Einstein never said photons or black holes exist

Einstein never used the term 'photon' to describe light as a particle, despite being aware of it he avoided it like the plague. I was a bit harsh on him in my older posts because I was mislead by mainstream physicists in believing that the photon was Einstein's invention, when in fact he had nothing to do with it and rejected it. Like he rejected the existence of black holes, but if you watch these  pseudo-science popularisers like Tyson or Cox or Hossenfender they all claim that BHs are a robust prediction of Einstein's general relativity. Except Einstein rejected the notion of black hole singularities entirely and attempted to prove they are impossible to exist with GR, and they completelly ignore that part because some blackchild 'proved' that they exist using Einstein's theory and field equations, who just like Freidman the weatherman and the big bang priest understood and solved much better than Einstein, in the exact opposite way. So basically Einstein was a fool who couldnt even understand what his own theory predicts, and these weathermans and childs were teaching Einstein how to solve his own equations in order to prove the Vatican priest's big bang expanding singularity non-sense. And then they (the cosmoilogists) wonder why cosmology is in a neverending crisis ! Because they're astronomically stupid, that's why.

Comments

  1. John RoachMarch 19, 2026 at 10:11 PM

    It is easy to get distracted. Einstein's papers on Max Planck's "quantum" were noticed by the physics community, not his 1905 papers on Relativity and E=MC^2. Electrodynamics had supplanted Thermodynamics, and LIGHT was Electrodynamics since Lorenz and James Clerk Maxwell published papers in the mid-19th century. Planck's "quantum" was a unit of heat, but Einstein transferred the quantization to the photovoltaic effect. Max Planck was the "Reluctant Revolutionary" because he did not agree that the "quantum" existed except as a mathematical artifact. Moving on, it is possible that the Vatican priest plagiarized Freidman's paper on General Relativity after Freidman's death.Let's not forget Willem de Sitter's "expanding universe" after American astronomer Vesto M. Slipher's presentation at the annual convention received a rare thunderous standing ovation in 1916. Any talk of the Big Bang must remember that the Big Bang was not included in the standardized scientific textbooks until the academic year 1969-1970. Never give up hope that future generations will correct these errors in theoretical physics.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The fundamental error of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Special relativity is wrong.

Image
''The  Michelson–Morley experiment  was an attempt to measure the motion of the  Earth  relative to the  luminiferous aether , [ A 1 ]  a supposed medium permeating space that was thought to be the carrier of  light waves . The experiment was performed between April and July 1887 by American physicists  Albert A. Michelson  and  Edward W. Morley  at what is now  Case Western Reserve University  in  Cleveland , Ohio, and published in November of the same year. [ 1 ] Michelson and Morley's  interferometric  setup, mounted on a stone slab that floats in an annular trough of  mercury The experiment compared the  speed of light  in perpendicular directions in an attempt to detect the relative motion of matter, including their laboratory, through the luminiferous aether, or "aether wind" as it was sometimes called. The result was negative, in that Michelson and Morley found no significant difference...
Read more

An introduction to Refractional Redshift, and how it was confused with gravitational redshift (updated)

Image
  AN INTRODUCTION TO REFRACTIONAL REDSHIFT, AND HOW IT WAS CONFUSED WITH GRAVITATIONAL REDSHIFT. GENERAL RELATIVITY DEBUNKED. Marius L. Vasile @Vasile Effect   In this paper I will prove that refraction causes a redshift, which I cleverly named Refractional redshift, and that this redshift was not so cleverly confused with gravitational redshift by the world's finest scientists- we're talking Harvard, Nobel prize level here- which were either ignorant of refraction, or doctors in doctoring experiments with it. Refractional redshift is by far the most common and yet unknown type of redshift- certainly for astronomers, who have no ideea that it exists. It is caused due to the fact that during refraction the speed of light changes, but the frequency remains constant. Since f=v/lambda, where lambda is the wavelength, it immediately follows that the wavelength changes too in order to preserve the frequency. This results in an increase of wavelength or a redshift when...
Read more

Why the speed of light is Invariant in Classical Physics. Einstein was dead wrong

Image
 The speed of light in a vacuum is invariant, meaning it is the same for all observers, regardless of their relative motion or the motion of the light source. This is a fundamental postulate of Einstein's theory of special relativity, and it has absolutelly nothing to do with it. It has to do with the Doppler effect and how it changes the frequency and wavelength of the light wave due to the motion of the observer/source. But it does NOT cause a change in the observed velocity. Because if frequency increases, then wavelength decreases, and if frequency decreases, then wavelength increases. The result of this is that their product v=f*lambda will always be constant  when measured by a moving observer. This explains why speed of light is invariable in different inertial frames in classical physics, and why it is not variable as these geniuses like Michelson, Lorentz or Einstein expected. Here is the AI calculation which proves it, which made Google Gemini (following Copilot) adm...
Read more