just for the sake of argument maybe make it some massive star that people can live on the surface of just like on Earth.

Some massive gravitational field where the time dilation is significant. where it's more noticeable than it would be on Earth. We can move our beach. We can put the beach and the girls down on the planet or we can take them and we can put them up at the edge of space, the edge of the atmosphere, almost at a point where the gravitational field or whatever becomes negligible, or it's at the point where it almost dissipates into deep space, interstellar space, or something far from any gravitational field. That kind of thing right at the edge of the...

Almost at the weakest point of the gravitation field. In reality, there's no weakest point. You can feel the gravity all the way across the universe, whatever. But for the purposes of this argument, the gravitational field eventually, basically fades out to zero strength, where there's no time dilation.

Anyway, our beach is movable. Initially we've got our beach high in the atmosphere right at the edge of the...almost at the point where the gravitation field first becomes noticeable or starts having a noticeable affect on things.

Let's say if you're down on the surface, the time dilation due to gravity would be 50 percent. You'd be time dilated 50 percent. Time would be slowed down to half of what it is up at that point in space where these two jiggly women are tossing their beach ball back and forth on this beach.

Up where the girls are, at the edge of the atmosphere wherever they are, time would not be significantly dilated. Be like dilated maybe one percent or whatever. Whereas if they were down on the surface, time would be dilated 50 percent due to gravity.

I've set that up now. That's the setup of the thought experiment. I'm going to concentrate on the ball that these girls are tossing back and forth. Time is not dilated up where they are. They're tossing this ball back and forth.

They're using a certain force to toss it back and forth and time is not dilated. The ball is going to be moving at a certain speed. Let's say they descend, this whole setup, whatever they're in. Some stage or something, and their ball, and the girls, say it's slow as...I don't know whether they do it slowly or faster, whatever. The whole thing just starts descending deeper into the gravitational field.

It's not being attracted by gravity or anything; just leave the effects of gravity out of it right now. And don't say, "I'm going to disregard your thought experiment right then because you can't leave out the effects of gravity!" Just leave it out. Let's not quibble. Just leave it out for the sake of argument.

They're not being pulled down by gravity. They're just slowly descending into this field. Yet time is still being dilated. The time dilation is generated by gravity. Maybe we don't leave gravity out of it. For whatever reason, it's not...Say it is gravity pulling them down, whatever. Fine.

I just threw some spittle on the screen there, I should make this 3D and everything. Then you'll get the full effect of spittle flying at you and everything. Feel like your face is getting splattered.

Anyway. They're slowly descending. Whatever is causing them to descend. Whether they're just drifting down or gravity is pulling them down, whatever. It's irrelevant. They're slowly descending into this gravitational field. As they descend, time is gradually becoming more dilated for them.

They're going from, say, one percent time dilation up here, gradually, gradually, gradually, they're going to transition. They're moving across a gradient to eventually when they get down on the surface, time is going to be 50 percent dilated compared to what it was up here.

As they're descending, time is slowly dilating. Time is slowing down. Allegedly slowing down. I don't know, watch my other video eventually. I was going to start off on the other video. Time is slowing down as they descend.

Going back to Paul Davies, lost the page here. He said time dilation is real. It affects all physical processes. It affects everything. It affects the brain activity of these girls. It affects how they're jiggling up and down and stuff. It's a really nice jiggle. You should see this pictured inside my mind. These are some gorgeous girls jiggling around.

One of them is wearing, what do you call that? A peppermint kind of bikini. It's red and white, and stripes, and everything. Time is dilating as they're descending. My question is, "What happens to that ball that they're bouncing back and forth as they're descending?"

First of all, let's just pretend that they descend from here to down to the surface. They do that in the time that it takes the ball to travel from one girl to the other one. It's just like this girl over here hits the ball and it travels over here, and this other girl catches it.

That whole process, by the time...they start descending when the girl launches the ball, and they reach the surface by the time the ball gets to the other girl. What happens to this ball on the way down? Leaving out gravitational effects, does this ball slow down as it moves?

If time is dilating and time dilation affects all physical processes, does this ball as it's traveling over towards this other girl, does it slow down as it's traveling toward her? Isn't the traveling of that ball from one girl to the other, isn't it a physical process?

If it's a physical process and time is dilating, then that ball would be slowing down as it travels over to this girl, wouldn't it? Over to the other girl? Would be slowing down. And their brain activity is slowing down as they're descending.

What is brain activity? Brain activity it's basically synapses. There are two types of synapses. There are electrical and there are chemical. The chemical one has the synaptic juncture release chemicals that go across from one, what is it, neuron? From one neuron to the other one. It's a chemical signal that travels across the synaptic gap.

One of the neurons, or whatever they are, releases a chemical that travels across to the other one, across this gap. These chemicals are basically little balls, can be regarded as little balls, traveling across this synaptic gap. If that is the brain activity and that is slowing down, what does it mean to say that is slowing down? Time is dilating and the brain activity is slowing down.

Doesn't that mean the chemicals moving across that gap... That has to mean they're slowing down. What else would it mean to say that brain activity slows down if you're not going to say that chemical activity, that traversing of the gap, the chemical traversing that gap, the ball traversing that gap, slows down?

As these girls are descending, in one of their synapses that ball starts out from one neuron at a certain velocity, a certain diffusion rate. That diffusion rate or that velocity has to slow down as they're descending in this gravitational field until they're down here and that ball gets across that gap.

By the time it gets to the other side of that gap, it's going to be going slower than it was when it first left the other neuron. What else could "brain activity slows down, time dilation affects brain activity," what else could it possibly mean?

Wouldn't that mean that electrical signals traveling through neurons and around your brain and everything, the electrical signal itself is slowing down? Meaning that the electricity is slowing down? I don't know. If brain activity slows down, it certainly must mean that those chemicals traversing that gap are slowing down. The ball traversing that gap is slowing down, when comparing its velocity to the velocity it had when the girls first began descending.

My whole point is, if it affects brain activity as Paul Davies says and everyone else says, if it affects all physical processes, if time dilation is real, if it's an actual physical effect, if it affects that little chemical, that little ball traveling across that gap, that little atom, that little molecule traveling across there...Yes, I do know the difference between atoms and molecules.

If it affects that traversing there, that's brain activity. It affects brain activity, so it affects the velocity at which those little chemical balls move across that gap, then why wouldn't it be affecting that beach ball as it traverses from one girl to the other? It would have to affect that. Wouldn't it?

Let's assume that it does affect. It either does or it doesn't affect that. I'm going to look at both cases.

Let's look at the case where it does affect that beach ball going across there. The beach ball slows down as it travels toward the other girl. As this setup descends towards the mass, deeper into the gravitational field and time dilation increases, that ball slows down as it travels from one girl to the other.

I lost my train of thought there. If that does indeed, that ball is affected like that and that ball slows down, what about when they're on the surface and one of these girls tosses the ball upward? Instead of tossing it to the other girl, she tosses the ball upward.

What happens to that ball? If the ball slows down as it's descending into this gravitational field, it slows down as it crosses that path due to gravitational time dilation. If it's going upward, the reverse would be true.

If they're tossing this back and forth on the surface of the planet and they gradually move upward, time dilation is lessening. Therefore, that ball, the speed of that ball as it travels from one girl to the other across that arc, the speed of the ball would be increasing as they go up.

If the girls are on the planet, and one of them tosses the beach ball up, it goes up into the air. It's ascending across this gradient of time dilation values. The time dilation is decreasing. She tosses it up, and as she tosses it up, time dilation's going to be decreasing. Therefore, that ball would be accelerating as it goes up.

If it's decelerating as they're descending into the gravitational field, it must accelerate as she tosses it up, as it heads in the opposite direction. Would not that beach ball being tossed upward, and it's accelerating as it goes upward, wouldn't that counteract gravity that's dragging it down?

It's got the gravitational force, just call it a force for now, per space time, just call it a force. It's got the force of gravity dragging it down this way, but it's also accelerating as it goes up this way. You could envision a situation where the gravitational drag would essentially be canceled out by that upward acceleration, so the ball would just move at a steady rate, upward.

The girl tosses the ball, and it would just move at a constant velocity, upward. It would be accelerating, if gravity weren't a factor. It would be accelerating, due to the decrease in time dilation. It would be accelerating, but it's got gravity pulling on it, counteracting that, so it would be ascending at a constant velocity.

Do we, actually, see that in reality? When you toss a ball upward, does it move upward at a constant velocity, and continue on, or does it just move up at a constant velocity, or does it accelerate up? No, it doesn't. Obviously, you throw something in the air, gravity pulls it back down. You throw it up in the air, it decelerates as it goes upward. It decelerates because gravity's dragging it back down.

You've tossed at certain velocity, the gravity eventually pulls that velocity to zero, and then pulls the ball back down, and causes it to accelerate toward the ground.

We don't see acceleration upward in reality, or a constant upward velocity. But if time dilation affects that ball, traveling back and forth across here, if we're going in the case where time dilation actually affects that ball, then we should observe that. We should observe that if you toss something into the air, it does not decelerate due to gravity.

If you don't throw something at the so called escape velocity, it will still be dragged back down. If you don't toss this ball, even assuming what I'm saying is correct, if you don't toss this ball at escape velocity, it'll still be dragged back down and canceled out.

But it wouldn't be dragged back down quite as much as we would expect or calculate, I wouldn't think. There would be an additional effect that needs to be taken into account, that would sort of be canceling out the drag of gravity. There would be an additional effect. Do we see that? I don't think we do.

Therefore, in that case, if we're going to say time dilation affects the ball, slows it down as it's traveling like that, then that contradicts what we know about the effects of gravity, the observable effects of gravity. The empirical evidence denies that interpretation of time dilation.

The ball cannot be affected. Relativity cannot...not just relativity, just time dilation in general...If you're going with non relativistic time dilation, an asymmetric time dilation, neither form, either Einsteinian time dilation or non Einsteinian time dilation, it wouldn't work. It would contradict the evidence from tossing a ball up into the air, and watching it come back down.

It would be contradicted by evidence. So the interpretation where the ball is affected is denied by empirical evidence.

Back to the girls jiggling around. As they're descending, their parts are bouncing around. Their bounces are going to slow down, too. They're going to start jiggling in slow motion.

They'll be at normal speed, here, be like a film slowing down. Their woman parts are going to be...They'll start out jiggling nice and fast, and then they'll gradually go into slow motion jiggles, from the viewpoint of an outside observer at the edge of the gravitational field. That's why the jiggles were important, because it's kind of an outward manifestation that time is slowing down.

If you're going to say time dilation does not affect the ball, you're going with the interpretation of... If you're going to go with the interpretation that time dilation does not affect that ball, traveling across there...It doesn't affect it. It doesn't slow down as it goes from one girl to the other.

In that case, you have to answer the question of, "Why not?" It affects everything else. It affects brain activity. It affects those little chemicals traveling across the synaptic gap. It affects those. It affects the jiggle rate of the girls. Let's call that the jiggle rate. It affects the jiggle rate of these girls. Their jiggly parts are affected. The jiggle rate is affected. Their brain activity is affected.

Their perception of the flow of time is altered, according to us. According to them, everything's fine. They don't say, "Oh, time is slowing for us." They don't actually experience time slowing down. That's just from the external viewpoint.

If you're going to say that it affects all that stuff, but yet it doesn't affect that ball, traveling across there, you need to explain, "Why doesn't it affect that ball that's traveling across there?" It affects every other physical process. You're going to say that ball, traveling from one girl to the other is not a physical process?

One, you need to answer that question. For another, let's just say you don't need to answer that question, and you go with that interpretation, what happens as that whole setup descends towards this planet again, and they descend into this time dilation? They cross this increasing time dilation gradient. What happens to them?

If this ball does not slow down, and yet their perception of time is slowing down, they're actually going to see that ball traveling increasingly faster, from their viewpoint, as they descend.

They'll say, "We were throwing the ball with this much force when we were up here, and yet we get down to the planet, and we're still using the same amount of force."

"I'm not expending any additional effort," one of the girls says. "I'm not expending any additional effort to toss this ball, down here on the planet, than I did higher up there in the atmosphere."

Yet, the ball was moving faster. The ball would have to be moving faster, because their perception of time is affected. The ball was still moving at the same rate as it was up here. When they're down here, if the ball was still moving at the same rate, and yet they're not experiencing time the same as they were up there, they would perceive the ball as moving faster.

They're going to say, "Why is it moving faster? I'm not expending any additional force, and yet the ball is going faster. Have I gotten stronger? What's going on here?" On that count, do we observe that sort of a thing in nature?

An astronaut up here at the edge of deep space throws the ball with a certain force, and he observes the velocity. He records the velocity at which it travels to the other astronaut. Then he gets back down on Earth, and he throws the same ball, with the same velocity. Earth, whatever, I don't know if this is Earth we're talking about here.

He gets back down on this planet, and throws the ball with the same force that he threw it up here, and observes the velocity of the ball. Does the ball go faster?

If time dilation doesn't affect the velocity of that ball, and his time perception has slowed down, then he would have to say that that ball is traveling faster, when he throws it with the same amount force that he threw it up in space. Does that happen in reality? I don't think it does.

I don't want it to just to support my thing. I haven't actually looked it up, but I don't think it does. Ball doesn't travel faster. You might say, "He's down in the gravitational...so now gravity's affecting it. It would be traveling faster, if he was time dilated out of normal space," which leads you to another conundrum.

Let's say gravity's affecting it, so the ball would be moving faster, but he's in a gravitational field that's affecting the ball, so he still perceives it at the speed he saw it moving up here. Sort of the gravitational field canceling out the apparently increased velocity. Let's forget the gravitational field, though. Let's say he's not moving, relative to this planet.

He's up here in deep space, where the gravitational field of this planet isn't really affecting him. Yet he's stationary, relative to this planet. Then he accelerates, so he does the same thing. He throws this ball to the astronaut, when he's stationary, relative to the planet. He throws the ball, measures the velocity, measures the force with which he threw that ball.

Then they accelerate, and he repeats the same experiment. He's time dilated due to extreme motion, extreme velocity. He goes at a velocity that time has dilated at the same 50 percent that it is down on the planet. He repeats the experiment.

Does the ball go faster when he's in motion? Does he perceive it as going faster, because he's moving at extreme velocity? There's no gravity affecting it. Would the ball be going faster? If he observes the ball was going faster...That's further than I've thought it through, but I think I've made my point.

I would say that he's not going to measure a different velocity for the ball when he's time dilated. The ball was maintaining the same velocity, yet his perception of time is slowed down. Therefore, he must perceive the ball as going faster, but he wouldn't. I'm going to contend that he wouldn't. I haven't actually looked it up.

My common sense is telling me that that wouldn't happen, and it probably hasn't. It's probably been actually tested or something, somewhere, and doesn't happen. I think I've made my point, though. That's the time dilation flaw.

Either way you do it, whether you say time dilation affects the velocity of the ball, and makes it slow down when it's going like that, that leads to a contradiction with how we observe things when you toss a ball into the air in a gravitational field. That precludes that interpretation.

The other...If we choose to say the ball isn't affected, the velocity of the ball, the passage of the ball isn't affected, if we go with that second interpretation, that leads to another thing that contradicts observations.

Either way, those are the two possible interpretations of time dilation and both of them lead to a result that we...as far as I know we don't observe in reality. That would preclude both interpretations and those are the only two possible interpretations.

Therefore, we must conclude that time dilation is not possible. It's not something that's physically possible. Time dilation does not fit observations.

That's why I'm calling this The Time Dilation flaw. It's Death to Einstein!: The Time Dilation Flaw. I may think about this more and discover I'm wrong or I may further develop it or something. Maybe I'll see where I was going wrong or not.

Actually don't think I'm going wrong here because like I said I was already thinking this through in a different direction, and it kept leading me to these things, a different direction where I obviously knew what I was saying was incorrect and I was trying to BS my way through but it didn't work.

I've given this more than a little thought and I think that this is...That's kind of why I am crystallizing this into a Death to Einstein thing. I may rethink it and realize my error or not, or I may develop, expand on this or something, but that's the basic outline of my Time Dilation Flaw as I see it.

Maybe I need to call it the Time Dilation Impossibility Flaw or The Impossibility of Time Dilation or something like that. For now I'm calling it The Time Dilation Flaw.

Think now I'm going to turn this video off and finish thinking about those girls tossing the ball. Now, I think that's all I wanted to say. Let me just think, was there anything else I wanted to address? I think that's the basic outline.

I think I hit all my points I wanted to hit, but I'll come back if I don't. The video is never really over until it's actually over. I think it's over for now, but who knows, stay tuned maybe it's not, but I'm calling it done for now.

OK, I did realize just one other thing I wanted to add. Going with that second interpretation where you say that time dilation does not affect that ball, but it affects the perception of time of these two girls.

If their perception of time is being altered and yet this ball is maintaining the same velocity it had when it was up here, then their perception of time is changing. They're viewing time as slowing down. If they're doing that they're going to see this ball accelerating as it goes across there.

You could say, "All I'm doing is defining gravity." Here is what I mean, this also does not work. Because, you would think if this ball is accelerating like that you might say, "Oh that's just gravity you are talking about. There's where you are making your mistake. That's gravity, they see the ball as accelerating as it moves down."

What about the person up here?

You're saying that acceleration is gravity. One of the girls up here, let's say she stays up here and she tosses her ball down like this. If time dilation is not affecting that ball as it's going down, she is not experiencing any change in her sense of time.

What does she see about that ball? She doesn't...time dilation does affect it. So, you're saying, "Well, the ball accelerates because they're just perceiving their time-dilated senses as gravity. It's acceleration, that's why they perceive gravity."

Then you turn it around, and instead of tossing the ball back and forth like this, the girl tosses it down this way toward the planet. Her time sense is not altered, her perception of time is not altered because she is not going anywhere, she's not descending into the gravitational field. But she observes the ball going down into the field. Why would she...if the acceleration of the ball is just due to a change in her perception of time, then if she stays up here...

She tosses the ball down, her perception of time is not changing, then why would she see the ball accelerating? Because remember, time dilation is not affecting the speed of that ball. It's her perception of time that's affecting the speed of that ball.

Then, if her perception of time up here is not changing, that ball is going to maintain the same velocity as it goes down towards the planet, from her viewpoint. It's not going to be accelerating due to gravity. Because you just said that gravity is due to her perception of time being altered.

That's another problem with that view. It's not just gravity like that.

That leads to that problem if you want to say, "Oh, that's just gravity or something, she perceives the ball as being accelerating because her time sense has been altered."

For one thing when you're saying that, going this way, gravity is not accelerating the ball in this direction.

If you throw a ball horizontally to a friend there, gravity does not accelerate the ball in the horizontal direction, gravity accelerates the ball in the vertical direction. The ball would just go like that and accelerate down in that direction. I'm talking about an acceleration in the horizontal direction. They would perceive an acceleration in the horizontal direction. All the way around it doesn't work

Gravity just can't be the perception in the change of time. That's just something I thought needed to be added. My kind of like time dilation...surely I'm wrong here somewhere because time dilation is one of those things I don't want to throw out, because I like the idea of time dilation, but you got to go where things lead. I'm starting to think that time dilation is not possible.

It contradicts everyday experience and observation. I'm starting to think it's actually not possible. I've being still been rooting for asymmetric time dilation even as I bash Einstein, but now I'm starting to think time dilation itself is not even possible, whether symmetrical or asymmetrical. Anyway, now I think I'm really done.

Death to Einstein! - The Time Dilation Flaw II

This is kind of a continuation of my last video, "The Time Dilation Flaw," where I was talking about the girls tossing the beach ball and stuff. I don't want to repeat what I said in the last video. If you don't know what I'm talking about, go watch the other video first.

But you could say, when I was talking about the firing of the synapses, where it's either an electrical firing or chemicals diffusing across a synaptic gap, as far as what drives thoughts and everything. I read a passage from _Einstein For Dummies_ or some other book, where it was saying how all forms of clocks slow down, everything slows down, including brain activity. I was talking about what that means. Does that mean that the chemicals diffusing across a synaptic gap actually slow down? And I was equating it to the girls tossing the beach ball. As far as chemicals diffusing across a synaptic gap, isn't that the same thing as the girls tossing the ball? Why wouldn't the ball slow down during time dilation?

Anyway. I asked how the chemicals diffusing across the synaptic gap can slow down, whereas the ball wouldn't slow down. But in the other video, I didn't address the question, what if the chemicals don't slow down? What if the brain activity actually remains the same whether you're time-dilated or not? You know, the chemicals diffuse across that synaptic gap the same as they would if you weren't time-dilated. The neurons fire, the electrical activity of the brain is the same, that doesn't slow down. So if the brain activity remains the same whether you're time-dilated or not, whether the girls up here at the edge of the gravitational field, their brain activity, the firing of their neurons, the diffusion of their chemicals across their synaptic gaps, happens at the same rate, according to them — you know, they observe the same sort of activity up here, and they look at the girls down here, and say, "Well, there's no alteration in their brains. Their chemicals are diffusing across their synaptic gaps, and their neurons are firing just the same as they would if they weren't time-dilated, because when we're looking down at them, we don't notice any sort of change. And yet, we're claiming that their brain activity slows."

But if you're claiming that their brain activity slows, and yet you're going to say that there's no actual slowing down of the diffusion rate across the synaptic gap, and the firing of the neurons happens the same, what are you left with? In what way is their brain activity "slowed down" relative to the girls at the weakest edge of the gravitational field? If you're going to say that the chemicals going across the synaptic gap do not slow down during time dilation, if it happens exactly at the same rate that it would up here with the girls who aren't time-dilated, what are you left with to say that their brain activity has "slowed down"?

What you're left with is... In some videos where the brain is discussed... I've seen videos where they're simulating a thought. They show a brain, and then they show a bunch of little — okay, here's firing of a neuron, here's one here, here's one here. Just a pattern of flashes, representing a firing of neurons in really quick succession. Boom boom boom boom boom. The neurons are firing in a specific pattern. Boom boom boom boom. And that's supposed to represent a person thinking. That's brain activity.

When you say brain activity "slows down," going to that picture of the neurons in the brain firing, boom boom boom boom boom, all you're left with is the timing between those explosions. If you're going to say the chemicals don't diffuse across that gap any slower, and the electrical activity is not affected, i.e. that "boom" happens at the same speed as it would whether you're time-dilated or not, the only thing you're left with to explain exactly how brain activity "slows down," is this: the person that's not time-dilated experiences the firing of the neurons as boom-boom-boom-boom-boom, and when they observe the person who supposedly is time-dilated, the non-time-dilated person will see boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom.

In other words, they will see the booms themselves happening at the exact same speed whether the boom is time-dilated or non-time-dilated. But the brain activity for the non-time-dilated person will be boom-boom-boom-boom-boom, meaning that the booms happen in rapid succession. Whereas if you're observing a person as time-dilated, you would see boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom. The booms are going to happen with a greater interval between them.

The booms, the neurons firing, the small explosions, whatever, will have the same duration in all cases. But they'll have a greater interval between them when a non-time-dilated observer observes a time-dilated brain.

So you're going to have boom-boom-boom-boom-boom as brain activity, as opposed to boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom.

For those interested, in the case of this thought experiment, the thought represented as boom-boom-boom-boom-boom translates as, "Gee, look at our big, bouncing boobs, sailor boy."

But I still haven't gotten to my actual point.

If you have the non-time-dilated person, who is experiencing the brain activity as boom-boom-boom-boom-boom, and they're looking at the time-dilated person, the non-time-dilated person looking at the time-dilated person is going to say, "Well, the time-dilated person's brain is going boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom. From my non-time-dilated view, the brain activity of that time-dilated person is boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom. Whereas my non-time-dilated brain activity is boom-boom-boom-boom-boom. So if this person that is time-dilated relative to me is thinking the exact same thought..." — And yes, we're talking about some kind of person that is thinking the exact same thoughts that I'm thinking.

My whole point is, if you're going to say that time dilation does not mean that — and I'm jumping around here again — a time-dilated boom is boooooooooooooom, that it is still the same boom, with the same duration that the non-time-dilated observer experiences... As far as the brain activity goes, the firing of the neurons and the diffusion of chemicals across the synaptic gap — we're just considering the firing of the neurons right now — when you're saying that brain activity is time dilated, there are two possibilities for what you mean.

