Adapted for the Internet from:Why God Doesn't Exist
 Can an undulating stream of particles travel rectilinearly

We start with a very simple question. It is one that everyone considered settled hundreds of years ago. Does
light travel straight, or is the path it describes curved?

Before we can answer whether light travels straight, we must first get our language straight. If we are talking
about a particle, it makes no sense to use the adjective straight. The mathematicians are not talking about a
straight highway such as a line or a tunnel. They are referring to a rectilinear itinerary mapped by a discrete
photon. They are saying that a photon travels rectilinearly. Therefore, the mathematicians are denied the use
of the adjectives straight and curved throughout this debate. The correct scientific terms for what they are
describing are rectilinearly and curvilinearly.

The question now is whether a discrete particle, wave-packet, photon, or whatever the mathematicians want
to call their contraption can travel rectilinearly. Of course, as always, the mathematical physicists have never
answered this fundamental question unambiguously. The Physics FAQ doesn't even bother to address the
issue at all. This is not surprising. The mathematicians are not concerned with qualitative stuff such as
whether time has direction or whether a photon travels rectilinearly. They are only interested in quantitative
stuff they can measure or calculate. Thus, when it comes to the 'straightness' issue, relativists live at peace
with another of their infamous dualities. If you ask one of Einstein's idiots whether light travels rectilinearly
or curvilinearly, he always has the official doctrine memorized: BOTH! You can't go wrong with that answer:

Rectilinearly:

" Does light travel at the same speed back and forth along a straight line? The
Michaelson-Morley experiment showed that the propagation of light in any
inertial reference frame is completely isotropic. There is no difference in its
velocity with respect to its direction of motion."  [1]

" Question: Does light travel in straight lines?
Answer: Light usually travels in straight lines called rays – however, as light
has wave properties the direction in which light is travelling can be changed
by reflection, refraction and diffraction." [2]

" In Geometrical Optics light rays travel in straight lines. Thus an obstacle in the
path of rays from a point source should cast a shadow with sharp edges" [3]

Curvilinearly:

" From Newton's point of view, gravity was a linearly directed force with which
all objects with mass pulled on all other objects with mass… Since light
(whether perceived as a ray or a photon) has no mass, Newton's equation
predicts that it will not be attracted by gravity towards anything, no matter
how massive… Einstein had to discard this perception of how gravity works
and devise a new understanding. According to this theory, all objects with
mass alter the curvature of spacetime, the 4 dimensional fabric of the universe.
Objects moving through spacetime then simply follow the curves that have
been created."  [4]

" Space is curved, so that light doesn't travel straight as it moves past gravitating
objects – it follows the curves of space itself." [5]

" photons are themselves affected by gravity; their normally straight trajectories
may be bent by warped spacetime" [6]

So what did you learn at Relativity School today, my son?

Does light travel straight?

Well, yes and no. You see, the photon wants to travel straight, but space doesn't let it. So what we did in
relativity to solve the problem (and please all sides in the process) is invent the geodesic. With the geodesic
we get the best of all worlds and it's a piece of cake to explain anything. A geodesic is a very convenient tool
because we can now say that a photon travels simultaneously straight and curved:

" Light DOES always travel in a straight line. It is true that close to a massive
object the light may 'appear' to bend, but this is simply because mass bends
space - a straight line through curved space is still a straight line. So the reason
that light travels in a straight line is because a straight line is actually DEFINED
as the path taken by a beam of light!" [7]

" Light rays too must follow geodesics in space-time. Again, the fact that space is
curved means that light no longer appears to travel in straight lines in space. So
general relativity predicts that light should be bent by gravitational fields. For
example, the theory predicts that the light cones of points near the sun would be
slightly bent inward, on account of the mass of the sun. This means that light from
a distant star that happened to pass near the sun would be deflected through a
small angle, causing the star to appear in a different position to an observer on
the earth " (p. 31) [8]

" A line can be described as an ideal zero-width, infinitely long, perfectly straight
curve (the term curve in mathematics includes 'straight curves') " [9]

STOOOOOOPPPP! Please! Let's pause for a moment because I need to clear my throat a little. HHHmmmm!
HHHMMMM! Okay now...

