Vasile Effect

Given that according to general relativity the planets orbit the sun because they are following the curvature of space-time and its 'geodesics', shouldn't light do the same thing ? Except it doesn't. Because there is no such thing as the curvature of space-time, or space-time for that matter, or geodesics there of. Geodesics by definition can only exist on a surface, while space-time does not have any physical surface on which geodesics can physically exist and influence the trajectory of physical objects. If Einstein's theory of gravity was correct then light would have to orbit the sun like the planets do. Because it would have to follow the same 'geodesics' which makes the earth orbit the sun, or even orbit the earth like the moon does. Light cant just go in a straight line if space is so curved by massive objects that it makes planets go in circles instead of a straight line. Except it does. There is no light bending what so ever at the distance where th...

Mainstream pseudo scientists like to affirm that '' General relativity has experienced considerable success because of its way of predicting phenomena like the precession of Mercury’s perihelion and binary pulsars, warping space-time, gravitational red-shifting of light, the relativistic delay of light, the equivalence principle, the geodetic and frame-dragging effects that have been regularly confirmed.'' In reality, all experiments which alegedely proved Einstein right have proved him wrong. Take the gravitational redshift experiment for example, where they used a bag of helium to prove that light is redshifted/blueshifted by relativistic gravity. Except helium aint gravity, and it changes the wavelength of light from refraction into air. So gravitational redshift doesnt exist, as it was confused with refractional redshift by Pound and Rebka. Or take the gravitational time dilation experiment, where Shapiro makes the same mistake of confusing an effect of refraction w...

The big bang expansion theory is based on the  assumption that space contains some dark energy which causes space to expand. No such dark energy was ever detected, and this assumption contradicts both special and general relativity. Special relativity because empty space or vacuum has no mass, so it cannot contain any energy because E=mc^2. And General relativity because according to it mass/energy curves space, it does not expand it ! So even if space contained some form of energy, this energy would curve the space and act as gravity, contracting the universe instead of expanding it.  The big bang theory clearly contradicts the very theories on which it claims to be based.

After I showed that quantum physics are wrong, I will show that t he main experiment which led to the development of qunatum physics in the first place, can be easily be explained with classical wave physics, and that it simply does not require the invention of alternate phyiscs based on contradictory particle-wave duality to explain it. The particle does not behave like a wave at all, it simply creates a wave in the aether, and it is this aether wave which inteferres at the slits and creates the interferrence pattern, which affects the trajectory of the particle as it passes through the disturbed medium and is deflected by it. So good old classical wave physics explains the dual slit experiment with ease, and leaves no room for particle wave duality which doesnt rationally explain anything because its a contradiction of terms. The only rational explanation is that aether exists, and the dual slit experiment can be seen as direct evidence of its existence. Aether is like a fluid and wh...

 Quantum mechanics = Junk science    General relativity =   Junk science         => Quantum mechanics = General relativity = Junk science Unification complete.

The standard cosmoillogical Lambda Cold Dark Matter model is based on the cosmoillogical constant Lambda, which Einstein made up in order to prevent his general relative universe from generally contracting. He later removed it, calling it his biggest blunder, but that did not stop big bang fanatics like Friddman to use it in his equations as it was needed to make the universe expanding, according to Friddman. Because according to Einstein it was needed to make the universe static, and he rejected Friddman's equations, which are used by big bang pseudo-scientists to mathematically expand the universe by adjusting this constant. Which is not really a constant, since its value can vary from 0 to whatever value they want it to have, depending on the rate of expansion they think the universe has based on their illogical interpretation of redshift from space expansion. They claim that this cosmoillogical constant is the dark energy of vacuum, which expands the universe at an accelerated ...

  Since  E=mc^2, and vacuum has no mass, then it follows that empty space or vacuum has no energy. How can anyone claim that vacuum has energy, without rejecting this equation and special relativity altogether ? And even if vacuum had energy, how does that expand space ? When in General Relativity space is curved by mass and energy. It simply does not follow why a space that contains energy will expand, it is a non sequitur. And a clear contradiction of Einstein's theory. So in order to claim that empty space has energy, you need to reject Special relativity. And in order to claim that this energy expands space, you need to reject General relativity. Big bang cosmologists claim both, so they reject both, while at the same time claiming that both are true and building their standard cosmoillogical model on them. And then they wonder why cosmology is in a crysis !