Joe Nahhas, Paul Marmet, Miles Mathis, and Erik J. Lange: Opponents of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity
Published: September 8, 2010


Being an Atomist who understands that nature (reality) is absolute and that her laws are immutable (not subject to change), I have always rejected Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity. It is a law of nature that matter, the substance of which the material universe is made, cannot be created or destroyed. It can only be changed from one form of matter to another. (This is the basis for the law of the conservation of matter.) Matter is anything that takes up (or occupies) space, has mass, and reacts to gravity. Anything that fits this definition of matter is matter. Nothing can exist which is not matter, except the void. The void is pure empty space or nothingness. It’s the opposite of matter. It has no qualities whatever, no powers, no potentialities, and no tangibility in and way.

It is important to understand that since nothing exists but matter and the void, gravity is a fundamental property of matter. It cannot be separated from matter. With this understood, opponents of Einstein’s theory are able to show that his theory is false, even without the use mathematics. But, since Einstein’s theory of relativity is a mathematical theory, mathematics should be used to test its validity. Einstein himself believed that measurements are essential for the validation of theory and proposed at least three tests for his theory of general relativity, which included observations regarding the following natural phenomena:

  1. 1. the deflection of starlight by the Sun
  2. the precession of the perihelion of the planet Mercury
  3. the gravitational red shift

The measurements of these three phenomena have been used to determine whose theory of nature is true or false, Isaac Newton’s theory of gravity or Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity.

It has been found in recent times by several theoretical physicists that Einstein’s theory is incorrect and that Newton’s theory is correct. This is after more than 100 years of physicists erroneously regarding Einstein’s theory as being correct and a replacement for Newton’s. Resultantly, Einstein replaced Newton as the popular scientist “icon.” Let’s investigate how this happened.

In 1687, Newton discovered the law of gravity, developed a theory about the solar system that we still use today. Recall, he defined “gravity” as the mutual force of attraction between two objects that draws them together. He said: “Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force that is directly proportional to the product of the masses of the objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.”1 He had studied the theory about the solar system developed in 1609 and 1619 by the German mathematician, astronomer, and natural philosopher Johannes Kepler (1571-1630). Kepler had discovered that the shapes of the planets and their orbits around the sun are not circular, but elliptical. He also had discovered that the planets travel at different speeds in their elliptical orbits around the sun. But, he had not discovered what held the planets in their orbits around the sun. Newton discovered that the planets are held in orbit around the sun by the sun’s gravitational pull on them, which pulls them toward the sun. He explained that gravity is the force in control of the entire solar system.

In 1885, about 130 years after Newton's death, astronomers studied the motions of the planets, they learned that the perihelion (point in the orbit of any planet in the solar system when it is closest to the sun) precesses (shifts slightly) with each revolution, but strangely the planet Mercury precesses at a faster and to a greater degree. They predicted that the strange precession of the perihelion of Mercury was being produced by the pull of the planets on one another. As seen from Earth, the precession of Mercury’s elliptical orbit is measured to be about 5600 seconds of arc per century. An arc second is a unit of measurement that denotes small angles in astronomy. One second of arc is one 1/3600 degrees. Using equations based on Newton's theory of gravitation and laws of motions, they predicted a precession of 5557 seconds arc per century. As you can see, there is a discrepancy of 43 seconds of arc per century. They were never able to explain this discrepancy. For this reason, it appeared that the strange precession of the perihelion of Mercury could not be explained by Newton’s theory of gravity.

In 1915, Einstein learned that astonomers failed to explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury using Newton's theory of gravity, which gave a discrepancy of 43 seconds of arc per century, sought to do what Newton's theory could not do. He used his theory of general relativity, which opposes Newton’s theory of gravity, claiming that gravity is not a force, but merely the observation of the warping of space and time by matter, to explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury. To do so, he brought together the mathematics of the German mathematician Hermann Minkowski (1864-1909), who developed a new view of four-dimensional space-time and laid the mathematical foundation of the theory of relativity, and the mathematics of the German mathematician Georg Friedrich Riemann (1826-1866), who developed a new system of geometry based on curved surfaces. Einstein came up with calculations that gave exactly 43 seconds of arc per century. He took this to mean that his theory of general relativity is right and Newton’s theory of gravity is wrong. I strongly disagree with him. The mathematical calculations of the precession of the perihelion of mercury, even when correct, does not prove that gravity is a property of space.

Furthermore, Einstein found that his theory of special relativity cannot unify the forces of nature. I have discovered that Newton’s theory of gravity can easily do so. Physicists need only to acknowledge the following six facts:

  1. Everything is made up of atoms.
  2. Atoms are the smallest particles of matter that can exist; the ultimate and smallest division of matter.
  3. Nothing exists but atoms and the void.
  4. Gravity is a fundamental property of the atoms.
  5. The gravitational interaction of atoms ultimately causes all the different phenomena in nature.
  6. Nothing is gravitationally neutral.