THE MATHEMATICAL PHYSICISTS ARE THE MOST STUPID,
IDIOTIC MORONS THAT GOD CREATED ON THE FACE OF
THE EARTH !!!  THERE CANNOT BE BIGGER IDIOTS THAN
THE MORONS OF MATHEMATICS !!!  IT IS SIMPLY IMPOSSIBLE!

So I slice through the curved-straight  Gordian Knot with my 50 lb sledge-hammer and show the stupid,
idiotic morons of Mathematical Physics that the signal we call light can ONLY travel rectilinearly. The idiots
of Mathematics get tangled in their own semantics. In Science, a curve is not straight and whatever is
straight is not curved. This follows from definitions; it has nothing to do with what an observer measures
or perceives or whether space is curved. A rectilinear itinerary is not the same as a curvilinear trajectory.
Never in the history of the Universe has light traveled curvilinearly, along geodesics, or down hammocks.
Einstein's idiots should all be fired today wherever they work! No exceptions!

4.0   The torsion balance

Indeed, I will go further and say that Blair is wrong. I don't know what kind of light they have 'down under', but
we don’t need a cosmic level observation or experiment to show that light travels rectilinearly here in the West.
One routine experiment that may help us decide the issue is the torsion balance illustrated in Fig. 5 and which we
can probably perform anywhere on our beloved planet, maybe even in Australia. Two heavy spheres A and B are
suspended from a thread and allowed to stabilize. Two more spheres, labeled C and D are positioned near them.
Now, magic happens before your very eyes. Although the spheres are not in any obvious physical contact, A is
mystically attracted to C while B approaches D. Knowing the degree of torsion on the thread and the weights of
the balls, Cavendish was able to estimate the magnitude of the gravitational constant G in Newton’s Universal
Law.
 Fig. 4

The physical interpretation that relativists give to the cause of the torsion is just as mind-boggling as the one
Eddington gave to gravitational lensing. The mathematicians begin by assuming that space is a physical
medium:

" space is a very tangible material with tangible properties like stiffness and shape…
Let’s put it into perspective: let’s say the magnitude of the stiffness of a rubber
sheet is about 1. Using this criterion, the stiffness of solid steel is about
100 000 000 000, or 10   . Space has a magnitude of about 10    , a one with
43 zeros after it! Space is a billion billion billion times stiffer than steel!"
(pp. 6, 20)   [17]

" we will find that empty space can move, that the universe has a finite age and
that objects can be in permanent free fall. It will turn out that empty space can
be bent but that it is much stiffer than steel. Despite these strange statements,
the theory and all its predictions have been confirmed by each one of the
numerous experiments ever performed."  [18]

They follow this up by explaining that the torsion balance spins because each ball warps the space in its
vicinity.

" Let's us grownups head for the basement to bend some serious spacetime…
So here's the sophisticated, high-tech, big science apparatus we'll use to
observe the subtle curvature of spacetime…This is important because we
are bending spacetime in the basement"   [19]

Hence, the other balls have no choice but to ‘fall’ along the warped path in space suddenly created by the
presence of mass. But the crucial point just demonstrated by the torsion balance experiment is that we did
not need a cosmic event to detect gravity (i.e., warped space). We warped it here right under the idiot's nose!

