Physics Based On Einstein's Errors

[Super Polymath]

I don't get the context or who you are talking about here. or the reference to born and feynman.  Please go on.....

While it is true that Einstein contradicted himself (aether madness) and the fact that "On the photo-electric effect" won the nobel & general relativity didn't is another paradoxical and contradictory conundrum of oxymoron & proof of the Illuminati. Einstein's mind was a jumbled mess trying to make sense of something that took humanity 1700 years before the final product, holy grail, codex, devil's bible was completed by the RCC 800 years ago. I had the internet and antagonizing masonic bully-peers aiding me

[Vmedvil2]

Okay, well here are 3 physical proofs of relativity.

 

Length contraction can be proven by black hole's which gravity pulls planets and stars apart. The fact that as the matter is attracted toward the black hole it is torn apart by length contraction caused by gravity.

 

 

 

Atomic Clocks read the time shift of relativity as in moving objects the clocks read a noticeable difference in atomic clocks which are always accurate.

 

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg23331184-900-atomic-clocks-make-best-measurement-yet-of-relativity-of-time/

 

 

 

Stars can be seen behind other stars as the photons are bent around the object by relativity if the object's light was not being bent around the star you could not see it.

 

Edited October 16, 2018 by VictorMedvil

[marcospolo]

 

Okay, well here are 3 physical proofs of relativity.

 

Length contraction can be proven by black hole's which gravity pulls planets and stars apart. The fact that as the matter is attracted toward the black hole it is torn apart by length contraction caused by gravity.

 

 

Atomic Clocks read the time shift of relativity as in moving objects the clocks read a noticeable difference in atomic clocks which are always accurate.

 

 

Stars can be seen behind other stars as the photons are bent around the object by relativity if the object's light was not being bent around the star you could not see it.

Ok, these are offered as possibly observations that may support relativity, but they can also be interpreted as supporting other equally interesting ideas, none of which may be correct and relativity is possibly the most illogical option.

 

And as observations can never be claimed to be "proof" we must go back to the hypothesis, and critically examine it.

Thats where the problems become clear.

[exchemist]

If SR is incorrect in ANY way, (a claim only you are making, other relativists will strongly disagree) then ALL of SR is wrong. And then you don't get GR either in that case.

NO SR, no GR then no Quantum, as its intertwined,  they are trying to complete the marriage between relativity and QM currently.

So rather then pretending that a criticism of SR is of no value and is that SR not really that important, you could just go watch my video and show where it is wrong.

https://www.bitchute.com/video/SRV45pZlWXYs

As GAHD has clarified, SR is not "wrong", it is a special case of relativity, for systems that experience no acceleration or gravitation. The clue is in the name. As with a great many physical theories, treating a simplified system allows one to analyse one effect without complications, even though comparatively few real world systems strictly obey the restrictive conditions.  

 

In this case, the effect is that of the speed of light being independent of source or receiver, something that was experimentally found to be so at the end of the c.19th. Einstein realised the only way this could be, for a source and receiver in relative motion, was if distance got shorter from one vantage point while time got longer from the other, thus keeping distance/time, i.e. velocity, the same for both. 

 

If you don't like it, you need to account for this observation of the independence of the speed of light, as well as explaining the muon experiment and E=mc², as I pointed out on the other thread. 

 

"Prove me wrong" is the cry of the crank down the ages. It does not work like that. It is up to the proponent of a new theory to show why it is superior to the one he or she wants to replace. And that obviously must focus on the observations that the existing theory manages to account for, showing why the new one does it better.  

Edited October 16, 2018 by exchemist

[marcospolo]

Well thats what I started this thread for, to find why Einstein made outrageous claims that only seem to be true for special cases and not for the rest of physics. He said bizarre stuff then said go prove me wrong! Now as the hypothesis is a failure of rational thought at square one, how could anyone later "find" experimental "evidence" that could support a failed hypothesis? I say its probably because they cherry picked the data, lied or made incorrect conclusions and began with incorrect assumptions.

 

The "evidence" presented does not "prove" that SR is correct.

 

And you are incorrect in claiming that the speed of light has been experimentally found to be constant in all inertial frames of reference. That is a jump of logic and not based on any hard evidence. So time dilation and length contraction remain to this day, unproven.