You can say that the boom itself is time-dilated. And this is electrical activity. It's an electrical boom. Remember, this is like an electrical pulse. You can say that that electrical pulse, that boom, is long, drawn-out "booooooooooooom" when it's time-dilated, compared to a quick "boom" when it is non-time-dilated. That's the first possibility.

For time dilation dilation, you can say that the actual boom itself is time-dilated, leading to booooooooooooom-boooooooooooom-boooooooooooom-boooooooooooom-booooooooooooom, where there is no interval between the booms.

Or you can say that the boom is not time dilated, in which case the brain activity is going to be boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom. Meaning that there is a time interval between one boom and the next.

So you have either boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom, or boooooooooooom-boooooooooooom-boooooooooooom-booooooooooooom-booooooooooooom.

In the previous video, I explored the possibility of, "Okay, during time dilation, brain activity slows down. That can only mean booooooooooooom-booooooooooooom-booooooooooooom-booooooooooooom-booooooooooooom, and the chemicals diffusing across the synaptic gap, the actual chemicals, was like tossing a ball. And the ball would slow down. The chemical would slow down in proceeding from one end of the synaptic gap to the other. It would actually travel at a slower rate. That was what I considered in the previous video. Which itself led to problems, as I demonstrated in the previous video.

But in the previous video, just talking about that ball, it was inherent that, or kind of implied that, it would be a boooooooooooooom sort of a thing, where the electrical activity would actually proceed at a slower rate. The electrical pulse would actually be time-dilated.

But as I am fumblingly trying to say here — spit it out, man! — if we're going to say that that pulse itself is not time-dilated, that it is just "boom," then when you say the brain activity is slowed, you're left with boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom in the time-dilated case, whereas non-time-dilated would be boom-boom-boom-boom-boom, with no interval.

So that interval between the booms is what we want to look at. It's what I'm talking about now.

What is that interval? The non-time-dilated person is observing the time-dilated person, and he says that the electrical pulse happens at the exact same rate that it happens in his own frame, meaning that a boom here is the same boom there, and yet he says, "Well, this person's brain activity is slowed down. It is time dilated." That can only mean the person has to say that boom-boom-boom-boom-boom becomes boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom when time-dilated. So the non-time-dilated person is saying that there is an interval between the firing of the time-dilated neuron and the firing of the subsequent neuron. He says, "There is an interval between the firing of this person's neurons that is not present in the firing of my neurons." And yet the two are thinking the same identical thought.

So what happens to the brain during that interval? How can thought possibly be said to be continuous in the time-dilated brain? Because if the firing of this neuron, boom, causes the firing of THIS neuron, boom, and yet you have an interval between the booms, how can the firing of this neuron cause the firing of THIS neuron?

You would have to come up with sort of a new physics to explain it. Because it would be like saying... Let's say we have a car parked outside my house. And another car traveling past my house at, say, one hundred miles an hour, slams into my parked car. In a normal situation, that car slamming into my parked car at one hundred miles an hour, boom, would cause my car to go flying off. Obviously. That's basic physics. Action and reaction.

You know, the car comes and hits mine, fwoom! This car's going to keep going a bit, but it's going to affect my car. The force from this car is going to make my car go rolling or flipping end over end or something. The impact is going to push my parked car. It's going to tumble it or something.

How is that related to what I'm saying about the brain activity? What I'm saying is, if you're going to say that there's an interval between this boom and this boom, the firing of this neuron and the firing of that neuron, and yet the firing of this neuron causes the firing of that neuron, you're basically doing the same as saying that my parked car, when it is hit by this car traveling at a hundred miles an hour, zoom, boom! That car hits my car...and nothing happens for, say, ten seconds. Say that car comes flying and hits my parked car, a hundred miles an hour, boom! And then, say, ten seconds later, suddenly my car goes flying off, or doing what it would do, what it should do in the ideal case as dictated by the various force vectors.

In normal, everyday life, there would be no interval between my car reacting to the impact of this car traveling at a hundred miles an hour. In reality, there is no interval. The reaction is virtually instantaneous. Well, not instantaneously, obviously. Obviously it has to happen in a succeeding instant of time, but basically the reaction follows in one fluid motion right after the action. Fwoom, boom! It affects my car instantaneously, for all intents and purposes it is an instantaneous interaction; there is no flying in here and then, and then there's an observable pause. fwoom, boom, pause, and then my car goes flying off. It's an instantaneous thing.

In what sort of situation would that car come flying in, impact my car, and then nothing happens for, say, five seconds. And then five seconds later, my car reacts exactly as it should. You would have to come up with a new physics to explain that pause. Because my parked car receives a force from this other traveling car, causing my car to go flying off. In what sort of a screwed up universe... Not screwed up, but what sort of physics would you use to explain my car receives that force, and then does not react instantaneously as it should? Boom...and then five seconds later, off my car goes in reaction.

You need to explain why that reaction is not instantaneous, as it should be in a normal universe. Why is my car not reacting to that force at the moment of impact? Or just instantaneously after that moment of impact, a nanosecond later or whatever.

You need to explain why the firing of this neuron... It expends its energy, and if the firing of this other neuron depends upon the energy released by the first neuron... This neuron releases its energy, and then there's an interval, and then this other neuron reacts to that release of energy. You need to explain why there would be an interval here. HOW there could be an interval here. Because it should be a continuous interaction.

A force is released here, causing a reaction there. Just like my example of the car being impacted. This firing of this neuron, boom, is basically like a car traveling at a hundred miles an hour hitting my parked car. The reaction should be instantaneous. Boom-boom-boom-boom-boom. It seems against the known laws of physics to be boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom-pause-boom.

This non-time-dilated person needs to come up with some new physics to explain why there is an interval, a pause, between the two booms. You have to explain how that interval is bridged. If the force is expended, where is it held in that interval, so this other neuron can react several seconds later, since there is no significant distance between the two to cause that much of a delay between action and reaction. Do you have some sort of an accumulator, or capacitor storing that release of energy? Who or what is holding on to that released energy during that interval? What is conserving that energy so it can be used in the firing of the next neuron in the sequence of the thought?

Hopefully this is making sense. I'm not saying it as best as I should, but hopefully part of my meaning is getting through.

My whole point is, it's problematic. It brings up problems, whether you say that the boom is time-dilated, "booooooooom-boooooooom," or it's "boom-pause-boom." It's problematic whether you say the boom is time-dilated, or whether you say the chemical diffusing across that gap travels at a slower rate across that gap. It's problematic whichever way you choose to look at the brain activity in light of time dilation, when the brain activity is allegedly "slowed down."

There are two ways you can view it, and I've been discussing the second way. I didn't go into this second way in the previous video, but those are your only two options, and either option is problematic for time dilation. If you choose the second way I'm talking about, you will need to come up with some physical explanation for that interval. What happens to the brain itself? The brain is just sitting there or something, according to the non-time-dilated observer, who sees that the time-dilated brain is just sitting there during the interval between the firing of the neurons. Is there absolutely no activity in that brain between booms, no cellular activity, nothing? It's just sort of frozen between those booms?

The first option outlined in the previous video leads to problems, and the second option outlined in this one leads to problems. So I think time dilation is just physically impossible.

One more thing. For the non-time-dilated observer that is observing the time-dilated observer, the non-time-dilated observer is going to say that the time-dilated observer's thoughts are discontinuous. If it's just boom-pause-boom, for the non-time-dilated observer, the other observer's thoughts are basically discontinuous.

For simplicity, just say that this first neuron firing represents "I." Thoughts are fluid, is my point. Thoughts are fluid and continuous. As far as we know, there are not instants of time where you are not thinking. I'm not even talking about a subconscious sort of thing, where conscious thought stops for an instant, and meanwhile, your subconscious is continuing to go on. I'm talking about all thought ceases. All forms of consciousness, all thought, all forms of brain activity in the time-dilated observer ceases for the interval between the booms, according to the non-time-dilated observer.

The non-time-dilated observer is going to claim that the time-dilated observer's thoughts are discontinuous, not fluid.

Thinking a thought takes time, and it is a fluid thing. It's like an evolving thing. When you're thinking a thought, you can't really point to an instant in that progression of thought where there is no thought occurring. Thought is continuous; it's not discontinuous. There are no gaps, like, you think a little bit here, and then there's a gap, an interval where your brain is doing absolutely nothing, no thinking or anything, no sort of activity at all, and then it picks up again, your thought continues, and it's a continuation of the preceding portion of thought. No. It's fluid. It's continuous. It can't be discontinuous.

But the non-time-dilated observer MUST claim that the time-dilated observer's thoughts are discontinuous, because of the whole boom-pause-boom thing.

And the interval between the booms, between the firing of the neurons, will increase, according to the degree to which the non-time-dilated observer says that the other observer is time-dilated.

Just say that boom, the firing of this neuron represents "I." And the next boom represents "am." And they're both part of a larger thought sequence, like "I am going to the store," or something. And there are intervals which divide the thought into discontinuous segments. So it becomes "I-pause-am-pause-going-pause-to-pause-the-pause-store," whereas the non-time-dilated observer thinks, "I am going to the store." the non-time-dilated observer is one continuous thought. Each succeeding sort of section of the thought stream grows from the preceding in a continuous, fluid totality of thought.

I mean, in order for this later part of the thought stream to come into being, it depends upon being connected to this previous section of the stream. If this is one section of thought and this is another one, there can't be a discontinuity, an interval, here, because this section depends upon the energy released by the neurons that "thought" the preceding section. It's an evolving thing that can't have a break in the energy chain. I mean, if there is an interval, how can the force released by a neuron carry over to trigger the succeeding section of thought? Why wouldn't the energy dissipate in the interval?

But this is exactly what the non-time-dilated observer must claim is occurring in the time-dilated observer's brain.

And suddenly I recall that I started off these discussions using jiggling girls tossing a beach ball, and it seems that somewhere along the way I switched to simply calling them "observers" and "people." So let's go back to the girls. The girls are better.

Just in case I didn't make myself clear: it's a fluid thought. If this part of the thought stream depends upon, or grows out of the preceding section, it sort of requires a transfer from that preceding section. If one section gets its sort of thought energy from another section, if there is a discontinuity, how can that thought energy be transferred?

Back to the example of the car smashing into the parked car, and then nothing happens for, say, ten seconds, and then the parked car goes flying off, you would think that, boom! The energy from the impact has been expended, because there's a discontinuity there. There's an impact, and then the parked car doesn't react, why should it EVER react? If it doesn't react instantaneously, why should it ever react?

Energy does not pause. It goes boom, and then if nothing happens to the parked car for ten seconds, nothing SHOULD happen, because the energy has already been expended, apparently without having been transferred. But if you're going to say it is boom-pause-boom, you need to figure out what happened to the energy in the interval. How is it conserved over those ten seconds?

And it's the same way with a thought. If this neuron firing is part of a thought, and this other neuron firing is part of a thought, and it's a continual stream, where the whole thought depends upon the instantaneous reactions of its components, then boom-pause-boom doesn't work because there is no connection between the booms.

Time dilation is problematic and doesn't work.

The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw

I did a Google here on "the observable universe." The first result is from Wikipedia: "The observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can in principle be observed from Earth at the present time."

How big is the observable universe? 46.5 billion light years. How far is the edge? Something wrong with these figures here.

Anyway, there's the observable universe. How big is the universe? The diameter of the observable universe is a sphere around 92 billion light years. Has a radius of 46 billion light years.

The observable universe is basically everything we can see. Let me pull up Wikipedia here just to have something to read.

"The observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can in principle be observed from Earth at the present time because light and other signals from these objects have had time to reach the Earth since the beginning of expansion."

So look, this diagram here is a bunch of stars enclosed in a sphere.

So there's the observable universe. It's the universe that we can observe. Going on down the Google results, just looking at the summaries. Here's one on the website fromquarkstoquasars.com: "The observable universe only contains the light that has had time to reach us. A lot more universe exists beyond what we are able to observe." Let me repeat that. "A lot more universe exists beyond what we are able to observe."

Do you realize what a bullshit statement that is? Excuse my French. That is a completely unscientific statement. "A lot more universe exists beyond what we are able to observe." How can you possibly know that?

If you can only observe what is contained within the observable universe, how can you possibly know that there is anything beyond the observable universe? Science is about observation. How can you possibly observe something outside the observable universe? If it is outside the observable universe, it is de facto in the unobservable universe, is it not? It's unobservable. If you cannot observe it...

Look at Wikipedia: "The observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can in principle be observed from Earth at the present time." The observable universe is everything in the universe that can be observed. So how can you possibly make the statement that "A lot more universe exists beyond what we are able to observe" and consider yourself to be making a scientific statement? That is complete bullshit. You cannot possibly observe anything outside the observable universe. That should be completely obvious. So to say that there is anything beyond the observable universe... You cannot possibly know that.

And yes, the size of the observable universe is obviously changing day by day, because allegedly the universe is expanding. But you can't observe anything beyond that. So to say "a lot more exists" — how do you know "a lot" more exists? Maybe there's only a tiny bit more that exists. It gets to the question, is the universe infinite? Is it closed? What is the universe expanding into? Is it expanding into nothing?

It's all pure speculation. "A lot more universe exists beyond what we are able to observe." You can't possibly know that.

Here's this, from PBS.org. "However, our understanding of the actual universe is bounded by the edge of the observable universe." Here they're distinguishing between the "actual" universe and the observable universe. Again, PBS is assuming that there is more to the universe. There's the observable universe, and then there's the entire universe. They're claiming that the observable universe is not the entirety of the universe that exists. There is more to the universe beyond the observable universe. But you cannot possibly know that. It's unobservable, hence it is a pseudoscientific concept and pure speculation to say that anything lies beyond the observable universe. Science only deals with what is observable.

And note that it isn't called the "indirectly observable universe." There is no distinction made between directly observable and indirectly observable. It's the observable universe, period. It doesn't imply that there are other ways you can infer the existence of something beyond the edge of the observable universe. Because you can't. You can't infer the existence of anything beyond the edge of the observable universe. How could you possibly infer such a thing? Because that would mean it's observable. You would see the behavior of something at the edge of the observable universe and infer that there's something beyond the edge of the observable universe that is affecting something within the observable universe. In which case, the thing beyond the edge is observable by its effects on the something within the observable universe. But in such a case, how would you know what is affecting the object being observed? Is it a leprechaun? A fairy? An asteroid? Homer Simpson? A black hole? What? What is it? There's nothing but pure speculation as to its identity. And how do you even know that the unobservable entity actually exists? Because the observable entity is behaving in a way that violates your current theories, therefore something in the unobservable universe must be affecting it? Something inherently beyond the realm of science? Wouldn't a more reasonable explanation be that your theories as to how the observable object should behave are flawed?

You can't possibly observe anything outside the observable universe. That's completely stupid. So the whole idea that "a lot more universe exists beyond what we are able to observe" is about as whacked out as you can get. If you can't observe the unobservable universe, how do you even know that it exists to be there but unobservable?

Again from PBS.org, an article by Paul Halpern. Who is Paul Halpern? Professor of Physics at the University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. Recipient of a Guggenheim fellowship, Fullbright scholarship. So he's a credible source. He says, "Although you might speculate about what lies beyond the edge, you'd lack tangible evidence to support your hypothesis."

Yes. Exactly.

He says that, and yet he still makes the distinction that there's the actual universe and there's the observable universe. He still makes the allegation that there is something beyond the edge of the observable universe. He basically says that although we lack tangible evidence to support our speculation as to what lies beyond the edge of the observable universe, there is indeed a "rest of the universe" out there beyond the edge of the observable universe.

But you cannot even say that with even the slightest degree of scientific credibility. You can't credibly say, "We don't know what's in the rest of the universe because we can't observe it, but there is more to the universe than what we can observe." It's a completely ridiculous assertion. You cannot even say that there is actually more of the universe beyond the edge of the observable universe, never mind what is actually contained within the rest of the universe beyond the edge of the observable universe. You cannot say that there is anything beyond the edge to even speculate about. It's pure speculation that there is an "actual" universe, as if the observable universe is embedded within a larger universe. That's pure speculation.

Here's that diagram again. It's 93 billion light years. Here's the edge of the observable universe. Here we are at the center. We are at the center of the observable universe, which is what I'm going to get to in a moment. Yes, this is going to be another discussion about Geocentrism.

Further down: "Naturally not everything within the observable universe has been identified. It represents the spherical realm that contains all things that could potentially be known through their light signals."

"Beyond the observable universe lie unknown unknowns."

"Beyond the observable universe." That in itself is an unknown. You don't even know that there is anything beyond the observable universe. You can't observe anything beyond it. He's doubly digging himself in here. "Beyond the observable universe." First, he's assuming that there is indeed a beyond. That's assumption one, that there is a "beyond the observable universe." And then he's adds on another layer of speculation and assumption: "Beyond the observable universe lie unknown unknowns, the subject of speculation rather than direct observation."

"Beyond the observable universe." The "beyond" portion of that sentence is itself a subject of speculation rather than direct observation.

The author is doubly suspect here. He's going doubly into the realm of pseudoscience.

Who else is saying this? We've got a few reliable sources here [naming websites] Physics of the Universe, Science Blogs, Physics Forum. The Observable Universe vs. the Entire Universe. From study.com/academy/lesson/ **the-observable** - **universe** -vs-the-entire- **universe**.html: "This lesson will tie in the concepts of our observable universe to explain why we cannot see the entire universe."

So again, there's a distinction everywhere you look between the observable universe and the universe as a whole, as if the observable universe is merely embedded within a larger, unobservable universe. My contention is — and there shouldn't be any debate about what I'm saying — that you cannot possibly know that there is an unobservable universe. You can't make the distinction, "Okay, we've got the observable universe embedded within a larger unobservable universe" because you cannot possibly know that. It's pure speculation to say there is a larger, unobservable universe. That's pure speculation. And yet all these people are drawing a distinction between the observable universe and the actual universe.

"A lot more universe exists beyond what we are able to see." We can label that the unobservable universe. "However, our understanding of the actual universe..." Change that to read, "However, our understanding of the unobservable universe..." Just rephrase that and see how ridiculous it sounds. "Our understanding of the unobservable universe is bounded by the edge of the observable universe."

[laughing]

Let me go back to that PBS thing. Let me go back to the top, find the full statement there.

"However, our understanding of the unobservable universe is bounded by the edge of the observable universe. We cannot know for sure what lies beyond the observable..." [laughing]

You see how ridiculous it sounds. You can call the "actual" universe the "unobservable" universe. You've got the observable universe embedded within a larger, unobservable universe. So this "actual" universe should be called the "unobservable" universe. Just swap all these instances of "the actual universe" with "the unobservable universe" and see how ridiculous it becomes. That's the perfect summation of what I want to say.

"Our understanding of the unobservable universe is bounded by the edge of the observable universe." That's completely stupid. It's true, but it's completely stupid. No duh the unobservable universe is bounded by the edge of the observable universe. It's because we can't see beyond the edge of the observable universe. So we don't even know that there is an unobservable universe.

Now I'm back to the Wikipedia entry here, on The Observable Universe. I just wanted to reiterate this again. They've got the Universe versus the observable universe. You know, the Universe, with a capital U, versus the observable universe.

"Some parts of the Universe are too far away for the light emitted since the Big Bang to have had enough time to reach Earth, so these portions of the Universe lie outside the observable universe." Once again: "...these portions of the Universe lie outside the observable universe."

That's a completely unscientific statement. If you cannot observe it, you cannot be certain it even exists! Is it just me? This is completely unscientific! And yet it's presented as science. If it's outside the realm in which you can observe it... Science is based upon observations of Nature. If something is outside the observable universe, you cannot observe it. So you don't even know if it exists! You don't even know if there are "some parts of the universe [that] are too far away for the light emitted since the Big Bang to have had enough time to reach Earth." You don't know that! They're unobservable! These parts of the universe are unobservable. They are beyond the reach of science. You cannot observably confirm that these parts of the universe exist. So why, then, are these people saying that these parts of the universe exist?

They're basically saying, "They exist, we just can't see them. We can't confirm their existence, but they exist. Trust us, they exist."

No, I'm not going to trust you. You're making an unscientific statement there. This is pseudoscience because you're presenting this as science, yet it cannot be tested by the scientific method because it's outside the observable universe. This should be completely obvious. "Some parts of the universe are too far away for the light emitted..." You cannot possibly know that. It's unobservable. It's unscientific. That is your belief. It is pure speculation. Pure, utter speculation with absolutely no shred of evidence for it.

If you could prove this, then it would be within the observable universe. If you had anything other than just your belief that these distant places exist, then you should have some kind of scientific measurement that they exist. And hence, you would be able to observe them. If science were able to observe these alleged parts of the universe that are too far away for light to have reached us... If science could observe them, they would be within the observable universe, would they not? You can't say that there's the observable universe, and then there's the capital-U Universe. That capital-U Universe is complete speculation. There's absolutely not a shred of empirical evidence for its existence.

Wikipedia continues: "Both popular and professional research articles in cosmology often use the term 'universe' to mean 'observable universe.' This can be justified on the grounds that we can never know anything by direct experimentation about any part of the universe that is causally disconnected from us. Although many credible theories require a total universe much larger than the observable universe." And that's the whole point I'm going to be getting at here. "Many credible theories" — i.e. relativity — "require a total universe much larger than the observable universe."

I ask you, how can it be a credible theory if it requires something that is unobservable? This is insanity! This is completely unscientific! "Although many credible theories..." And I'm reading that to mean relativity and other theories, but many relativity, because I'm against relativity, and that's what I'm ranting against here. "Many credible theories require a total universe much larger than the observable universe." It says "citation needed," but I don't need a citation, because I know that's an absolutely true statement. "Although many credible theories require a total universe much larger than the observable universe."

Many credible theories. They are credible theories. But they require something that is not scientifically verifiable. So how can it be a credible theory if it requires something that is completely unobservable and beyond the realm of empirical science? Science cannot test for the existence of this larger universe beyond the observable universe. So how can it be a credible theory if it requires the existence of something that cannot be empirically verified? That is insanity. That is completely against science. That is pseudoscience. That is complete ridiculousness. It just irritates me to read this, because this is completely unscientific, and yet it's touted as a "credible theory." There's nothing credible about it!

[Scrolling on down web page] Here's the End of Greatness. I did another video on this. Oh, that reminds me. Should I bring that in right now, or later?

Back to that many credible theories thing. How do I know they're talking about relativity there? How do I know that relativity is included in that "many credible theories" category they're discussing? I'm going to get to that in a minute, because it's my assertion that relativity requires a "total Universe much larger than the observable universe." And that's basically the subject of this video, which I haven't actually gotten to yet.

So let me go back to Google here.

Let's type in "center of the observable universe."

Obviously it's a sphere around us. If you picture...maybe I don't need to say that. But let's look at these images that are available here. The observable universe. It's pretty clear that we are at...I'll just go ahead and type it in. Let's type in "center of the observable universe." Earth's location in the universe. "Because the observable universe is defined as that region of the universe to terrestrial observers, Earth is by definition the center of the observable universe."

Entries: "Where is the center of the universe?" "You are at the center of your observable space." This is Universetoday.com. "You are at the center of your observable space. Imagine the..." I'm going to click on that in a moment.

www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy.../ **center** -of-the- **universe** /: "...but since space itself expanded, there is no center of the universe...The observable universe is a somewhat different story." Meaning that although there is no center of the "entire" universe, there is a center of the observable universe, and that center is the Earth.

Where's that thing I was going to click on? Earth is at the center of the observable universe, basically. There's no denying this. It's not just me saying this.

UniverseToday.com, _Where is the Center of the Universe?_ : "In a previous episode, we hinted that every spot is at the center of the universe. But why? It turns out every way you look at it, you're standing dead center at the middle of everything, and so is everyone else."

I can already tell you what they're going to say, but I'll just go through here and...

I'm just trying to look at this as if I'd never encountered this before, but I know what they're going to say.

"The region of space that we can see is the observable universe." The region of space that we can see. In other words, the region of space that we can see, meaning that's all we can empirically test. That's all we can be certain exists, is the observable universe, because it's all we can see, and we don't have any other way of...anyway.