Let’s see if we can illustrate what relativists have in mind with all this space-time bending gibberish.  In Fig. 7,
I apply Einstein’s idea of the gravity-well to the torsion balance experiment in an attempt to illustrate the
physical interpretation relativists give to this phenomenon. As the metal sinker labeled A approaches C, the
gravity-well increases in size in at least one direction, which I have arbitrarily drawn downwards. The point
that I want to make with this figure is that the explanation that relativity offers for why A is attracted to C is
NOT that the mass of C affects the mass of A via Newtonian force as Cavendish suspected. According to
relativity it is NOT that mass attracts mass, but that mass weighs down and warps space. The other mass
then has no choice but to fall in, drift into, or roll down the gravity-well thus created. This difference in
interpretation is crucial when it comes to light because, despite that relativists regard a photon to be
mass-less, they claim that it nevertheless falls into the well too:

" If light has no mass how can it be deflected by the gravity of a star?’
One answer is that any particles such as photons of light, move along geodesics
in general relativity and the path they follow is independent of their mass.” [20]

Suddenly, unbeknownst to them, relativists are no longer talking Math (force, mass, acceleration). They are
now explaining gravity via a qualitative scenario (ball-falls-in-hole)!

So now it appears that there is an obvious problem with the arguments presented by Blair and McNamara.
If the warped space explanation relativists give for gravity is correct, we don’t need the source of light to
undergo an enormous acceleration nor for there to be an enormous mass in the presence of a stream of
photons. Whether the mathematicians can measure it or not (quantitative argument), any gravity-well will
inevitably deflect light from an otherwise rectilinear path (qualitative argument). The ‘bending’ of light that
relativists talk about has nothing to do with the acceleration of the source or with the mass of light or other
objects. This is not an issue of how much. The path of a photon is strictly determined by the local geometry
it encounters:

the bending [of light] and therefore the gravitational lensing effects are governed
by spacetime curvature”  [21]

To present this argument in terms of a more familiar analogy, relativists are saying that light travels through
curved space like water travels through a curved spout (Fig. 8). If as Walker shows, we can warp space with
lead sinkers weighing a total of 676 grams (to the point that the gravity-well thus created compels the motion
of a comparable weight) surely this structural change in the geometry of space cannot be overruled by light,
more so if a photon is assumed to have no mass. The reason General Relativity gives for the deflection of the
photon is nevertheless unrelated to its mass. The photon deviates from a rectilinear trajectory because it rolls
or slides down warped space. Unlike in Newton's Universal Law where two masses are required, in General
Relativity, we warp space with a single mass! The other object need not have mass at all to be deflected. It just
needs to roll down the well! The stupid idiots of Mathematics have gone around and around inventing more
fantastic, ad hoc explanations that they ended up painting themselves into a corner! We have just warped
space at the micro level. Now the Einstein's idiots, in their fanatic attempt to cover all the bases, have no more
excuses or loopholes.

The underlying problem with the arguments presented by relativists is that they invoke two inconsistent versions
of gravity. On the one hand they rely on the Principle of Equivalence, which equates gravity with acceleration
(Math) and, on the other, they claim that gravity is geometry: space curvature (Physics). The first is conceptually
dynamic and quantitative. The second one is conceptually static and qualitative. Which is it going to be? Is gravity
the result of acceleration/gravitational force or is it a consequence of curved space (geometry)? It is this duality
that enables relativists to perpetually parry attacks on their religion and that leads them to their irrational
conclusions.

So I repeat, all it takes to deviate light completely into left field is a tiny curvature in space. Any bend will do!
Curvature is curvature. If curved space is strong enough to compel a mass of a few grams to roll down a gravity-
well during the torsion balance experiment, there is no rational justification for the same well to avoid deflecting a
photon. A tiny angular deviation near the source should cause the beam to miss its target far away. This is a
qualitative issue and not an issue of measurements, mass, or speed.

