- Einstein wongly rejected space medium.
- Relativistic electromagnetic paradox
- Relativity contradicts de Broglie wave
- Relativity contradicts kinetic energy
- Relativistic mass paradox
- True Twin time paradox, GPS doesn't use relativity.
- Black hole, redshift, gravitational lens are unreal
- Gravitational wave is contradictory

*(Fig.M) Light medium moving "with" the earth can perfectly explain the constant light speed c detected by Michelson-Morley experiment. *

Michelson-Morley experiment showed light speed c is always **constant** on the **earth** regardless of directions, which is **compatible** with already-known phenomena such as sound wave traveling at a constant speed through the air **medium** and the classical Maxwell's electromagnetic wave theory in the medium ( this p.8-10 ).

The speed of sound wave is always constant regardless of the sound wavelength or frequency.

The sound wave "speeds" are affected only by the "medium" through which the sound travels at the same constant speed in **all** directions.

↑ This actually-observed sound wave traveling at the constant speed through the medium which corresponds to the "air" **moving with** the earth (= as a result, we cannot feel as unrealistically-strong wind as the earth's fast rotational speed ) is just like the light traveling at the constant speed in the same medium, which was observed by Michelson-Morley experiment.

The point is the famous Michelson-Morley experiment denied only the hypothetical ether which is Not moving or rotating with the earth. ← So if such an unrealistic ether (= moving independently of the earth's motion ) existed, people could have easily **felt** such a unrealistically-strong "ether wind ( this p.4-Fig.3 )" long before Michelson-Morley experiment was conducted.

So Michelson-Morley experiment did **Not** deny the realistic ether or "medium moving with the earth" like the actually-observed "air" moving with the earth ( this 2nd-last paragraph ). ← This realistic light medium is perfectly **reasonable** with **No** contradictions to actual observations, as I explain later.

Actually, the "light speeds change" depending on the "medium", which fact **contradicts** Einstein relativity denying that the light medium affects the light speed c.

All observed phenomena such as light interference and refraction are **compatible** with the light wave theory traveling through some medium, Not a fictitious photon particle.

The fact that we usually do Not feel unrealistically-strong winds means the **entire** atmosphere or all air molecules are **dragged** by some large medium surrounding the earth, and moving with the earth also in the **horizontal** direction (= Einstein's gravity in the vertical direction alone is **Not** enough to explain the static air molecules relative to the earth rotation ).

Einstein falsely rejecting the real medium in space had to create fantasy relativistic theory with Lorentz transformation where the clock time could magically change and even the rigid body could illogically shrink as seen by differently-moving observers for forcibly explaining the constant light speed c seen by any differently-moving observers.

Einstein relativity, the current relativistic quantum field theory and QED need unreal virtual particles with imaginary masses as a **new fictional** ether which contradicts Einstein's original relativistic mass theory ( this p.3 ) in order to explain (electromagnetic) forces between particles ( this 7th-paragraph ) after they rejected the real medium. ← So the present mainstream theory is self-**contradictory** and false ( this 10th-paragraph, this p.4-6, this p.9-10 ).

Furthermore, Einstein unrealistic relativity caused fatal **paradoxes** in time, electromagnetic fields, de Broglie wave, the parallel-world two-slit interference of an imaginary photon, fantasy BigBang, and another new medium called dark matter, all of which can be perfectly **fixed** by the realistic **medium** in space.

You might have seen textbooks or websites falsely claiming the stellar aberration is the only reason which could deny the existence of the realistic medium moving with the earth (= or ether dragged by the earth ).

In the stellar aberration, when the earth is moving at the velocity of "v", you need to slightly **tilt** your telescope to catch the star light, just as you have to tilt your umbrella to keep off wind-driven rain, because the apparent light velocity seen by observers on the moving earth is slightly tilted at the angle of tan θ = sin θ = v/c ( c is the original light speed, v is the earth's velocity, so θ is very small, this 3rd-paragraph ).

Einstein relativity falsely claims that the ether or medium moving with the earth could magically drag the star light with an unrealistic power and suddenly change its direction **drastically** ( this p.2 ), hence, no aberration may be observed in the ether drag theory ( this p.2, this p.7-lower ).

↑ All these ad-hoc explanations are based on **wrong** assumptions and non-existent physical mechanisms, hence, the realistic medium moving with the earth has **Not** been denied by star aberration at all.

When seen from the earth surrounded by the medium (= moving with the earth like "atmosphere" ) moving at the velocity of "v" relative to the outer space, the velocity of the light emitted from a distant star appears to be slightly higher (= though, this is almost the same as the original light speed c. because the earth's speed is much slower than the light ), but after all, it is detected as the original light speed c when the star's light enters the "earth medium through which the light travels at the same uniform speed." ← stellar aberration **can** be observed in this medium moving with the earth with **No** contradiction.

When the stellar aberration is not observed by the ether dragged by the earth, the star's light velocity after the light enters the earth medium must be unrealistically zero (= No aberration = the light titled angle θ_{2} = 0 meaning the light speed in the earth's medium must slow down to zero according to Snell law ), which is **impossible**.

According to the light wave refraction based on Huygens principle and Snell's law, the star light entering the earth medium at the angle of sin θ = v/c must **keep** this almost the **same** tilting angle (= hence, stellar aberration is observed also in this ether or medium dragged by the earth ), because there is almost **No** difference between the light speeds outside and inside the earth medium.

↑ Light tilting angles = sin θ almost remains the **same** in two mediums outside and inside the earth's medium, because the light speeds (= whose light speed ratio equals the ratio of the tilting angle sinθ according to Huygens and Snell's law ) are almost the **same** in two mediums outside and inside the earth's medium (= the star-light remains tilting in the **same** direction as the aberration even after the light enters the earth's medium, which is observed also in medium moving with the earth ).

Hence, the sudden light directional change or the unrealistic refraction (= unrealistically without causing ripple even though light particle hits the medium, this denial of drag ether violates action-reaction law ) does **Not** happen (= unless the light speed entering the earth medium suddenly becomes zero, which never happens ) according to Snell's law of light refraction, when the star light travels from the outside medium into the earth's medium (= stellar aberration is observed ), because the light velocity v_{1} in the outer-space medium outside the earth and the light velocity v_{2} in the earth's medium are almost the **same**.

Imagine, when the star light in the outer space hits and enters the earth medium in the slanting direction (= the outer-space medium outside the earth appears to move at v in the opposite direction to the earth's motion or medium ), the horizontal direction of the light momentum or velocity is naturally generated as a **ripple** in the earth medium in the same direction as aberration by the light (= with momentum pressure ) **hitting** the earth's medium, hence, the star aberration (= the star's light appears to be tilted ) can be naturally observed also in the medium moving with the earth.

↑ Physicists' unreasonable criticism turned out to be wrong, because they unrealistically treat the star-light as a fictitious ball, and conveniently replace the originally-soft earth light medium by a very rigid non-medium-like solid which can**not** generate any observed light wave ripple (= though the medium can generate the light wave ripple ) even when the star-light hits it.

The light traveling in the water medium (= its light speed **decreases** to c/n in the water **medium**, where n is water refractive index ) is known to be partially
dragged (= the water light speed c/n slightly changes ) when the water container is moving at some speed v in Fizeau's experiment ( this p.3, this p.2-left ). ← The water container is far smaller than the entire earch's medium, so this partial drag is reasonable.

Relativists often **misleadingly** claim that if the ether drag theory is right, the light speed in water must be fully (= instead of partially ) dragged by the moving water (container). ← But the water (molecules) inside the small container and the entire (light) medium dragged by the bigger earth are completely different things in their scales, so this Fizeau's experiment where the light is partially dragged by moving water is **compatible** with the medium dragged by (= moving with ) the earth.

Einstein's relativity completely **contradicts** this Fizeau's experimental results where the light speed c is clearly decreased and affected by the water **medium** (= c/n, n is water refractive index, this p.25, this p.2 ) which should have been denied by Einstein. ← contradiction.