"My observable universe is a sphere around me relative to my position. So if I am ten meters away from you, I can see a little..."

"Where is the actual center of the universe?" Again, they're making the distinction between "observable universe" and "actual Universe," you know, with a capital U. The Universe, regardless of who's observing it.

"Our universe might be finite or it might be infinite. Astronomers don't actually know for sure." They don't actually know for sure because the observable universe grows larger every day, allegedly, so you know, we can't be certain that maybe we're getting close to the edge, or maybe we're not getting close to the edge. The observable universe might continue expanding, or tomorrow we might suddenly see a brick wall in the telescopes when we're looking in a certain direction. There's the end of the universe, like, it's a brick wall. There are no stars beyond that point, just a brick wall. The observable universe is a sphere, and we're at the center of it, and the sphere is enclosed by a brick wall, and the light from the brick wall just hasn't reached us yet, but it could at any point. It may reach us tomorrow. So they can't know for sure if the observable universe is going to keep growing or not. It may stop growing tomorrow. Suddenly tomorrow we may see no more stars in any direction we look. We may reach a point where there are no more stars beyond that point in any direction we look.

So if the universe is infinite, then there's an infinite amount of space in that...you know.

And this is what I'm wanting to get at here. "Maybe it's light year or a trillion. Whatever size, it's not infinite. Now you would think there's a center, right? Well, astronomers think that the topology of a finite universe indicates that if you travel in any one direction long enough..." Oh, geez.

So they're trying to wiggle their way out. They're trying to come up with this other pure speculation to get...You know. They're saying we're at the center of the observable...They're trying to get out of saying that we are at the center of the universe.

I don't want to get into the comments. They've got a whole lot more that I want to do, but... The whole thing, is it finite or is it infinite? You can't know, because you can't observe...We can actually see the edge of the observable universe. Obviously. They admit it here. We can only see so far. We can only see a certain distance. So we can only see everything contained within that distance. Regardless of whether the edge keeps moving back, keeps expanding, moving further and further from us, we can't see beyond the edge. There is a limit to how far we can see, and we don't know what's beyond that. We don't know if in one direction we're about to hit a brick wall and suddenly we're not going to be able to see anything beyond that, but it's going to keep going in another direction. We have no idea.

We can't see beyond the edge of the observable universe, so we have no idea what lies beyond it. But they're trying to wiggle out of...where is the center of the universe? We are at the center of the universe right now. We are at the center of the observable universe. Obviously. If we're at the center of the observable universe, which we most definitely are, to say that we're not actually at THE center...I'm going to save that thought, because I have a Flash animation I want to use on that part. So maybe I'm at the part where I want to switch over to my Flash animation. Not an animation, I guess, but just some diagrams. I'm going to expand on what I just said, I just want to do it...I don't want to do this all by looking at Internet sites. Have I said everything I wanted to say?

The main things to take away from this part that I'm doing with the browsers: you're at the center of your observable universe. That's from UniverseToday.com. Should be a fairly reputable place. You're at the center of your observable space. You're at the center of your observable universe.

"We are at the center of the radius because we are the observer." That's PBS.org.

SkyAndTelescope.com: "But since space itself expanded, there is no center of the universe. The observable universe is a somewhat different story." The observable universe is a somewhat different story because Earth is at the center of the observable universe.

The takeaway from this is that we are at the center of the observable universe. Earth is at the center of the observable universe. "The observable universe consists of the galaxies and other matter that can in principle be observed from Earth at the present time."

See, Earth is at the center here [looking at Wikipedia diagram]. "The Virgo Supercluster, home of the Milky Way, is marked at the center but it's too small to be seen." So this is the observable universe here. It's a sphere; we are at the center of it. We are here at the center of this.

You can't deny that reputable mainstream scientists concede that the Earth is at the center of the observable universe. That cannot be denied. I defy anyone to deny that mainstream scientists claim that Earth is at the center of the observable universe. The difference is, mainstream scientists make a distinction between the observable universe and the actual Universe. The observable universe to mainstream scientists is merely embedded within a larger Universe, capital-U Universe. The observable universe is embedded within a larger, unobservable universe, but Earth is at the center of the observable universe. That cannot be denied. You are basically contradicting modern scientists if you claim that we are not at the center of the observable universe.

So I think I've pretty well established that, and that was my whole point. So I'm going to move on to Flash here now.

OK. So. We're at the center of the observable universe. That is inarguable. Hopefully you can concede that it is inarguable that Earth is at the center of the observable universe, and that the only question is whether there is a larger universe beyond the observable, and whether we're at the center of that larger universe as well. Now. Just so you have something to look at — this represents the observable universe here. It's a sphere. Earth is here at the center of it. Just picture this as all the stars and everything that we can see. They're here, within this sphere. It's a sphere centered on Earth. This is filled with stars and galaxies, everything that we can observe within the observable universe. The size doesn't matter, the size isn't important for what I'm saying here. This is the observable universe. Contains all the stars and all that we can see.

And forget about the structures of the universe, like large scale structure and everything. We are at the center of the observable universe regardless of whether this is homogenous or not; regardless of whether or not there are sort of bullseyes painted around the Earth, like galactic clusters or something circling the Earth like a bullseye. Regardless of whether superstructures exist that point to Earth being at the center. Even if there were no stars within this sphere. Just say there was nothing but a ring of stars around the edge of the universe here emitting their light, and there was nothing in between. No space or anything, no structures or anything that could be used to indicate that Earth is at the center of the universe. In such a case, Earth would still be at the center of the observable universe, because the light from the edge is coming inward and everything.

The point is, forget about large scale structure being centered on Earth or anything like that. That's not even important or relevant to this discussion, if that makes any sense. So forget about the structure of the universe, galactic structures, superclusters, filaments, mega-walls, and all that sort of stuff. Even a lot of that says that we're at the center of the universe up until the point of the so-called "End of Greatness," at I think it was 600 million light years from Earth. 300 million or something like that. I forget, I did another video on it. Earth actually looks like it's at the center of a bunch of structures up until The End of Greatness.

But regardless of that, pretending that sort of indication that Earth is at the center of something, forget that. We are at the center of the observable universe. The scientifically, empirically verifiable, empirically tested center of the universe. We are at the center of it. This is the realm of science, the observable universe. We can do science in here. We can make testable hypotheses in here; we can see everything within here. This is testable. This is scientific. This the realm of empiricism. This is the realm of science, everything within this sphere encompassing the observable universe. Not only is this the observable universe, this is the realm in which science can operate. This is the only realm in which the scientific method is useable.

We are at the center of the observable universe. Mainstream scientists, do not and cannot deny that. But they can't accept it because their theories — relativity, Big Bang, everything — depend upon the Cosmological Principle. Everything depends upon Earth not being at the center of the universe. Because if the observable universe is all there is, then Earth is actually at the center of the universe. Absolutely, definitely, no bones about it, Earth is at the center of the entire universe if this observable universe is all there is. If this observable universe is all there is to existence, this is all there is to the universe, then Earth is literally, absolutely at the center of the universe. This cannot be denied. But for for anti-religious, anti-God, and all sorts of considerations, the majority of scientists cannot allow us to be at the center of the universe.

So the way scientists get around this is to say that this observable universe is embedded within a larger, unobservable universe. That's how they get Earth out of being at the center universe. I'm going to get to why Relativity requires us not to be at the center of the entire Universe in a minute. But to reiterate: mainstream scientists want to take this observable universe and say, "Boom! Plop it over here." Remember, this is the observable universe, and this is the Universe as a whole. This would be the universe as a whole. This would be the Universe with a capital U. Scientists want to take the observable universe and plop it into the actual Universe.

If you do that, this green part is the observable universe. That's acknowledged. I showed you actual evidence and admissions from scientists that we cannot see anything beyond the edge of the observable universe. Anything beyond is outside the realm of science. Therefore, how can you possibly know this red zone exists? It's unverifiable. This green section is the realm of science. This red section is beyond science. This is outside the realm of science. This is outside the realm of the scientific method. We cannot test for the existence of this.

This green thing is expanding every day and every minute, according to scientists. The universe is expanding. So every day this green circle grows larger, and this red part grows smaller. Just assuming this red part actually exists, this unobservable universe, we don't even know how large it is. It could be infinite; it could only be this much bigger. Who knows? We don't even know what the size of this unobservable part would be, because it's unobservable. We can't know anything about it. It's pure speculation. You have absolutely no certainty that it even exists, let alone how big it is, whether it's infinite or finite. If it's finite, eventually this green part, you would think, is going to expand to the edges of this unobservable universe.

So why does Relativity need us not to be at the center of the entire Universe? If this observable universe is all there is, and we are at the center of it, as is explicitly admitted by mainstream, modern scientists — if we are at the center of this observable universe, then we are not moving. The Earth is not moving. If the observable universe is all there is, all there is to existence, all there is to the universe, and Earth is at the center of it, then Earth is not moving. Earth cannot be moving if it's at the center of its universe.

You could say, "No, you're wrong, Scott. Even if the observable universe is all that there is, Earth doesn't have to be stationary at the center of the observable universe. See, this little dot is the center. Earth could be moving this direction, away from that center."

Well, then, if Earth is moving in this direction as you say, the observable universe is moving along with it. Because Earth is at the center of the observable universe, right? So this green sphere is going to continue to remain centered on Earth, even as Earth continues to move. So in what sense could Earth possibly be said to be moving if the entire observable universe must move along with it? Therefore, if the entire observable universe moves along with the Earth, then how is the observable universe moving? Because if this is all there, where is it moving? As far as science can be concerned, there is no detectable space in which the observable universe can be moving. If the observable universe is all that there is, how can the observable universe possibly move? There is nothing in which to move. This observable universe is the entire universe. The entire universe can't move. That implies that there's a larger universe in which to move. So if the observable universe is all there is, then Earth absolutely is motionless at the center of the observable universe. Earth has to be by definition motionless at the center of the observable universe. If we say that the observable universe is all that there is, and we also say that Earth is moving through it, then the observable universe would remain centered on the Earth no matter where the Earth goes. So the Earth can't in any sense be said to be moving, if there's nothing beyond the observable universe. You need room to move, and there is no room to move beyond the observable universe.

That's bad for Relativity because if the Earth is motionless — and you know, that's exactly what the Michelson-Morley experiment showed — you're left with Earth actually being at the center of the universe, and the Earth's is a preferred reference frame. So Relativity cannot be valid within this observable area here. And this observable area here — a.k.a. the observable universe — is the realm of science. Science is based upon observations. You cannot have science where you do not have observation. Anything that cannot be observed is pure speculation. The edge of the observable universe is the boundary of science. Inside those boundaries is the playground of science, the only place science is valid. And since Relativity cannot be valid within this realm of science, what good is Relativity?

Anyway. So Relativity cannot allow this to be the entirety of the universe. Therefore you have to take it and plop it down here within the unobservable universe, because then the observable universe can move around in here. Earth could be moving through here. But once you do that, it brings up another question. If you plop this in here and Earth is moving through here, the observable universe is still moving along with the Earth. So there are two possibilities. Once you take this thing and plop it down in here — and again, I'm going to be jumping all over the place — but once you take this thing and plop it down in here, there are two options. Either you put the center of the observable universe over the center of the unobservable universe, which then leads you to say, "Well, we don't even know how big the unobservable universe is, so how can you say it has a center?" You can't. That's the whole point. This whole red realm, we know absolutely nothing about it. We CAN'T know anything about it. You can know absolutely nothing about it. So you can't even tell if you're at the center of this unobservable universe or not.

Maybe the center of the observable universe coincides with the center of the unobservable universe. In which case, if it coincides with it, is it a momentary coincidence, where the Earth just happens to be going right through that region of space and just momentarily crosses the center? Because that's the only possibility. Once you plop this in here, unless the Earth is just momentarily crossing the center point of the unobservable universe, then Earth must be motionless at the center of the unobservable universe AND the observable universe. Which means that, viola! Earth is once again at the center of the Universe, you know, capital-U Universe. Earth is at the center of the observable universe, and as such, it either is or is not at the center of the unobservable universe. And you cannot possibly know whether it's at the center of the unobservable universe because News Flash! The unobservable universe is unobservable. This red part is unobservable. We don't even know if we're embedded within a larger universe. This red portion is outside the realm of science. This is the realm of pseudo-science. This is the realm of the unknown. We don't even know if this red portion even exists.

It's only because scientists want it to exist when they say, "Well, it has to exist! The Copernican Principle, the cosmological principle requires it to exist, so let's plop the observable universe down within it." But once you plop Earth within it, you still don't know Earth's location within it. Earth could be at the center of the unobservable universe as well. You have no idea. But it doesn't matter whether you have an idea or not because it's pure speculation that this even exists.

So Relativity cannot exist within this realm of science here. But it doesn't change anything when you take the observable universe and plop it into this unobservable realm, because all you're doing is saying, "We're embedded within a larger universe that we can't observe." How do you know that we're so embedded? It's unobservable. Such an embedding is not testable. It's not empirically verifiable. You have no scientific evidence that that larger universe exists, and you cannot possibly gather such evidence. So Relativity isn't valid within this green realm if this green realm is all there is, but we don't know that this red realm even exists. Therefore Relativity cannot possibly be correct. The only realm in which Relativity works is an unscientific "Universe as a whole." So Relativity can only be an unscientific theory, because it depends upon the existence of something we cannot empirically verify. Which goes back to an earlier website statement: "However, our understanding of the actual universe is bounded by the edge of the observable universe. We cannot know for sure what lies beyond the enclave of our instruments can detect."

We don't know what lies beyond the observable universe, if ANYTHING lies beyond it.

Oh, wait a minute. That statement wasn't the one I wanted. I was going for that credible theory thing. It's talking about the credible theories here. That's why I said on this Wikipedia page, "Although many credible theories require a total universe much larger than the observable universe." That's why I said Relativity is one of those allegedly credible theories. "Many credible theories require a total universe much larger than the observable universe." Relativity is one of those allegedly theories that require a total universe much larger than the observable universe, because Relativity cannot function, Relativity cannot be valid, if the observable universe centered as it is upon the Earth, is all there is to the universe. Relativity cannot function within the realm of science. Relativity can only function within a mixture of science and speculation. This [the observable universe] is not the realm of Relativity. If this is all there is, Relativity cannot possibly be correct. Relativity cannot function here.

This [the observable universe] is science; this [the observable universe + the unobservable universe = the whole Universe] is non-science. The so-called "larger Universe" is outside the realm of science. Relativity can only function in a mixture of science and speculation. But all the available evidence that we have fits this [the observable universe alone being the entire Universe]. This works fine without the existence of this red portion. Everything, every bit of evidence we have, every bit of observational evidence... We can come up with a perfectly workable, absolutely Geocentric model of the universe here, within the realm of science, and all the evidence supports it. Every singe shred of astronomical observation that we have gathered so far, all the particle accelerator experiments — everything — every bit of scientific evidence we have gathered supports an absolutely, non-Relativistic, Geocentric view of the universe. If the observable universe is all there is, we are definitely, absolutely at the center of the entire universe, which fits fine with all available observational evidence.

Relativity is only a valid theory if you take an additional step and embed the observable universe within a larger universe. And even then it still might not be valid for all we know, we may be at the center of both the observable and the unobservable universe. Relativity can only be valid if the center of the observable universe (Earth) does not coincide with the center of the unobservable universe, and you cannot possibly know whether that is the case or not. We can't even be properly scientifically certain that the larger unobservable universe even exists, and beyond that, we cannot scientifically know the location of the observable universe within that larger, unobservable universe. And the observable universe is expanding day by day in the sense that light from more and more distant places reaches us with each passing day, and in the sense of the Big Bang theory itself, which says that space is expanding, with the most distant parts of the observable universe speeding away from us faster than the speed of light.

There are still ways to prove whether we're at the center or not, because eventually we could reach a point where suddenly we can't see anything beyond a certain direction, but in another direction, we can continue seeing things, which would mean that we're not at the center of the observable universe, simply because in one direction we suddenly no longer observe anything, no stars, nothing.

Likewise, and I've said this in another video, because of the cosmological principle, Relativity and other "credible theories" need a whole bunch of observable universes.

Here is someone else's observable universe. Everyone, according to mainstream scientists, is at the center of their own observable universe. Some Joe Schmoe living over here on Arcturus 7 that's halfway across Earth's observable universe, is at the center of his own observable universe. And Joe's observable universe must be the same size as our observable universe at any given instant. You object, "But simultaneity is relative and everything. We don't know. They're time's not the same as our time." Bullshit to that anyway, but just imagine a whole slew of these observable universes scattered throughout Earth's observable universe and far beyond into the so-called unobservable universe. Suppose we're Earth. Wherever we are within this larger Universe that is alleged to exist, let's say, "OK, we know the date here on Earth. We're going to travel over to Arcturus 7 at the center of Joe's observable universe." And he's as advanced as we are. He's made the same sorts of observations we have. We're going to go from our planet over to his planet. We know the travel time to it. We know when we're leaving our planet. We know how much time is going to elapse as we travel there. So we know when we're going to arrive at Joe's planet.

And once we arrive there, we're going to look at his observational records and we're going to say, "Joe, it took us X amount of time to travel here. Go back in your records, say four million years, whatever it is, go back in astronomical records. At that time, were you able to see this much further? At that time, we on Earth could see up to right here. We could see this far at this time. We have astronomical observations for this far at this time. So from that same time since the birth of our universe, Joe, do you have astronomical observations for things as far as THIS, far beyond what we were able to observe? Do you or don't you? If you do, OK, we on Earth must not be at the center of the whole universe, and we are embedded in a larger, unobservable universe, just like those crazy scientists hypothesized."

Let me restate that. Let's say Arcturus 7 is within the bounds of Earth's observable universe, but it's at the edge of said observable universe. So we travel from Earth to Joe's, and we query his astronomical records. "Could you see beyond our edge at the time we left Earth, Joe? Right at that time in our history, we could only see right up to Arcturus 7. At that same time in history — go back in your records, Joe — were you able to see that additional bit here that we weren't able to see, an additional bit that represents the distance we have had to travel in coming to you from Earth?"

If Joe says, "No, we couldn't. All we here on Arcturus 7 saw was, like, a black void, or a brick wall or something." In such a case, then there is nothing beyond Earth's observable universe. Therefore Earth is at the center of the entire universe.

I think I've made my point now. Relativity is not valid. Relativity is only valid in an unscientific realm that's a mixture of science and pseudo-science. But everything works perfectly fine within Earth's observable universe without Relativity. That's why observations made on Earth seem to support Relativity: because the geocentric reference frame is a valid reference frame within Relativity. But if Earth is indeed at the center of the universe, then we would expect that when we make similar observations far from Earth, the predictions of Relativity will be shown to be false, and thus invalidate Relativity.

But we still can't know for sure, because the universe is allegedly expanding, we will be able to say for sure, "Yes, there is a larger universe," because obviously the observable universe is expanding into the unobservable universe. But is that going to continue indefinitely, or is it eventually going to reach a point where, if we're at the center of the unobservable universe as well, eventually it's going to get like that, or it's just going to keep on going and we're never going to be able to know. Or we're going to be slightly off center there, where the centers aren't coincidental, and we're going to like...

So we'll be able to distinguish between these if we go far enough. But we can't do it yet. We cannot do it. We won't be able to make distinguish between the two for a long while yet (unless we abruptly develop warp drive or something in the next few years or decades). So right now, at this time in history, it's safer to assume that we are at the center of the entire universe. We are absolutely, actually, literally at the center of the entire universe, non-moving at the center of the universe. Earth is motionless at the center of the universe. That's the best you can scientifically and empirically say at this time in history.

If you want to plop that over here, you're going beyond the bounds of science. That is why Relativity is an unscientific theory, because Relativity does not exist within this realm. Relativity exists within this realm [the unobservable universe], which is a mixture of science and pseudo-science. So Relativity cannot possibly be a valid theory. It is pseudo-science, like I said in another video, The Pseudo-science Flaw. And this I've been discussing is the related Observable Universe Flaw. Or the Center of the Observable Universe Flaw, however you want to put it. But that's what it is. It's yet another strike against Relativity.

One other thing to add. How can I say we're at the center of the universe? If we're at the center of the universe, that means the sun is orbiting the Earth. The objection is that the Earth isn't strong enough to hold the sun in orbit; it doesn't have enough mass to gravitationally bind the sun into an orbit around it. So to say that Earth is at the center of the universe is ludicrous right from the start.

The answer: no duh. But the sun is not orbiting the Earth. The sun is orbiting the center of universe, which is where the Earth just happens to be. There doesn't have to be an Earth at the center of the universe. There could just be a void section of space at Earth's current location and we would still be living in a universe with a center, and the sun would still be orbiting it. Earth just happens to be right at the center, dead center, and the sun is orbiting the center of the universe. It only appears that the sun is orbiting the Earth because the Earth just happens to be here at the center of gravity of the entire universe.

So an absolutely Geocentric universe is completely plausible and doesn't violate Newtonian mechanics. It is more crackpot to say that Relativity is true than it is to say that we are at the center of the universe. It is more scientifically valid, and the only scientifically allowable thing you can say, to say that Earth is at the center of the universe. You're going into the realm of wild speculation and pseudo-science to say, "No, we're not at the center. Relativity is true."

The relativist is making things more complicated, violating Occam's Razor, choosing the more complicated option, because he has to go an additional step and postulate the existence of something that can't even be empirically verified. Whereas the absolute Geocentrist doesn't have to make any such postulations to make his model correspond with observation.

You have to take an extra step to bring Earth out of the center of the observable universe, and it is an unscientific step. It is a pseudo-scientific step.

So Geocentrism wins hands-down over Relativity and other unscientific theories. We are at the center of the universe. There is no way to argue against that and remain scientific, remain within the realm of science. To argue against Geocentrism is to stray outside the bounds of rational scientific inquiry. The majority of the world has it backward. Absolute Geocentrists are not the crackpots. Relativists and mainstream scientists are the crackpots.

But it doesn't matter, because to the public at large, the mainstream scientists are the ones with all the credibility. "They've got PhD's and stuff!" Well, they've got PhD's in pseudo-science. But they've got the authority, because the general public does not understand these things, or they don't care to attempt to understand them, because it doesn't matter to them. Such questions don't matter to their everyday lives, so who cares?

If you're a scientist and you subscribe to Relativity, go ahead and believe it. But you're completely wrong. It is time to face facts. That's the cold, hard truth.

One other quick thing I want to add. You may ask, "Well, why can't the Earth be moving? Why does Earth have to be stationary at the center? Earth could still be moving at the center of the observable universe."

For example, you have a collection of stars here. And let's say the Earth is moving and carrying the field of observation along with it, sort of like a person carrying a flashlight through a forest, with trees moving into and out of the light as the person moves. In such a case, if Earth is moving in a certain direction, then the stars are going to be moving in the opposite direction. So basically, you're going to have a star out in the unobservable universe, enter into the observable universe, stream across the observable universe, and then pass back out into the unobservable universe in the direction opposite that of Earth's motion. That's if you're pretending that Earth is moving, and you would still have the sphere of the observable universe centered around Earth, with a streaming of stars heading opposite the direction of Earth's motion, sort of like trees entering into the flashlight's cone and subsequently passing out of it to the rear of the flashlight's bearer. So there are constantly stars and galaxies entering the field of our observable universe from one direction, and subsequently passing out again on the opposite edge of our universe.

The problem with this is the Big Bang. Everything in the universe is being carried away from Earth by the expansion of space. The theory doesn't say everything in the universe is passing us opposite to Earth's (or the solar system's direction of motion). You could say either the Earth is moving or the stars are moving. There is still relative motion between Earth and the stars. Yes, but it contradicts the Big Bang theory. The Big Bang theory doesn't say that a star on one side of the universe, or the stars as a whole, say the collection of matter on one side of the universe, is gradually moving opposite the direction of Earth's motion. Is that what the Big Bang theory says? No. Big Bang theory says all matter is being carried away from the Earth. Every direction we look, all matter as a whole is moving away from the Earth. It doesn't say if you look in one direction, the matter is coming towards the Earth, and if you look in the opposite direction, the matter as a whole is receding from the Earth. That is not what the Big Bang says.