The famous Harvard Tower Experiment, which relativists use as another of those irrefutable confirmations
of relativity, serves as another example in support of my argument (Fig. 10). Relativists claim that
Pound and Rebka  were able to measure the effects of gravity on electromagnetic waves in a distance of
only 22 meters!  The mathematical physicists want you to believe that they can detect the effect of gravity
on light in only 22 meters when it travels upwards, perpendicular to the surface of Earth, but that they
cannot detect the sagging of light caused by this same gravity when the photon travels parallel to the
Earth’s surface over a much longer distance (Fig. 11). If, as it is alleged, this measurable change is due to
warped space, then we can again rule out distance, length, or speed of photons and waves, as well as
acceleration and mass of extrinsic objects. These factors have no power to overcome the alleged
geometric contour of space that relativists invoke to explain gravity

So how are we supposed to make sense of all the relativistic nonsense now? Does a gravitational field
compress straight waves as relativists claim in the Harvard Tower Experiment (Figs. 10 and 11) or does
a gravity-well bend its path as they claim happens near any object that has mass (Fig. 12)? The first one
is a mathematical explanation and deals with squeezing frequency. The second one is a physical explanation
showing the deflection of a photon/wave-packet caught in a well. These two physical interpretations of gravity
are inconsistent with each other. Relativists swear on their mothers’ graves that experiments have time and
again confirmed relativity. Yet they offer different physical interpretations for the same phenomenon! No
wonder every experiment confirms their theory!

6.0   Refraction: light is 'bent' at the micro level

Another example that reinforces that we do not need to measure light over millions of kilometers or have
enormous masses in the vicinity to see light change direction is the sharp deviation of light during refraction.
Relativists may argue that mass and gravity have nothing to do with this phenomenon, but by the same token
they are unable to justify the physical reason we would need a gargantuan gravity-well to bend light smoothly
when we only need a different medium such as a tiny glass to break its trajectory sharply.