 

You read way too much into the M&M experiment, which was intended to find the aether. It did NOT demonstrate that the speed of light remains the same in all inertial frames in any way, shape of form.

 

The Muon experiment is not conclusive PROOF of anything either, they just immediately ascribe it to SR without any real critical thought.

 

Anyway, before you go inventing and "finding" proof for SR, (like they just "found" the Piltdown Man, or a host of other scientific frauds),

you really need to address the glaring issues with the hypothesis. Why do you skip over the hypothesis and just get to say its all true, and we have "found" evidence to back it up?

If the hypothesis sucks big time, then the evidence cant be supporting what you think it is, can it?

 

So, back to square one. Einstein needs to show a solid, well constructed, rational and argument that contains no contradictions or logical errors. However on inspection, we find that its full of issues, and cannot be considered suitable to be even published in a respectable science journal.

 

I'm not going to skip step one, I'm not discussing what may or may not be considered as evidence till I hear a decent hypothesis.

 

Maybe thats why not one of the respected physicists of the day accepted Einsteins paper, and why he did not win the Nobel prize for SR, because everyone could see it was weak and full of issues.

 

So, as it stands now, Einstein and anyone who believes in his theory, has made a claim, now I'm challenging their claim by pointing out issues and problems that need to be addressed, BEFORE we can continue on to examining any supporting evidence.

 

So you made the claim that SR theory is correct, I'm asking that you answer the challenges. The burden is on you to solve any of the issues if possible. You need to watch the video, and explain why its not correctly pointing out a valid problem with Einstein's theory.

 

So I'm not proposing any new theory, I'm only saying that you don't have any decent theory now, and nothing from Einstein can be considered as a rational theory.

 

 

[exchemist]

Well thats what I started this thread for, to find why Einstein made outrageous claims that only seem to be true for special cases and not for the rest of physics. He said bizarre stuff then said go prove me wrong! Now as the hypothesis is a failure of rational thought at square one, how could anyone later "find" experimental "evidence" that could support a failed hypothesis? I say its probably because they cherry picked the data, lied or made incorrect conclusions and began with incorrect assumptions. The "evidence" presented does not "prove" that SR is correct. And you are incorrect in claiming that the speed of light has been experimentally found to be constant in all inertial frames of reference. That is a jump of logic and not based on any hard evidence. So time dilation and length contraction remain to this day, unproven. You read way too much into the M&M experiment, which was intended to find the aether. It did NOT demonstrate that the speed of light remains the same in all inertial frames in any way, shape of form. The Muon experiment is not conclusive PROOF of anything either, they just immediately ascribe it to SR without any real critical thought. Anyway, before you go inventing and "finding" proof for SR, (like they just "found" the Piltdown Man, or a host of other scientific frauds), you really need to address the glaring issues with the hypothesis. Why do you skip over the hypothesis and just get to say its all true, and we have "found" evidence to back it up? If the hypothesis sucks big time, then the evidence cant be supporting what you think it is, can it? So, back to square one. Einstein needs to show a solid, well constructed, rational and argument that contains no contradictions or logical errors. However on inspection, we find that its full of issues, and cannot be considered suitable to be even published in a respectable science journal. I'm not going to skip step one, I'm not discussing what may or may not be considered as evidence till I hear a decent hypothesis. Maybe thats why not one of the respected physicists of the day accepted Einsteins paper, and why he did not win the Nobel prize for SR, because everyone could see it was weak and full of issues. So, as it stands now, Einstein and anyone who believes in his theory, has made a claim, now I'm challenging their claim by pointing out issues and problems that need to be addressed, BEFORE we can continue on to examining any supporting evidence. So you made the claim that SR theory is correct, I'm asking that you answer the challenges. The burden is on you to solve any of the issues if possible. You need to watch the video, and explain why its not correctly pointing out a valid problem with Einstein's theory. So I'm not proposing any new theory, I'm only saying that you don't have any decent theory now, and nothing from Einstein can be considered as a rational theory.

Show me how you account for the muon observation and the observed mass defect in atomic nuclei, which E=mc² correctly accounts for, and I'll listen. 

[marcospolo]

 

Show me how you account for the muon observation and the observed mass defect in atomic nuclei, which E=mc² correctly accounts for, and I'll listen. 

 

 

The Fairies are responsible for everything we cant see.

There, now I have a hypothesis, you must go looking for evidence of fairies, that how science for you, works.