The belief that Newton’s theory of gravity cannot explain the precession of the perihelion of Mercury has been disproved. In 1977, an American nuclear scientist and founder of real time physics Joe Nahhas wrote an article entitled Relativity Theory Death Certificate. After recent intense examination of the mathematical equations contained in this excellent incontestable article, I was nearly overwhelmed with excitement. I realized that I had just examined a mathematical discovery of a false equation used by Isaac Newton to solve the problem regarding planet Mercury’s perihelion and its correction. This correction makes it understood that Einstein’s theory of relativity, which claims that gravity is not a force between objects, but merely the property of space and the observed effect of the warping of space, which is nothingness, and time, which flows uniformly without regard and without relation to any external thing, must be eliminated from physics.

As Nahhas explains, “The elimination of relativity theory is a matter of time and not a matter of science. The annexation of quantum mechanics to classical mechanics is in progress. The problem in all of physics is wrong experimental data and measurements. Correcting data and measurements mistakes of past 150 years will cure physics from 20th century wrong physics started with Newton and exploded with Einstein. Correcting Kepler’s equation solution will produce new solution of Newton’s equation that will annex quantum mechanics to classical mechanics and deletes relativity theory.

Taking all of relativity theory experimental proofs... amounts to nothing and a case of 109 years of Nobel Prize winner physicists and 400 years of Astronomy that cannot read a telescope… *Not only Einstein was wrong but all physicists are wrong for the past 350 years. Physicists built 350 years of physics on wrong concepts and relativity changed physics to fiction. Physics’ progress requires the death of relativity theory and 100,000 living physicists relativistic education attached to it real time physics is correcting Newton’s- Kepler’s equations and annexing quantum mechanics and deleting relativity and strings theories… Newton’s and Kepter’s equations… were/are solved wrong for 350 years and the correct solution fit experimental data better than anything said or published in the history of physics. All relativity theory experimental data is apparent visual effects [ advance of perihelion/apsidal motion].

My excitement over the fact that a physicist has discovered that Newton’s theory of gravitation can be used to accurately explain the precession of perihelion of the planet Mercury continued with the reading of a book entitled Einstein’s Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics, written 1997 by the Canadian physicist Paul Marmet (1932-2005). In his book, he demonstrated that using classical physics and Galilean coordinates, one can derive the observed phenomena attributed to Einstein’s theory of relativity. In so doing, he gave a detailed and complete demonstration of an equation for the advance of the perihelion of Mercury, which is identical to Einstein’s equation. He explained that Einstein’s relativity assumes new mathematical hypotheses and ignores completely the concept of models to describe physical reality.

Einstein supposed that time and space can be distorted and that simultaneity is relative but he did not give any serious description of what this really means physically. In Newton’s time, physical descriptions of phenomena were accompanied by mathematical equations giving quantitative predictions corresponding to those physical descriptions. Einstein’s relativity claims that nature can be described with mathematical equations without any physical description. There is a complete abandon of all the physical models that made physics understandable in Newton’s time.”

Today, I am getting enormous pleasure from studying an ongoing book entitled The Greatest Standing Errors in Physics and Mathematics, written by Miles Mathis, an American artist and science writer. His book is a collection of papers in which he explains that “…the most basic rules of math and logic have been flagrantly ignored in full view of history, and not one person has deigned to notice in almost a century.

“General Relativity”, he says, “is probably the most famous physical and mathematical theory in history and it has been combed and extolled by all the most famous figures of the 20th century, which makes it almost impossible to believe that it contains flaws that are so elementary. These are not flaws embedded in difficult manipulations of the tensor calculus or in difficult motions of curved space, they are flaws of simple reasoning and number assignment. As an example and teaser, Einstein assigns his famous number .45 to percession per year while having no mathematical or theoretical reasons for that time assignment. By checking all his famous papers on GR, we find that he certainly found the equations that makes that per year. He simply assumed the period of precession, since his number matched historical equations. As I show, this assumption was false, since his number. 45 applied to the curvature of his field at the distance of Mercury’s orbit. That is, was a constant, applying during one second or one century. He needed more math in order to apply that curvature to the precession problem, but he never did the math. He simply applied the curvature number directly to precession. This is not only mathematically disallowed, it is gloriously negligent. I don't know — and probably no one knows or ever did know — whether this was an oversight or a purposeful fudge. It may be that he could'nt see how to get from the curvature to the precession, so he just took what he had and ran with it. Because his audience was already monumentally confused, no one noticed.”