So if you're going to take the tack that we can still have it both ways, with Earth in motion yet continuously at the center of its observable universe — you can't, because then you're contradicting the Big Bang theory, a theory born from the observations that we are surrounded by a sea of red shifts which increase with distance from Earth, which makes it appear as if we are at the center of the universe, which gives rise to the Copernican and cosmological principles, which are invented to get away from the observations that Earth is at the center of the universe.

Any way you look at it, Earth is stationary at the center of the observable universe. It has to be. The sphere that defines Earth's observable universe cannot be moving through space, else our observations would not be what they are. You cannot say Earth is moving inside the stationary unobservable universe. Earth cannot be moving, because then you would have stars constantly entering into observation in one direction, and others constantly passing out of observation in the opposite direction.

We have absolute no way of telling what is in the unobservable universe. That is outside the observable universe. So if we are stationary at the center of the observable universe, Relativity does not work.

As I said, Relativity cannot work by considering the observable universe as the only part of the universe that exists. The only way Relativity works is if you embed the observable universe within a larger unobservable universe. But then it still doesn't work because you have no idea whether Earth is at the center of the so-called actual Universe. If both centers are coincidental, you have no way of knowing. So Relativity is entirely outside the realm of science. It is pseudo-science.

But I just wanted to add that, that you could pretend the observable universe is moving around in the unobservable universe. But that's impossible according to observations. So maybe Earth must be at the center of the unobservable universe as well. Even if there is an unobservable universe, we still have to be at the center of it too. Because if we aren't at the center of it, and Earth is actually moving, then we should see matter in the universe streaming as a whole opposite the direction of Earth's motion. We shouldn't see matter everywhere expanding away from us as we do. We should see it streaming like I said.

So even saying that we are embedded within a larger universe doesn't work, so there's no hope for Relativity, just based on this alone, even if you ignore everything else that's wrong with Relativity.

So to reiterate: You could try to say that even if I'm right, why can't we have Earth stationary at the center of the universe and still have Relativity? We can't, because in such a case, we would expect observations to show that Earth is actually moving. But Relativity says that Earth can pretend it's stationary, as can any other object, and there should be no observations to contradict such a pretense. If observations contradict the pretense, then Relativity is invalid. But if Earth and its observable universe are moving within a larger unobservable universe, observations would show that Earth is moving, violating Relativity's requirement that Earth be able to consider itself stationary.

You could say, "You keep talking about their centers being coincidental or not coincidental. But the unobservable universe doesn't have a center, stupid! So just stop talking about their centers coinciding, because only the observable universe has a center, which is Earth. But the unobservable universe has no center."

OK. How do you know the unobservable universe has no center? It's unobservable! You don't know anything about it. You don't know whether it is finite or infinite. You don't know whether it has a center. You don't know whether it even exists. It is unobservable! It is outside the scope of rational scientific inquiry. You know absolutely nothing about it. So how can you tell me that it has no center? How do you know this? You know nothing else about it, but you definitely know it has no center?

_Star Trek IV_ , Kirk asks Spock, "How do you know this?" And Spock says, "Simple logic," when he sees the mural on the side of the bus.

How do you know this, relativists? "Simple logic" will not help you. You can't say that something unobservable has no center. If I say it has a center, who are you to say I'm wrong? Who's right, who's wrong? Who knows? We don't even know that the unobservable universe exists, so what are we arguing about? We're arguing about something that we can't even prove exists, and you're telling me it doesn't have a center. I'm saying it does have a center. Prove me wrong. Show me empirical evidence that the unobservable universe has no center. So your objection to my speaking of their centers coinciding is completely toothless.

And as far as the unobservable universe being completely unobservable — if we don't know anything about it, you can assign it any properties that it needs to make the observable universe work the way you want it to. It becomes a catch-all bin. "It's whatever we say it is to make our theories work. Our theories may be wrong in a Universe consisting solely of the observable universe, but they're not wrong when we invoke whatever property of the unobservable universe we need to make our theories work."

But your theories are worthless if you take that attitude. It is unscientific. Your theories are completely useless if anything you need to make your theory work can be pulled from the unobservable universe like a magician pulling a rabbit from a hat. "We can assign whatever properties we need to the unobservable universe, because the fact that our theories need those properties mean they must be actual properties of the unobservable universe." Yeah. That's all well and good for you and your theories, but that's not practicing science.

So you don't know that the unobservable universe actually exists, and you most definitely don't know the extent of it. It could be infinite, it might have a center, it might not have a center. It is all things to all people, even the absolute Geocentrist. When things might or might not exist and they're undetectable, they can be anything anyone wants them to be. Even the absolute Geocentrist can use it to bolster his theories. I hereby proclaim that Earth is at the center of the unobservable universe. Prove me wrong.

"Things exist beyond what we can observe," says the mainstream, modern scientist. Wow. That sounds like something a religious person would say, not a scientist. And that's where modern science is, thanks to Albert Einstein. Thanks, Al.

The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw II

This is a continuation of a video I did yesterday called "The Center of the Observable Universe Flaw." Or an addendum, whatever you want to call it. You may have noticed that I kept talking about how we can't possibly know if the unobservable universe exists, and yet I kept saying that the observable universe is expanding into it. So apparently we do have evidence that it exists, because the observable universe is expanding outward into it, and every day that passes brings more of the unobservable universe into the observable universe, so that's how we know it exists.

Why was I saying that we can't even be sure the unobservable universe actually exists, because it's not empirically verifiable? It's the unobservable universe, as opposed to the observable universe, therefore it's unscientific and everything. We can't even possibly know if it exists, and yet I kept saying about the expansion of the universe. I think I did mention this briefly, but I just wanted to expand on it.

You can say there is evidence that it does exist, because if the universe is expanding, and every day, the observable universe grows larger and larger. So where is that larger portion coming from, if not from the unobservable universe? So how could I say that we can't even be sure that the unobservable universe actually exists?

Granting that the unobservable universe does exist, you still have to grant that we know absolutely nothing else about it other than that it exists. We don't know whether it's finite or infinite. We know absolutely nothing about it other than its existence. We don't know whether it has a center or not, because we don't know its extent. You can't determine its center if you don't know its extent. It could only have a center if it is finite. Same with our universe. But you can't know how far the unobservable universe extends.

Anyway, why was I saying that we don't know that it actually exists? Because we don't even know if the universe is actually expanding.

"Yeah we do know it, it's proven fact!" cries the mainstream scientist.

"No, it is not proven fact," retorts Scott Reeves.

Yes, I'm getting into whether the universe is actually expanding. Not getting into the Big Bang, which is kind of a separate question. Is the universe actually expanding? It's arguable that it's actually expanding. There are a lot of assumptions that you have to make to say that the universe is expanding. The expansion is an assumption based on red-shift. I'll get to red-shift in a minute. It's all a matter of determining the distance to the stars. That ultra-distant star, you know, every day we're finding stars that are more and more distant, stars and galaxies.

"This is the most distant galaxy ever observed," says the occasional headline. Then there's a new one, there's another one that's the most distant one ever.

How do you know it's the most distant galaxy ever observed? You're not determining it by parallax. You can't possibly use parallax to determine distance at what is alleged to be 14 billion light years. You can't possibly use parallax to determine the distance to that galaxy. Parallax would not be even remotely detectable on that scale. So you're basically left with intrinsic brightness. And how do you figure that out? You use a nearby galaxy that... I'm not going to explain how they calculate stellar distance. It's all to do with brightness and everything, and you're just assuming the brightness of a nearby galaxy matches up with the distant galaxy. We know the intrinsic brightness of this closer galaxy, and then you do the inverse square law thing to... "Well this distant galaxy that is basically the same type as this nearby galaxy, and that distant galaxy is this much dimmer, so it must be that much further distant than our standard candle using the inverse square law."

Stellar distance is based on that assumption that a far distant galaxy has the same intrinsic brightness as a nearby galaxy. Stellar distances are based on assumptions like that. You can't be absolutely certain that a nearby galaxy and a galaxy that's supposedly 14 billion light years from the nearby galaxy actually have the same intrinsic brightnesses. It's a questionable assumption.

And then as far as red shift, it could be tired light. In violation of Newton's Laws of Motion, the light is losing energy as travels 14 billion light years, and so is becoming red shifted. It's an assumption that that sort of thing is not happening. Supposedly that's been disproved or something, but I don't think I buy the disproof.

And then dust, intervening dust and stuff scattering the light, all that stuff that's impeding the light.

There are alternative explanations for the red shift. The intrinsic brightness part, that's questionable for determining the distance. The red shift has multiple interpretations. A geocentric interpretation would be that the universe is rotating around us, and gravity — it's pretty well demonstrated that light is affected by gravity — the universe is rotating around us, and the further you go outward into the universe, the faster it's going to be rotating, and that centrifugal force is going to be retarding the incoming light, making the light red shifted. So the further outward you look in a geocentric universe, where the universe is rotating around you at these huge speeds, the more red shift there's going to be to the light of more distant stars. So you can explain the red shift from a geocentric perspective.

There are multiple interpretations of red shift. When you consider all the methods of measuring the alleged expansion of the universe, interpreting them as an expansion is highly problematic. They'll tell you it's not highly problematic, but it is. You have to accept these assumptions in order to conclude expansion.

So it's problematic that the universe is actually expanding. It could be that we're seeing the entirety of the universe, and the existence of the unobservable universe depends upon the expansion of the universe. The expansion of the universe is basically the only evidence that there is an unobservable universe. That's basically the only possible way you can observe — if you can even be calling such a thing an observation — it's the only possible observation you can have telling you that there must be an unobservable universe. The existence of the unobservable universe relies totally upon the expansion of the observable universe. Say that again. The evidence for the existence of the unobservable universe relies solely and completely on the expansion of the observable universe, and the expansion of the observable universe is not a definite, certain thing. It's not absolutely certain. It may be expanding, it may not be expanding. It's entirely open to debate as to whether the observable universe is actually expanding. It's a matter of debate.

The unobservable universe, everything about it, if it even exists, everything about it is completely... We know absolutely nothing about it because it's outside the realm of observation, so we cannot possibly know anything about it.

The unobservable universe is a complete unknown. Absolutely nothing about it can possibly be known, because it is outside the realm of science. Its very existence is highly questionable, because it depends upon the expansion of the unobservable universe, which in a geocentric universe... The geocentric universe does not need the universe to be expanding; it works just fine without an expanding universe. The red shift is explicable in a geocentric universe without interpreting the red shift as a recession.

Yesterday's video, I kept harping upon how we have no idea if the unobservable universe even exists, and then out of the other corner of my mouth, I was talking about the expansion of the universe, which is the only evidence available for the actual existence of the unobservable universe. I seemed to be contradicting myself, but I was aware I was doing it. I just wanted to save that discussion for later. I didn't get to it in that video, but I'm getting to it now. I was just laying out my ideas, basically. But the seeming contradiction doesn't affect anything I said yesterday, and I'm just explaining now why I appeared to be contradicting myself. I sort of was contradicting yesterday, but I was perfectly reasonable in doing it, because the expansion of the universe can be taken or left.

That's not a good way to put that. Um... It's questionable. The expansion of the universe is questionable. I don't need the expansion of the universe, therefore, everything I said yesterday stands. Expansion really makes no difference to what I was saying.

Now, for the sake of argument, let's just assume that the universe is expanding. Sidenote: instead of calling it the unobservable universe, we should call it the scientifically unobservable universe, because there's nothing scientific about the unobservable universe. It's outside the realm of science.

But let's just assume it exists, and the expansion of the observable universe is also taking place, expanding into the unobservable universe, converting the unobservable universe into the observable universe (AUTHOR'S NOTE: yes, more on the possible objection to this in another video), on the boundary, where the portion that's expanding, where the unobservable universe is sort of transforming into the observable universe. And that is evidence that there is an entire unobservable universe beyond that. So let's take all that for granted, that that actually exists.

Why is that still a problem? Even if such is granted as true, it's still a problem for Relativity. Why?

Because we then have to ask: what is the position of the observable universe within the larger, unobservable universe? Where are we embedded in the unobservable universe? Are we near the center, are we at the center? Are far off from the center and we're moving?

See, I went into that yesterday. The observable universe can't actually be moving within the unobservable universe, because that would violate the Big Bang theory, the expansion of the universe, because you would have matter approaching you in the direction of motion, and receding from you behind. Which would be an observable effect, but is not actually observed. So the observable universe cannot be in motion within the unobservable universe.

But pretend I'm wrong about the observable universe not being able to be in motion within the unobservable universe. Even disregarding that, we still don't know the position of the Earth, or the observable universe, within the unobservable universe. We could be at the center; we could be off-center; we could be at the very edge. We have no idea, because we don't know, can't know, the extent of the unobservable universe. We don't know whether it is finite or infinite.

So why would I be valid in saying that if the unobservable universe exists, we're at the center of the unobservable universe as well? The center of the observable universe coincides with the center of the unobservable universe, because obviously the portion of the observable universe that overlies what might be someone else's unobservable universe...

What am I saying? I lost my train of thought there. I just suddenly had a mind fart or something. My mind went completely blank, but it's always completely blank. Where was I going?

Anyway. We don't know the where the observable universe is located within the unobservable universe. Is it at the center? Is it off-center? Relativists would say, "Well, it can't be at the center." For a relativist, the center of the observable universe, namely Earth, cannot coincide with the center of the unobservable universe, otherwise Relativity is false.

Relativists would say we're not at the center, I would say we are at the center, if the unobservable universe exists. And remember, we're pretending that the unobservable universe actually does exist.

So what makes it any more valid for me to say that the center of the observable universe coincides with the center of the unobservable universe? Why can't the relativist just as easily, and with as much validity, say that, no, the center of the observable universe does not coincide with the center of the unobservable universe? Why am I more valid in saying that it does?

I'm more valid in saying so for the same reason... Scientific generalizations. Every branch available to us in the scientific realm, science generalizes.

For example, Newton's Laws of Motion. An object in motion will continue in motion unless acted upon by an external force, which means that if you're out in deep space, and you throw a ball, that ball is going to keep on going at the same constant velocity forever, from one end of the universe to the other. It won't slow down, assuming there is no friction on it, or it doesn't contact any gravitational fields.

How do you know that's true? You're not going to observe the path of that ball for 14 billion years as it travels across the universe, and say, "Oh, is it slowing down or not?" You cannot possibly know that Newton's Laws hold over — what would you call them? — interstellar, or universal distances? Like, massively interstellar distances? You can't possibly know that Newton's Laws of Motion hold. You have to generalize, and accept it on faith that they hold. It's a generalization.

It's a generalization that can sort of be summed up as: as it is here, so it is there. Science does that in every single thing it does. Relativity does it. It's the logic Science follows. As it is here, so it is there. The laws of physics are the same in all reference frames: that's the base hypothesis of Relativity. That's a generalization. We have not tested that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. That has never been tested, yet it's assumed to be true, because as it is here, so it is there. That's how it is in our reference frame, so why would physical laws be different in any other reference frame? That's the logic behind Relativity. That's the logic behind Newton's Laws of Motion. That's the logic behind looking at the brightness of certain galaxies, and we're going to use that as the standard against which we gauge super-distant galaxies, to determine their distance based upon the intrinsic brightness of a nearby galaxy. That's how we determine interstellar distances. As it is here, so it is there. That's the logic that pervades Science.

So if we concede that the unobservable universe exits just for the sake of argument, why would we not continue following the logic that Science follows in every other aspect of it. As it is here, so it is there. The Earth is at the center of the observable universe. Why would Earth not be at the center of the larger, unobservable universe also? Why would their centers not coincide? As it is here in the observable universe, so it is there in the unobservable universe.

Why in this one instance would you break the train of logic and reason that Science uses in every other instance? Relativity, Newton's Laws of Motion, determining interstellar distances — as it is here, so it is there. To say that we are not at the center of the unobservable universe, you break that chain of logic. As it is here, so it is not there. In this one instance, why do you break that logic? Why do you break it when you're talking about whether Earth is the center of both the observable and the unobservable universe?

If the unobservable universe actually exists, that's why I'm more justified in saying that Earth is at the center of the unobservable universe. In which case, we're still at the center of the universe as a whole. You know, there's the observable and the unobservable universe, together which constitute the actual universe, or the Universe, with a capital U. Even if the unobservable universe exists, I am more justified in saying that we are at the center of the capital U Universe, to remain consistent with all other cases where Science generalizes, and you cannot prove that we're not. (Actually, that's not entirely true, which I'll get to eventually).

Mainstream scientists use the unobservable universe to get out of our actually being at the center of the observable universe. Scientists acknowledge that we are at the center of the observable universe. But that's okay, scientists say, because there is a larger universe out there that we can't see, and we're not at the center of the universe out there. We can't see the entire universe, so it's okay if we're at the center of the part we can see. They'll freely acknowledge that we're at the center of the observable universe. But it's okay, because there's a larger universe out there beyond what we can see that allows us to say that we're not at the center of the universe as a whole. Because, you know, the Copernican Principle and stuff.

But that's a fallacious line of reasoning, because it breaks that chain of logic that applies in all other aspects of Science. As it is here, so it is there.

If it looks like we're at the center of the observable universe, we have to be at the center of the actual Universe, because you can't prove that we're not at the center of the universe. All the evidence says that we are at the center of the observable universe. We know nothing about the unobservable universe, other than if, for the sake of this argument, we're conceding that it actually exists. But we know nothing else about it. So we have to continue saying that we are at the center of the entire Universe, both observable and unobservable, because you have no proof that we are not.

We have every bit of evidence that we are at the center of the observable universe, and we cannot observe the unobservable universe, so we must be at the center of everything, including the larger, unobservable universe. All the evidence that will ever be available to us says that we are absolutely at the center of the Universe, even if the unobservable exists. Every bit of empirical evidence backs up that conclusion. There is absolutely no evidence that can ever be brought forward to counter that, to disprove that we're at the center of the universe. You cannot possibly reject that unless you make the statement that, "Well, we can't possibly be at the center of the Universe, therefore we're going to assume that we're not and that Relativity is correct. We're going to break that chain of logic in this one instance. As it is here, so it is there. We're going to arbitrarily violate that well-established line of reasoning just in this one instance."

Mainstream scientists might refute what I'm saying by saying, "Well, it's highly improbable. Why would we be at the center of the universe? Probability makes it unlikely that we would be at the center of the universe. So probability is on the side of us not being at the center of the universe." It's highly unlikely.

That objection makes absolutely no difference. Here's why.

The odds against me winning the Powerball jackpot are something like 320 million to one or something like that. Highly astronomically unlikely But suppose I win it. Somebody wins these occasionally. Suppose one time that somebody was me. If I did win it with such high odds against me winning, am I going to say, "Well, I won the jackpot. But it's highly improbable that I would have won it. So I must not have won."

I couldn't have won it, because it's highly improbable, even though I'm holding the 100 million dollars in my hand. How could I be holding it in my hand, since it's so highly unlikely that I would be holding it in my hand. Therefore I can't be holding it in my hand, even though I am holding it in my hand. That's the sort of logic behind saying that probability is against our being at the center of the universe.

But I don't care about probability. If you're there at the center of the universe, that's where you are. It doesn't matter what the probability is. If you're there, you're there. If you won the lottery, you won the lottery, and the probability against your winning the lottery won't change the fact that you won. Neither will protesting that the odds were astronomically against you change the fact that you won.

So to say that, "Well, it's highly unlikely that we would be at the center of the universe, therefore we couldn't be. Despite all the evidence that says that we are, we couldn't possibly be there because being there is astronomically improbable. So we can't be at the center despite all the evidence." And that's foolish! Which is why I reject the probability argument. "Well, it's highly improbable." So what? If we're at the center, we're at the center. I don't care how unlikely it is. We're there.

And then there's the whole, "Well, we can explain the probability of the lottery ticket because there are multiple universes. You just happen to live in the universe where you won the lottery. But there are 320 million universes where you didn't win the lottery. That explains it." Yeah, right. Go ahead and bring up the whole multiverse thing. But there's absolutely no evidence of that pseudo-scientific concept either. Parallel universes and all that B.S.

Anyway. The unobservable universe is filled with unicorns. Except the more distant parts that are coming into our view day by day. There aren't any unicorns in the portion of the unobservable universe that lies along the edge of the observable universe. But there are unicorns filling a great portion of the unobservable universe. There are unicorns, hobbits, all sorts of stuff in there. There are magical faeries that poop out jellybeans. There are all sorts of these kinds of things in the unobservable universe. Prove me wrong.

Unicorns exist. Elves exist. Dwarves exist. They all actually exist. And they live in the unobservable universe.

That's what the unobservable universe is. Anything is possible. Whatever you need exists in the unobservable universe. Prove to me that such isn't the case. If the portion of the unobservable universe that comes into the observable universe on any given day due to expansion, if those unicorns and stuff aren't visible there, that's okay. They're out there. We just haven't gotten to them yet, but they're out there. Prove me wrong. They're out there. And if the observable universe hasn't expanded far enough to make them visible yet, that's okay. We'll see them eventually, because they do exist. Prove me wrong.

What's that? You object that it's highly improbable that such things exist?

No, come on. They exist. Prove me wrong.

What's my point? My point is, there is no evidence for the existence of these things within the observable universe, so it's foolish to claim they exist in a realm where we can't ever prove that they don't exist. On the other hand, if there were such evidence that unicorns exist on Earth and elsewhere within the observable universe, it wouldn't be foolish to claim that they also exist in the unobservable universe (remember, I'm still pretending for the sake of argument that we know the unobservable universe exists).

So: if there is no evidence that Earth is not at the center of the universe, it's foolish to claim that we aren't because there's a larger universe beyond what we can see, and we're definitely not at the center of that. How do you know we're not? In other words, the person insisting that we're not at the center of the whole Universe is the equivalent of a person insisting that unicorns exist in the unobservable universe, even though they don't exist within the observable universe.

I'm perfectly within the bounds of reason saying that the Earth is actually at the center of Universe, both observable and unobservable, because it is simply an extension of what we know of the observable universe.

Saying that we're at the center of the observable universe, but not at the center of the larger, unobservable Universe is NOT an extension of what we know of the observable universe. To say this is to insist that unicorns exist in the unobservable universe but not in the observable universe.

All the evidence says that I'm right, that Earth is at the center of the observable universe. There is plenty of evidence. Mainstream, reputable scientists acknowledge that we are at the center of the observable universe. Particle accelerator experiments on Earth — they supposedly prove Relativity. But they prove Geocentrism — strange things happen when you move relative to Earth. Red-shifts interpreted in favor of the Big Bang demonstrate that we're at the center of the universe. All the available observational evidence can be interpreted to say that we are at the center of the universe, and there's not a shred of evidence to the contrary.

So I choose to take the evidence at face value, and say that we are at the center of the universe, the universe as a whole, both the observable, and if it actually exists, the unobservable, universe. Earth is at the center of it all. Prove me wrong. Show me a single shred of evidence that contradicts me. I guarantee you it does not exist at present.

You could say, "Well, you can't falsify your hypothesis that we are at the center of the entire Universe, so your hypothesis is unscientific." But that's incorrect. I CAN be falsified. You falsify it by demonstrating that the unobservable universe exists. You falsify it by demonstrating the existence of something that cannot be empirically demonstrated to exist, something the existence of which both Relativity and the Big Bang require in order for those theories to be valid. Relativity is basically a belief that there are unicorns out there, unicorns that cannot be empirically observed. Relativity IS a freaking unicorn that lives out in the unobservable universe. That is Relativity. Not a shred of evidence for it, and every bit of evidence supports that Earth is at the center of the universe.

Every bit of observational evidence that has ever been gathered supports my contention.

I'm saying, "Prove me wrong." Relativists might object, "No, YOU prove ME wrong."

But I don't have to disprove Relativity. I'm not the one making the unscientific claim that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. I'm not required to disprove a claim that I'm not making. And to say that I'm making the claim that we're at the center of the universe — I'm not making that claim. That's the only rational, scientific inference that can be made from the available evidence. And because it is the only rational, scientific inference from the available evidence, anyone making claims to the contrary, against the evidence, such as Relativists and Big Bang supporters, are the ones who need to support their claim with evidence. And the evidence they come up with is — the unobservable universe! Something that is — duh! — UNOBSERVABLE! And unobservables are not accessible to scientific inquiry.