7.0   The punch line

As always, it is fun to close with a punch line. If any object warps space and light follows the contour of warped
space, I wonder what itinerary relativists 'predict' for the laser beam that NASA reflects off the Moon. For example,
in Fig. 13, I illustrate a few possibilities that result from relativity’s gravity-well theory. In my humble opinion, it
would be an extraordinary coincidence if the people at NASA point their laser at the reflector and the stream of
photons curve in space in the same direction in which the Earth travels (Case 3, CCW when the Moon is located
at B). It would be an even greater coincidence if the beam also remains at the same level (i.e., longitude) as the
source throughout its entire round-trip. One would expect the beam to travel in ‘3-D’ (i.e., three vectors to
describe its path) following the contour of the gravity-well as illustrated in Case 4 when the Moon is at C. But
even assuming that we grant these extraordinary coincidences, relativists would not be able to account for the
longer route taken by a returning photon when the Moon is at A (Case 2 versus Case 3) or assert whether the
beam travels CW or CCW (Case 1 versus Case 3). The different shapes of these trajectories cannot be explained
with a single gravity-well. If we factor in that the gravity well itself changes shape and moves, the beam is
guaranteed to travel in an erratic curve and never arrive at origin again. In order to visualize the difficulties, just
think of a rolling bowling ball bending different parts of the canvas. Now imagine several bowling balls doing this
to the canvas. Will you end up with a smooth surface as 'predicted' by Einstein? The mathematicians have had to
come up with so many incongruous notions and farfetched physical interpretations to explain observations and
experiments simply because they insist that light consists of one-way particles. The evidence of the Principle of
Ray Reversibility, instead, suggests that light is a two-way mechanism! A taut rope not only guarantees that the
torque signal propagating along the rope will travel rectilinearly, but the atoms are now free to move anywhere
they like. They have no way of escaping the signal we call light.
 Fig. 2The Principle of Ray reversibility
 Well doc. With the right eye I see straight light, but with the left one the light seems to be curved into circles.
 Oh man. I'm up next! Is there any other doctor in the house?
 Fig. 7
 Fig. 8
 Fig. 9
 Fig. 10
 Fig. 11
 Fig. 12
 Fig. 13
 Fig.  1Eddington’s alleged confirmation of curved space
 Fig. 5Cavendish’s torsion balance experiment.
 We point a laser at a very tiny mirrorin the distance and receive a rectilinear reflection consistent with the Principle of Ray Reversibility. If relativity’scurved space/gravity well explanation has any merit, we should be able toroll a couple of 100-ton spheres arbitrarily close to the beam and generate a new gravity well in its vicinity. This warped space should deflect the beam just enough for it to miss its target. We verify that the 100-ton mass has a strong gravitational effect on objects in the vicinity by hanging a dumbbell (for example a relativist) from a thread near thesphere and performing a torsion balance experiment. I predict thatthe dumbbell will swing across the straight beam and debunk relativity.
 According to relativity, gravity is a static, geometric phenomenon. Einstein replaced Newtonian force with curved space. This explanation makes the scenario of light traversing curved space no different than the scenario of water running down a curved spout or hose. Water will simply follow the contour of the medium. Likewise, if light travels through a regionof space where there is a gravity-well, itwill be redirected along the contour of space.  Mass and acceleration have nothing to do
 That's absolutely normal and predictable. The photons on your left eye are being deflected by warped space. They are rolling down gravity wells. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it if I were you.
 Whether reflecting or refracting, a beam of light retraces its path. At once it becomes evident that one-way mechanisms suchas waves or particles will have trouble simulating this trick of nature. Simply consider the case where the source and the reflecting mirror are several light-years (LY) apart. How will a traveling photon manage to return along the exact same itinerary if the remaining cosmic objects moved in the meantime?
 Whether reflecting or refracting, a rayof light retraces exactly the same path. One-way photons and waves cannot explain this phenomenon. Forinstance, if we emit a photon fromEarth to a mirror on the Moon,General Relativity predicts that the photon will follow a curved path. The version of Mathematical Physics is a violation of every law of Optics: reflection, refrac-tion, Snell’s Law, Fermat’s Principle, Hero’s Principle,and Ray Reversibility are all basedon rectilinear trajectories!
 Eddington took pictures during the solar eclipse of 1919 and allegedly confirmed one of relativity’s key 'predictions': that a stream of photons is deflected from a rectilinear path by warped space. Relativists proclaim this to be an important milestone in a series of ‘confirmations’ of relativity. It enables them to claim that gravity is the result of geometry.
 Heavy spheres A and B are initially balanced on a thread and allowedto stabilize (dotted dumbbell). Then, spheres C and D are placed nearby. As if by magic, C attracts A and D attracts B. (You can watch the experiment here.) Knowing the torsion on the thread and other parameters, Cavendish was able to estimate the gravitational constantG.
 Relativists explain that A moves closer to C because both lead sinkers warp the space around them.  More  massive  objects  have deeper wells, which implies steeper drops and stronger gravitational attractions. In order for C to influence A the mouth of its well must asa minimum reach as far as A to compel this sinker to drift towards C. Hence, the radius of a well represents the distance range of gravitational influence whereas the depth of the well represents the mass. As A moves closer to stationary sinker C, the gravity-well distorts and moves with it. Hence, as two objects are drawn together their wells merge and increasingly act as a single object. The radius of the well thus formed is slightly longer and the well is deeper. Relativists claim that a gravity-well deflects a stream of photons from their path.The steeper the well, the greater the degree of deflection. Compare the skewed path of the ‘photon’ before and after the sinkers meet (exaggerated here for a crisper visual effect).
 As a wave climbs out of the Earth’s gravity field, the mathematicians are able to measurea decrease in frequency in only 22 meters! They explain that gravity affects electromagnetic waves. However, in relativity, gravity is geometry: curved space. In relativity, the gravity well (warped space) bends the beam. Any way we look at it, the HTE shows that distance traveled by a wave, the length of the wave, its speed, and its mass, as well asthe acceleration or mass of extrinsic objects are irrelevant to the issue of measuring the bending of light. Relativity 'predicts' that a photon should never travel rectilinearly anywhere in the Universe. (I have drawn the gravity wells in both directions to satisfy yet another duality invoked by relativists.)
 Relativists claim that they can measure how the ‘gravitational field’ affects the frequency of light moving perpendicular to the surface of the Earth in only 22 meters. But then they also wish you to believe that they cannot measure theeffect of the same field on the path of a photon or wave moving parallel to theEarth’s surface during 1000 meters. The mathematicians claim that they cannot measure curved light in such a short range despite that we can confirm gravityvia a torsion balance experiment near the beam.
 In the Harvard Tower scenario (Figs. 11 and 12),relativists make no mention of warped space, nor do they claim that light changed direction. They explain that gravity caused a change in frequency, insinuating that a photon or wave-packet travels rectilinearly and the wave is compressed as it approaches the center of the Earth. However, when explaining the formation of a black hole, relativists change their tune. Now it is the gravity well which prevents light from escaping. The photon is trapped in a circular orbit and can’t get out. These two physical interpretations of relativity are irreconcilable. (The same argument explainedin more detail.)
 Does light travel CCW as in Case 3when the Moon is at B or does it travel CW as in Case 1 when the Moon is atA? Does a returning photon take alonger return route in Case 2 than itdoes in Case 3, or does it travel overand under like a roller-coaster following the contour of the Earth’s 3-D well as in Case 4 when the Moon is at C? Keep in mind that these scenarios assume a static well. If we factor in that the Earth’s gravity-well changes shape as the Earth moves, left to the idiots of relativity, the beam of light would never return to its owner.