As a result, the realistic medium moving with the earth is perfectly **consistent** with all observed phenomena including Michelson-Morley experiment, stellar aberration, and Fizeau's experiment.

On the other hand, Einstein relativity proved to be **wrong** with fatal paradoxes.

Einstein (special) relativity is so **unrealistic** and self-contradictory that it claims a moving clock runs slower than a stationary clock.

But in this Einstein fictional relativistic world, there are No absolute frames or things, instead, all things must be **relative** or a relativistic **illusion**.

Hence, when a moving clock A runs slower seen by a stationary clock B, the clock B must paradoxically run slower seen by the clock A, because both clocks A and B appear to be moving seen by other clocks.

↑ This contradiction is called "twin paradox" where the relativistic time dilation of moving clocks causes fatal paradox and contradiction (= which cannot be fixed ) about which clock runs slower.

So it is intrinsically **impossible** to define and measure the realistic clock time (= there is No absolute time in Einstein world ), if this paradoxical Einstein relativity is right.

But there is a (false) claim that there were experimental evidences of this paradoxical relativistic time dilation.

For example, in Hafele-Keating experiment in 1971, two planes going around the earth in the opposite directions with different velocities are said to have showed different clock times (= one plane's clock was faster, and the other plane's clock was slower due to (fantasy) Einstein relativity, which alleged time change is negligibly tiny, only **nano**second-change in three-day flight ).

↑ But this result clearly **contradicts** the Einstein special relativity where both planes appear to be moving seen by other planes, hence, which plane's clock ticks slower should be uncertain and paradoxical ( this-lower-conclusion, this p.5-conclusion, this p.7-8 ).

In another (false) relativistic experimental example, a very unstable (hypothetical useless) particle muon's life time is said to be slightly longer (= to only 220 μs = still meaninglessly short-lived ) due to (imaginary) time dilation, when a muon is moving at almost light speed c (= fast-moving muon's clock runs slower ? ) in the cosmic rays.

↑ The point is this (dubious) muon itself can**not** be directly observed or isolated from other irrelevant abundant
particles such as electrons and protons.

The concept of the hypothetical muon particle was artificially introduced by seeing some high-energy particles such as electrons (= a muon is said to almost instantly decay into an electron, and only this final electron can be directly measured ) can penetrate some long distance inside materials and the atmosphere.

↑ So the higher the speed of (hypothetical) muons (= which are actually electrons and protons with higher speed, so imaginary muons are unnecessary ) become, the longer the muons with more kinetic energies can move (= time dilation ? No !, this is just the fact that a particle with **higher energy** can **move longer** and appear to survive longer = particle (ex illusory muon ) with higher energy can naturally move longer even **without** the fantasy time dilation ), which has **nothing** to do with relativistic time dilation.

If a source of light is moving at right angles to the line joining observer to source, the observer sees the slightly-redshifted (= longer-wavelength ) light, which is called "Transverse Doppler effect."

↑ Physicists baselessly claim this transverse Doppler effect showed Einstein (fantasy) time dilation by the moving lgiht source.

But actually this transverse Doppler effect can be naturally
explained by the ordinary classical Doppler effect (= as seen in sound wave Doppler effect ) caused by a light source moving at almost "transverse" position (= so this transverse Doppler red shift is smaller than the case when the light source is going away from us in the parallel direction on the line connecting the light source and us ), and it does **Not** need fantasy Einstein relativistic time dilation, the transverse Doppler effect is just a smaller version of the ordinary Doppler effect.

According to Einstein general relativity, the time of clock, which is closer to the mass (= such as the earth ), tends to become slower due to general relativistic or gravitational time dilation.

But GPS satellite clock time errors completely **disagree** with Einstein relativistic time dilation prediction, so engineers have to constantly correct the GPS clock time errors caused by many other factors such as atmosphere and atomic clock errors by directly comparing the earth's base station's clock and the satellite's clock. ← Einstein relativistic time dilation prediction is wrong.

Basically, both special and general relativistic time dilations are too small (= so non-existing ) compared to other more influential factors such as atmosphere (= so the precise measurement of relativistic time dilation itself is **impossible** as seen in **unpredictable** GPS time errors. ).

The refractive index of the atmospheric air is 1.0003, which means the light speed c becomes slower to c/1.0003 in the air medium around the earth, which effect has **nothing** to do with Einstein relativity rejecting the light medium.

GPS clock time is said to slightly change only by 45 microseconds per day (= one day is 86400 seconds ) due to gravitational time dilation (= No experimental evidence, though ), so this general relativistic time dilation is extremely weak, 45 microseconds/86400 seconds = less than one in 10^{9}, which is **far smaller** than the
atmospheric air influence (= air refractive index = 1.0003, hence the air medium influence **0.0003/1.0** is far stronger than the negligibly weak gravitational time dilation's influence = 45 microseconds/86400 seconds (=per day) = **1/10 ^{9}** ).

Only by the atmosphere or air medium in the regions with greater gravity, the light speed is significantly slowed down from c to c/1.0003 (= 1.0003 is the refractive index of air ), so it is No wonder that the light frequency is also slightly modified and lower by the atmospheric medium's influence in the greater-gravity region, and this slightly-lowered light frequency (= only negligibly tiny change = 10^{-15}, which is **much much smaller** than the the effect of air medium on the light speed = 10^{-4} or refractive index of 1.0003 ) or red-shifted light (= allegedly emitted from the very distant imaginary black hole ) can be mistaken for (fictional) Einstein gravitational time dilation.

Basically, Einstein dubious general relativistic time dilation deliberately ignores the larger influence of the atmosphere or air medium (on light and atomic oscillation such as atomic clocks ) in the greater-gravity region, as seen in the fact that the in gravitational lens, the light can be significantly bent by the refraction of the atmospheric medium (= or light scattered by thicker dusts around stars ) Not by the far smaller fictional general relativistic time dilation.

↑ So all the dubious experimental evidences of negligibly-tiny gravitational time dilation ( this 9th-paragraph ) is illusion caused by **other** more influential factors such as atmospheric pressure acting on the light frequency (= air medium significantly slows down the light speed c, so it could naturally slow the light frequency a little, too ) and very sensitive atomic clocks instead of Einstein fantasy relativity.

There is No direct evidence that various redshifted lights allegedly emitted from very distant (imaginary) stars might be caused by gravitational time dilation, because these redshifted (= longer wavelength ) lights from incredibly-distant stars and atoms may be caused by the ordinary classical Doppler shift (= atoms moving around naturally cause some Doppler shift or redshift in emitted light wave ) or the light losing its energy and elongating its wavelength by Compton effect during the extremely-long journey.

The current mainstream physics argues that gravitational force is caused by (fictitious) virtual gravitons existing in (fantasy) extra-dimensions of string theory allegedly unifying Einstein general relativity and quantum mechanics.

Instead of using these unphysical virtual gravitons or extra-dimensions, we can naturally think that gravitational force is caused by some density difference (= or the average density fluctuation putting together a large number of positive and negative charges ) in the space medium, which may naturally slightly modify the light wavelength or atomic clock even without the fantasy relativistic time dilation.

As shown here, Einstein relativistic time dilation is self-contradictory with fatal paradox, and too weak (= so unreal ) compared with other more realistic factors (= atmosphere ), hence, there is **No** evidence of (fantasy) Einstein relativistic time dilation or slower time in moving clocks, contrary to the media and academic hypes.

*(Fig.P1) Different clock times in different positions.*

Here we present a typical example of fatal paradox in Einstein relativity.

In Einstein relativity, a moving ovserver has an **unrealistic** power to **bend** even a rigid rod **without** touching it , no matter how hard the rod is, as seen in Lorentz contraction.

A rigid rod is moving upward at first and then turn to the left horizontally along the rigid square rail in the upper figure.

External forces are always applied to **any** positions of the long rod uniformly, in both leftward and upward directions (= at first, the rod cannot move to the left, blocked by the vertical rail on the right side. )

Surprisingly, as seen by a moving observer, this originally-**straight** rigid rod appears to be bent complexly, as seen in the upper figure right.

