Adapted for the Internet from:

Why God Doesn't Exist
Can an undulating stream of
particles travel rectilinearly

    1.0   The thousand-year unanswered question

    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?

    Not much, dad! Not much!

    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. 2

The 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.  1

    Eddington’s alleged confirmation of curved space

Fig. 5
Cavendish’s torsion balance experiment.
We point a laser at a very tiny mirror
in the distance and receive a rectilinear
reflection consistent with the Principle
of Ray Reversibility. If relativity’s
curved space/gravity well explanation
has any merit, we should be able to
roll 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 the
sphere and performing a torsion
balance experiment. I predict that
the 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 region
of space where there is a gravity-well, it
will 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 such
as 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 ray
of light retraces exactly the same path.
One-way photons and waves cannot
explain this phenomenon. For
instance, if we emit a photon from
Earth 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 based
on 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 allowed
to 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 constant
G.
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 as
a 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 measure
a 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 as
the 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 the
effect of the same field on the path of a photon or wave moving parallel to the
Earth’s surface during 1000 meters. The mathematicians claim that they cannot
measure curved light in such a short range despite that we can confirm gravity
via 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 explained
in more detail.)
Does light travel CCW as in Case 3
when the Moon is at B or does it travel
CW as in Case 1 when the Moon is at
A? Does a returning photon take a
longer return route in Case 2 than it
does in Case 3, or does it travel over
and 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 Great

undoing 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 Bill

pounding 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 will
be deflected at any scale and should always follow an erratic itinerary. The Principle of
Ray Reversibility debunks this prediction.
43
11


    ________________________________________________________________________________________


                                  Home                    Books                    Glossary            




        Copyright © by Nila Gaede 2008