All the evidence supports absolute Geocentrism. The available evidence only supports Relativity when you claim the existence of the unobservable universe, and also apply certain conditions to that unobservable universe, such as the condition, or the claim, that Earth is not at the center of it as well. In other words, the condition that the center of the observable universe cannot be coincidental with the center of the unobservable universe. Also, the larger, unobservable universe cannot even HAVE a center for the center of the observable universe to coincide with. In short, the unobservable universe must extend infinitely.

Simply put, in order to make the available evidence support Relativity, Relativity requires things that are outside the realm of science and observation.

Absolute Geocentrism does not require anything unscientific or unprovable to support it, to explain the evidence. In opposition, Relativity, in order to grab the support of the empirical evidence, has to resort to the unobservable universe. Relativity has to incorporate something non-scientific. It has to invoke an unscientific, un-empirically verifiable entity. It has to invoke the unobservable universe in order to commandeer the evidence that supports the Earth being absolutely at rest at the center of the universe.

Relativity must ask a unicorn whose existence we cannot empirically demonstrate for permission to grab the evidence that supports the absolute Geocentric universe. And that's absurd. It's the same sort of situation where the atheist says that the Christian has to invoke a non-existent God in order to grab the evidence that is in favor of evolution and Big Bang and everything. It's the exact same sort of situation.

One more analogy and then I'm done.

I'm in a conversation with a relativist. A relativist has come to me and said, "You're wrong. Earth is not at the center of the universe."

And I say to the Relativist: "How do you know this?"

And the relativist points to the space beside him and says, "Because Bob here tells me it's true. I get my authority to deny your absolute Geocentric universe from Bob here."

And I look at the empty space indicated and ask, "Who is Bob? There's no one next to you."

Then the relativist turns and talks to the thin air. "Well, Bob tells me to tell you..."

The relativist's invisible, unobservable, un-scientifically-verifiable friend tells the relativist that the relativist is justified in telling me that I'm wrong when I say Earth is at the center of the universe. That's where the relativist gets his authority to say that I'm wrong. He gets his authority from an invisible, unobservable, absolutely-no-way-you-can-verify-its-existence-scientifically... This person gives the relativist permission to tell me that I'm wrong. And I'm supposed to accept this verdict, because I, obviously, am a crackpot and a nutjob.

"My invisible, unobservable friend here tells me that you are wrong," says the relativist, "and I trust this invisible, unobservable friend, so you are most definitely wrong."

And I say, "Okay, fine. You're insane. You see an invisible person next to you. Fine. Fine. You're insane."

That's the situation with Relativity.

I don't mean to imply that Relativists are actually insane. What I am getting at with that analogy is that if a person came to you and said he was talking to an invisible friend, you're going to think that person is insane. Or, if you're an atheist, you're going to think that person is a Christian. If the person is interacting with an invisible, unobservable person who they claim is standing next to them, and they're not wearing VR goggles, they're not talking on the phone or whatever, you're going to assume that person is insane. You're not going to buy into their insanity. You're not going to humor them. You're going to conclude that they're not entirely right in their minds. And it's the same sort of situation with Relativists.

But of course relativists are completely sane. They are just gullible, or they don't truly understand the implications of their own theories, or they refuse to take at face value the evidence that is available. Or whatever.

The Pseudoscience Flaw

According to Wikipedia, "scientific theories are testable and make falsifiable predictions. Further, the overall process of the scientific method involves making conjectures (hypotheses), deriving predictions from them as logical consequences, and then carrying out experiments based on those predictions...The hypothesis might be very specific or it might be broad."

As a sidenote, I've found that if you even refer to Wikipedia or use any of their diagrams, which are exact duplicates of diagrams that are used elsewhere in what are taken to be more "reputable" sources — the moment you talk or write about a scientific topic and then refer to Wikipedia in the same breath, the attitude is, "Nothing you say can possibly be correct, because you're referring to Wikipedia. You've gotten your education on relativity from Wikipedia. Anyone can put anything on Wikipedia. It's not a valid source of information, so the very fact that you're referring to it calls into question everything you say. Your knowledge is suspect."

My response to that attitude is, "Whatever." Wikipedia is a good source. I know enough to know whether what I'm reading is actually valid or not. I know when I'm being BS'd on Wikipedia. And I learned relativity long before Wikipedia was even the barest seed of an idea in the minds of Jimmy Wales and Larry Sanger. So if you disregard what I say or write because I happen to refer to Wikipedia — not my problem. Wikipedia is fine, in this case.

Returning to the Wikipedia quote regarding scientific theories:

Based on the above, relativity (both the special and the general theories) makes the broad hypothesis that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, or alternately, that there are no privileged reference frames. This is the basic, core hypothesis upon which all other facets of relativity are based.

Is this a testable, falsifiable hypothesis? Yes, it is.

How would you test this hypothesis? Well, the method of testing is suggested within the hypothesis itself. If your conjecture is that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, then obviously, to support your hypothesis, you must test the laws of physics in all reference frames, or at least a statistically significant proportion thereof.

In what way is relativity falsifiable? Like the means of testing, the means of falsification is suggested within the hypothesis. If your tests of the laws of physics do not yield identical results when tested in multiple reference frames (replication), then your hypothesis is obviously incorrect. It has been falsified.

Now, before such tests are even begun, it should be noted that if the laws of physics are shown to not be the same in all reference frames, then there must de facto be a privileged, absolute reference frame. Further, according to all current observation, Earth seems to be at rest within that frame.

Since relativity must necessarily incorporate the one frame (the Earth-centered absolute frame) that, if it can be shown to exist, would disprove the relativity hypothesis, then the existence of that special frame must be ruled out before relativity can be considered a valid theory. That special frame therefore represents the disproof, or the falsification of relativity.

Meaning that relativity includes a non-absolute geocentric reference frame. Relativity necessarily includes such a frame. The alternative to relativity is that the relativistic, non-absolute geocentric frame is non-relative and absolute, i.e. we are absolutely at the center of the universe. If for relativity's sake, you're pretending that the Earth is not in motion, and yet relativity includes a relativistic geocentric frame, within its plethora of reference frames, then first of all, before you can move any further, you have to disprove that you are not in the absolute Geocentric reference frame.

There are two geocentric reference frames: relativistic and non-relativistic. If relativity is incorrect, we are in an absolute, non-relativistic reference frame. So before you can move on to relativity, the first step is to show that we are not in an absolute, non-relativistic Geocentric frame. How do you do that? One thing you do not do is conduct your experiments solely from within the geocentric reference frame, whether it be relativistic or non-relativistic, because both frames are, for all we know right now, identical. So to distinguish between those two and determine if relativity is true, you have to move a significant distance away from the Earth. Light years away, to other solar systems. You have to get a significant distance away from the Earth, which is quite possibly the center of the universe, to prove that it is not.

You cannot conduct your experiments about physical laws from within any sort of geocentric reference frame, because you don't know which type you are in, relativistic or non-relativistic. You could be in either one as far as we know right now.

According to all observations — all astronomical observations, all physical observations — we appear to be at the center of the universe. A relativistic geocentric frame would only be one of many equivalent frames, but we cannot distinguish between relativistic and non-relativistic geocentric frames as of the writing of this book. So before relativity can claim victory, observers must move away from the center of the universe. They must move out of the Earth's reference frame.

Further, since Earth must reside within that special frame if it exists, then the relativity hypothesis must be tested outside of that special frame. So not only must the hypothesis of relativity be tested in multiple reference frames, it must also be tested a cosmologically significant distance from Earth, or from the center of the universe if Earth and the center of the universe are not coincidental points.

To put it another way, the geocentric frame is sort of the control frame, i.e. the only frame, if relativity is false, in which we would expect to get the experimental results that we do when we test the laws of physics. Meaning that if relativity is false, the absolute, non-relativistic Geocentric reference frame is the only reference frame where we're going to get the results that we do. Whatever experiments we perform here on Earth on physical law, if we go into another reference frame, or away from the center of the universe, we will get different results, if relativity is false. To date, such testing external to this frame of falsification has not been carried out. All observation has been done from within the very reference frame that represents the disproof of relativity! In other words, all tests of relativity have been carried out relative to the Earth. All observation has been made from within an Earth-centered reference frame. You cannot deny this. It is inarguable. Rather, you can argue it all you like, you can deny it all you like, but you're wrong.

Interferometer experiments

Interferometer experiments, such as those carried out in the 19th century by Albert Michelson and Edward Morley, were originally conceived to detect the motion of the Earth against the light-carrying medium.

These experiments failed to detect such motion. (Actually, they weren't null. There was a very slight reading, but it's considered null because it has to be null for relativity, even though there was a slight positive reading. It just wasn't the magnitude they expected, so they just decided to zero it out and call it a wash).

One interpretation of that failure is that the Earth is not moving. If you're trying to detect the motion of the Earth against the aether, and you fail to do it, one interpretation of that is obviously that your assumption that the Earth is moving against the aether is incorrect.

The other interpretation is that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames.

One interpretation fits all currently available empirical evidence.

The other interpretation fits all currently available empirical evidence if it can be proven that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. It has not yet been proven.

Occam's razor, as well as the scientific method, says that the former interpretation is correct, meaning the non-relativistic, absolute Geocentrist interpretation.

A violation of both Occam's razor and the scientific method says that the latter interpretation is correct, namely Einstein's theory of relativity.

i want to stress that last point. You've got two possible interpretations of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiment, which was originally conceived to detect the motion of the Earth against the light-carrying medium. The first interpretation is that the Earth is not moving against the light-carrying medium. The first interpretation of the failure of that experiment to detect the motion of the Earth against the aether — the first interpretation is that the Earth is not moving. And if the Earth is not moving, Earth must be absolutely at the center of the universe. The first interpretation fits all currently available empirical evidence.

The second interpretation of the failure to detect the motion of the Earth against the aether fits all currently available evidence if it can be proven that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. And that has not yet been proven.

You've got one interpretation of the results that works just fine without anything extra. An unmoving Earth fits all currently available evidence. Works just fine, explains everything just fine.

You've got another explanation that fits all available empirical evidence if it can be proven that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. But that "if" has not been tested. That "if" is a hypothesis that has not yet been through the scientific method. It has not been tested scientifically.

Occam's razor, as well as the scientific method, says that the first interpretation of the results of Michelson-Morley is correct: Earth is not moving against the aether.

A violation of both Occam's razor and the scientific method says that the second interpretation is correct: there is no aether and the Einstein was right.

Currently, it's all relative to Earth

The idea that we are at the center of the universe, and that things behave strangely when in motion relative to the Earth, has been empirically supported to an astonishing degree.

Unfortunately, this vast wealth of empirical observation does nothing for the relativity hypothesis. The relativity hypothesis has never been put through its paces as required by the scientific method. Instead, the hypothesis has been assumed to be true, slapped with the label "principle" to disguise the fact that it remains an untested hypothesis, and hailed as the most rigorously and thoroughly tested hypothesis in the history of science.

As things stand now, empirical observation says, "Earth is at rest at the center of the universe."

The hypothesis of relativity essentially says, "From a certain point of view, Earth is at rest at the center of the universe."

But the hypothesis's caveat "from a certain point of view" cannot be attached to any statement of empirical observation until the hypothesis has been appropriately tested.

The definition of pseudoscience

According to Wikipedia, "pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method..."

How does that not sound exactly like relativity? Relativity is based on a hypothesis that has not been validly tested in multiple reference frames (which is the only way one could possibly test the assertion that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames), yet it is presented as scientific. Yep. Sounds like relativity to me.

Therefore, because relativity has bypassed the testing requirement of the classic scientific method that we all know and love, relativity thus falls into the category of pseudoscience.

The only truly reasonable and scientific attitude toward relativity is to adopt the stance, "It could be a valid theory, but I am awaiting the results of experimental replication in multiple reference frames. Until then, only the non-relativistic, absolute Geocentric reference frame is currently supported by observation."

Sadly, the majority of mainstream "scientists" have not adopted that stance, having instead chosen to become missionaries for—and practitioners of—pseudoscience.

So Einstein states the principle of relativity, which is that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, and then goes on to outline all the consequences of that principle (read "hypothesis"). Those consequences are basically the theory of relativity. He starts off with the hypothesis that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, and everything else he says after that point is a development of the idea that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, based upon the unproven assumption that that base hypothesis is true. He has never proven that initial hypothesis. It has never been experimentally proven. And therefore, the theory of relativity is pseudoscience.

Geocentrism is insanity (he said ironically)

Modern scientist/John Q. Public: "Everyone knows that it was definitively proven long ago that the Earth isn't at the center of the universe. All the evidence points to the contrary. Anyone who believes Earth is at the center of the universe is insane and wants to take us back to the Dark Ages."

This is an incorrect notion. The most serious blow that has every been struck against Geocentrism is that the Geocentric model of Copernicus's day erroneously had the orbit of Venus centered incorrectly around the Earth. A simple modification of that orbit makes the Geocentric model fit observation.

None of the lesser arguments put forth against Geocentrism (Foucault's pendulum, particle accelerator experiments, GPS satellites, geosynchronous and geostationary satellites, the moons of Jupiter, etc) disprove Geocentrism. All they prove is that strange things apparently happen when you move relative to the Earth.

And anyway, proponents of relativity must recognize that all current empirical evidence fits the relativistic geocentric (note the lower-case g) reference frame. If they claim there is evidence that "disproves" the geocentric frame, then they are claiming that the laws of physics are not the same in all reference frames, contradictory to their hypothesis and thereby invalidating relativity, and thus leaving us with a non-relativistic, absolute Geocentric frame.

Relativists are fine with a non-absolute geocentric reference frame. They have to be, because relativity requires them to be fine with it. They are only against an absolute Geocentric reference frame (again, note the use of upper-case G as opposed to the lower-case g).

The only way they can disallow the absolute Geocentric reference frame (which is supported by hundreds of years of empirical observation) is to bypass the scientific method and loudly proclaim that the hypothesis of relativity has been irrefutably supported by empirical evidence (which it most definitely has not), thereby transforming relativity into pseudoscience, and also thereby making Geocentrism the only empirically supported model of the universe.

If you're still confused as to why I'm claiming relativity is pseudoscience, ask yourself the following questions while keeping in mind relativity's hypothesis that physical laws are the same in all reference frames:

1) Have relativists made empirical observations of physical laws from outside of an Earth-centered reference frame?

2) Have the tests of physical laws been performed, and the results replicated, in a statistically significant number of reference frames?

3) Have we been to other solar systems and gathered observational evidence about physical laws from that vantage point?

Obviously the answer to each of those questions is a resounding "No."

But in order to satisfy the scientific method, thereby qualifying as a scientifically tested theory, the answer to each of those questions must be a resounding, "Yes."

Since proponents of relativity choose to untruthfully answer each of those questions with a resounding "Yes" anyway, relativity qualifies as pseudoscience, and its proponents are pseudoscientists.

So contrary to popular belief, it is NOT insane to say that Earth is at the center of the universe. At this point in history, it is actually the only empirically supported, scientifically allowable thing to say. To say that Earth is at the center of the universe is the very model of scientific rationality and strict adherence to the scientific method.

Relativity is founded upon a pseudoscientific hypothesis, and thus, relativity is fatally flawed right out of the gate.

Notable quotes:

"... _for our observations of the heavens can be explained by assuming either the earth or the sun to be at rest."_ — Stephen Hawking, _The Grand Design_ , pages 41-42.

" _I have two things to say that might surprise you: first, geocentrism is a valid frame of reference, and second, heliocentrism is not any more or less correct."_ — Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer

Phil Plait distinguishes between relativistic geocentrism and non-relativistic, absolute Geocentrism by using either a capital-G or a small-g. Captial-G is bad, small-g is good. Which is exactly backward, because his statement that "heliocentrism is not any more or less correct" is a pseudoscientific statement, since the hypothesis that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames has not yet been tested.

" _For example, strictly speaking one cannot say that the Earth moves in an ellipse around the Sun, because that statement presupposes a coordinate system in which the Sun is at rest, while classical mechanics also allows systems relative to which the Sun rectilinearly and uniformly moves..." —_ Albert Einstein _,_ _Dialog About Objections Against the Theory of Relativity_

So I've given you the statements of three highly respected scientists acknowledging the relativistic geocentric reference frame. If there was any evidence against a relativistic geocentric reference frame, do you think they would be making such statements? I think it's safe to say that they would acknowledge that if such evidence could be put forward, then relativity would be disproved. And if relativity is disproved, we are left with the non-relativistic, absolute Geocentric interpretation of the results of the Michelson-Morley experiments.

Going back to those three questions, you might say, "You're just making up those questions to fit what you're trying to say." If you think that, you haven't been paying attention to what I've been saying. Relativity's main hypothesis, its core hypothesis, is that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. Just look in the first few pages of "Relativity." Before he even starts talking about time dilation and the relativity of time dilation, Albert Einstein talks about the "principle of relativity in the restricted sense." He calls it a principle, but it's actually a hypothesis. It's labeled a principle because it's never been proven. It's an untested hypothesis. That principle says that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, and everything else Einstein says derives from that first, initial, unproven hypothesis. That's what makes relativity pseudoscience, that and the fact that it is presented to the public as scientific. If it were a scientific theory, then it wouldn't be based upon an untested hypothesis.

If relativity makes the exact hypothesis that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, how do you prove that? If you make that claim, you've got to go out into a whole bunch of different reference frames and test the laws of physics. Have we done that? No. We've only conducted those tests from within Earth's reference frame. You can refer to particle accelerator experiments and say, "Oh, we've got these results that support relativity." But those particles are only accelerated relative the Earth. GPS is done relative to the Earth. Sure you've accelerated things into other reference frames, technically, where things are going faster than they are on the Earth, so in that sense, you've gone into other reference frames. But as I said, if relativity is false, the hypothesis that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames is false, then the Michelson-Morley results still need to be explained, and the only way you can explain them is that the Earth is motionless. And if the Earth is motionless, the only way it fits all the observational evidence, the astronomical observational evidence, is that we are at the center of the universe as well.

Earth could just be motionless somewhere out in space, off center. Or it could be motionless at the center of the universe. But it has to be motionless at the center of the universe to fit with astronomical evidence that can only be explained away with the Cosmological Principle, which says that any vantage point in the universe will seem to be at the center of the universe.

So to test the hypothesis (I refuse to call it a principle) of relativity, it's not enough merely to do tests in multiple reference frames. Not only do you have to do tests in multiple reference frames, you must do tests at a cosmologically significant distance from Earth to determine whether Earth is in a relativistic, non-absolute geocentric reference frame, or a non-relativistic, absolute Geocentric reference frame. At this point in history, we don't know, and the only way to determine that is to move a cosmologically significant distance from Earth. Have we done that yet? Of course not, and that's where I get those three questions. Have relativists made astronomical observations and empirical tests of physical laws from outside of an Earth-centered reference frame? No! Have the tests of physical laws been performed and identical results obtained (replication) in a statistically significant number of reference frames? No!

Have we been to other solar systems and gathered observations about physical laws from that vantage point, as well as astronomical observations from that vantage point? No, of course not.

The answers to those questions are obviously "No," and yet those questions have to be answered "Yes" for the hypothesis of relativity to have been proven. And even when you answer "Yes" to those questions, you still have to ask, "Did we get the same results that you got on Earth?" If you answer "Yes" to that last question, then fine, relativity is true. But you have to carry out the tests far away from Earth in multiple reference frames, and in a statistically significant number of reference frames, and you have to get the same results that you got on Earth.

None of that is true for relativity. Relativity has not been properly tested through the scientific method, yet it is presented as scientific to the public. Therefore, relativity qualifies as pseudoscience. It passes the pseudoscience test with flying colors. It is founded upon an untested hypothesis. Going back to Wikipedia's definition of pseudoscience, "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief, or practice which is incorrectly presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method."

You can't deny that relativity is presented as scientific. It's presented as such by Stephen Hawking, Brian Green, etc — every respected, well known scientist, and other scientists that are lesser well known — it's presented as scientific. But that is an incorrect presentation, because relativity is not scientific, since it is founded upon an untested hypothesis that is only assumed to be true.

Relativity has all the hallmarks of pseudoscience. And any alleged scientist who professes relativity without saying, "It looks like a good theory, but I'm holding off my endorsement until it's properly tested as Scott Reeves has outlined" is a pseudoscientist, because you are professing a pseudoscience. You are presenting as scientific a theory that has not been scientifically tested. You are a pseudoscientist, and relativity is pseudoscience.

When you're talking about relativity, all these flaws that I've presented (elsewhere in this book), I shouldn't even have to be talking or writing about them because relativity's pseudoscientific nature should preclude the need to point out any further flaws in relativity. I shouldn't even bother pointing out any further flaws because relativity goes wrong right at the outset. Relativity is proven to be wrong right out of the gate, right at Einstein's presentation of the "principle" of relativity. I've gone further than is necessary.

There is no denying that relativity is pseudoscience. But of course mainstream scientists ARE going to deny my contention. In doing so, they are either being deliberately misleading or are lying, or they haven't thought about it, haven't considered it, and have just simply accepted relativity because authorities on the subject (college professors, respected "scientists," etc) have said that relativity is valid and has over a hundred years of empirical verification to back it up.

If Stephen Hawking (or someone of that ilk) comes out and says, "No, Scott Reeves is wrong, relativity is not pseudoscience," who are you going to believe? Are you going to believe Stephen Hawking, or are you going to believe me, Scott Reeves? Of course you're going to believe Stephen Hawking, because he's got his PhD and his reputation as a highly respected intellectual. He has authority that I don't have. But that doesn't mean he is correct. It means he is a well respected practitioner of pseudoscience who has, for whatever reason, been given authority over the masses in the field of science. And of course he's going to tell you he's not a pseudoscientist, or that relativity is not pseudoscience.

If you make a career of lying about something, or at least unintentionally and perhaps unknowingly deceiving the public, you're not going to admit your deception, whether your deception is deliberate or unwitting. If you're doing it deliberately, you're not going to admit that you're doing it. And if you're not doing it deliberately, you're going to say that I'm wrong simply because you don't know any better. Either way, scientists are going to tell you that relativity is not pseudoscience. And I have no illusions that Stephen Hawking's or someone else's word is not going to carry more weight than mine. But I'm the one that's correct in what I'm saying.

I should stress that I don't think that Stephen Hawking and other scientists are deliberately lying about relativity. They may even admit that what I'm saying is correct, that relativity hasn't been proven and it is just assumed that the hypothesis of relativity is true. In such a case, they would most likely say that it is a safe assumption, because the notion that we are in a special place in the universe is patently absurd. Which it actually is not. Is it patently absurd to go where the empirical evidence leads you?

Let he who has wisdom consider this: it's not a case of "I'm right and you're wrong and if you disagree with me you're wrong." This is not a case where it's open to interpretation as to who is correct and who is incorrect. The principle of relativity has never been tested in the way that is required by the scientific method. The simple proof of this is that we have not been to other solar systems; we have not been a cosmologically significant distance from Earth. And this is a requirement, because right now we cannot determine whether we are in a relativistic or a non-relativistic geocentric frame. To make such a determination, we must travel a great distance outside of our solar system. The only way you can assert that relativity has satisfied the scientific method is to make the assertion that we have made such an extra-solar voyage. And if you make such an assertion at this time in history, you are obviously speaking an untruth, unless you are aware of some secret, advanced space program that is being concealed from the public.

Suppose I am absolutely wrong about everything I'm saying, and yet I'm insisting that it's correct. I believe everything I'm saying is true, so when I say, "Yes, it's true," I'm not deliberately lying. It's what I actually believe.

You may say, "Well, Stephen Hawking (or any other well-known scientist) believes the opposite of what you believe, because he's so much more brilliant than you, and he can see that you're wrong." No. It's not that. I would say that my brain's abilities are equal to Stephen Hawking's. He may have a more in-depth knowledge of the mathematical and more advanced aspects of relativity, but in my view, he simply has a more in-depth knowledge of a pseudoscientific theory. And that's not necessarily a good thing.