 

You have no idea what the hell you are looking at with the muons, you guess.

You have no idea what is happening inside an atom, which has never been seen, you don't know how an electron works, why it has a charge, how that charge causes it to repel a like charge.... you have no idea, just guesses. You don't really know that there is a quark, you guess based on math, not by observation. Even observation can't reveal whats going on.

 

You don't really know the mass of a sub atomic particle, that you guess exists, its all conjecture based not on direct evidence, but interpretations of effects supposedly caused by the sub atomic particle, but it could be nothing of the sort.

 

Thats why we need to have a solid hypothesis in the first instance, but we have not got that. All we have is Einsteins crap, which is clearly irrational and impossible.

 

So any conjecture you care to indulge in based on that crap is bound to be just more crap.

[exchemist]

   

 

The Fairies are responsible for everything we cant see.

There, now I have a hypothesis, you must go looking for evidence of fairies, that how science for you, works.

 

You have no idea what the hell you are looking at with the muons, you guess.

You have no idea what is happening inside an atom, which has never been seen, you don't know how an electron works, why it has a charge, how that charge causes it to repel a like charge.... you have no idea, just guesses. You don't really know that there is a quark, you guess based on math, not by observation. Even observation can't reveal whats going on.

 

You don't really know the mass of a sub atomic particle, that you guess exists, its all conjecture based not on direct evidence, but interpretations of effects supposedly caused by the sub atomic particle, but it could be nothing of the sort.

 

Thats why we need to have a solid hypothesis in the first instance, but we have not got that. All we have is Einsteins crap, which is clearly irrational and impossible.

 

So any conjecture you care to indulge in based on that crap is bound to be just more crap.

Do you think E=mc² is right or wrong, then?

[GAHD]

bury your head in the sand, run away and hide, someone has made a video that you might not be able to explain!  The video IS the preamble.

A 3 minute video is worth about 100 pages of writing.

Ive challenged SR and you cant be bothered to find out why. weak.

mmk, Skipped through the video to get a rough idea what you're hob-knobbing about.

Oh, it's simple: You are setting up a thought exercise, not an experiment. That's why it's paradoxical. You've put the cart before the horse. Check into how kinetic energy is experimentally equal to mass energy and how mass energy alters distance. Hint; it's why orbits orbit, but a couple magnitudes up the scale when you start dealing with the sort of speeds you're trying to wrap your mind around. You're trying to use "escape from a predator on the Savannah" levels of intuition to understand something your little mammal lobes are just plain not equipped to intuitively grasp.

 

"Weak" is one way to put it I suppose. It's just re-checking someone's inability to grasp already completed physical experiments with their own poorly framed thought-exercises is along the same level of interest I have in re-checking the neighborhood for Invisible Pink Unicorns. That interest and time willing to spend on it is indeed, weak.

Edited October 16, 2018 by GAHD

[marcospolo]

 

Do you think E=mc² is right or wrong, then?

 

 

Absolutely. Its based only on the teachings of the mystical kabbalistic religion. That of alchemy, numerology and man is god and can ascend into hight planes of dimensions.

 

That's exactly what Quantum Mechanics is all about, the top physicists even say its "amazing" that the ancient zohar teaching of Kabbal were able to be so accurate, so often.

 

With E=mc2, Einstein said that in SR, length contracts, time dilates, AND MASS INCREASES, but after they realized that no one sees any mass increase and it makes absolutely not one scrap of sense, they twist Einstein's words around now, and say "although he kept saying "mass" he actually really meant "energy".

 

No he did not, he said mass, he meant mass.

 

If he meant energy and not mass, then this famous equation MUST be re-written as "Energy = energy * light-speed squared."

 

Which if you are astute, you will recognize is still garbage.

 

So then they say, Oh well, its not the same energy, its the "energy of mass".

 

Now again, if you can THINK, you will realize that mass is just the measure of how much matter there is.

And because we don't actually have a real definition of matter, they end up saying that mass is exactly the same as the inertia of an object.

 

The formula or definition is identical. mass and inertia is the same thing exactly, the measure of how much effort is required to move something made of stuff, matter.

 

So, now comes the part where you have to think for yourself, but as this is hard for you, as you have been indoctrinated, Ill help you.