According to relativistic Lorentz transformation, events occurring in different positions (= x = 0, 1 ) at the same time (= t ) seen by stationary observer occur at the different times (= t' ) seen by a moving observer !

By inserting two positions x = 0 and 1 (= same time t by stationary observer ) into Lorentz tansformation, we find a moving observer sees the left end of rod turning to the left **earlier** than the right end of the rod.

Hence, a moving observer tends to see the future event of the left end of the rod and the past of the right end of the rod. which appears to **bend** the rod like in the upper figure right.

This **occult** world is Einstein special relativity.

*(Fig.P2) "Block" changes the rod "future" direction.*

So in Einstein **fantasy** relativistic world, a rigid rod "can" **foresee** the future !

In the upper figure, the right end of the rod (= still existing in the past ) has Not arrived at the turning point, but the left end of the rod (= existing in the future ) has already turned to the left at the turning point.

If someone suddenly puts a new block onto the turning point, the **whole** rigid rod (= including left and right ends of the rod ) cannot move leftward (= the whole rigid rod cannot turn to the left ), meaning the left end of the rod already turning leftward suddenly changes its **past** event and its direction (= as if moving upward from the beginning without turning to the left at the turning point ) without touching the rod !

This is **paradoxical** and impossible, because the right end of the rod (= past ) has **Neither** arrived at the turning point nor known whether a block is there or not.

But the left end of the rod can automatically predict the future event (= can know whether a new block is put at the turning point without touching it ), and make a decision whether it will bend (= moving leftward ) or bend back (= moving upward without turning leftward ) !

This is one of fatal paradoxes of Einstein relativity which theory proved to be wrong just by this paradox.

Here we suppose external force is always applied to **any** points of the rod uniformly, so the moment the rod arrives at the turning point without a block, the whole rod starts to turn to the left without delay simultaneously.

*(Fig.L1) Neutral wire generating magnetic field seen by K observer appears to be positively-charged seen by the moving K' observer. ← paradox !*

In fact, Einstein (special and general) relativity **contradicts** the experimentally-verified electromagnetic theory.

In the upper figure, the electric current J_{x} is flowing in the -x direction inside the electrically-**neutral** wire, and it generates the magnetic field (= in the y direction above the wire ) around it.

A stationary observer K sees an external positive charge (= + ) at rest above the neutral wire. ← This stationary positive charge outside the wire remains at rest because it feels No Lorentz magnetic force (= because this charge **stops**, Lorentz magnetic force = evB = 0, where the outside positive charge's velocity v is zero seen by K ) or No electric forces from the neutral wire.

But from the viewpoint of another observer K' who is moving in the x direction at a velocity v, this K' sees the same external positive charge (= stationary seen by the stationary K observer ) **moving** in the -x direction at a velocity v, because Einstein unphysical relativity adopts No absolute space or No absolute motion (= all motions are supposed to be relative ).

So this external positive charge appearing to be moving experiences Lorentz magnetic force (= F = ev × B, v is the charge's velocity ) downward seen only by K', which means this external positive charge may be **paradoxically moving downward** seen only by K', while the stationary observer K sees this same positive charge **stopping** (= Not moving downward ) !

↑ To solve this paradox, Einstein relativity unreasonably claims that the neutral wire (= seen by the stationary K ) should magically change into the electrically-positive charged wire as seen by the moving K', and this magically-positively-charged wire generates the (fictitious) electric field (= E_{z}' ) upward in the z direction, and this (fictitious) electric field upward could **cancel** the Lorentz magnetic force downward, and after all, both K and K' see the same external positive charge remaining at rest in the z direction.

So in the unrealistic Einstein's relativistic world, the mere observer's **motion** can magically **change** the originally-**neutral** wire with No electric field into the electrically-**charged** wire generating (fictitious) electric field E !

This-lower says

"The net effect is that the wire, electrically **neutral** in the lab frame, has a **positive** charge density λv2/c2
in the frame of the moving electrons (= unphysical relativity )."

According to relativistic electromagnetic theory, under Lorentz transformation, the electric (= E ) and magnetic (= B) fields
seen by the static K observer in the space time (t,x,y,z) must magically change into the **completely different** electric (= E' ) and magnetic (= B') fields seen by the moving observer K' in the spacetime (t',x',z',y'). this p.14, this p.14, this p.17

In the same way, under Lorentz transformation, the charge density ( = ρ_{e} ) and electric current density (= J ) seen by the stationary observer K must be changed into the completely different charge density (= ρ'_{e} ) and electric current density (= J' ) seen by the moving observer K' like the relativistic spacetime ( this p.2-3, this p.3, this box-13.4-6, this p.8 ).

↑ So the new (unrealistic) positive or negative charge (density) ρ_{e}' can be generated from the originally-neutral wire (= J ) only by being seen from differently-moving observers according to the fictional Einstein relativity.

This ad-hoc relativistic solution relying on fictitiously-generated charges can**not** eliminate the true relativistic electromagnetic paradox, after all.

*(Fig.L2) A negative charge stopping seen by K observer appears to be attracted to a fictitious positively-charged wire seen by K' observer = paradox !*

In fact, Einstein relativistic theory cannot solve its true electromagnetic Lorentz transformation paradox, so the relativity **incompatible** with the experimentally-verified electromagnetism is completely **wrong**.

As shown in Fig.L1, the **neutral** wire with electric current seen by the stationary K observer magically appears to be **positively**-charged seen by the moving observer K'.

When there is an external negative charge (= - ) at the left or right side of the horizontal electric wire, this external negative charge not attracted to the neutral wire seen by K paradoxically appears to be **attracted** to the (unrealistically) positively-charged wire seen by the moving observer K', as shown above.

This is one of true relativistic paradoxes which can **never** be solved (= so this true paradox is rarely seen in textbooks ).

As shown above, this external negative charge is paradoxically attracted and moved toward (= x direction ) the wire with current flowing in the x direction.

Lorentz magnetic force, which is always perpendicular to the charge's moving direction, can**not** cancel this paradoxical electric attraction (= even if the magnetic force is generated, its direction could be in y or z direction, Not in the x-direction of electric attraction ), which means this paradoxical electrical attraction only seen by K' **remains** unsolved.

This fatal relativistic paradox originates in the intrinsically-**flawed** relativistic Lorentz transformation of the electromagnetic field E.

According to the relativistic Lorentz transformation of electromagnetic field, the electric field (= E_{x} or E_{||} ) in x direction (= K' moving direction ) must remain unchanged or zero (= E_{x} = E_{x}' = 0 ) also seen by the moving observer K' ( this p.14, this p.14 ). ← This Lorentz transformation of electric field is clearly **wrong**.

As shown in Fig.L1 and Fig.L2, the originally **zero** electric field (= E_{x} = 0 ) seen by the stationary observer K clearly **changes** into the **non-zero** electric field E_{x}' due to the **newly-appearing** positive charges in the electric wire seen by K' (= charge density ρ' seen by K' is Not zero, this p.3 ).

These electromagnetic paradoxes are caused by the Einstein relativity **rejecting** some absolute frame or space, where all the motions must be relative, illusion.

As shown on this page, the Mansuripur's relativity contradicting electromagnetic Lorentz force law is one of true **unsolvable** paradoxes, all their alleged solutions rely on **unscientific** "hidden momentum" and hidden angular momentum, which are **Not** legitimate solutions at all.

All these electromagnetic paradox can be easily solved, if we admit some realistic medium where the Lorentz magnetic force is generated only when an charged particle such as an electron is moving **relative** to some "**medium**" generating de Broglie wave, **regardless** of which observer, stationary or moving, is seeing it.

*(Fig.B) ↓ Observer moving at the same speed as a moving electron sees de Broglie wave vanish ? ← paradox !*

The important point is that Einstein relativity **contradicts** an electron's de Broglie wave theory.

An electron's de Broglie wavelength was confirmed in many experiments.

So if Einstein relativity is **incompatible** with de Broglie wave theory, Einstein relativity is surely **wrong**.

An electron moving at a speed of v generates de Broglie wave with the wavelength λ equal to h/mv ( v = electron's velocity, m is electron's mass, h is Planck constant ), which causes interference in two-slit experiments.