What scientists in the public's eye go to great lengths to combat a pseudoscientific theory? They don't. They simply say, "I'm not going to waste my time," turn up their noses, and move on. What sorts of pseudoscience do I have in mind? Creationism, for one. Creationism, in "credible" scientific circles, is regarded as pseudoscience. There are many other examples of pseudoscience, but I'm just using creationism as an example. So most scientists won't even bother to rationally talk about the subject, other than to snicker and say, "Pseudoscience! Poppycock! I don't need to refute pseudoscience, because it's pseudoscience! It's obviously untrue. I'm not going to waste my time with it."

In the same vein, I shouldn't waste my time by further debunking relativity, beyond saying, "It's pseudoscience! Poppycock!" But unlike other scientists, I do "waste" my time with this particular pseudoscience.

We have two geocentric reference frames. One of them says, "We are absolutely at the center of the universe." The other one says, "From a certain point of view, we are at the center of the universe." If relativity is correct, you go with the latter statement. If relativity is not correct, you go with the former. So the former represents the falsification of relativity. So to falsify the relativity hypothesis, you MUST go to a cosmologically significant distance from Earth. Relativity has not yet done that, yet relativity is presented as correct and tested, which it most definitely has not been. Therefore, relativity is pseudoscience.

Look at it this way. Both geocentric frames, relativistic and non-relativistic, contain the phrase, "I am at the center of the universe." The only difference between them is the caveat which relativity adds: "From a certain point of view." But you cannot validly add on that caveat until you've traveled a cosmologically significant distance from Earth and determined, through proper scientific testing, that "From a certain point of view, I am at the center of the universe" applies universally to all points. I say again, relativity has not yet done so.

Say you've got a floor in a building with 100 rooms on that floor. One room is your office, and Ralph and Gerty pass through each morning. You make the statement, "Ralph and Gerty pass through every room each morning, so there's nothing special about them coming through my office." How are you going to test your statement? All you have is the one example where you know Ralph and Gerty come through your office each morning. You have verified that. But will you just assume that because they pass through your office, they also pass through every room on the floor? What if you assumed that, and then you decide to test your statement. You observe each room on the floor, and lo and behold! Ralph and Gerty do not pass through each room each morning as they do your office. Your office is special.

The point is, you're just assuming that Ralph and Gerty go through each room every morning as they do yours. Until you actually observe all those other rooms and confirm your statement that "Ralph and Gerty pass through every room each morning, so there's nothing special about them coming through my office," your statement is mere speculation. But if you present it to your co-workers as scientifically proven fact before you've actually observed all other rooms, your statement, and any further conclusions based upon it, becomes pseudoscience.

A relativist is the guy in the office making wild claims about Ralph and Gerty's morning ambulatory habits without actually having visited all the rooms on his floor.

You may say, "Your insistence that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames is not the heart of relativity; that isn't the core hypothesis of relativity. You're making that up. Relativity has to do with time dilation and light and length contraction. What's this whole thing you're talking about the laws of physics being the same in all reference frames?"

Well, for one, if you say that, you really need to study relativity a bit more.

For another, that IS the core hypothesis, the base of relativity. That's where relativity starts, with the hypothesis of relativity. Again, I refuse to call it a principle. Call it what it is. It's a hypothesis. The rest of that — length contraction, time dilation, etc — doesn't come into it until Einstein says, "Okay, we have the principle of relativity in the restricted sense, which is Galilean relativity. Light appears to violate that principle, because we know it travels at a constant speed, yet we can't detect our own motion relative to the the aether. So it looks like we need to throw out the principle of relativity. But no we don't. Here is how you keep the principle of relativity and make it compatible with observations regarding light." And then he goes on to describe his theory of relativity.

But instead of moving on to relativity, he first needs to question the assumption that the Earth is moving relative to the light-bearing medium. He fails to do so, and that failure is the downfall of relativity, because it leaves open the alternative which fits all available empirical evidence: "Hey, Earth is motionless at the center of the universe."

Einstein simply glosses over this alternative, thereby bypassing the scientific method and taking relativity into the realm of pseudoscience, where he presents time dilation, length contraction, the relativity of simultaneity, etc.

But if you take the results of interferometer experiments at face value, namely that the Earth is motionless, you don't have to go any further. Galilean relativity (at this point in our argument) doesn't need to be thrown out, and you don't have to come up with a theory to make light compatible with it.

The theory of relativity is an attempt to make the law of the propagation of light (that it moves at a constant velocity) compatible with Galilean relativity. That attempt assumes the validity of Einstein's assertion that all observers regardless of their state of motion will measure the same speed for light (the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames). It simply assumes the validity, without adhering to the scientific method. And that makes relativity a pseudoscience.

You've got the hypothesis that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. If it's true, you have relativistic geocentrism, and if it's false, you have absolute Geocentrism. How do you tell if it's true? Because absolute Geocentrism means, obviously, that you are definitely at the center of the universe and the laws of physics are not going to be the same in all reference frames. The only way to distinguish between geocentrism and Geocentrism is to go away from the center of the universe, whether it's the relativistic center or the absolute center.

The only way to determine which sort of geocentrism we have is to go a cosmologically significant distance away from the center, and see if you still get the same results at these distant points that you get when you are on Earth. If you get the same results, you've replicated them, then you have proven that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, and you go with relativistic geocentrism. If you get to those distant points and the hypothesis turns out to be false, say, interferometer experiments actually detect a fringe shift that you're expecting based on classical physics, then you have proven absolute Geocentrism.

You can definitely distinguish these two geocentric frames. You just can't do it based on measurements performed on Earth alone.

And you must get a cosmologically significant distance away. If you say, "Oh, we'll just go to Mars or somewhere close by and try our experiments," that's a little bit better. But if you go somewhere near to Earth, you're still within spitting distance of the center of the universe, whether it's the relativistic center or the absolute center, and you might not be able to achieve the appropriate sort of "resolution" in your experiments.

You may say, "You're just trying to move the bar back further so that it will take us longer and make it harder to prove relativity." No, I'm not moving the bar back to benefit my argument. That's the way it has to be to satisfy science. If you merely go to Mars, or Jupiter, or Pluto, or somewhere nearby, you're still a cosmologically insignificant distance from the center of the universe. You know, if Earth is right at the center, whether it's merely a relativistic center or an absolute center, even Pluto might as well almost be at the center. It's almost, but not quite. It's not good enough.

So the bar is, go way distant from Earth. Light years distant. I don't know how many light years would be significant, but it's definitely not merely somewhere as nearby as Pluto.

That's what makes relativity pseudoscience. The scientific method is bypassed by assuming the truth of the hypothesis without any properly performed experimentation, and is then presented to the public, and to scientists themselves, as true. And the mere fact that we have not been out of our solar system makes it blatantly obvious that the base hypothesis of relativity has not been tested. That's the litmus test. "Have we been outside the solar system and performed interferometer and other experiments?" No. Obviously not. Therefore relativity is pseudoscience until, and not before, the honest answer to that question is yes.

Another argument that may be leveled against me is that my insistence that the relativity hypothesis has not been empirically verified is incorrect. "Foucault's pendulum! GPS satellites! Particle accelerators! Cosmic ray muons! Those all support, or prove, relativity, so you're wrong, Scott!"

No, they don't. Those things are not empirical verification of the hypothesis that physical laws are the same in all reference frames. Those things do not prove that hypothesis at all. For one thing, you're making all those observations from within an Earth-based reference frame. For another, with these two types of geocentrism that we cannot yet distinguish between (for the purposes of this present argument), assuming that time dilation, length contraction, etc., are the proper interpretation of the results of various experiments, that interpretation does not speak to which type of geocentric reference frame we reside in, because you would expect to get those results in either type of reference frame.

The experiments that are widely touted as proving the hypothesis of relativity still do not distinguish between the two possible types of geocentric reference frame. It is perfectly plausible that if we are at the center of the universe, i.e. in a privileged place in the universe, and we move relative to the center of the universe, we're going to get strange effects, and those strange effects might show up as time dilation and length contraction, etc. So those experimental are not incompatible with the Earth being absolutely at rest at the center of the universe. So the absolute Geocentrist is perfectly within his/her right to claim all those experiments as evidence that strange things happen when you move relative to the Earth. That's all that's been tested so far, or proven. Strange things happen when you move relative to the Earth. You've only made those observations, performed those observations, from within an Earth-based reference frame, whether relativistic or non-relativistic.

That's why I insist, rightly so and correctly so, that the hypothesis of relativity has never been tested. It still has not distinguished between those two types of geocentric frames. And we won't be able to distinguish between the two types (at least for the purposes of the present argument) until we are whizzing around the galaxy in starships, or going through Stargates.

Of course there are problems with relativity, as I show elsewhere in this book, that are fatal to the theory, and bring us to the inescapable conclusion that Earth is absolutely at the center of the universe. So I can, contrary to relativity and with much more empirical support for my position, that the laws of physics are NOT the same in all reference frames, at least as far as the behavior of light is concerned.

If it turns out that I am wrong in my contentions, my whole worldview is not going to fall apart. But the same cannot be said of mainstream scientists who refuse to look at relativity simply because it smacks of God. It's going to affect their entire worldview. That's one of the reasons they don't want to so much as look in the direction of absolute Geocentrism. Even though it shouldn't affect their worldview, if they are true scientists. They should be able to accept what the evidence says without any unscientific misgivings. But now I'm digressing into another topic, which I call "The God Flaw."

More on relativitys Planck/Ant Man Problem, steel balls, length contraction vs. object compression

This is another video on what I call The Planck Length Problem. It just suddenly occurred to me for just no reason. In a couple of previous videos on what I call the Planck length problem, I think before I labeled it that, I was showing the Planck length is like a square, like a red square, just a square with a red filling and saying, "That's the Planck length or the Planck volume," or whatever you want to call it.

It occurred to me, unintentionally, that if you're watching, it could have been you would think I was talking about things being contracting below the Planck length and basically into that red area of the square.

Crossing the boundaries of the square into its interior, into the red portion, the red filling of the square, you might look at that and say, "What am I talking about? I've got a red square, here, that represents the Planck length, and it has an interior. There's this red interior. What do I mean things can't shrink below the boundary of the square into the interior? According to your diagram, you can."

In my mind, I had it clear what I was thinking about, but I might have not made it clear. What I was getting at was that red portion, in that video, you pretend that doesn't exist because, basically, it doesn't exist. There was no other way to represent it visually.

You can't represent Nothing. You can't have a Planck length and there's nothing interior, doesn't make any sense. How can there not be anything inside there? How can I have a square if there's nothing inside it?

How can there even be a square there, just basically be a point or something? I was just basically using that red filled square like an illustration, an analogy, or something. I just wanted to clarify some stuff about that, because it brought up an important, in my mind, at least, need to illustrate. It's interesting to think about that.

I was thinking I might do it in Flash and just redo it, but I decided to do it like this. I've got a couple of balls. I'm going to bring them on screen, here. It's probably going to mess up the sync with the audio and video because, whenever I move around and wave my hands or something, this audio and video seems to get out of sync on this computer.

I have two balls. These are, like, metal spheres. I've got even smaller balls. I've got multiple balls. There's little balls in this bag. I just use them to think about physics and stuff. I don't even want to explain it, but I use them with magnets and all kinds of stuff.

Just pretend this is a bigger one and a smaller one. I know the audio is probably out of sync now, so this might not work out. Pretend this is a Planck length. Obviously it looks like a sphere on the screen because it's not a circle. This is a sphere here. [laughs]

I'm hyperventilating or something. I've just been for a long walk. Maybe I have to wait a while, but I'm getting light headed or something and losing my train of thought, but this isn't a circle. [laughs] I don't know why I'm getting the laughs all of a sudden. And no, no I'm not high. I don't do drugs or anything.

It's a natural high. Looks like a circle when I'm looking at it on the screen, but it's a sphere. Trust me, it's a sphere. Pretend this is ultimately small, as small as you can go. This is a Planck sphere. It's like it's a Planck length this way, this way, and this way.

When I talk about the Planck length... I've said this before and I don't mean... I'm just using the Planck length as... what science says is nothing is smaller than the Planck length. We can't measure it and it's non existent, anything smaller than the Planck length, because we can't measure anything...I'm just using Planck length as an algebraic placeholder or something to represent the smallest possible distance.

I call it the "Distance X" in an earlier book titled _Temporogravitism and Other Speculations of a Crackpot_. The "Distance X" is what I refered to it as years and years ago, but now I'm calling it the Planck length. It's just like a placeholder to represent...What's the smallest distance possible or the smallest volume possible?

Now just pretend this is it. I don't know why I've got this bigger one here. Probably ought to have two of the same size, but pretend these are the same size. Let's do a lot of thinking. This is a Planck sphere.

Pretend this is a Planck sphere and again this is like the red-filled square I was talking about. It's misleading to even think of this as a sphere because you think, what's inside the sphere? There's something inside the sphere because obviously my thumb and my forefingers are held apart by a distance. So what's inside the sphere? My point is, there's nothing. This sphere, there's nothing inside it. It's like it's the smallest possible space. There can't be anything smaller. We're imagining this. This is not the size of my fingers. This is, like, microscopically, even smaller than microscopically small. You wouldn't even be able to see this with a microscope.

You have to use a tunneling electron microscope, or something. I don't even know what you would use to...we can't measure anything below this. Science is an art of measurement. If you can't measure it, it doesn't exist.

Science can't measure anything within the interior of this sphere. I'm saying, it can't measure anything within the interior of the sphere, because there's nothing within the interior of the sphere. There's no space. There's no space within here to measure.

There can't be...if my fingers were like super, super small, like they're barely bigger than a Planck sphere or volume, length, whatever you want to call it, I could not put my forefinger, my thumb together, because there would be no space to push them through. To get them together I would have to push them through this distance.

This interior here, this distance. There's nothing below that distance. There's no space through which my fingers can move to contact one another. There's nothing there. At this at this size, this microscopically small, microscopic size, my fingers couldn't even touch, because there's no distance through which they can possibly move. There's no space through which they can move to even touch.

A Planck point would be even a better way to call this, because it wouldn't even be a sphere, because a sphere implies there's an interior to it. This would just be a point basically. It's a Planck point. It's almost like a paradox. It's a distance but yet it's sort of not a distance, but it has to be a distance.

It's difficult to even picture it. It's like trying to picture what happened before time began, or what's beyond the universe. How can there be anything beyond the universe? Because the universe is all that there is. How can there be something beyond everything that is?

It's like it's paradox. It doesn't make any sense. To even call this a sphere even, it has to be a length because...this is why I wanted these to be the same size, because...I'm trying to think how to say this.

Let's say we have two Plancks. Like I was saying, imagine this is the same size as this one. I don't have two that are the same size. These are not marbles. I don't know what they are. They're steel, or something. Just imagine these are both the same size. [laughs] It's a lot to ask, I know. Say they're side by side.

I'm not even sure how to explain it. I'm trying to do that here. Let's say this Planck length, this Planck sphere, this Planck point, we want it to move. How would it move? You would think...again, I wish these were the same size.

How would something like this move? It would not move in a continuous manner.

You would think if this was a normal object, like my finger here, for my finger to move...let's say this is the width of a finger. Let's say this finger, for it to move, it can move like half the width of this other finger. It can go like a continuous motion, but for an object like this, where this is the smallest possible distance, this Planck sphere could not move.

Say the tip of my finger represents a Planck length, just like that. This sphere could not move less than a Planck length. It couldn't go like this. It would move here, and then it would be disjointed, where it's suddenly here.

It'd be sort of discontinuous from our viewpoint, and yet it's not actually discontinuous, because it couldn't move half this distance, because there's no space through which it can move. There is no such thing as half this distance. There's no such thing as half a Planck length, or a quarter of a Planck length, or an eighth of a Planck length, or a 16th of a Planck length, so that this thing can just shift a tiny 16th of a Planck length. It can't do it.

It has to shift... The minimum distance it can move is one Planck length. It can only move like "Boom, boom." It's discontinuous. At this level, there can be no continuous motion because there's no smaller space through which this thing can move.

I don't know if I'm explaining that right or not. Anyway, I just wanted to clear this up. By saying with those squares in that other video, I had it in my mind, I was already thinking that the red square, the redness, the interior of that square, does not actually exist. There's no space interior to that sphere, or to that square I was using in the other video.

Just like I call this a sphere, but there's nothing interior to it. This is more like a point blown up to our size or something, just for visualization purposes. If this is an ultimately small point, there can't be a smaller point than this. If you imagine this thing as a Planck sphere, the Planck point. I've got to stop calling it a sphere, it's a point.

There can be no smaller point. There's no space. In order for this thing to become smaller than a Planck point, it would have to shrink into this interior. It would have to equilaterally shrink into that interior, and it can't do it because there's no interior for this point to shrink down to an even smaller size.

It can't do it because there is no interior to this. There is no space inside here, into which this thing can shrink. It has to be like this. There has to be a smallest possible size. Matter and space cannot be infinitely divisible. There has to be a point beyond which you cannot divide anything, otherwise...

They say time is what keeps everything from happening at once. Well, the Planck length is what keeps every point in space from being the same point. There can not be anything smaller than this.

I said space cannot be infinitely divisible, and relativity requires that space and matter be infinitely divisible. It can't be, and relativity requires it to be. Therefore, just on that point alone, just on that Planck point alone, relativity cannot be correct, because length contraction can not happen as relativity requires it.

I dug out an old ruler here. It's all scratched up, and gunky and stuff because I haven't used it in years. I just dug it up out of the bottom of a box because it was the only ruler I could find. I thought I was going to need a ruler for this. Anyway, I didn't bother dusting it off, or cleaning it up, or anything, so it looks all nasty and stuff.

I'm not sure how I'm going to explain this next part. For length contraction -- I'm moving on to length contraction now. On that point, with my Planck problem, what I'm talking about, I think of it separate. There's two possible ways. I said it before in other videos, there's two possible ways something can length contract. I call them compression and contraction.

It basically means the same thing, but I distinguish between the two. I call it the two types of possible, an object can either contract, or it can compress with motion as by relativity. When relativity talks about things, I'm just going to use the word "Shrinking." They call it contraction, but I distinguish between contraction and compression.

Let's just say relativity says things shrink, and by "Shrink," I mean the standard way of calling it contraction. When something in motion shrinks in the direction of travel, it can either be by contraction, or by compression. Another way to look at it is, either an object can compress, or length itself, space itself, can contract.

I don't even know that I'm going to need this ruler, I don't know why I brought it out. Let's say these steel balls are atoms now. These are two atoms in a bigger object, and it's in motion relative to us. We say it's contracting. I'm using "shrinking" for the purpose of this video. It shrinks in the direction of motion.

Let's say it's going at 86 percent of the speed of light, which means a 50 percent length contraction. Let's say when it's at rest relative to us, these two particular atoms are this distance apart. When it goes into motion relative to us at 86.6 percent or something of the speed of light, the object shrinks 50 percent.

These atoms go like that, shrink 50 percent. Now either the distance between these two atoms can compress, meaning that the space between them does not actually compress relative to us, just the distance between them decreases, and there's no actual length contraction.

Even though, because they're shrinking and all the other atoms in the object are shrinking, the object overall shrinks, whereas this ruler would shrink down. All these inches and stuff would still be on here. All the points in the divisions would just be closer together. As this ruler was moved, these inches and stuff would just move closer together.

This object would still shrink, but the atoms would basically be moving closer together. Even though this ruler shrank, it would not mean that a foot doesn't still equal a foot and everything.

This ruler is 18 inches long, a foot and a half long. I'm just going to say it is 12 inches, just for computing purposes. Even though this thing shrank so it's only half a foot long, for us a foot would still be a foot. That could either be accomplished by the atoms moving closer together, without length itself contracting, without space contracting.

What I'm saying is, relativity has two possibilities. Either the atoms can just move closer together, and length itself is not changing, space itself is not changing. That's one way things could shrink in the direction of motion. I call that compression. I just call the atoms moving closer together, I call that compression.

That would have to be due to some sort of an outside force, like drag, or some sort of aether drag. I know relativity says aether doesn't exist, but it would have to be some kind of aether drag. Some kind of force would have to be applied to the object to make that happen.

You would say the motion creates a force that compresses it. I call that compression. The other way it could happen is actual space itself, length contracts. There's object compression, the first version, and then there's length contraction, where the object itself contracts, but it only contracts because the length or the space that it's embedded within contracts, length actually shrinks.

The first version, length compression, does not work for relativity, because for one thing, the object in motion will be experiencing forces that other objects won't be experiencing, so you'll be able to tell that it's actually the thing in motion because as these atoms move closer together, it's going to start experiencing... Nuclear forces are going to be coming into play that are going to want to keep those things from compressing further.

Forces are going to build up. When you get to a certain percentage of light speed, the object is going to want to blow apart the closer you get to light speed. The nuclear forces might not really be a factor here, but as you move the object's constituent atoms closer and closer together, as you approach light speed, those nuclear forces, electronic forces and stuff are going to come into play.

They're going to resist further compression to a point where you compress it close enough together, those things are going to want to start blowing apart. That object is going to experience forces that you'll be able to distinguish due to those forces, which object is actually in motion.

That's why relativity cannot accommodate length, object compression. It can't accommodate it. It doesn't work if you have object compression.

Length contraction does not work either, because if you're saying space itself or length itself contracts, what you're saying is, if you got these two atoms and they're moving closer together, because the space that they're embedded in is shrinking, they're moving closer together from our point of view, because space itself, length itself is contracting, where does that space go? Where does the space between those atoms go? In order for that space, or the length to contract, take this smallest possible Planck point. In order for that space to contract, this Planck point would have to shrink down below the Planck point level.

It would have to become a smaller point, which as I said earlier, isn't possible. Again, remember I'm holding the Planck length, the Planck volume as a placeholder, just for the ultimate smallest length. It may prove that there's some smaller length or volume below the Planck volume, but I'm just using the Planck as a placeholder, an algebraic placeholder for whatever that smallest distance turns out to be.

There has to be a smallest possible volume. I'm just calling it the Planck, just for purposes of discussion and stuff. Like I said, I call it the Distance X in other, earlier works. That's from another theory I had, I've been interested in the theory, but I'm beyond the theory. It was a ridiculous theory, I'm not into it anymore. Where was I?

This Planck point cannot contract below itself, because as I said, there's no space interior to this point where it can contract. Let's just imagine, we have a Planck point here, and it's in motion relative to us. This might be where the different sizes come in. Say this is our Planck point. This is a Planck point stationary relative to us.

Let's say we set it in motion at 86.6 percent of the speed of light, where it supposedly contracts in the direction of motion. How would that happen? Just pretend this is only contracted in the direction of motion. This is what it looks like at rest, this is what it looks like in motion relative to us at 86.6 percent of the speed of light.

This is the Planck point stationary relative to us. When it gets into motion at 86.6 percent of the speed of light relative to us, it shrinks. Stationary, in motion. I know it's shrinking up and down, too, which it shouldn't, because it only does it in the direction of motion, but whatever. Just for purposes of illustration.

How could it shrink? If this is a Planck length relative to us, and there's nothing below the Planck length, how could this thing shrink below the Planck length when it's in motion relative to us? How could a Planck length stationary in our reference frame possibly become smaller than a Planck length when it's in motion relative to us?

It's impossible. It makes no sense. It can't possibly work. But Relativity requires that, because that's the only sort of length... Like I said, you can have object compression, or you can have length contraction. But Relativity can't go with object compression, because that allows you to distinguish which object, which of two masses when there's relative motion, which one is actually in motion.

And length contraction doesn't work for relativity because it requires an impossibility. It requires a Planck length to become less than, I'm just calling it a Planck point. It requires a Planck point to become smaller than a Planck point when it's in motion relative to us, and it can't possibly do that.

If it did, it would basically shrink out of existence, so you wouldn't even know it's there anyway. How could it possibly shrink below the Planck length?

I just got to the end of what I wanted to say. There's something else eating at me, and I'm not sure how to put it into words.

Let's just say we have a ruler composed of Planck lengths. It's one Planck length, two Planck lengths, three Planck lengths, whatever, strung across there in a longer ruler, there in motion. Where does the compression start? You would think it would start equally. Each Planck length along the ruler would start shrinking below itself.

Just looking at that, it reminded me of the other thing I really wanted to talk about. Let's say we have an object. If it's compressing within the Planck length, you're basically saying part of it's moving inside that sphere, and it's like a telescoping antenna being pushed inward, into the interior of this sphere, but it can't do that because there is no interior to this point.

