Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Page 1 of 10
The News of
USA
Business Weekly Science Your Comics Puzzles USA Feature
World the USA Politics Industry Magazine Techno Health Crafts Games Humor Articles
BROTHER JONATHAN'S
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html
10.09.2007
Page 2 of 10
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html
10.09.2007
Page 3 of 10
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html
10.09.2007
Page 4 of 10
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html
10.09.2007
Page 5 of 10
teachers what I had found. Within days, I became widely known around
campus as "The kid who proved Einstein wrong." I was unanimously elected
president of the Special Science Group for advanced students.
I was the "wunderkind" at school and district board meetings, who made
outrageous financial requests, backed by grants I had gotten from local Silicon
Valley corporations, for advanced school science projects. Projects such as
wiring up the school for TV, the year before cable TV was invented. I later
met the man who invented cable TV, so I know.
I also clearly noticed that the usual number of requests from the really
cute girls who had wanted to wear my athletic sweater had precipitously
dropped to a nerdy zero. That athletic sweater, with the varsity block letters
for track, cross-country, wrestling and football, with all the medals and
ribbons cascading down the left arm. For an "active" teenager, this simply
wouldn't do. I began a curious double-life.
I might whisper after school to my teachers about new science projects I
was working on, but then not a word to my fellow students. "Sorry, Donna,
what? Einstein? Never heard of him. Wanna see my first place California gold
medal for 400-yard relay?" What two-faced cads teenage boys can be.
The curious double-life continued for decades. I found it difficult to find
jobs in business and industry, even with multiple degrees in physics and
engineering, with the appellation "The kid who proved Einstein wrong." I
never mentioned it during job interviews. Otherwise, I often did not get the
job because I was "way too over-qualified."
Jobs in academe were impossible. In the university
environment, not being a professed "believer" in
Relativity Theory, was considered the near equivalent to
being a heretic, blasphemer, or bomb-throwing
anarchist.
By the 1960's, the Relativity Theory had already
been widely "accepted" for so long and republished in
so many advanced college textbooks, that most
professors simply could not see the obvious math error
which I had found.
Bertrand Russell
They couldn't see it, because it "must not" exist.
Too many famous scientists, who were much smarter than they were, such as
Bertrand Russell and George Gamow, had already
proclaimed the theory to be true, therefore the simple
math error can't exist. For them, the error was invisible,
even when it was pointed out to them.
And what was that Simple Math Error? It's so
simple even a child could figure it out. It was a matter of
re-interpreting the meaning of the negative results of the
Michelson-Morley experiment.
Einstein had interpreted the negative results as
meaning that C is the constant velocity of light which
nothing can exceed. That "fact" actually has never been
proved and was and still is only a "hypothesis" stated by
George Gamow
Einstein. He then set the speed limit at 186,000 mi/sec.
I have long disagreed with that method, since to make that work, Einstein
had used the equation called the Lorentz Transform. This is both
mathematically and logically incorrect. The Transform seems to give the
numerical or arithmetic "right answer," but
mathematically it is false. The Lorentz Transform uses
the square root of the velocity squared divided by C
squared.
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html
10.09.2007
Page 6 of 10
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html
10.09.2007
Page 7 of 10
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html
10.09.2007
Page 8 of 10
turns out that neither side can "prove" they are correct - for the simple
reason that both sides are wrong.
1.) CREATION: The biblical text does not say that the earth is only about
4,004 years old. That was Bishop Usher who made that mistake and he was
wrong -- not the bible. The bible, in fact, says nothing about age of the earth.
Bishop Usher made a mistake in assuming that Genesis Chapter 5 was about
the ages of the patriarchs.
Instead it contains a hidden critical piece of scientific information,
necessary for maintaining the Hebrew culture - the exact length of the year,
365 days. Before about 2,000 BC, most middle-eastern advanced cultures used
a 360 day lunar calendar which is good enough for being a shepherd or camel
herder. But to be a true farmer and use agriculture, you need to know the
exact length of the year to be able to know when to plant your crops the next
year. I will explain and prove that in detail later.
So Bishop Usher was wrong. People who believe in the "young earth" are
wrong, based on a mistaken translation by a Bishop who was not a scientist. A
Bishop who didn't understand the scientific and historical meaning of Genesis
5, which documents the "evolution" of ancient cultures from huntergathering-herding societies, into full-fledged agricultural societies which need
a proper 365 day solar calendar to survive.