2.0   Warped space

Eddington is credited with having confirmed Einstein’s 'prediction' that space is everywhere curved.
In 1919, he was able to photograph a star hidden behind the Sun during an eclipse, and reported that
light approaching from that star was deflected by the Sun’s gravitational well (Fig. 1).
 Bill the Greatundoing the straight-curved, rectilinear-curvilinear Gordian Knot of Mathematical Physics.

According to Mathematical Physics, anything which has mass causes a dimple in space. And according to
Mathematical Physics, everything, including photons, have mass. Therefore, space is warped around every
single object in the Universe. The entire cosmos is pockmarked and pitted with dimples and holes.

" Since photons contribute to the stress-energy tensor, they exert a gravitational
attraction on other objects, according to the theory of general relativity. Conversely,
photons are themselves affected by gravity" [10]

As always, relativists have another duality on hand in case the press asks tough questions:

" while photons have no mass, they do possess momentum... photons are affected
by gravitational fields not because photons have mass, but because gravitational
fields... change the shape of space-time. The photons are responding to the
curvature in space-time, not directly to the gravitational field." [11]

" Particles without mass - such as photons - are particularly useful because they
always propagate with constant speed of light irrespectively of the reference
frame used for observations. [12]

These are two radically different physical interpretations. Neither a photon nor the Earth have to have mass
to roll down an inclined plane. They just have to have a surface. There is absolutely no reason to invoke the
word mass in General Relativity to explain why a photon is deflected. Einstein's ridiculous theory explains
gravity as a qualitative phenomenon. General Relativity is a false theory because it says that as long as one
of the two objects has mass and weighs the canvas 'downwards,' the other one will roll down the well
whether it has mass or not.

[So Bill, why is it that you say that relativists are a bunch of stupid, idiotic morons?]

My point is that if every subatomic particle in the Universe warps space in its vicinity, light should never
travel rectilinearly. It should always be deflected by the gravity wells of atoms and quarks and electrons,
not to mention other photons.

The mathematicians have devised a loophole to answer this one too:

" One of the many bizarre predictions of the theory [of relativity] is that light beams
can be bent or deflected by gravity… But in the same way that you need an
immense acceleration to demonstrate this bending of light, the mass of an object
capable of creating enough gravity would have to be immense. While all objects
create their own curvature in space-time, usually this curvature is tiny; so are the
effects it produces." (p. 40) [13]

" In all of these tiny domains, an observer would measure the same velocity for light" [14]

The mathematicians are saying that yes every particle in the Universe distorts the cosmic canvas, but that
the effect is so tiny that it is beyond detection. So let's just treat the canvas as if it were perfectly smooth.

