REUTERDAHL

Dr. ARVID REUTERDAHL / ST. PAUL, Minn., U. S.A.

EINSTEINISM /ITS FAULTS AND DECEPTIONS

(Translated by Dr. E. Ruckhaber)

Classical relativity is correct, but Einsteinism is wrong. The term “relativity” must therefore not be associated with Einsteinism. The modern twist of true relativity must be labeled “Einsteinism” so that healthy science men and healthy science who work with facts and not with mathematical fictions are protected from false suspicion.

Its main fallacies.

1. The fallacy of the absolute speed of light. Einstein’s postulate that the speed of light is absolute is completely wrong. The postulate of an absolute as a counterpart to the relativity destroys the relativity as a true general principle.

Einstein’s first writing (1905) is mathematically incorrect because he derives a spherical wave front instead of an ellipsoidal one from its light source.

Everything that moves, including light, has relative, not absolute, speed with respect to the observer. When the light is excluded from this law, the universal meaning of a law becomes an abuse of word.

The facts contradict Einstein’s postulate.

2. The fallacy of the Fitzgerald-Lorentz shortening. The Fitzgerald-Lorentz hypothesis of foreshortening is a purely mathematical fiction that is not supported by any known and observable fact. It was invented to explain the alleged negative result of the Michelson-Morley interferometer test.

If the time for both paths in the interferometer is the same, then the reason for this result is the effect of external factors in space and not an alleged shrinkage of an interferometer arm. If there is real contraction then, according to real science, it can be measured. This alleged shrinkage has never been measured. It is therefore a pure fiction. If there is a difference in the time of the two ways, then the relative motion between the earth and the ether is a fact.In both cases, Einstein’s postulate of the absolute speed of light does not shrink to anything.

3. The fallacy of the principle of equivalence. Einsteinism claims the equivalence of acceleration and gravity. In other words: He teaches that an effect (acceleration) is equivalent to its cause (gravitation). This thesis is a crude absurdity.

4. The fallacy of “space-time”.

Einsteinism means that real space-time is only one and that both space and time are artificial products of the mind. This is a fallacy. The truth is that although space and time are always connected in this phenomenal world of action, space is nonetheless so fundamentally different from time that no unity can be established. On the contrary, a dualism between the two is essential for a correct understanding of physical effects. The space is reversible. Time is not reversible. The space is static. Time is dynamic. Both together represent the event, which includes both situation and change of situation.

Time cannot, by Einsteinism or any other kind of alchemy, be transformed into actual space as its one coordinate. The fictional mathematical term known as the “root of minus 1” is too powerless to turn one reality into another reality.

5. The fallacy of curved space

Matter can only affect other matter. It cannot bring about changes in principles and laws. Space and time are not matter. Hence the existence of matter in space-time cannot change the nature of space and time. The space is not a material thing that can lock something like the walls of a box. It is not curved because a curvature can only apply to material objects that are present in space. Hence the space is not limited and enveloping. Space is an elementary fact - fundamental, like a principle, because its possible uses are unlimited

6. The creation of space and time by the observer - a fallacy

Einsteinism teaches that man can make space and time by means of measuring rods and clocks. This is pure sophistry. What is measured is there before the measurer appears. Space and time are not born through the act of measuring. On the contrary, measuring is a quantitative assessment of the amount of a reality. Since space and time are elementary realities, all normal minds can draw the same conclusions about their nature

7. Mathematical calculations determine the nature of space and time - - A fallacy. Despite claims to the contrary, Einsteinism practically teaches that the character of space and time is determined by mathematical speculation. The fallacy in this is immediately evident. The real task of mathematics is the precise and concise representation of the phenomena. But mathematics cannot create anything - not even four- or n-dimensional spaces.8. The conceptions of the molluscian reference system and the unit field - works of the imagination without contact with reality

Einstein’s Gaussian reference mollusc, like the animal after which it is named, consists mainly of a shell. Inside the bowl is nothing but the vain hope that the device will work. Since the mollusk has no contact with reality, it can not even raise themselves from the bog of inconsistencies that gave birth to them.

[note- Einstein calls this new, flexible relativism of space co-ordinates ‘mollusks’: https://multisenserealism.com/2012/10/16/after-einsteins-mollusk/ ] The same criticism applies to Einstein’s latest speculative product - the unit [i.e. unified] field, which is set out in his paper “On the unified field theory” (1929). As a generalizing principle, it generalizes until every trace of reality is swept away and stirs up a mathematical dust that completely blinds the [people that have been] Einstein-duped.

9. Alleged Evidence from Observation - Either worthless or completely devoid of conclusiveness. a) deflection of light.

The photographs were chosen to confirm Einstein’s hypothesis. Those who were elected did not confirm it by 1 percent, a difference that is not allowed in healthy and honest scientific work. In addition, Einstein does not take into account the refraction caused by the gaseous atmosphere of the sun.

b) Rotation of the plane of the planet Mercury.