What I was getting at was, pretend this is a telescoping antenna. You're using your imagination today. Pretend this ruler is a telescoping antenna, and in order to retract, in order for the segments of the antenna to go into each other, they have to go inside the interior of this Planck sphere, Planck point, whatever.

But there is no interior to this, so it can't possibly work. What you would have is a telescoping antenna that you could not push in. It's a telescoping antenna, and you can't make it telescope because there's no interior in order for it to...I'm not saying that good enough, but I think I've got my point across, what I was wanting to say, or at least provide the seed where someone can figure out what I was saying, what's in my mind.

What's in here is sometimes hard to get out in words and stuff. I know what I'm thinking, but it's hard to say it, exactly, to find the exact way to say it. Anyway, that's all I wanted to say. I just wanted to point out that Planck square I showed in that other video with the red inside, I didn't mean that there's something interior to that.

That red is basically nonexistence. Just picture the red in that other video as nonexistence. There is no red in there. It doesn't exist. It's a region of non space.

I ran out of steam here, because I think that's all I wanted to say. I don't know if that clarified anything or not. Oh well, I don't care. I like repeating myself, as I've said before. I'm done with this. I've got another video I'm going to work on. I'm done.

Just as a quick thing, that's what I call the Planck problem, the Planck length problem. Maybe I ought to call it the Planck point problem. Planck point problem sounds better, maybe I'll re-label it. I already called it the Planck length problem in other videos, so I have to stick with that, but unofficially, I'll call it the Planck point problem.

Anyway, that's what I call the Planck point problem, because the only two methods of shrinking, you can either have object compression or length contraction, spatial contraction or object compression. Neither of them work for relativity. They don't work for relativity, so you cannot have length contraction, period.

Length cannot contract. You can't have object compression. Let me reiterate that, you can't have object compression, obviously, but not...can't have object compression and still have actual relativity. The theory of relativity cannot exist with object compression.

That's my whole point. You can have object compression, that's not what I'm saying. I should say length contraction is closed to relativity, but object compression is open to relativity.

That's relativity's only hope for having shrinkage in the direction of motion. Like I said, it's labeled length contraction in relativity, but I consider two forms of what falls under the heading of length contraction. I consider an actual length contraction, and an object compression.

Length contraction itself is not open to relativity. Object compression is open to relativity, but it disproves relativity. It makes relativity impossible, because it allows you to determine what's actually in motion, like I said. That's what the Planck problem is. The Planck point, Planck length problem is length contraction as labeled by relativity.

What is labeled as length contraction by relativity does not work. It can't accommodate it. Relativity cannot accommodate it, in no form. It's a problem for relativity. It's a fatal problem. It's a flaw of relativity that by itself disproves relativity. There's so many other things wrong with relativity, but just that alone renders special relativity impossible. That's my quick add on.

Just remembered one real quick thing. I saw "Ant Man" over the weekend. This was last week, this is Thursday now. It was last week when it came out, I think it was Friday. It got me thinking, there was a scene. I'm not going to say what I thought of the movie, I'm just going to take it or leave it.

Anyway, the thing that interested me about the movie was the part...Ant Man basically got me thinking about this whole Planck point problem. They talked about how Ant Man shrinks at one point, where they're talking about the atoms. I forget what they said. It immediately started me thinking about the Planck problem.

The atoms were, what was it? It was basically my concept of object compression. Object compression is nothing unique to me, but basically Ant Man gets compressed to where his atoms, the distance between his atoms decreases. That was interesting.

Then they got to the concept where he keeps on shrinking infinitely. There is a point where he lost the wife because she kept on shrinking infinitely, and went into a new realm of time and space because she was infinitely shrinking for an infinitely long time. Then Ant Man started to do that, but in the end he overcame it, because he heard the little girl calling at him and stuff.

Anyway, it got me thinking, "No, that's impossible, because Ant Man could not keep infinitely shrinking." They were basically saying, they say the atoms compress together where the distance between the atoms keeps shrinking. Ant Man keeps compressing. It got to my point where you can't compress something infinitely.

How could the Ant Woman keep shrinking infinitely? You can't compress something together infinitely, because like I said, at a certain point there is going to be atomic forces and stuff. Just pretend those aren't there, and the atoms, how can the atoms possibly keep getting infinitely closer?

In order for that to happen, they have to shrink below the Planck length. That can't possibly happen. The atoms keep getting closer and closer together. Basically Ant Man just keeps getting smaller and smaller, until he's below the Planck length, like I was just talking about earlier in this video, within the red interior of that square I was talking about.

You basically have a tiny little Ant Man in that red area of the square that doesn't even exist. Then within that red area, there's multiple Planck lengths within that, nested within it, that he would have to keep shrinking into. He would have to keep shrinking into an infinity of Planck points, which is impossible. Because it would mean that there's something smaller than the smallest possible thing.

That got me thinking of relativity again in that movie, because while I was watching the movie, it got me distracted because I started thinking about relativity while I was watching that, which is part of the problem for me. Everything gets me somewhere else, where I can't be there watching the movie.

I immediately thought, "I'm going to write that down because it's impossible." Ant Man can't infinitely shrink, and that's the problem with relativity. Relativity requires Ant Man to be able to shrink infinitely, just like it said in there. It can't happen. Ant Man cannot possibly shrink infinitely, like it was in that movie.

Relativity requires that, but it's impossible. Therefore, relativity is impossible. That's the connection of relativity with Ant Man. What would I say? Relativity is Ant Man. Relativity requires an infinitely shrinking Ant Man, and you can't have an infinitely shrinking Ant Man, but relativity requires one.

That's the Planck point problem. Maybe I ought to rename it the Ant Man problem, the infinitely shrinking Ant Man problem. That could work. [laughs] That might be a more popular way to do it. Anyway, that's the connection with Ant Man. Now I'm done.

Burden of Proof – Geocentrism or Relativity?

One thing I've been criticized about occasionally regarding geocentrism is that unless I can prove that the geocentric reference frame is an absolute reference frame, I need to stop talking about it. They're waiting on the evidence. They're waiting on me to provide evidence that it's the absolute reference frame. The burden is on me to prove that we're in an absolute reference.

The ridiculous thing about that is that the burden of proof is not on the absolute Geocentrist to prove that the geocentric frame is absolute. Rather, the burden of proof is on the relativist to prove otherwise. Every piece of observational evidence supports the view that the Earth is at the center of the universe. That cannot be denied. Anybody that denies that is incorrect. If you speak to relativists, they will admit that the geocentric frame, with a little g, as long as you don't say that it's the absolute reference frame, the geocentric frame is as valid a reference frame as any other frame. The relativists will admit that. At least the ones who actually know their stuff.

Stephen Hawking admits it. There's a whole bunch of other ones that I can't think of off the top of my head. Albert Einstein admitted it. The geocentric frame is a valid reference frame. It's as equally valid as all the other ones. The only thing the relativist can object to is if you say that the geocentric frame is an absolute frame. Relativity does not allow you to have one preferred reference frame, to prefer one reference frame over any other reference frame. Relativity inherently forbids that, so of course the relativist is going to object if the Geocentrist with a capital g says the Geocentric frame is the absolute reference frame. The relativist has to object when the Geocentrist makes the claim of an absolute reference frame.

But the burden of proof is not on the Geocentrist to prove that this is the absolute reference frame. See, the heart of Relativity is the principle of relativity. It's like Galilean relativity extended. It's the Einsteinian principle of relativity, I guess you would call it. Which is that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, including the speed of light. What separates Einstein's Relativity from Galilean relativity is that the speed of light is constant for all observers. The speed of light is constant in all reference frames. You don't have addition of velocities. That's the heart of Relativity — that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames, including the constancy of the velocity of light.

So it's incorrect to say that the Geocentrist has to prove that the geocentric frame. Au contraire, Relativity has to prove that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. It's the same with the cosmological principle. You have to prove that the universe looks the same from all points within the universe. You have to prove that any point will look like it's at the center.

That's the reason the burden of proof is not on the Geocentrist. All the evidence supports the view that the Earth is at rest in an absolute reference frame. All the observational, empirical evidence supports that view. There is no absolutely no evidence to support Relativity's claim that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. Relativity has not yet proven that.

The Copernican principle too, the cosmological principle. Those haven't been proven. They're kind of almost connected, the Copernican principle and Einstein's principle of relativity. They're both connected, and neither have any proof. They're assumptions.

I don't have Einstein's book in front of me right now, but I think he even admits that's one of the basic assumptions of Relativity. It's nothing more than an assumption with absolutely no empirical evidence to back it up.

So it is untrue to say that the Geocentrist has to prove that we're in an absolute reference frame. It's incorrect. It's the other way around. The Geocentrist is on completely solid footing when he claims that the Earth is at the center of the universe. And it's absurd for the relativist to say, "I'm awaiting your evidence that Earth is in the absolute reference." Because the evidence is already in.

I as a Geocentrist claim as my evidence all the evidence that supposedly supports Relativity. I claim all the astronomical observations, every single piece of empirical evidence that Relativity claims, I claim for the absolute reference frame. In doing so, I'm not claiming that Relativity is correct, and I'm not using Relativity to support my claim. They're asking where the evidence for absolute Geocentrism is, and I say all the evidence is in. Every single piece of evidence that supports Relativity supports my claim that Earth is at the center of the universe in an absolute reference frame.

The relativists freely admit that a geocentric frame is a valid reference frame, as long as you don't say it's an absolute reference frame. They admit that it is a valid reference frame. And by making such an admission, what they're doing is admitting that all the evidence supports the geocentric reference frame, with a small g. All the evidence supports the geocentric reference frame. There is no piece of evidence for Relativity that can be invalid within a geocentric reference frame, because if even a single piece of evidence can prove that the geocentric reference frame is not an equally valid frame, then Relativity is disproven, because such a piece of evidence would be saying, "Okay, not all reference frames are equal."

So the minute relativists think they have disproven the geocentric reference frame, small g, non-absolute, Relativity itself has been disproven.

You freely admit that the geocentric reference frame, small g, is a valid reference frame. All the evidence supports that. Relativity makes the assumption that all physical laws are the same in all reference frames. It is an unfounded assumption. It is scientifically dishonest if you don't accept the absolute Geocentric reference frame at this point in time, because that is all the evidence supports. Every experiment, every observation, has been made from within a geocentric reference frame.

Relativists say particle accelerators prove Relativity. No! Particle accelerators only prove that there may be some strange effect when particles are in motion relative to the Earth. That's all they prove. Hafale-Keating, all those kinds of experiments — clocks behave strangely, apparently, when they're in motion relative to the Earth. Every single piece of experimental evidence has been gathered from within a geocentric reference frame. So the most scientifically honest stance at this point in time is that we are in an absolute, Geocentric reference. That's the only scientifically honest stance you can take at this point.

To jump from that to saying that physical laws are the same in all reference frames — that's a jump with absolutely no evidence to back it up. You won't have any evidence to back that up until you go to different parts of the universe, into different reference frames, and gather the exact same observational evidence that you've already gathered from within an Earth-based reference frame. You've got to go out into the universe, you've got to get into motion relative to Earth, and gather the same data, the data has to match exactly what was gathered on Earth. THAT is the time you can start claiming that Relativity works and that physical laws are the same in all reference frames.

That has not been done. Tell me we have gone another star system and made astronomical observations from observatories within other star systems, and have found the universe to look exactly the same from that point (i.e. red shifts all around, etc). And have we conducted high-speed experiments in a ship moving at high speeds relative to the Earth and gotten the same results? You can't claim the truth of Relativity and the Copernican principle and all that until you have done those things. And those things have not been done yet. So the only scientifically honest stance you can take is that we are within an absolute Geocentric reference frame. That is the only statement that the evidence supports at this time.

So the burden of proof is not on the Geocentrist to prove that we are in an absolute reference frame. That's already been proven. The relativists just don't accept that proof. Instead, they go against the evidence and insist that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. But Relativity has to prove that assertion. Relatedly, the Copernican principle has to be proven, that every point within the universe will see itself as the center. None of those things have been proven. It has merely been assumed to be true, against all the evidence of an absolute reference frame.

Stephen Hawking, in A Brief History of Time I think it is, says he wants to be humble by saying that we're not at the center of the universe. He's denying the evidence that supports it because he wants to be humble. That's the humble view.

We don't need to be humble! Humility is not evidence that we are not at the center of the universe. A desire to be humble is not acceptable evidence that the Copernican principle is true. That's not acceptable evidence that Relativity is true. It is not acceptable evidence to say that the laws of motion, and predicting the motion of planets and everything, are simpler in a non-geocentric frame. Less complexity, or simplicity, elegance, are not a proof that we are not in an absolute reference frame. Just because the math is more complex from a geocentric frame, that's not a disproof of geocentrism.

It's merely a philosophical desire for simplicity. But there is no law built into the universe that things have to be simple. Occam's Razor is not a physical law. Those things are not proof of a non-geocentric universe.

My view is — and I think it's the correct view — the burden of proof is not on the Geocentrist, the capital-G-Geocentrist, the absolute-reference-frame Geocentrist. The burden of proof is not upon him. It's upon the relativist. It's upon the people who subscribe to the cosmological principle, the Copernican principle. The burden of proof is not on the Geocentrist, so don't say that it is. "Well, I'm awaiting your evidence that we're in an absolute frame."

I've already got the evidence. Michelson-Morley experiment, interferometer experiments. Astronomical observational evidence. It all points to us being at the center of the universe. You can't deny that.

The way scientists get us out of the center of the universe is by saying, "Every single point in the universe will see itself as the center of the universe." That's part of the cosmological principle. But there's no proof of it, there's no evidence that it is true. So don't come at me saying, "Well, you need evidence." I've got the evidence! Every bit of evidence that the relativists claim, that mainstream scientists claim, is perfectly valid support for an absolute reference frame. So I don't need the proof. I've got it. The burden of proof isn't on me, it's not on the Geocentrist. The burden of proof is on the relativist. The relativist has to prove that physical laws are the same in all reference frames. The relativist has to prove the Copernican and cosmological principles.

I should add that the assertions of Relativity and the Copernican and cosmological principles have not even been disproven yet. It's just a belief for which there is no proof, no evidence. You have to go out into other parts of the universe and gather evidence. Right now, the evidence supports me. There is no support for the mainstream position, that physical laws are the same in all reference frames. The relativist and the cosmological principalist have no evidential support. They have nothing but a desire to be humble, and to not be at the center of the universe.

I'm the one with all the evidence backing me up right now. Every honest scientist has to admit that the evidence only supports... I'm being the most scientifically honest or rigorous, or however you want to phrase it, because I'm only accepting what the evidence supports. And the evidence, right now, only supports an absolute, Geocentric reference frame. The jury is still out on the principle of relativity and the cosmological principle. Those guys have to go out and gather more observations from other parts of the universe.

I'm being scientifically honest, and anyone who disagrees with my position is being scientifically dishonest. I'm only going as far as the evidence allows at this point in history. I'm not taking the evidence any further than it warrants. I'm being more scientific than every mainstream scientist, because I'm only accepting the evidence at face value. And all the observational evidence has been gathered from within a geocentric reference frame. That is indisputable.

So the burden of proof is not on the Geocentrist. And I'm just rambling now, but I hope I'm getting my point across. Go ahead and say Relativity is true. You're completely making an unfounded assumption. You don't have any evidence that supports your assumption. I'm awaiting YOUR evidence. You shouldn't be awaiting my evidence. I've already got my evidence, and at this time, it doesn't support your position on the subject. So go find some that does. Because you have to take the evidence a whole lot further to prove Relativity and the cosmological principle. I'm sorry, but that's the truth of it.

Anyway, that's my response to that kind of nonsense, that the burden of proof is on me, the Geocentrist. No, the burden of proof is not on me. The evidence only supports me right now. It doesn't support you, Mr. Relativist. So come back to me when you've gone to other star systems or other points in the universe and gathered observational evidence that matches — exactly — the observational evidence obtained on Earth. Do that, and then come back at me, and I'll say, "Okay, fine, I was wrong." Go ahead and do that, and then come back to me.

That's my stance on the whole thing.

I just want to add that when I say all the evidence supports me... There are videos on YouTube and other websites and stuff, other books and stuff, that... Just to use an example, there's a video on YouTube by some dork named CoolHardLogic, or ColdHardLogic or something, who uses the catchphrase "Bollocks!" People that don't want to look at geocentrism or anything, they think they understand it, and just disregard it, because they're only familiar with a geocentric model from the Dark Ages, where every single planet and everything is placed around Earth. And it's an incorrect model. It's an outdated model. Modern Geocentrists don't accept that model either. It's a foolish model. Even modern Geocentrists know it's foolish.

Not every planet revolves around the Earth. The universe as a whole revolves around the Earth. That does not mean that other planets cannot... Like, moons cannot revolve around Jupiter, and Jupiter isn't orbiting the Sun. It means that the universe as a whole is orbiting the Earth.

Anyway, those older models that people like CoolHardLogic are ranting about — "Bollocks!" — it's an old model. No Geocentrist even subscribes to it anymore, unless you're a complete fool that hasn't even looked into Geocentrism in modern times. They're outdated models. You're setting up a straw man. Of course it's a false model. All you have to do is modify the model a little bit and it works. Don't argue against a model from the Dark Ages that not even modern Geocentrists believe in. Don't set up a straw man. "Bollocks!" Yeah, it is bollocks. That model is bollocks, the one that CoolHardLogic is bollocksing about. Of course it's bollocks! You're arguing against an outdated model. At least take the time to examine Goecentrism as it exists today and then start trying to debunk it and say it's bollocks. Geocentrism has evolved since those days, my friend, I'm sorry. Know your opponent before you launch such a vitriolic attack against him.

CoolHardLogic is just setting up a straw man that's completely ridiculous. Don't destroy someone that doesn't really understand modern Geocentrism. He tears apart some guy that had... I mean, kudos for the guy standing up and saying "Geocentrism!" and everything, and making his video, but he was expounding a model from the Dark Ages, and that's the one that CoolHardLogic was attacking. It's not representative of modern Geocentrism. At least take the time to study your actual opponent, rather than attacking the weakest one you can find, one who doesn't know what the F he's talking about any more than you do.

My point is, every single piece of evidence you think you can come up with to refute Geocentrism, the Geocentrist can counter it. Foucault's Pendulum, the moons of Jupiter, the phases of Venus, and weather, and geostationary and geosynchronous satellites, and particle accelerators — everything you can come up with can be refuted easily by Geocentrists. Or to put another way, that evidence can easily be shown to either be inconclusive regarding either geocentrism or non-geocentrism, or actually supportive of Geocentrism.

That's why I'm saying that all the observational evidence supports it — because it does. If you think there's a piece of evidence you can come up with that disproves the geocentric frame — congratulations. You're going to win the Nobel Prize, because you've just disproven Relativity.

And I don't believe in Relativity. I'm not using Relativity to support my position. I'm saying if you're going to use some evidence to disprove Geocentrism with a capital G, you're going to win the Nobel Prize, because if you disprove the geocentric frame, you've disproven Relativity, because you've just proven that not all reference frames are equal.

So dig into Geocentrism. Look at it from the modern viewpoint, from the modern theory of it. Don't look at a Dark Age theory and a Dark Age model of it that even Geocentrists no longer subscribe to. Don't poo-poo such a model. Do your work. That would be like me trying to take a 17th-century theory that's been proven incorrect and trying to tear it apart and be like, "You guys are stupid!" And modern scientists would be like, "Yeah, we know that theory's stupid, what are you ranting about?" Go with the current theory. Don't tear apart a theory that's, like, pre-Copernican days, from before the 15 or 1400's. We've moved beyond that model. Step into the real world. Step into the modern world and look at Geocentric theories of today.

Every single piece of evidence that is presented as a disproof of geocentricity is not a disproof, I'm sorry. Even scientists who actually know their stuff don't believe it's a disproof of it, for the reason I've been saying: because if you say it's a disproof of geocentricity, you've just excluded the geocentric frame as an inferior reference frame, and you've thereby disproven that all reference frames are equal, and physical laws are not the same in all reference frames. Goodbye, Relativity.

That's why modern scientists have to admit that every single piece of empirical evidence supports a geocentric frame. Therefore what I've been saying previously.

All the evidence works from the geocentric reference frame, so the burden of proof is on the relativist.

One more thing. I was talking about that CoolHardLogic video and saying "Bollocks!" I'm not talking about the guy that CoolHardLogic was attacking. That guy's heart is in the right place. He's not a fool. He just doesn't understand modern Geocentrism apparently, but he's not the fool in that CoolHardLogic video. The true fool in that video is the CoolHardLogic guy, whoever that guy is, because he's attacking a model that is outdated and that not even modern Geocentrists accept. That theory is bollocks. CHL is ranting against something that is obviously incorrect. The model that was presented is obviously incorrect, and he's ranting against it as if he's such a genius.

Is CoolHardLogic's point that geocentrism is wrong? Because like I was saying, if CoolHardLogic thinks he's disproven geocentrism, he's either a fool, or he deserves the Nobel Prize, because he's just disproven Relativity too.

But I suppose an objection might be that the burden of proof is indeed on me, because I need to prove that the laws of physics AREN'T the same in all reference frames. And the rebuttal is: No, I don't need to prove that. I'm not the one making the claim that the laws of physics are the same in all reference frames. As far as I'm concerned, it's been proven that the laws of physics aren't the same in all reference frames. I'm not the one making an assertion that is contrary to scientific evidence. I don't need to prove that the laws of physics aren't the same in all reference frames. The guys that are hypothesizing that they are the same have the burden of proof.

If you're making an assumption, I don't need to disprove your assumption. I don't need to prove the opposite of your assumption. I don't need to prove that the laws of physics are not the same in all reference frames, because there is already an abundance of evidence to support that they aren't. Mainstream scientists are the ones making a claim that is contrary to the evidence, so it's on them to prove that claim.

The burden is not on me to swing the evidence in the other guy's favor. That's the other guy's burden. It's not on me to push the evidence away from me and toward the other guy. The evidence, whether you choose to accept it or not, says that the laws of physics are not the same in all reference frames. If the relativist wants to claim contrary, the burden is upon him to come up with something that swings the evidence toward him. And the moment he produces such something, he has disproven Relativity and has lost his case anyway.

NOTE: the following is not a transcription of any video. It's something I wrote that I threw into this book because it belongs here.

The Spherical Ship

Some people have claimed that in making my _Death to Einstein!_ arguments, I am making the mistake of assuming that two events separated in space and simultaneous in one frame of reference are simultaneous in another frame of reference. In other words, I am "building my conclusions into my arguments" by rigging them with the conclusion I wish to reach.

I present the following partially to rebut this claim, and partially to develop yet another way of thinking about what I'm arguing in _Death to Einstein!._

In previous illustrations, I have used a cube-shaped ship with sides of equal length. Now I'm going to switch to using spherical ships to demonstrate my arguments.

So let's begin by considering a ship that is a perfect sphere from the viewpoint of an observer stationary relative to the sphere, meaning that from the viewpoint of this observer, every point along the circumference is the same distance from the center as all other points. Theoretically, a light pulse originating at a point that coincides with the center of this ship will strike all points in the interior shell of the sphere at the same time, since every segment of the pulse must travel the same distance from the center to the interior shell of the sphere.

Mind you, I'm not saying that the light pulse is emitted from a light source that is stationary relative to the center of the ship, but merely that the light pulse originates at a point that coincides with the center of the ship.

Now, let's suppose that this spherical ship is 2-dimensional. It has length and height, but its width is so minute that it can be disregarded.

Let's further say that there are two such ships in relative motion along the same line in opposing directions.

The two ships are so precisely situated that one may slide right over the top of the other. In other words, they are able to pass within the minutest possible distance of one another, such that the centers of both ships 2-dimension ships, for all practical purposes, briefly occupy the same space at the same time. In other words, the alignment of their centers is a single event not separated in space, so there can be no doubt by either observer that this alignment is simultaneous. See the below illustration:

We are not considering two events separated in space, so it cannot be claimed that I am making the elementary error of assuming that two events separated in space are simultaneous in both frames.