With this underhanded maneuver relativists avoid having to explain why a photon doesn't constantly deflect
when it passes near other particles. The mathematicians shove this off as a philosophical issue and,
meanwhile, get away with a whopper. The burden of proving through an experiment that space is not warped
at the microlevel shifts to you. In other words, the mathematicians invoke experimentation and measurement
to settle what is clearly a conceptual issue. If the surface of space is pockmarked, the degree to which it is
pitted is irrelevant. Light should swerve and deflect at every micro well, for else the claim that every mass
warps space is meaningless. Conversely, if light travels perfectly rectilinear it is because space is not pitted
with tiny holes as alleged by relativity! Rectilinearly traveling light debunks Mathematical Physics in its
entirety. That's why Einstein's idiots still cannot give you a 'straight' answer!

But I like my other argument better. I like it because it exposes the mathematicians for what they truly are: a
bunch of idiots! All of them. We should rid the planet of this plague! These people aren't worth the seats they
warmed in college!

3.0   The Principle of Ray Reversibility

In billiard ball physics, all particles and specifically the photon have no choice but to travel one way. However,
the well-established  Principle of Ray Reversibility (PRR), also known as  optical reversibility, indicates that
light is a two-way mechanism. The PRR states that whether reflecting, refracting, or diffracting, light retraces
its path. It is impossible to simulate this phenomenon with either particles or waves (whatever those are). Just
consider the scenario  where the emitter and the reflector are light years apart. Why would a discrete photon
retrace its footsteps through space and travel for another two or three years along the exact same path during
the return segment of its trip (Fig. 2)?

In fact, we don't have to invoke an extreme, cosmic scenario as alleged by Blair and MacNamara. We can
decide right here and now whether it is General Relativity's warped space or the PRR which is correct. NASA
routinely emits a laser and bounces it off a mirror astronauts placed on the Moon. The program is known as
the Lunar Laser Ranging Experiment. The Moon is located at a distance of about 1 light-second away. This
means that it takes a beam of light such as a laser about two seconds to make the roundtrip from the Earth to
the mirror on the Moon and back. The folks at mission control routinely receive a reflection, meaning that the
beam invariably returns to origin:

By beaming laser pulses at the reflector from Earth, scientists have been
able to determine the round-trip travel time that gives the distance between
the two bodies at any time to an accuracy of about 3 centimeters. The laser
reflector consists of 100 fused silica half-cubes, called corner cubes, mounted
in a 46-centimeter square aluminum panel. Each corner cube is 3.8 centimeters
in diameter. Corner cubes reflect a beam of light directly back toward the point
of origin.” [15]

The question relativists now have to answer unambiguously after evading it for 100 years is whether the
photons comprising a beam of light travel rectilinearly or describe an arc in space. General Relativity
'predicts' that warped space will compel a photon to roll or slide down the inclined plane extending from
here to the Moon. And if by chance, a photon does manage to strike the lunar corner cubes, there is no
chance for this particle to return to its master (Fig. 3). The retroreflector, instead, requires that the beam
return along a parallel path:

Retroreflectors are devices that operate by returning light back to the light source
along the same light direction. [16]

Which is it going to be?

So now the mathematical idiot raises a new barrier in a desperate attempt to shield his religion from inevitable
pummeling. He argues that space is locally flat. The mathematician is saying that the curvature in this relatively
short astronomical distance is so slight that it can be considered to be 'flat' for all practical purposes. He is
saying that his instruments are not sensitive enough to detect this curvature (although Gravity Probe B has
allegedly been successful at measuring this curvature). This means that, in his view, the laser photon would
not sense this curvature either and should travel 'practically' rectilinearly along this pseudo-flat surface in both
directions. Again, the mathematician is talking about measurement and not about what really is. If push comes
to shove, he has another ace up his sleeve. The theorist simply dismisses your objection by saying that, in
Mathematics, curved and straight are synonyms (i.e., geodesic).