But as seen by an observer moving at the same speed as a moving electron, the originally-moving electron appears to **stop**, hence, generates **neither** de Broglie wave nor interference patterns.

This is also a **paradox**, because depending on an **observer**'s motion, interference fringes of an electron's de Broglie wave appear or disappear on the screen !

↑ Even if a stationary electron (from the viewpoint of the moving observer = right in the upper figure ) acquires a slight velocity after hitting one slit's wall, it can Not generate the same de Broglie wave interference pattern as one seen by the stopping observer (= left in the upper figure ), because in this case, the other slit contains No electron's de Broglie wave (= No interference ), and the electron with small velocity cannot generate the same short de Broglie wavelength interference as one (= electron moving faster ) seen by the stopping observer.

This serious de Broglie wave paradox can be solved by accepting the existence of the medium.

If an electron is moving relative to the space medium, it generates de Broglie wave and the **same** interference pattern, **regardless** of any observers moving at different speeds.

*(Fig.K) ↓ Einstein kinetic energy and electromagnetic paradoxes can be fixed by real electron's de Broglie wave in the medium*

In fact, Einstein relativistic theory **contradicts** kinetic energy, so wrong.

In the upper figure, from the viewpoint of a stationary observer K, a moving electron loses its kinetic energy (= eventually lowers total energy ) and **stops** after emitting light or photon energy.

But from the viewpoint of an observer K' moving at the same speed as the moving electron, this electron appears to stop, and this stopping electron **paradoxically starts to move** (= paradoxically gain kinetic energy ) **after emitting** and losing light energy.

↑ This is clearly paradox showing Einstein relativistic theory is false.

Because as seen by the moving K' observer, the stationary electron appears to **gain** kinetic energy and start to move even after emitting light and **losing** energy, which clearly **violates** energy conservation law.

In order to avoid this serious paradox, we have to introduce the concept of real electron's de Broglie wave (= which was confirmed in many experiments ) traveling through the medium.

When an electron is "moving" with some amount of kinetic energy, this electron is generating de Broglie wave in the surrounding medium, and this generated de Broglie wave **storing** electron's kinetic energy could decrease and stop an electron (= kinetic energy stored as de Broglie wave disappears by being converted into emitted light wave energy = this is definition of "electron stops" ) after emitting light wave energy **irrespective** of observers' motions. ← **No** paradox.

↑ This realistic electron's de Broglie wave theory in the medium can avoid serious paradoxes such as vanishing de Broglie wave, Lorentz magnetic force and relativistic force caused by unphysical observer-dependent relativistic theory.

As shown in photoelectric effect, when an electron absorbs the applied light energy, the electron's kinetic energy is observed to increase (= depending on absorbed light energy or frequency ), which means the kinetic energy must be some "**absolute** real energy" **independent** of observers' viewpoint, which **contradicts** Einstein relativistic theory, and only the electron's de Broglie wave energy stored in the absolute medium can explain the photoelectric effect or an electron emitting light and losing kinetic energy.

*(Fig.M) ↓ Mass (= energy ) change is "relative", NOT absolute value where the moving particle with kinetic energy radiating light energy appears to stop with No kinetic energy seen by other observers, but this stationary particle still radiates and loses light energy despite No additional energy to lose except rest mass = unsolvable paradox of Einstein relativity.*

Einstein relativity claims the mass of an object moving appears to be larger than its original mass at rest **relative** to a observer. ← this causes a serious **paradox**.

In Einstein relativistic world, there is **No** such thing as an **absolute** value, hence everything is relative and appears to be affected and changed by **observer**'s motion ! ← Though the observer does Not even touch an object.

Think about the case when an object A (= or particle A ) is moving relative to another stationary object B (= or particle B ). The rest (= original ) masses of these two objects are the same.

As seen by a observer at rest relative to B, this object A appears to be moving (= A has kinetic energy ) and **heavier** than the object B according to Einstein ( A > B ).

But as seen by another observer moving with the object A, the object A appears to be at rest (= A has No kinetic energy to lose ), and instead, the object B appears to be moving and heavier than the object A ( B > A ).

So depending on **observer**'s motion, one object appears heavier or lighter than another object. ← This is clearly a **paradox** ( this p.48-49 ), hence Einstein mc^{2} is **false**.

↑ If the object's energy is magically **changed** as seen by differently-moving observers, we can**not** utilize such an unrealistically-changeable, indefinite energy value in actual useful energy source.

When an charged particle is moving and losing its kinetic energy by radiating light wave (or a photon ) seen by one observer K, this moving particle appears to stop and has No kinetic energy to lose, as seen by another observer K' moving at the same speed as the charged particle, hence, this charged particle radiating energy seen by K appears to be stationary with No kinetic energy and **unable** to radiate or lose light wave energy as seen by K'. ← paradox !

↑ This is clearly one of fatal paradoxes showing Einstein relativistic energy is **wrong**.

Because one observer K sees the charged particle moving and losing its kinetic energy by emitting light wave energy (= and this emitted light can be detected by the detector ), but another observer K' sees the same charged particle at rest (= with No kinetic energy ) which cannot lose its kinetic energy by emitting light wave (= the emitted light wave is Not detected by the detector ) ! ← The detector can detect the emitted light or not depending on different observers, which is true paradox that can be fixed by using space medium.

Such an unrealistically-changeable Einstein mass energy mc^{2} was said to be involved in massive nuclear energy as seen in atomic bombs.

But this nuclear energy is a kind of "potential (= Not kinetic ) energy" like Coulomb potential energy which has **nothing** to do with an object's *motion* or velocity associated with Einstein relativistic (= kinetic ) energy affected by observer's motion.

Because whether two charged particles are moving or stationary, when the distance between those two charges is the same, Coulomb potential energy is the same, **regardless** of particles' motion or velocity. ← So the potential energies such as nuclear energy (= mc^{2} ) or Coulomb energy have **No** relation to Einstein relativity or Lorentz transformation.

For example, when two protons at rest are separated by the distance r, these two stationary protons have only their rest mass energy (= 2×m_{0}c^{2} ) with No additonal kinetic energy or relativistic energies.

But Coulomb repulstive energy (= e^{2}/4πε r ) is working between these two stationary protons, hence, the total relativistic mass or energy must be **greater** than two rest mass energies of protons, which means this additional energy caused by Coulomb repulsion must be stored in the **space** (or medium ) between two protons, which contradicts Einstein relativity rejecting any medium in space.

Einstein relativistic energy mc^{2}, mass, momentum relation causes serious unsolvable paradoxes in Lorentz transformation of forces and the unphysical right-angle lever which could be rotated or not depending on observers seeing it.

Einstein unreasonably rejected space medium, so to explain electromagnetic force, it neads unreal virtual photons with imaginary mass, which **disobey** Einstein relativistic mass. ← self-contradiction

Einstein paradoxical relativistic mass mc^{2} just copied Maxwell true mc^{2} with no paradox.

*(Fig.T) ↓ Twin time paradox = which clock A or B runs slower ? is contradictory, disproving Einstein.*

Contrary to the mainstream explanation in the textbooks, twin paradox in Einstein relativistic theory is a **real unsolved** paradox.

According to Lorentz transformation of Einstein paradoxical relativity, the moving clock appears to tick slower than the stationary clock.

But Einstein relativity has **No** absolute frame, hence, when one clock-A sees the other moving clock-B ticking slower, from the viewpoint of clock-B, the clock-A appears to be moving and running slower.

↑ So which clock A or B runs slower is paradoxical, which is called twin paradox.

In the upper figure, two clocks A and B start to move at the same time, both clocks accelerate for short time dt (s) at an acceleration of g (m/s^{2}), and then move at the constant speed v (m/s) over the same distance of L/2 (m) towards the center O position ( this abstract, p.3-3.1 ).

↑ Both these clocks A and B moving **symmetrically** arrive at the center O position at the **same** time (in the rest frame of the center O position ).