 

So mass and inertia what are what exactly? Well they are just physical properties of stuff. like color and smell and temperature are physical properties of stuff.

 

So as mass is just a measure, a simple property of something, HOW THE F**K can it have its own property? the additional property of some energy? (Energy is also just a measure of some property of stuff)

 

A property is fundamental, it can never have its own property.

 

It’s like saying that my dog is heavy, and heavy has the color purple. (heavy and purple are properties)

 

If that last sentence makes any sense to you, then congratulations, you are a relativist! Welcome to the church, please read and learn the rest of the religious dogma.

[marcospolo]

 

mmk, Skipped through the video to get a rough idea what you're hob-knobbing about.

Oh, it's simple: You are setting up a thought exercise, not an experiment. That's why it's paradoxical. You've put the cart before the horse. Check into how kinetic energy is experimentally equal to mass energy and how mass energy alters distance. Hint; it's why orbits orbit, but a couple magnitudes up the scale when you start dealing with the sort of speeds you're trying to wrap your mind around. You're trying to use "escape from a predator on the Savannah" levels of intuition to understand something your little mammal lobes are just plain not equipped to intuitively grasp.

 

"Weak" is one way to put it I suppose. It's just re-checking someone's inability to grasp already completed physical experiments with their own poorly framed thought-exercises is along the same level of interest I have in re-checking the neighborhood for Invisible Pink Unicorns. That interest and time willing to spend on it is indeed, weak.

 

 

Well you are the funny guy.

 

Of course my video is a thought experiment, Einstein himself, (you know, your religious leader,) said that "the thought experiment is superior to any real experiment". Thats why he ONLY EVER used thought experiments in all his theories!

 

Every main topic of physics today since Einstein is based on his thought experiments, thats why I'm using one of his very own experiments, with a few mods, to show that everything he claimed is garbage.

 

Whats wrong with your logic?

 

So, go back to my video, and explain away the very real paradox if you can.

 

A paradox is where a theory contradicts itself, and therefore is wrong. Einstein is simply wrong, get over it.

[exchemist]

   

 

Absolutely. Its based only on the teachings of the mystical kabbalistic religion. That of alchemy, numerology and man is god and can ascend into hight planes of dimensions.

 

That's exactly what Quantum Mechanics is all about, the top physicists even say its "amazing" that the ancient zohar teaching of Kabbal were able to be so accurate, so often.

 

With E=mc2, Einstein said that in SR, length contracts, time dilates, AND MASS INCREASES, but after they realized that no one sees any mass increase and it makes absolutely not one scrap of sense, they twist Einstein's words around now, and say "although he kept saying "mass" he actually really meant "energy".

 

No he did not, he said mass, he meant mass.

 

If he meant energy and not mass, then this famous equation MUST be re-written as "Energy = energy * light-speed squared."

 

Which if you are astute, you will recognize is still garbage.

 

So then they say, Oh well, its not the same energy, its the "energy of mass".

 

Now again, if you can THINK, you will realize that mass is just the measure of how much matter there is.

And because we don't actually have a real definition of matter, they end up saying that mass is exactly the same as the inertia of an object.

 

The formula or definition is identical. mass and inertia is the same thing exactly, the measure of how much effort is required to move something made of stuff, matter.

 

So, now comes the part where you have to think for yourself, but as this is hard for you, as you have been indoctrinated, Ill help you.

 

So mass and inertia what are what exactly? Well they are just physical properties of stuff. like color and smell and temperature are physical properties of stuff.

 

So as mass is just a measure, a simple property of something, HOW THE F**K can it have its own property? the additional property of some energy? (Energy is also just a measure of some property of stuff)

 

A property is fundamental, it can never have its own property.

 

It’s like saying that my dog is heavy, and heavy has the color purple. (heavy and purple are properties)

 

If that last sentence makes any sense to you, then congratulations, you are a relativist! Welcome to the church, please read and learn the rest of the religious dogma.

Ah OK. So your contention is that relativistic mass increase is not seen. So presumably this Wiki article, :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_relativistic_energy_and_momentum, explaining that this is routinely demonstrated in undergraduate physics courses, is describing a worldwide scam, connived at by the universities.

Very good, that's clear. 

 

Secondly, how about the mass defect of atomic nuclei? Is that a scam, too, do you think? But perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. First of all, do you know what mass defect is? If not, I can explain.  