Erik J. Lange, an accomplished Dutch citizen-scientist and mathematical analyst of the theory of relativity, says: “Today (1999) the theory of relativity by Albert Einstein is still a generally accepted theory. Although there have been raised a number of objections against the theory since its first publication in 1905, none of these have been able to convince the scientific community of the falsity of the theory. On philosophical, mathematical and empirical grounds, there are nevertheless many valid objections against the theory to be found.”4 Lange analyzed the two postulates on which Einstein based his theory of special relativity and his faulty derivation of equations from the Lorentz transformations. He found that there is a contradiction between the two postulates. The contradiction reveals that Einstein’s postulate that the speed of light is absolute and constant is a false postulate. This fact, along with the fact that Lorentz transformations show that the speed of the expansion of the edge of space exceeds the speed of light, renders the whole theory of relativity meaningless.

I find Lange’s proof that Einstein’s theory of special relativity is false, so credible that I also add him to the list of persons that I regard as pillars of postmodern physics.

This brings us to an analysis of the phenomenon of gravitational red-shift, as a test for the validity of Einstein’s special theory of relativity. “Red-shift” is the change in wavelength of light toward the red, or longer, end of the spectrum. The red-shift occurs when a light source speeds away from the observer. Because an increase in wavelength is a red shift, this effect is called gravitational red-shift. According to Einstein’s special theory of relativity, gravitational red shifts happen when the light looses energy, causing wavelengths to get longer. Einstein called this effect the gravitational energy red-shift. As the American theoretical physicist and Nobel Prize winner Richard P. Feynman (1918 - 1988) explained, “It is important to realize that in physics today, we have no knowledge of what energy is.”5 I argue that there is no such thing as energy as defined in modern physics. It is defined as the ability to do work. It is regarded as not being matter.

Let it be clearly understood that everything in the world is made of matter and that nothing can exist which is non-material, except the void. Matter is anything that takes up (or occupies) space, has mass, and reacts to gravity. All matter is made up of atoms, which are the smallest particles of matter that can exist; the ultimate and smallest division of matter. “Mass” is a measure of the number of atoms that make up an object, or body. “Gravity” is the force of attraction between two masses. It’s a fundamental property of atoms. The gravitational interaction of atoms ultimately causes all the different phenomena in nature, including light. In fact, light is movement of radiant aggregates of atoms that excites the sensation of sight. The word “energy” comes from the Greek word energeia, which is the Greek word for “activity.” It is merely the activity of atoms, which cannot be created or destroyed. All changes in matter are the result of ever-shifting re-arrangement of atoms, under the influence of gravity. This is what causes red-shifts. They are not caused by the loss of non-material energy, as claimed by Einstein’s special theory of relativity.

Light coming from galaxies is red-shifted. Astronomers and cosmologists believe that this red shift shows that that galaxies are speeding away from Earth and from each other and that the universe is expanding.

Here, I deem it important to explain that atoms possess powers from their sheer existence and that gravity is a fundamental power of atoms. Power (Greek, dynamis) is the ability or capacity to do something or to produce a certain effect, such as a red-shift.

By now, I’m sure that you realize that it takes assiduous work to perform the three test proposed by Einstein for his theory of general relativity, especially since it’s based high level mathematical reasoning.

Anyone with enough knowledge of advance mathematics who reads Mathis’ book The Greatest Standing Errors in Physics and Mathematics will realize that he is a superb logician in the application of mathematics in physics. I regard him, along with Marmet, to be a pillar of postmodern physics.

I also regard Nahhas as a pillar of postmodern, especially since he says: “All there is in the Universe is objects of mass moving in space at a location.”6 This view upholds the theory of Atomism, which holds that nothing exists but atoms moving in the void. Recall that all objects are made up of atoms, and that the void is the pure empty space that separates the atoms and in which they move. The self-moving atoms in the void provide the only true basis for universal mechanics. Having absolute mass, and ultimately depending on nothing but their own mass for motion, and with their gravitational interaction ultimately being the cause of all the different phenomena in nature, they nullify Einstein’s theory of relativity.

Indeed, Einstein’s theory of relativity as a description of the natural phenomena of the universe is dead. Physicists who still believe in that theory are really inept physicists.

References:
  1. Joe Nahhas, Relativity Theory Is Dead- Mercury’s Perihelion Precession Advance without relativity, 1977, Abstract: “Relativity Theory Death Certificate,” (website: www.whabin.net/physics/nahhas 25)
  2. Paul Marmet, Einstein’s Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics (Gloucester, ON. Canada, 1997), pp. 12-13.
  3. Miles Mathis, The Greatest Standing Errors in Physics and Mathematics, Section 1: Relativity, Chapter 30: The Perihelion Precession of Mercury, (website: www.milesmathis.com).
  4. Erik J. Lange, Proof of the Falsity of the Speed Theory of Relativity (2006) (http://www.physics.semantrium.com)
  5. Richard P. Feynman, Six Easy Pieces (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Books, 1995), p. 71.
  6. Joe Nahhas, The 350-year Error in Solving the Newton-Kepler Equations (1977)(website: www.wbabin.net)