But as seen by the clock-B (= in the rest frame of B ), the clock-A appears to move and run slower, which means clock-B is likely to arrive at the center-O earlier than clock-A (= the center-O position appear to approach the clock-B as seen by the clock-B ).

On the other hand, as seen by clock-A, the clock-B appears to move and run slower, which means clock-A is likely to arrive at the center-O earlier than clock-B when considering only special relativistic time dilation (= moving clock runs slower ).

↑ This (twin) paradox in special relativity must be fixed by general relativistic time dilation allegedly caused by acceleration.

According to Einstein general relativity, as seen by the accelerating clock-B (= clock-B's rest frame ), all things in space appear to be accelerating and approaching B due to fictitious acceleration g (or fictitious gravitational accelerating potential ), which makes the other moving clock-A running faster, and cancel the special relativistic time dilation.

The same thing happens as seen by the accelerating clock-A.

As a result, due to general relativistic time dilation canceling special relativistic time dilation, both clocks A and B are supposed to arrive at the center-O in the textbooks.

But in fact, this logic is true, only when the distance L and acceleration g are **extremely small**, and the **approximation** of relativistic equations can be used (= in rigorous relativistic time dilation equation, twin paradox happens ! ).

When the distance L or acceleration g is very **big**, this ad-hoc approximation cannot be used, and eventually, as seen by the accelerating clock-B (= in clock-B's rest frame ), the other moving clock-A runs much faster than clock-B by **overcoming** special relativistic time dilation, and the clock-A arrives at the center-O position earlier, **paradoxically**.

As seen by the accelerating clock-A (= in the rest frame of clock-A ), the clock-B appears to run much faster than the clock-A, and the clock-B arrives at the center-O position earlier than clock-A, paradoxically.

This is clearly **real twin** paradox showing Einstein relativistic theory is **false**.

*(Fig.T-2) Clock-1 starts to free fall from a height of L by gravitational acceleration of g toward the clock-2 on the ground.*

In the upper figure, a temporarily-stationary clock-1 at a height of L starts to free fall by gravitational force acceleration g toward the clock-2 at rest on the ground (= both clock-1 and clock-2 are set to t_{1} = t_{2} = 0 when the stationary clock-1 starts to accelerate ).

According to general relativity, the clock in the gravitational potential φ = -GM/r (= r is distance from the center of the earth ) runs slower than the clock in the non-gravitational potential (= called inertial frame ) far away from the earth or planet.

The gravitational potential at the clock-2 on the ground is lower than the freely-falling clock-1 in the sky by gh (= g is gravitational acceleration, h = L - 1/2gt^{2} is the height of clock-1 at the time of t ).

So the clock-2 (= dt_{2} ) on the ground (= lower gravitational potential ) ticks slower than
the clock-1 (= dt_{1} ) at a height h like dt_{2} = ( 1 - gh/c^{2} ) dt_{1} ( this p.5, this-2nd-last-paragraph ) using the **approximation** applicable only to cases of small g, h, L ( this p.3, this p.3-right ).

But the clock-1 free-falling (= moving ) must run slower due to special relativistic time dilation like dt_{2} = ( 1 + v^{2}/2c^{2} ) dt_{1} ( this p.2-lower-p.3 ).

By combining these gravitational time dilation (= clock-2 slower ) and special relativistic time dilation (= clock-1 slower ), the clock-2 runs slower by ① in the upper figure.

According to general relativistic equivalence principle, as seen by an observer accelerating downward, all other things appear to be accelerating upward by fictitious accelerating force and potential which can cause time dilation in the same way as the gravitational force, or cancel gravitational potential when their directions are opposite.

This p.7-3rd-paragraph says

"According to the Equivalence Principle, a uniformly **accelerated** frame is **equivalent** to a
frame at rest in a uniform **gravitational** field."

So as seen by the free-falling clock-1 (= in the clock-1's rest frame ), the gravitational acceleration g appears to be canceled (= free-falling causes fictitious upward acceleration canceling downward gravitational acceleration g ), and the clock-2 appears to be accelerating toward clock-1 in (fictitious) non-gravitational field (= called inertial frame where only special relativistic time dilation of moving clock running slower needs to be considered by forgetting general relativity, this p.2 ).

As a result, in this rest frame of the clock-1, the clock-2 appearing to be moving upward runs slower by ② of the upper figure.

So in both frames seen by the clock-1 and clock-2, the clock-2 on the ground ticks slower by the same amount, which is why textbooks (**falsely**) claim twin paradox was solved by considering general and special relativity.

But in fact, only in the case of the gravitational potential difference gL being **far smaller** than c^{2}, the approximation of relativistic time dilation can be used to seemingly solve this twin paradox.

When the acceleration g is very big or the distance L between the clocks-1 and 2 is very **long**, twin paradox happens (= the upper approximation cannot be used ) and Einstein relativistic theory proves to be **false**.

*(Fig.T-3) As seen by the accelerating clock-B (= rest frame of clock-B ), all things appear to be accelerating at g, which causes accelerating potential and fictitious gravitational time dilation, according to general relativity.*

We think about the case where two clocks A and B start to accelerate at g simultaneously for the same period dt, and then move at the same velocity v over the same distance of L/2 until both clocks arrive at the center O position at the same time.

As seen by the accelerating clock-B (= in the rest frame of clock-B ), all things appear to be accelerating at g in the direction from clock-A to clock-B, which causes fictitious acceleration potential difference φ = gL between clock-A and clock B separated by distance of L, according to general relativity.

↑ In this acceleration frame, fictitious gravitational ( effective ) potential causing time dilation ( this-(1)~lower ) like in centrifugal potential in rotating frame ( this p.13, this p.3-right ).

As a result, this fictitious acceleration potential causes (fictitious) gravitational relativistic time dilation of clock-B's time dt_{B} equal to the square root of (1-2gL/c^{2} ) multiplied by dt_{A}, which **approximates** to dt_{B} = ( 1 - gL/c^{2} ) dt_{A} only in the case of small gL ( this p.3-lower, this p.5-upper, this p.8 ).

The problem is when the acceleration g or the distance L is very big (= 2gL > c^{2} ), this general relativistic time dilation equation gives the **unrealistic imaginary** time like the square root of the negative value, as shown in the upper figure.

This is the fatal **flaw** of general relativistic time dilation like seen inside the unphysical black hole with imaginary time.

This shows we can Not use the approximate time dilation equation applicable only to the case where the acceleration g and distance L are **very small**, like square root of (1-2gL/c^{2}) approximately equal to 1 -gL/c^{2}.

As a result, twin paradox can**not** be solved even by considering general and special relativistic time dilation in general cases.

To avoid the unphysical imaginary time like inside black hole, we need to divide the whole distance L into infinite infinitesimally-short-distance regions (= ΔL ) like L = n × ΔL ( n → ∞, ΔL → 0 ).

Small general relativistic time dilation over this infinitesimal small region can be given by dt' = square root of ( 1 - 2gΔL/c^{2} ) × dt_{A}, and we have to repeat it over the entire L region ( the time of clock separated by 2ΔL is the square root of 1 - 2gΔL/c^{2} × the square root of 1 - 2gΔL/c^{2} × dt_{A} ) which gives **exponential** time dilation equation like the upper figure.

But eventually even this rigorous general relativistic time dilation avoiding unphysical imaginary time (= which means black holes also disappear ) causes real twin paradox (= clock-A runs much much faster as seen in the rest frame of the accelerating clock-B ), showing Einstein relativistic theory is **false**.

*(Fig.T-4) As seen by the accelerating clock-B (= in the rest frame of clock-B ), the other clock-A moving runs exponentially faster by general relativistic time dilation, which cannot be fixed by special relativistic time dilation. → true twin paradox*

Here we think about this case where two clocks A and B start to accelerate at g simultaneously for short period of time dt until their velocities become v (= so acceleration time dt = v/g ), and move at this same velocity v over the same distance L/2 until they arrive at the center O position at the same time.

We choose the parameters of the acceleration g = c/10 m/s^{2} (= c is 3 × 10^{8} ), the distance L between clocks A and B = 1000c (meter), the velocity v = c/100 (m/s), the accelerating time dt = v/g = 1/10 s, as shown above.