2.) EVOLUTION: Charles Darwin was also very wrong. Evolution by
"natural selection" was not the process which created the myriad lifeforms
that now exist on earth. There is plenty of evidence which can prove that. The
one item of critical evidence to prove that Darwin's Evolution is not correct is
that after 150 years of diligent searching, not one, no, not even one example of
a missing link or any intermediate species form has ever been discovered. But
that is exactly what is needed to show Darwin's evolution theory was correct.
Since no intermediate species have ever been found, therefore Darwin's
gradual evolution theory by "natural selection" is shown to be false.
Thus the arguments for both sides of the heated debate between "creation
vs evolution" are non-starters. They are BOTH wrong. It's like two blind
people arguing over the color of the sky or the sun. Neither side can prove the
other side is correct or incorrect. It is a useless debate and a waste of time. I
won't mention the number of angels on heads of pins as another example of
useless philosophical debates.
Actually, creation and evolution are also BOTH correct, to some degree.
Not in anyway that most people believe -- but just enough to fool both sides
into thinking that they each might actually be correct.
Every 1 to 2 million years, the magnetic field of the earth reverses the
north and south magnetic poles. The earth itself does not reverse - just the
magnetic field. During the reversal process, the earth's magnetic field, which
usually acts as a shield protecting lifeforms from intense solar X-rays, gamma
rays, and deadly dangerous ionizing particle radiation, suddenly disappears.
The deadly intense solar radiation is momentarily allowed to strike the surface
of the earth.
Within hours, about 99 percent of all life on earth is instantly killed by the
intense radiation. Those few 1 percent of survivors, hidden in caves, in holes in
the earth, or under water are highly deformed, damaged and mutated by the
intense radiation causing direct damage to the DNA molecules in their
reproductive cells. But the radiation damage is not visible in those survivors,
but it is clearly seen in their direct offspring.
Within months or a year, or less than one generation, the surviving
mutants which may or may not still be viable, may be able to reproduce. This
results in multitudes of numerous competing similar but highly modified
mutant lifeforms. Then and only then, does Darwin's evolution process of
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html
10.09.2007
Page 9 of 10
"natural selection," enter the scene, to cull the less able or disabled
mutant forms to be lost to history, while the strong survivors with many new
adaptable traits become numerous new species. The new species were
suddenly "created" by the intense radiation within one generation.
Example: About 1 million years ago, during the last magnetic field
reversal, one species, Saber Tooth tigers, were extremely irradiated and in less
than a year became, modern lions, tigers, pumas, ocelots, bobcats, pussycats
and numerous other feline species. None of the new species was ever seen
before the massive radiation event at the magnetic field reversal. Darwin's
"evolution" didn't and couldn't do all of that within several years. But that is
what the geologic record shows -- almost instantaneous "creation" of many
new species by intense random radiation with no intermediate "missing link"
forms, and all within one generation.
Since the time of the age of dinosaurs, which ended 65 million years ago,
there have been about 15 to 20 magnetic field reversals. At each reversal, there
is almost instantaneous creation of multitudes of new lifeforms, usually
resulting in many forms coming from just one earlier life form. And usually
the earlier life form disappears, since it is no longer competitive.
Another example: The early horse, eohippus, about the size of a dog,
disappeared, but became donkeys, horses and several equine variants such as
zebras which are almost related species. Notice, in this process there is no
gradual evolution -- and thus no "missing links" between species.
Charles Darwin, when he invented his evolution theory, knew nothing
about this, since "radiation" was not "discovered" until 50 years later by
Madame Currie. And the effect of radiation on DNA was completely
unknown, until DNA was "discovered" by Watson and Crick 100 years after
Darwin. Thus Darwin, in the mid-19th century, had no clue as to what might
be the actual cause to make one species change into another species. Thus
Darwin's Theory is wrong.
No missing links between species have ever been discovered. Now you
know why. The new species were "created" almost in the blink of an eye, by
intense solar radiation. No intermediate species or "missing link" were ever
born. The new mutant species were born directly from their highly radiated
and DNA-modified parents.
Thus, almost instantaneously, in geologic time, the new lifeforms are
"created" by the intense radiation, and then the survivors quickly "evolved"
in just one generation into the many viable new species.
Thus, it is time to end the inane debate between "creation versus
evolution." Both scientific and religious "beliefs" are wrong and cannot be
proved to be true. Both can be proved to be false. And also both are partly
"right" -- but for the wrong reason.
Marshall Smith
Editor, Brother Jonathan Gazette
newseditor@brojon.com
-- BROTHER JONATHAN GAZETTE
http://www.brojon.org/frontpage/EINSTEIN-WENT-WRONG.html
Subscribe
10.09.2007