Einstein was forced to amputate his theory in order to be able to reveal in a magical way Gerber’s Newtonian formula, which he used, without mentioning it, to make his calculations. The movement of the plane of Mercury therefore proves the correctness of Gerber’s Newtonian calculation, but not the correctness of Einsteinism.

c) Shift of the spectral lines.

The observations on the shift of the line towards the red are without conclusive force. The careful work of Burns, Curtis, Meggers and others flatly contradicts Einstein’s claims. The observation can confirm a different theory than Einstein’s and so invalidate their claim to be the only one with regard to the spectral lines. This also applies to the Shapley effect.

10. Einsteinism - A speculative network of mutual contradictions.

Since Einsteinism is spun out of fictitious and incoherent fibers, the whole system is full of mutual contradictions.

In 1911, Einstein’s theory derived a deflection of light equal to 0.83 arc seconds. In 1916 Einstein found the deflection equal to 1.7 arc seconds. The latter is around twice the former. Einstein givesno excuses or explanations for these glaring contradictions. So they remain in his work as permanent monuments of the colossal scientific prank of all time.

In 1919 Einstein boldly announced that there was no ether. In his lecture in Leiden (May 5, 1920), however, he changed his mind and tried to replace a real medium with a mathematical continuum. Meanwhile, light waves cannot be made out of X’s and Y’s.

In his Special Theory, Einstein asserts that the speed of light is the same in all directions in space, regardless of the speed of the light source and that of the observer. However, in his General Theory, he rejects this alleged law and boldly claims that it does not hold in a gravitational field like that of the sun. Laws that contradict one another are the core and essence of Einstein’s ridiculous structure.

11. The aesthetic claims and claims regarding uniqueness - false.

In science, only what is true can claim to be beautiful. Einsteinism, therefore, because it is false, is not beautiful.

All of Einstein’s problems can be solved without recourse to his fantastic mathematical speculations. Hence, his argument that his theories are true because they are supposed to be the only ones falls into the water.

The delusions, of Einsteinism.

1. Bombastic advertising.

When Einsteinism flooded the world like a tidal wave, I called Einstein the Barnum of science because of the bombastic advertising of his foolish ideas. Since this unscientific publicity has not waned, the accusation is still legitimate.

2. A mere mathematical speculation.

Its entire structure is not based on facts, but on mathematical speculations, which even surpass the puns and sophistries of the unbridled scholastics.

3. The Nobel Prize.

Einstein received the Nobel Prize for his law regarding the photo-electric effect. This law had previously been proven wrong by the research of the American physicist R. A. Millikan (see his work “Das Elektron”, p. 230, edition 1917).

Dr. O. E. Westin in Sweden brought this illusion to light. Einstein’s unjustified lecture on the subject of “relativity,” which violated the rules of the Nobel Directorate, led the world to believe that the Nobel Directorate approved Einsteinism as a sound and experimentally proven theory. However, the Nobel Prize Directorate expressly stated in its award ceremony that this is not the case.The Directorate requires each recipient of a Nobel Prize to give a lecture on the subject on which the award is based within a specified time. In Einstein’s case, the price was not given for relativity, but for his deceptive law regarding the photoelectric effect.

4. Einstein’s priority?

a) Minkowski and Einstein adopted but distorted the original idea of Melchior Palägyi, the great Hungarian philosopher, regarding time as a dimension connected with space. Palagyi also referred to the phrase “the root of minus one”

in relation to time. Palägyi’s work was published in 1901. Einstein’s first font [i.e. paper] is dated 1905. Minkowski’s first font [i.e. paper] appeared in 1907. Palegyi did not teach the unity of space and time, nor did he ever say that the length of a measuring stick depends on the time of its observation.

b) Einstein’s formula from 1911 for light deflection is essentially the same as that of Johann Georg von Soldner from 1801. Soldner’s formula was based on Laplace’s Newtonian celestial mechanics. Contrary to the remarks by Dr. Robert Trumpler, I have demonstrated that Soldner’s use of size 2 g instead of g is justifiable.

c) Paul Gerber’s formula from 1898 was used by Einstein in 1916 to determine the amount of rotation of the plane of the planet Mercury.

d) In 1902, the author of the present document outlined the idea of a unitary field that encompassed all types of force in a lecture called “The Atom of Electrochemistry” and given in the American Electrochemical Society. In 1913 I coined the hyphenated “space-time”, which was copyrighted in 1915, occasionally in my lecture (given at Kansas State Agricultural College and the University of Kansas) and titled “The Space-Time Potential, A New View of gravity and electricity ”. Einstein’s mollusk reference system was built according to the plan of my potential zone system, only with the important differences that my reference zone was built on the basis of facts and applied to real physical determinations, while Einstein’s mollusk is a mere mythical structure that has no contact with reality.

My space-time kinematics from 1923 encompasses all kinds of effects, those of gravity, electrical, thermal, mechanical etc. This was also used in definitive determinations. Einstein’s unified field of 1929 - a piece of purely mathematical fiction - has no real applicability, because it is based not on facts but on mathematical speculations, which are subject to deceptive assumptions.