Using these parameters and the rigorous accelerating time dilation equation of exponential function avoiding the unphysical imaginary time, we can show the clock-A' runs much much faster and can move over about 5.1 × 10^{18} × c meter (= using L/2 or e^{gL/2c2} ) far surpassing the center-O position (= L/2 = 500 c meter ), while the clock-B is accelerating for the first short period of dt (= clock-B is still far away from the center-O ).

The clock-A's velocity is only v = c/100, which causes far-smaller special relativistic time dilation = the square root of (1 - 1/10000) × dt_{B}, which can**not** fix the far-faster (= exponentially-faster ) general relativistic time dilation. → twin paradox.

As seen by the clock-B (= in clock-B's rest frame ), the clock-A runs much faster (= by general relativistic time dilation in the accelerating frame ) and arrives at the center-O position much earlier.

As seen by the clock-A (= in clock-A's rest frame ), the clock-B runs much faster and arrives at the center-O position much earlier.

This is clearly **twin paradox**, and shows Einstein relativistic theory is false.

↑ As seen by the accelerating clock-B, the clock-A appears to move much much faster than light speed c (= like the object far away moving at infinitely fast speed seen from the black hole's event horizon where time stops ), which does not violate the special relativity, because this clock-A's speed always becomes about c/100 seen from the positions where the clock-A passes (= stationary clocks in these positions where clock-A passes run much much faster than clock-B in the accelerating potential ).

*(Fig.G) Which satellite clock ticks more slowly ? = paradox.*

In fact, Einstein's relativity has **never** been useful for any modern technology such as GPS navigation system.

GPS clock time is said to be the only example utilizing ( useless ) Einstein relativistic time dilation. But in fact, GPS does Not rely on the prediction by Einstein relativity at all. Because even without fictional Einstein relativity, GPS navigation system is working ( this middle~ ).

The popular science websites often insist GPS satellites are moving faster than the earth's stationary observers, so the satellite's atomic clock ticks slower by special relativistic time dilation (= allegedly only -7 microseconds per day ), and GPS satellite is moving at higher position with lower gravity, hence its satellite clock ticks faster (= 45 microseconds per day ) by general relativistic gravitational time dilation which depends only on the distance between the earth's center and satellite ( this middle ).

As a result, GPS satellite clock would gain 38 microseconds per day (= 45-7 ) relative to the clocks on the ground, so the offset of this fixed relativistic time change is given to GPS satellite.

Fist of all, this GPS satellite's alleged relativistic clock time, which may be slightly faster than the earth's clock, is **meaningless**.

Because the receiver clock time on the earth is originally Not precise (= often different from the true earth's clock time ), and they usually use four satellites which can fix the **arbitrary** time difference between satellite and the receiver's clocks even **without** relying on the (suspicious) Einstein relativistic time prediction ( this p.6-7 ).

Furthermore, there are many other **uncertain** GPS time **errors** which can**not** be predicted or fixed by Einstein relativity. GPS needs almost **realtime** correction of clock time errors by frequently comparing the ground stations' precise atomic clocks and the satellite's clock time which constantly causes unpredictable **errors** ( this p.5 ).

The actual GPS satellite clock time constantly causes various **unpredictable** errors related to clock bias, drift and clock age ( this p.2, this p.4 ) which clock time errors are different in different atomic clocks ( this p.3-left-lower ), and **disagreeing** with Einstein relativistic time change ( this p.2 ).

If Einstein relativity could perfectly "predict" GPS clock time, engineers would Not need to constantly correct GPS clock time errors by comparing them to the ground stations' clocks. ← Hence, Einstein relativity can**not** predict GPS time errors at all.

↑ The actual GPS satellite clock time's error unpredictably changes in more complicated way (= engineers often use complicated polynomial equations of the time t containing artificially-changed and fitted coefficients, this p.3 ) than Einstein's simple relativistic time prediction (= fixed time offset, this p.21-22 or p.33-34 ).

So Einstein relativity is not only useless but also disagreeing with the actual GPS clock's more complicated time change. ← "Einstein relativity is inherently an **unsuccessful** theory with No power to predict anything.

The media's tired cliche "without Einstein, GPS would not be usable !" turned out to be a big **lie**.

Einstein relativity, which unreasonably rejected realistic medium, had to introduce the nonphysical imaginary rule called Lorentz transformation where the moving clock's time (= K' ) **magically** ticks slower than the stationary clock (= K ). ← K > K'

But in this Einstein **occult** relativistic world, all things including time and masses are **illusory** relative things magically changed seen by differently-moving observers, these relative illusory time cannot be determined as definite absolute values, so we should Not be able to utilize these magically-changing time and energies seen by different observers as useful tools like GPS.

From the perspective of the moving clock (= K' ), the stationary clock (= K ) appears to be moving in the opposite direction, hence, the clock K must tick slower than the clock K' in the **opposite** way. ← K < K'

↑ Hence, **both** these clocks' times must tick slower than the other (= which clock K or K' runs slower is **paradoxical** ), this relativistic time dilation paradox called "twin paradox" is clearly one of true paradoxes (= which can **Never** be fixed ) **disproving** Einstein relativity.

Almost all textbooks and websites try to fix this inherently-**irreparable** twin time paradox using the **same** worn-out example
where one twin A jumps on a high-quality rocket and flies away from the earth at high speed, and after a while, makes a **U-turn** (= decelerate + **accelerate** ) back to the earth, while the other twin B remains on the earth quietly.

↑ The twin A's clock in the fast-**moving** rocket could run slower than the stationary twin B's clock on the earth (= so the twin A may remain younger than the twin B on the earth ! ).

But from the perspective of the moving twin A, the **opposite** thing may happen = the twin B's clock on the earth appears to be moving in the opposite direction, hence, the twin B's clock may run slower. ← **paradox** !

This rocket-earth twin paradox case clearly exposes a **true** time **paradox** underlying Einstein unrealistic relativity, if we consider only the original simple special relativity.

Physicists tried to use another artificially-created ad-hoc general relativity to fix this twin time paradox in **vain**.

The twin A flying away on the rocket and turning around back to the earth experiences strong deceleration and **acceleration** when doing U-turn.

According to unphysical Einstein general relativity, this strong acceleration mimics (fictitious) gravitational-force-like acceleration which may cause time dilation, as a result, the twin A clock on the moving rocket may run slower than the earth's twin B clock ( this 4th-paragraph, this 3rd-last paragraph ).

But in fact, even if we use Einstein ad-hoc general relativity, we can Not fix this fatal twin time paradox like in the upper figure case where two satellites moving at **constant** speeds (= **No** sudden deceleration or acceleration ) in the same circular orbit.

The satellite A's clock appears to be moving at the constant speed "2v", hence, run slower than the satellite B's clock from the perspective of the satellite B.

But the satellite B's clock also appears to be moving at the constant speed "2v" in the opposite direction, hence, run slower than the satellite A's clock from the perspective the satellite A.

↑ The satellite A's clock is slower than the satellite B's clock. But at the same time, the satellite B's clock is slower than the satellite A's clock ? ← This is clearly irreparable **paradox** which could be witnessed, when satellites A and B compare and see each other's paradoxical clock times after going around the earth in the clockwise and counter-clockwise directions. ← This case can**not** be fixed by general relativity.

So Einstein relativity contains the true **inevitable** twin paradox based on its unrealistic time dilation in moving objects, so **false**.

↑ Both these satellites moving at the **same** speeds in the same circular orbit (= the **same** distance r from the earth's center ) experience the **same** gravity and **No** acceleration, hence, this case can**not** rely on general relativity to seemingly fix the twin time paradox, because the general relativistic time dilation depends **only** on the **distance** between satellites and the earth's center r both in the gravitational and centrifugal force potential ( this p.4-footnote ), which is the **same** (= No general relativistic time difference ) in both satellites, as I explain later.

As a result, the case of two satellites moving in the same circular orbit around the earth causes the irreparable special relativistic time dilation or paradox where one satellite's clock runs slower seen by the other (= which satellite's clock A or B runs slower is paradoxical and undetermined ).