 

Lastly, I'm intrigued by this reference to kabbalah. Do you perhaps object to relativity on the grounds that it is Jewish physics, or something? 

Edited October 17, 2018 by exchemist

[marcospolo]

Ah OK. So your contention is that relativistic mass increase is not seen. So presumably this Wiki article, :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_relativistic_energy_and_momentum, explaining that this is routinely demonstrated in undergraduate physics courses, is describing a worldwide scam, connived at by the universities.

Very good, that's clear. 

 

Secondly, how about the mass defect of atomic nuclei? Is that a scam, too, do you think? But perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself. First of all, do you know what mass defect is? If not, I can explain.  

 

Lastly, I'm intrigued by this reference to kabbalah. Do you perhaps object to relativity on the grounds that it is Jewish physics, or something? 

Meanwhile other physicists are saying that they do NOT see any mass increase in their accelerators.

 

The truth is they don't actually know or understand what the hell they are looking at with those abstract artworks from colliders. Its all just speculation and conjecture when it comes to particle physics, the messy end of quack science.

Whats going on inside an atom is not clear cut known and proven science. There are many hypothesis and conflicting claims made.  I don't think we really know as much as we think we do.  The mass deficit  is just one example that may be a clue that we are ignorant but are very willing to speculate.

 

So what?.. is there Physics and also special Jewish Physics? I did not know we had two different versions of Physics.

 

What I read from many top scientists is that they point out how accurately the teaching of Kabbalah coincide with modern science, its like some miracle!

So either the ancient writers of the Zohar were all genius, , thousands of years ahead of their time,  or they were really guided by God, or just maybe these religious nutters have now got their religion meshed in to the modern education system.  One of these possibilities seems more likely than the other two options.

[exchemist]

Meanwhile other physicists are saying that they do NOT see any mass increase in their accelerators.

 

The truth is they don't actually know or understand what the hell they are looking at with those abstract artworks from colliders. Its all just speculation and conjecture when it comes to particle physics, the messy end of quack science.

Whats going on inside an atom is not clear cut known and proven science. There are many hypothesis and conflicting claims made.  I don't think we really know as much as we think we do.  The mass deficit  is just one example that may be a clue that we are ignorant but are very willing to speculate.

 

So what?.. is there Physics and also special Jewish Physics? I did not know we had two different versions of Physics.

 

What I read from many top scientists is that they point out how accurately the teaching of Kabbalah coincide with modern science, its like some miracle!

So either the ancient writers of the Zohar were all genius, , thousands of years ahead of their time,  or they were really guided by God, or just maybe these religious nutters have now got their religion meshed in to the modern education system.  One of these possibilities seems more likely than the other two options.

I just wondered if you were some kind of Nazi nutcase, that's all, because I can't quite work out why you have got it in for poor old Albert, but it seems you are not. But you obviously can't deal with the mass defect issue. I've asked you about it several times now and had no clear answer. The nuclear mass defect is pretty unequivocal evidence that E=mc² works. You should look it up and think about it. 

 

But perhaps now it's about time I stopped playing games with you and let other people take up the cudgels. I'll continue to enjoy reading your continuing fulminations against Einstein, however.

 

P.S. If you ever feel like starting a thread to complain about quantum theory, I'll give that a go for a while. It's always a nice challenge with cranks to rehearse the arguments and revise some science in the process.   

 

P.P.S. Hey, or creationism, how about that? I bet you are a creationist too. It would fit with your determination that we can't know how any of these things works. 

Edited October 17, 2018 by exchemist

[GAHD]

   

 

Well you are the funny guy.

 

Of course my video is a thought experiment, Einstein himself, (you know, your religious leader,) said that "the thought experiment is superior to any real experiment". Thats why he ONLY EVER used thought experiments in all his theories!

 

Every main topic of physics today since Einstein is based on his thought experiments, thats why I'm using one of his very own experiments, with a few mods, to show that everything he claimed is garbage.

 

Whats wrong with your logic?

 

So, go back to my video, and explain away the very real paradox if you can.

 

A paradox is where a theory contradicts itself, and therefore is wrong. Einstein is simply wrong, get over it.

I provided you with what to look at to explain it away to yourself. I don't spoon feed babies because they never learn what to eat if it's always spooned out for them. It's that simple. See the thought experiment isn't the basis of a theory, it's the basis on how to explain things that don't make sense to monkeys to monkeys. Your thought experiment doesn't fit that ability to me. Go look at data that I pointed you towards.