Now, let's suppose that through some process, when the centers are aligned as in the illustration above, a pulse of light is emitted from a point coinciding with the centers of the ships. In such a case, each ship's observer must agree that for all practical purposes, the pulse of light was emitted simultaneously in all reference frames. The emission must obviously be simultaneous from all reference frames, whether we're considering one of the ships, or some point in a third reference frame external to the ships.

Why should it obviously be simultaneous? Because we are considering two events, namely, the coincidence of the centers of the ships, and the emission of a light pulse which is centered on those coincidental centers. In other words, although there are two events, they are in no way separated in space by any significant distance, occurring as they do in the same space at an instant in time that can only be simultaneous for all observers, since there can only be a single, absolute instant during which both centers are in alignment.

So: the light pulse is emitted at the moment of coincidence, and the ship (whichever is considered to be in motion) continues on, so that the centers are no longer coincidental.

Now, although I haven't yet explicitly mentioned it, this is a reworking of the combined time dilation/relativity of simultaneity illustrations that I have previously put forth in my _Death to Einstein!_ series. So at this point we are considering a spherical pulse of light expanding outward from the point of emission.

But what, exactly, is the point of emission in the case of the spherical ships? Is it a point stationary relative to the first ship, the second ship, or to a third reference frame external to both ships? Now, the light originated from a point that was common to every single possible reference frame at the absolute, simultaneous-in-all-frames, time of its emission. Obviously, since there is relative motion between at least two of the reference frames, the point of emission is no longer in the same place for whichever frame is considered to be in motion. This leads to insurmountable problems for special relativity.

How so?

Well, relativity considers that the point of emission remains stationary relative to whatever reference frame we view things from.

According to relativity, an observer associated with each spherical ship, considering himself stationary, will say that the light pulse expands from the center of his ship and strikes all points on the interior shell of his ship simultaneously. This observer will also say that the other ship is in motion, and the light pulse will strike walls of the other ship non-simultaneously. The stationary observer will also say that the moving ship is experiencing time dilation, since the light pulse takes a longer path in reaching the "ceiling" of the moving ship and reflecting back down to the center of the moving ship.

Now, at this point, I could repeat once again the arguments I previously presented in _Death to Einstein!_ But I'll forgo doing so and let the reader read the other books.

My main point in this bit of writing, and which I wish to emphasize, is that I have just negated the criticism that I am making an elementary error by assuming that two events separated in space are simultaneous in both frames.

Critics might point out that my error is actually only noticeable when I consider lightning strikes upon the hull of the ship.

So let's address this by retooling the above illustration to have lightning strike the fore and aft hull of the ships when the centers are aligned. This, the critic will say, is where my error comes in. How can we tell that the lightning strikes are simultaneous with the alignment of the ship centers? We're no longer considering a single event (the alignment of the centers) in a single place. We're now considering two spatially distant events: the alignment of the centers, and the striking of the distant hull of one or both ships. And this, the critic says, is precisely where I make my errors.

So let me address this.

First of all, let's note that one ship is length-contracted, so although the centers might coincide, the fore and aft hulls won't, which leads to some complications of the illustration.

The complications arise because we must ask, "Which ship is length-contracted?" Each observer will say the other ship is. Thus, if one observer says that the lightning strikes were upon his hull, then the other should logically say that the lightning strikes occurred within the interior of his ship, because remember, each observer says that the other ship is length-contracted. So we should be able to tell which ship is truly in motion simply by asking which observer experienced lightning strikes within the interior of his ship. The observer who experienced internal lightning strikes is the one who is truly stationary.

This, the critic will say, is precisely where I'm making my error, because I'm saying that the lightning strikes happen when the centers are aligned, which is a built-in assumption that the lightning strikes are simultaneous with the alignment of the centers.

But...I don't have to _assume_ that the lightning strikes are simultaneous with the centers. In his thought experiment with lightning strikes, Einstein merely says that one observer claims the strikes are simultaneous with respect to a certain observer, and then reasons from there. Since Einstein can be allowed such leeway, there is no reason I cannot as well. I can assert that one observer claims that the lightning strikes are simultaneous with the alignment of the centers, and then reason from there.

So I say thusly: from the viewpoint of an observer who considers himself stationary, the lightning strikes the hulls of one ship or the other (take your pick which he says is struck, it doesn't matter) when the centers of the two ships are in alignment. Now, it has already been established that in my illustration outlined above, the alignment of the centers of the ships is simultaneous in all reference frames. Now, if observers in different reference frames agree upon a single event as being simultaneous in two or more reference frames, then they have agreed upon an absolute simultaneity. Therefore, if one observer establishes that two other events are simultaneous with a third absolutely simultaneous event, it follows that all three events must be absolutely simultaneous as well.

We can then easily establish which of the ships is truly, absolutely in motion. _Death to Einstein!_

One might raise the objection that just because two or three frames agree upon an event as being simultaneous, it doesn't follow that the event in question is simultaneous in all reference frames.

...But I'm afraid it does follow, because in my illustration above, we don't have to limit ourselves to two or three reference frames. We can add as many reference frames as we need by introducing a multitude of spherical, 2-dimensional ships in relative motion traveling with a multitude of vectors, all momentarily converging so that their centers are in alignment.

A further objection might be raised: what if the clocks on these ships are all beating at different rates, or show different times, when this alignment of centers occurs? If a clock in one reference frame reads 12 o'clock at the time of coincidence, and another clock reads 2:15, then how can the coincidence of centers be simultaneous?

Well, for one thing, look at it this way. If you and I pass one another and our wristwatches show different times when we're abreast of one another, do you really think that means we don't agree upon the time at which we passed on another? Of course not. It simply means that for you, it is, say, 12 o'clock, while for me, it is 2:15. Why would a discrepancy in our clock readings cause any disagreement upon the absolute fact or time of our coming abreast of one another? You simply call the moment of our coming abreast as 12 o'clock, while I call it 2:15. This has absolutely no affect upon anything, and so this objection is completely insignificant and meaningless.

And if one of us is experiencing time dilation? Again, irrelevant. We're considering a single event here: the alignment of the centers of our respective ships. There is no time disagreement here. If two objects collide, there is nothing to disagree about, temporally. It's meaningless to even ask or consider any sort of temporal abnormality. Doing so is like trying to question whether a collision that occurred actually occurred, or whether two things came into alignment actually came into alignment. It's a nonsensical consideration.

Single event in a single space = absolutely simultaneous event. There can be no argument about it.

It's Just Not True That Relativity Says Everything is Moving Relative to Everything Else

Today is September 20th, 2016.

I started reading this book, Time Reborn, by Lee Smolin. One thing I want to address is that in the preface, page xi, it says, "The sun appears to go around the Earth, but it's the other way around — and when you get right down to it, it turns out that everything moves relative to everything else."

I want to address just that one sentence. Because it's incorrect. Lee Smolin is incorrect.

From the back cover: "Lee Smolin has made influential contributions to the search for a unification of physics. He is a founding faculty member of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics." Everybody knows who Lee Smolin is, if you've read popular science books.

Let me repeat that sentence: "The sun appears to go around the Earth, but it's the other way around — and when you get right down to it, it turns out that everything moves relative to everything else."

That's a crock. It's true to a certain extent that everything moves relative to everything else. Of course he's speaking about Einstein's theory of Relativity. "...everything moves relative to everything else." Motion is relative, in other words.

So if everything moves relative to everything else, then everything moves relative to something absolute. If you're taking in everything, and everything is in motion, then it's moving relative to an absolute space. It's true that everything moves and everything is relative...

But Smolin's representation of Relativity is only partially correct. You hear all the time, not just from Smolin, that everything is in motion relative to everything else. That's sort of the Cliff Notes representation of Relativity as propounded by mainstream scientists.

But what Relativity actually is, and what is never popularly emphasized, or rarely even spoken of, is that Relativity is also a theory that allows every observer, anywhere in the universe, to say that he is stationary. Non-moving. Everything else is moving relative to him. Everything is moving relative to everything else WITH THE EXCEPTION OF HIMSELF, who is the only stationary object in the universe. That is the core basis of Relativity, and it is more true than Smolin's statement that "everything moves relative to everything else."

What is not emphasized is that Relativity allows every observer to validly claim that he is stationary and everything else is moving relative to him. That is Relativity, and that's rarely spoken of, but that's what Relativity is. "Everything is in motion relative to everything else." Conversely, Relativity says that every observer is stationary relative to everything else. Every observer can rightly say that he is stationary and everything else is moving relative to him.

That is the true basis of Relativity. Not this nonsense that everything moves relative to everything else. To characterize Relativity that way glosses over the fact that Relativity claims that no experiment any given observer can perform will show that that observer is in motion. Empirically, every experiment you can perform will show that you are at rest. That is what Relativity says. Relativity does not say that everything is in motion relative to everything else. What Relativity truly says at its heart is that every observer may rightly consider himself stationary, and no experiment can be performed to disprove the observer's statement that he is at rest and everything else is moving relative to him.

That is Relativity. That's what Relativity says, but all you will ever hear from popular science books and mainstream scientists is, as Smolin states, "...everything moves relative to everything else." And that's not what Relativity actually says. It actually says that every observer can consider himself at rest, and cannot gather any empirical evidence that will show him to be in motion. And that observer cannot say, "I'm in motion relative to everything else." All that observer can empirically say is that he is at rest, because he cannot gather any observations to support an assertion that he is in motion. If he can do so, Relativity is false.

If any given observer can actually gather evidence from within his own reference frame that he is in motion, then Relativity is invalid. It's a false theory. Because what Relativity actually says is that all any observer can say with any empirical support is that he is at rest and everything else in motion relative to him.

If you disagree with what I'm saying, you do not understand Relativity. So Lee Smolin, Mr. Smarty-Pants here — I'm saying that facetiously of course — is either deliberately misleading the public, or he does not actually, truly understand Relativity at its most fundamental level. He is missing the most basic piece of knowledge regarding Relativity. He's either being deliberately dishonest, or he's being dishonest out of ignorance. He lacks a fundamental understanding of Relativity, as does everyone else who does not agree with what I'm saying.

It's not that people who disagree are stupid, it's just that you've sort of been taught the standard spiel about Relativity, and you have not actually, truly grasped the meaning of Relativity, most likely because you have not actually been exposed to it.

In a sense it's true that everything is in motion relative to everything else, but that's a gross misrepresentation of Relativity, because a more true, a more concise statement is that Relativity says that every observer can claim that he is stationary and everything else in the universe is motion relative to him (providing that indeed relative motion between the given observer and another object exists). It's always the other guy that is in motion when relative motion exists. There is no evidence I can gather that will disprove my statement that I am at absolute rest. Every piece of evidence I can gather will support my statement that I am stationary. No matter the state of motion of any other object.

That is what Relativity says. Go back and re-read Albert Einstein's writings on it, re-read for comprehension. Forget everything you have been taught about it. Go back re-read, and think about it, and keep doing so until you agree with me, until the little light bulb in your mind lights up and you finally grasp it.

All the preceding is why the geocentric reference frame is a valid reference frame within Relativity. Earth can rightly consider itself to be stationary, and there is no experiment you can do, there is no evidence you can gather, to contradict that. If you can gather evidence from within Earth's frame that Earth is in motion, then Relativity is invalidated. So if you cannot gather any empirical evidence to show that you as an observer stationary on Earth are moving along with Earth, then empirically, you are motionless, the Earth is motionless.

Relativists will say, "Only from a certain point of view. That's only a geocentric observer that can say that Earth is stationary. Other observers, say an observer on Mars, will say, "No, I'm stationary, Mars is stationary, and everything else, including Earth, is moving relative to me."

But if Earth actually, literally, absolutely is motionless in an absolute reference frame, such that that absolute reference frame and Earth's reference frame are identical, meaning that it is a preferred reference frame, then any observer where relative motion exists between that observer and Earth, cannot rightly say that he is stationary, because he will be able to gather empirical evidence to show that he is actually the one in motion, since Earth has been established to be absolutely at rest.

That is why the prime issue is: Are we in an absolutely Geocentric universe, a universe where Earth's reference frame is a preferred, superior reference frame? Not to deny the existence any other reference frames, but Earth is a superior reference frame. It's a preferred reference frame; it's a special, unique reference frame. We're either in that sort of Geocentric universe, where Earth literally is at the center of the universe and everything else is in motion relative to it, and you can empirically prove that — or, we are in a relativistic geocentric universe, which is the viewpoint of Relativity, where Earth's reference frame, the geocentric reference frame, is not a preferred reference frame. There's nothing special about it. It's equivalent to all other reference frames.

That's the choice. The only choice. There is no reference frame that can empirically demonstrate that it is in motion... You either can empirically demonstrate absolute motion, or you can't. So the only choices open to us are, 1) we are in a relativistically geocentric universe, or 2) we are in an absolutely Geocentric universe. Those are the only two choices we have.

One way or another, we are in a geocentric universe. Like it or not, those are the only two options available to us. And if you don't believe that, or understand that, if you disagree with me, you do not understand Relativity.

And I am not trying to use Relativity to defend absolute Geocentrism, which is the view to which I subscribe. I am not a relativist. I think Relativity is complete bullshit. Relativity is complete and absolute bullshit. And that's what led me to Geocentrism, when I realized that Relativity is complete bullshit. And no, I wasn't led to Geocentrism by religion.

Those are the only two options. We are definitely in a geocentric universe. Like it or not, we're either absolutely at the center of the universe and Relativity is invalid, or we are relativistically at the center of the universe, and Relativity is valid.

An observer who considers Earth to be motionless, a reference frame which Relativity MUST allow and is definitely one of the reference frames encompassed by Relativity, MUST claim that Earth is at the center of the universe, and MUST NOT be able to produce any empirical evidence to contradict that claim, else that observer falsifies Relativity.

If you take the viewpoint of a geocentric observer, whether you're taking the viewpoint relativistically or absolutely, any time you assume the viewpoint of an Earth-based observer who considers himself to be stationary, you automatically consider yourself to be at the center of the universe. Any geocentric observer must consider himself to be stationary at the center of the universe. A person who subscribes to Relativity, who believes there is nothing special about Earth's reference frame — when a relativist assumes the viewpoint of a geocentric observer, he automatically has to interpret all the evidence to say that he is stationary at the center of the universe. And he can say, "Every non-geocentric observer is going to come to that same conclusion. An observer on Mars is going to conclude that Mars is at the center of the universe." But that has to be the viewpoint of a relativist when he assumes the viewpoint of a geocentric observer.

A relativistic geocentric observer will say, "I am stationary at the center of the universe, and there is no empirical evidence to dispute my claim." He can only say, "Well, any reference frame is going to say the same." Because Relativity is the theory that allows every observer to consider himself to be stationary. Like it or not, that's actually what Relativity is. Every observer can consider himself to be stationary, and there's nothing you can do to empirically refute that.

So Lee Smolin is wrong when he says, "...and when you get right down to it, it turns out that everything moves relative to everything else." That's just not true. It's not a correct summation of Relativity. If you say that everything moves relative to everything else, you're assuming the viewpoint of an ultimate observer who considers himself to be stationary and is actually saying that everything moves relative to himself.

So Relativity does not actually say that everything moves relative to everything else. A geocentric observer will say, "Everything moves relative to everything else, except for me. I'm motionless."

Basically, when Einstein developed the theory of Relativity, all the evidence said Earth was motionless. And people couldn't figure it out for twenty years, from the time of the Michelson-Morley experiment until Einstein. Decades before Einstein, the evidence was mounting that Earth was stationary in an absolute reference frame. Earth was at rest with respect to the so-called aether. Earth was in an absolute reference frame, which nobody liked. Because, you know, everybody knows Earth's not at rest. Earth's moving around the Sun. What are you talking about, Earth is at rest?

The evidence was piling up that Earth is in an absolute reference frame, is motionless, constituting an absolute reference frame, and what Einstein did was basically, he said, "It looks like Earth is motionless in an absolute reference frame." But he turned it around and said, "But here's my theory: every observer can regard himself as being stationary in an absolute reference frame, not just an Earth-based observer. So it's not actually an absolute reference frame."

He took Earth in an absolute reference frame and kind of made every reference frame absolute. Every observer will gather evidence that says he's at rest within an absolute reference frame. Thus, it's kind of a democratization of absolute reference frames. Einstein basically said, "If Earth is in an absolute reference frame, I'm just going to make up a theory that says everybody is in their own absolute reference frame."

So instead of there being one absolute reference frame, there is a multitude of absolute reference frames. Thus rendering the concept of an absolute reference frame meaningless. Whichever observer you are, you can consider yourself stationary in an absolute reference frame, and the empirical evidence won't contradict you.

That's what "they" mean by "There are no absolute reference frames." There sort of are, but there aren't, because it's all relative. It's a relativity of absolute reference frames. Which reference frame is absolute depends upon which observer you ask. That's what Relativity truly is. There are no absolute reference frames in Relativity, but yet there are. Every absolute reference frame is equivalent to every other absolute reference frame. It depends solely upon the observer which absolute reference frame is the true absolute reference frame.

Whichever observer's viewpoint you assume, you are stationary in your own absolute reference frame, and you formulate your physical laws and your empirical expectations based upon that. THAT is Relativity. Not the misrepresentation that everything is moving relative to everything else.

It's like if you only have one rich person, and say, "Well, we'll just give everybody billions of dollars and then there won't be any rich people. Everybody will be equally rich." It's that sort of a thing. Everybody becomes rich. Everybody gets their own absolute reference frame. Everybody is rich, but yet they're not, because to be rich, there has to be a poor person that you're rich relative to.

I eventually want to talk about Flat Earth. I was watching a debate... Well, not a debate, but Robert Sungenis was on the show of some user named jeranism, some YouTube show called "Globe Busters" or something. It was basically Robert Sungenis, a Geocentrist, talking to Flat Earthers. And I had some thoughts on that.

But right now I just want to say, Flat Earth is complete bullshit too. Flat Earth is nonsense. There's no reason for it, and the people Robert Sungenis was talking to were not very impressive. Robert Sungenis basically thrashed them, and bolstered up my opinion, because he obviously... The opponent was so weak, the Flat Earthers were so weak, that Robert Sungenis kind of took them to task, or took them out to the woodshed or something, however that saying goes. And he demonstrated that he's not a stupid person. So the notion that Geocentrists are somehow stupid...absolute Geocentrists, because everybody is a geocentrist, whether you're a relativist or a non-relativist, everybody is a geocentrist, it just depends on which kind of geocentrist you are... Basically, Sungenis demonstrated that he actually knows what he's talking about.

In my mind, he was trustworthy as a source of Geocentric knowledge before, but he just kind of proved himself, because he basically refuted the Flat Earthers were saying. I don't know if that's because the Flat Earthers on the show were just a little, shall we say, obtuse, which might be a bit generous... Not to insult them. They seemed like perfectly nice, friendly people and everything, but they seemed a little lacking in knowledge of physics. Let's just put it that way, to put it mildly.

There's no reason for Flat Earth. That was my opinion of Flat Earth before, it's bullshit, and the video I listened to kind of bolstered that assessment of Flat Earth.

I almost wonder whether these Flat Earthers are actually some sort of a thing to discredit Geocentrists, because Flat Earth is becoming conflated with absolute Geocentricity. And that's ridiculous. They're two separate things. And one of them, Flat Earth, is a completely ridiculous bit of unnecessary nonsense. And Geocentricity is perfectly scientific, and has tons of empirical evidence behind it.

Someone may object, "Oh, that's because YOU don't know what you're talking about. YOU lack an understanding of physics."

No. If you reject geocentricity in any form, whether it is relativistic or absolute, YOU lack an understanding of physics. You lack a basic understanding of Relativity.

I am not a Flat Earther. Flat Earth is completely ridiculous. Concave Earth is completely ridiculous. Those are my official statements on that.

I almost think Flat Earth might be deliberately trying to... I hate to talk about conspiracies, but if anything is a conspiracy, Flat Earth may be a conspiracy to make genuine Geocentists look stupid or something by conflating Geocentricity with something completely ridiculous like Flat Earth.

NOTE (added on 1-30-2017):

Objection: "Scott, I agree with you that every observer can regard himself as being at rest. But we know that no particular observer is REALLY at rest, because if he were, then no other observer would be able to regard himself as being at rest, as required by Relativity. So it's actually Smolin who is describing Relativity correctly: '...when you get right down to it, it turns out that everything moves relative to everything else.'"

Response: Fine. For the sake of this argument, I'll allow that I am correct in what I said above, but that Smolin is more correct. But doing so leads to what I've said numerous times in other videos: Relativity has not yet been tested, despite claims to the contrary from mainstream scientists. For if every observer can rightfully consider himself as being at rest (from a certain point of view), and no experiment can reveal otherwise, but yet it will be the same for all observers in ANY reference frame, as required by Relativity, then all experiments that have allegedly tested Relativity need to be repeated in other reference frames far from Earth, and they need to get the same results that were obtained on Earth. Because ALL alleged tests of Relativity to date have been performed on Earth, all observations of the heavens have been gathered from Earth. And since those experiments, as required by Relativity, show that Earth is not moving, then to properly test Relativity, those experiments (ALL OF THEM!) must be repeated and get the same results in other reference frames far from Earth. WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE AS OF THIS WRITING. Yet mainstream scientists loudly proclaim that Relativity is the must well tested and successful theory in history. Which makes Relativity PSEUDOSCIENCE! END OF ARGUMENT!

The only thing that has yet been tested is that the geocentric reference frame is at rest relative to the rest of the universe, making geocentrism the most well tested viewpoint in history. The only question remaining is whether we're in a geocentric universe, or a Geocentric universe.

Objection: "Don't put words into my mouth. I don't agree with you that every observer can correctly claim that he is at rest, and that all observations support him. Smolin is correct that everything moves relative to everything else, and nothing you said is correct."

Response: Then you don't fully understand Relativity. End of argument.

NOTE: The following is an early piece of writing in the development of my Death to Einstein! ideas. It's not a video transcription, but I don't think I've published it before, and I think it needs to be published. So here it is.

Debunking Relativity: The Light Clock Problem

There are two possibilities. Either the light pulse moves along with the rocket; or it moves independently of the rocket, spreading out from the point of its emission, a point which, when the emitter is in motion, falls steadily behind the emitter.

As will be shown, the famous light clock thought experiment, which relativity employs to demonstrate time dilation, chooses the former possibility, claiming that the light pulse moves along with the rocket, rather than independently of it.

If there is relative motion between an observer in a rocket and an outside observer, then according to relativity, either observer may regard himself as at rest and the other moving. If so, in the case of a light clock inside a rocket, how does the rocket observer view the situation when he regards himself as being at rest and the outside observer as moving away from him? In other words, both observers are viewing the same light clock, inside the rocket. How does each observer regard the light clock when each observer alternately considers himself to be in motion and at rest? Here is the fallacy: assuming there is relative motion, the observer outside the rocket can never regard himself as at rest relative to the light clock, while the inside observer can never regard himself as in motion relative to the light clock (assuming he is not walking across the cabin of the rocket). It is thus only the light pulse itself that bears consideration, not the apparatus that contains it. Since the observer inside the rocket can never regard the rocket as in motion relative to the light clock, then how can there ever be reciprocity in regards to time dilation for the rocket observer? In other words, relativity claims that, in regards to time dilation, when there is relative motion between two objects, either object can regard the other as being time dilated. But if relativity uses the light clock example to demonstrate how time dilation is derived, then the observer in the rocket will be unable to attribute time dilation to the outside observer.

The stationary outside observer looks at the moving rocket's light clock pulse and says, "Since in my frame of reference the light pulse travels a longer distance than in the rocket observer's frame, I must conclude that the rocket observer is experiencing time dilation." Further, the stationary rocket's observer looks at the moving outside observer and says, "Since in my frame of reference the light pulse travels a shorter distance than in the outside observer's frame, I must conclude that the outside observer is...not experiencing time dilation." This situation is at odds with relativity's assertion that each observer can regard the other as experiencing time dilation. There is no relativity as to which observer is time-dilated. It can clearly be determined which observer is truly in motion, and thus disproves relativity.

Thus the famous light clock thought experiment, one of the staples of every relativity teacher and which can be found in every book on relativity that I've read, actually disproves relativity.