However, according to relativity, the curvature of space in our vicinity is curved enough that it prevents the
Earth from flying out of the Solar System. How do relativists reconcile the circle they draw for the Sun's gravity
well and 'locally flat space'?

But let's dispose of the idiotic arguments brought by relativists altogether. I don't want them to have any
doubts. I want to sleep in peace tonight knowing that I trashed these idiots completely. Let's take it to the
next level until the moron of Mathematics recognizes his theory for what it is: a sham. How will the wave or
photon retrace its path exactly in accordance with the PRR and experience and arrive back at the point of
origin if the Earth travels at 30 km/sec around the Sun? That’s how fast you are moving right now around the
Sun. You send a photon through the telescope. The photon takes two seconds to travel to the reflector on
the Moon and back. Meanwhile, the Earth moved 60 km away from where you emitted the photon. If you
receive the reflection back at your point of origin, this would certainly falsify relativity, which claims that the
photon should describe a curved itinerary in space (Fig. 4). If General Relativity is correct and we shine our
laser at a mirror on the Moon, we should never receive a reflection. The light should be scattered into
cosmic eternity by Einstein's ridiculous warped space! Experience proves otherwise.

The PRR is evidence that light is a two-way mechanism. The only way to explain this amply verified
phenomenon is with an entity that already interconnects atoms on the Moon with atoms that comprise
Earth. Light cannot get lost in the real world because the torque signals can only propagate along existing
highways. Now every atom in the Universe can move wherever it wants. Light is guaranteed to reach it
through the EM rope!
 Fig. 3
 According to the PRR, light travels rectilinearly from the Earth to the Moon and back to origin. GR 'predicts', instead, that a  photon will be deflected by warped space, the same warped space that the idiots of NASA's GPB  program just finished measuring. Assuming that the photon by chance strikes the reflector, it should never arrive back on Earth. If it does, this falsifies relativity's 'prediction' that space is curved.

5.0   Experiment

Therefore, if as relativists allege, light bending is the result of curved space, I believe that there is finally a way
to put Einstein's idiotic theory to the test without invoking cosmic distances. We will do it with the torsion
balance. Let’s assume that we point a laser at a very tiny mirror located a mile away (Fig. 9). According to the
PRR, light will reflect in the mirror and retrace its path to the source no matter what. According to relativity, if
we place a mass very near the beam throughout its path and warp the space around it, the gravity-well will
deflect the beam. Which is it going to be?

For example, we could line up a hundred garbage trucks or roll a few 100-ton spheres arbitrarily close to the
beam to determine whether they deflect the stream of photons. If the mathematician has doubts as to whether
space is warped in the vicinity, we can use the torsion balance to certify that the 100-ton masses attract a lead
sinker right through the beam if they wish! If the metal sinker falls or rolls down the gravity-well of the 100-ton
sphere, why would a photon escape this fate? This is not a quantitative issue of how much mass or how much
acceleration. This is a qualitative issue of whether space is curved in the vicinity. We can also test relativity’s
prediction using the lunar reflector (Figs. 3 and 4). The folks at NASA point their laser at the Moon and obtain a
reflection. Then we roll the 100-ton sphere over the stupid relativist looking through the eyepiece and see if the
proximity of the mass deflects the beam from its target.
 Thor ough Billpounding some common sense into relativists
 with the qualitative mechanism that relativists offer for the deviation of a photon. According to relativity, every object creates a gravity-well. Therefore, relativity predicts that light willbe deflected at any scale and should always follow an erratic itinerary. The Principle ofRay Reversibility debunks this prediction.
 43
 11

________________________________________________________________________________________