 

Oh, and just a little FYI from quite a while ago...

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901

 

You'd be surprised what can be observed when you go looking for it. We have much better tools today than they did in the 1930's :)

[marcospolo]

I just wondered if you were some kind of Nazi nutcase, that's all, because I can't quite work out why you have got it in for poor old Albert, but it seems you are not. But you obviously can't deal with the mass defect issue. I've asked you about it several times now and had no clear answer. The nuclear mass defect is pretty unequivocal evidence that E=mc² works. You should look it up and think about it. 

 

But perhaps now it's about time I stopped playing games with you and let other people take up the cudgels. I'll continue to enjoy reading your continuing fulminations against Einstein, however.

 

P.S. If you ever feel like starting a thread to complain about quantum theory, I'll give that a go for a while. It's always a nice challenge with cranks to rehearse the arguments and revise some science in the process.   

 

P.P.S. Hey, or creationism, how about that? I bet you are a creationist too. It would fit with your determination that we can't know how any of these things works. 

It's interesting, I call mainstream Relativists cranks.... its subjective. 

 

And Nazi's were a political movement, not a scientific discipline. plus its common knowledge that in many ways, they had a successful economic system, so one should not toss out everything that occurred in Germany just because we won the war.  And also it's not always about Jews, that would mean that Jews were special, and we all know they are nothing different than anyone else, despite their belief that they are Gods Chosen race, and that everyone else is gods rejects. So I am not impressed when a religion calls itself a race, then claims that they are superior, and sets about trying to run things their way, to benefit themselves at the expense of everyone else. I have that thinking about anyone, anywhere who feels that way, and there have been many, from many ethnic backgrounds, but all thinking they were special.

 

I don't have much faith in Nuclear physics, particle physics and believe me it takes faith.   But i have only read a bit about the Nuclear deficit, so Ill go have a look. I'm picking that it will be another example of cherry picking data, making assumptions and coming to half baked conclusions whilst ignoring other possible explanations.

 

E=m*c squared ,is a debatable equation, not the least because its ambiguous and the terms are insufficiently defined. Also, is based on prior assumptions.

 

For the record, I have no idea if the Aether exists or not, it cant be ruled out, in the same way that you would claim that dark energy and dark matter exist but we cant seem to find any. (it's 94% of EVERYTHING they claim.)

 

And when Lawrence Krauss announces that empty space is not empty, its filled with invisible virtual particles that pop in and out of existence, then we all say, "Yes, Lawrence, and its called the AETHER".

 

Also, I'm not a creationist. But then again, I'm not an evolutionist either. Nor do I believe in the Big-Bang, They all come across as stupid ideas.

I'm in the camp that says with a high degree of certainty, "We don't know"

 

My favorite topic and interest is in trying to figure out what light is and how it may work.  No one has a clue, just lots of guesses.

[marcospolo]

I provided you with what to look at to explain it away to yourself. I don't spoon feed babies because they never learn what to eat if it's always spooned out for them. It's that simple. See the thought experiment isn't the basis of a theory, it's the basis on how to explain things that don't make sense to monkeys to monkeys. Your thought experiment doesn't fit that ability to me. Go look at data that I pointed you towards.

 

Oh, and just a little FYI from quite a while ago...

https://io9.gizmodo.com/the-first-image-ever-of-a-hydrogen-atoms-orbital-struc-509684901

 

You'd be surprised what can be observed when you go looking for it. We have much better tools today than they did in the 1930's :)

The idea here in a forum where two people are putting forward their arguments, is that they actually put forward their argument!  

You method is to say "Ill give you some hints and you go figure it out yourself".   Well, some time years ago, I did go look at all the information, and I already did figure it out myself, and guess what? It turns out that I found huge problems with Einsteins theories, and then proceeded to gather the enormous wealth of information that exists that explain in great detail exactly why Einstein is wrong. So there are many people, including ALL of the scientists of Einstein's day that think the concept is just stupid.

And Ive never heard a single convincing counter argument to these criticisms from anyone, and now you can't even be bothered to explain your views.

 

Never mind, I never expected that you would have anything concrete to say about it, because there can be no reasonable defense for a stupid hypothesis.