Actually, the (seeming) solutions of twin paradox which you may often see in textbooks or websites (= always use the same one special case of one twin flying away in the rocket, and the other twin remains on the earth at rest to artificially use general relativistic time dilation canceling special relativistic time paradox ) **never** try to use the much simpler cases where twins are just moving around the earth at some **constant** speeds to meet each other again (= both twins on the earth experience the same gravity and No acceleration, hence, general relativity cannot be used. → Special relativistic time paradox **remains** ).

Next we explain how general relativistic time dilation is used in these cases in detail, and why this ad-hoc general relativistic time dilation is **unable** to fix the fatal special relativistic time dilation paradox after all. → Einstein relativity is **false** and useless contrary to the media-hype.

Einstein general relativity makes an **unrealistic** claim that the acceleration and gravitational force are intrinsically indistinguishable (= called "equivalence principle" ), hence the acceleration can be treated as new fictitious gravitational force, which could also influence clock time like the original gravitational time dilation.

So according to Einstein general relativity, the stationary object experiencing the downward gravitational acceleration (= 9.8 m/s^{2}) on the earth may be equivalent to the object on the rocket accelerating upward at 9.8 m/s^{2} (= hence, the object inside this rocket moving upward experiences the downward fictitious acceleration like gravity ).

When a person or clock is falling freely downward pulled by the earth's gravitational force (= like riding in a freely-falling elevator with broken cables ), they experience the **fictitious** upward acceleration and weightlessness as if it cancels gravitational force like in the falling elevator ( this p.7, this middle ).

So Einstein claims these freely-falling objects and clocks pulled by the natural gravity are like ones in the non-gravity state (= called inertial frame ), hence the simple special relativity (= forgetting general relativity ) can be applied in this free-falling frame, elevators and their clocks ( this p.2, this 3rd-last paragraph ).

As a result, from the viewpoints of two satellites (= rotational frame ) and their clocks moving around the earth pulled by gravity in the upper figure, they are experiencing this free-falling-elevator-like state with No gravity by centrifugal fictitious acceleration canceling gravity.

↑ Hence, from the viewpoints of these two satellites moving in the same orbit at the **same** speed in the opposite direction, we can consider only special relativity where the other satellite's clock always appears to be moving and run slower which causes irreparable twin time dilation paradox. ← Einstein relativity proves to be undeniably **false**.

Einstein general relativity claims the **only** effective potential (= energy ) such as gravitational potential and centrifugal (= rotational ) potential energies affect the clock time dilation ( this p.4-last-margin, this p.10-last, this p.3 ).

In the upper case of two satellites in the same circular orbit, these satellites are always moving at the "**same constant speeds**" as seen by the other satellite, meaning these two satellites always experience the **same unchangeable** effective potential energies, (= No gravity or centrifugal potential energies change = No speed change of satellites. If these effective potential energies change, satellites' speeds would change, too ) from the viewpoints of the other satellite. → Only special relativity can be considered, and twin time paradox immanent in special relativity or Lorentz transformation can**not** be fixed.

From the viewpoint of the satellite moving in the circular orbit around the earth, we should consider the effective potential energies summing gravitational and centrifugal potential ( this 24th paragraph ).

↑ Both these gravitational and fictitious centrifugal potential energies (= distance r × centrifugal force in the radial direction ) depend **only** on the "distance r" between the earth's center and satellite ( this p.19, this p.20, this (22)-(29), this p.14-15 ), which **radius** r and effective potential are the **same** in both satellites.

↑ **No** general relativistic potential difference causing time dilation between these two satellites occurs. → Special relativistic twin time **paradox** remains. → Einstein is false.

After all, twin time dilation paradox caused by the moving objects in special relativity **remains** as a true paradox which can **Not** be fixed by general relativity, hence Einstein relativity turned out to be **wrong**.

According to the paradoxical Einstein relativity, the length of any moving rigid object appears to be magically contracted in the direction **parallel** to the object's moving direction, as seen by the stationary observer.

This infamous Lorentz length contraction of Einstein relativity causes serious **unfixable** paradox called "Ehrenfest paradox" in a rotating rigid disc.

When a rigid disc is rotating at a constant speed, the circumference of the disc must be magically contracted and **shortened** according to Einstein relativity where all moving objects must magically contract their lengths (= even if the objects are very rigid ) with respect to the stationary observers.

But the radius R (= radial direction ) of the rotating disc is **Not** contracted or shortened, because the rotating disc is Not moving in the radial (= outward or inward ) direction.

Hence, the circumference of the rotating disc must remain the same = 2π× R (= disc radius which remains the **same** without being contracted ! ), which **contradicts** Einstein relativistic prediction of the moving circumference contracted and **shortened**.

↑ It is uncertain and **paradoxical** whether the circumference of the rotating disc will be shortened (= by Lorentz contraction ) or Not shortened (= circumference should be always **equal** to 2π × R where the disc radius R remains the same without contraction )

This Lorentz contraction paradox of rotating disc is an **unsolvable** true paradox like satellites' clocks rotating around the earth causing twin time paradox.

Many physicists have suggested many different **incomplete** and unrealistic solutions of this unsolvable Ehrenfest length-contraction paradox by refuting former solutions of other physicists in vain for the past 100 years ( this p.8-9 ). ← This means it's **impossible** to solve this **true** relativistic paradox.

One example of these incomplete solutions suggests the possibility that the materials in the circumference of the rigid rotating disc may be **broken**, separated and shortened by Lorentz contraction ( this middle ). ← But in this seeming solution, the length **between** separated broken materials becomes **longer** which **disagrees** with relativistic Lorentz contraction where any length in the moving frame must be shortened, whether it contains materials or vacuum. ← Paradox remains **unsolved**.

This Ehrenfest rotating disc paradox can**not** rely on Einstein general relativity (= as seen in some wrong solutions ), because the stationary observer at the center hole of the rotating disc is Not accelerated (= Neither effective potential nor general relativistic time change is experienced by this center stationary observer = inertial frame, this p.45 ), hence, only special relativity can be used and this paradox caused by Lorentz contraction **remains** like the upper two GPS satellites' case.

As a result, Einstein relativity is intrinsically **filled** with many **incurable** *paradoxes*, hence **wrong**.

*(Fig.B) Time stopping on black hole prevents its formation, and exposes the fatal paradox of Einstein relativity. *

Despite extremely long time research, black hole is still **useless** except for selling books repeating the same old episodes with just different titles and authors, because imaginary black holes are too far away from the earth to reach and confirm directly.

First, black hole cannot be formed. A clock time is said to magically slow down and stop by strong gravity at points close to black hole's surface called event horizon, as seen by outside distant observers ( this p.21 ) on the earth ( this-lower, this p.15-16 ).

The current mainstream theory claims that black holes were formed by a massive star collapsing and becoming compressed by its own gravity into black hole.

↑ But as the star becomes denser and closer to black hole, its clock time becomes significantly slower, and it would take almost **infinite** time to form black hole on which the time must completely **stop** seen from the outside observers (= hence, many researches claiming black holes were detected or photoed from the outside earth's telescopes are **wrong** ).

Stopping time means the collision of two black holes allegedly generating gravitational wave is also **impossible**, too.

Because if we suppose some long stick (or rod ) existing between two black holes which are coming closer being attracted to each other for collision, this stick must pass the event horizon at **infinite** speed far exceeding the light speed c contradicting Einstein relativity prohibiting any superluminal objects, because the clock time stops on the event horizon (= the stick can move some distance despite the stopping time, seen by the outside earth, which means the stick appears to move at infinite speed seen from the event horizon where the time stops. ).

The current mainstream "theory of everything" called string theory allegedly unifying Einstein relativity and quantum mechanics claims that (virtual) gravitons mediate gravitational forces.

But if so, these gravitons emitted from the black hole must pass through the event horizon where the time **stops**, which means gravitons also must stop at the surface (= event horizon ) of the black hole, and cannot escape into the outside of the black hole, hence, black hole cannot exert gravitational force on any outside objects. ← this means all the current researches trying to measure the strong black hole's gravity from the outside earth's telescopes are **meaningless**.

To avoid this relativistic contradiction, some people say that gravitions may not exist, instead, the gravity is just the consequence of the curved space time or field. ← But this explanation tries to unreasonably **separate** the outside gravitational force from the black hole inside the event horizon, because any information about the gravitational force can**not** pass through the event horizon, which means the gravitational force or field are completely **independent** from the black hole, and can freely separate and fly away from the black hole !

Other people say the gravitons are Not real particles but just virtual particles which can unrealistically move faster than light contradicting Einstein.

↑ As a result, the black hole is self-**contradictory** and unreal, as Einstein himself theoretically rejected the existence of black hole.

Black hole, which absorbs everything, cannot be seen directly. Though the current physics claims the existence of black hole can be proved by watching the motion of stars allegedly orbiting around unseen black holes, it is **untrue**.

Because even stars around black holes in the galactic center can**not** be seen hidden by very thick and dense clouds of dusts and gases ( this 4th paragraph ).

So the recent ( dubious ) black hole picture is fake or artificially-created, because No visible light can be detected near black hole due to very thick dusts. ← Not a real photo of unseen black hole.

This 4th-paragraph says

"These “photos” do **Not**, of course, directly show a black hole,.. They actually record portions of the flat pancake of hot plasma swirling **around** the black hole at high speeds.. its accelerating particles emit radio waves." ← Then why does this hot plasma avoid surrounding only the front of black hole's photo accidentally ? ← this is strange.

This original paper says (p.5, p.8-right-lower)

"Every imaging **algorithm** has a variety of **free parameters**
that can significantly **affect** the final image. We adopted a twostage imaging approach to control and evaluate biases in the
reconstructions from our **choices** of these parameters (= black hole photo is an artificial image based on freely-chosen parameters and algorithm for constructing artificial images )."

"it is more **difficult** to rule out **alternatives**
to black holes in GR, because a shadow can be produced by
any compact object with a spacetime characterized by unstable
circular photon orbits. ← It means there are possibilities that other irrelevant objects just blocking the light (= so seen "black" ) were mistaken for (fictional) black hole's shadow."

To discover a black hole, we have to know both the mass and **size** of a black hole, which must be an extremely dense star.

For example, the radius of such a dense black hole with the same mass as the Sun or Earth must be extremely small = 3.0 km, or only 9mm.

The present astronomy relies on the **ungrounded** assumption that the rapid brightness fluctuation of X ray allegedly emitted from black hoke may tell us how small the black hole is ( this 2~3rd-paragraphs, this 3rd paragraph, this p.1-3rd-paragraph ).

This 3rd-last paragraph claims

"To make **rapidly** varying X-rays, the unseen companion must be **small** ! The fluctuation timescale gives us the maximum possible diameter of the object. Since the speed of light is finite, it takes a given amount of time for light to travel across the object... The quicker the fluctuations are, the **smaller** the object (= black hole ) must be."

↑ But the rapid fluctuation of the brightness of X rays can occur due to rapid fluctuation of materials or hot gas around the black hole like the solar flares, which is completely **irrelevant** to the unknown black hole size. ← There is **No** legitimate way to know the size of a very distant unseen black hole, which means **No** evidence of black hole.

Sagittarius A at a galactic center of the Milky way is said to be a supermassive black hole whose mass is about 4 million times bigger than the Sun.

↑ If there is a massive star whose radius is about 160 times longer than Sun's radius, and with the same density as the Sun, this bigger star can have the mass of 4 million times the Sun (= 160^{3} = 4 million times the size of Sun ), and **mimic** the Sagittarius A's black hole, though it is not a black hole. ← It means the black hole, which can be replaced by an ordinary big star, is **unnecessary**.

The star allegedly closest to this black hole is called S4714 whose pericenter distance from the black hole is 12.6 AU (= 12.6 times the distance between Sun and Earth = 1.8 × 10^{9} km ).

↑ Inside this closest star S4714 orbit (= whose orbital radius is 1.8 × 10^{9} km ), there is a space enough for the massive star, whose radius is 160 × Sun's radius = 7 × 10^{5} × 160 = 1.12 × 10^{8} km (< 1.8 × 10^{9} km of the closest star's orbital radius ), mimicking the Sagittarius A black hole with the same density as the Sun.

Astronomers try to guess the size of (**unseen** fictional) black hole from the dubious pictures, but it is **impossible**.

They insist the unseen black hole should be seen as a "black shadow" and light emitted from gas around the black hole is seen as bright "ring", which ring or shadow's sizes are said to be far bigger than a black hole or event horizon ( this-middle What will I see when.. ).

↑ The point is black hole is **Not** a simple two-dimensional (= Not simply a black shadow surrounded by bright ring in 2D-picture ) but a three-dimensional object whose entire surface (= including front and back sides of black holes ) is said to be surrounded and covered by bright gases, hence, bright gases surrounding the **entire** unseen black hole (= also its front side in the direction of earth should be covered by bright gases ) make all the area bright, and the black shadow (= alleged black hole ) should **Not** be observed. ← estimation of black hole size by (fake) 2D -pictures is impossible.

Furthermore, light emitted from around black hole is easily **scattered and blurred** by various **interstellar** medium and gases during the long trip to the earth ( this p.3-right, this p.1-right ), hence, estimation of any information such as size, mass and motion of (fictional unseen) black holes from the emitted light traveling over extremely long distance is **impossible** ( this p.3-3rd-paragraph ). ← varius ad-hoc models with artificial free parameters are needed ( this p.7-table.I-note, this p.5-left-2nd-paragraph ).

Basically the galactic centers are covered by very thick dusts and debris, so we cannot observe any stars' motion around the black hole, because **No** visible lights can penetrate these thick dusts (= so photos of unseen black holes are impossible ).

Astronomers try to "imagine" (fictitious) star's motion based on infrared rays with longer wavelength, which are emitted from everywhere not only stars (= hence, distinguishing stars orbiting around the black hole using this infrared rays is impossible ), in order to estimate the black hole's mass.

↑ Furthermore these (imaginary) stars' motions allegedly around the unseen black hole are often unnatural and unrealistically irregular, which means all these (unseen) orbits of stars around black holes are fake and unreliable.

From these doubtful unseen star's motion allegedly around the (imaginary) black hole, physicists try to estimate Einstein relativistic effects such as tiny gravitational redshift (= about 200km/s = far **smaller** than the classical redshift by normal Doppler effect as seen in ordinary sound wave, this last-paragraph, this 2nd-paragraph ), which dubious tiny gravitational redshift is often indistinguishable from the far-larger (= nonrelativistic ) Doppler effect's redshift influenced by star's velocity = 7650 km/s or redshifts by light's energy loss (= Compton scattering or a part of light energy is absorbed into other atomic electrons ).

The dubiously tiny redshift calculation is done by fitting various artificial parameters (= so Not agreeing with Einstein relativistic prediction, this p.3, this p.3-right-lower ), though these stars' motions with unrealistically irregular velocities are unreliable.

↑ It is impossible to confirm Einstein tiny, tiny gravitational time dilation or red-shift even around the distant (imaginary) black hole surrounded by a thick layer of dusts which **block** almost all lights such as visible lights ( this 7th-paragraph ).

↑ Astronomers tried to guess Einstein (imaginary) gravitational time dilation by seeing the slight wavelength change of unspecific and unreliable infrared light ( this 6th-paragraph ) or K-band such as very-low energy hydrogen Brackett-γ(= Brγ) line with 2.1661 μm wavelength (= only 0.5 eV ), which was allegedly emitted by the transition from high energy level n = 7 → n = 4 (instead of observing some strong specific atomic lines such as visible or ultraviolet lights, this p.2 observations, this p.1-right, this p.2-right-2nd-paragraph ).

↑ Knowing the original infrared light's (**unspecific**) wavelengths for estimating gravitational time dilation or red-shift is **impossible**, because many kinds of lights with various wavelengths from high-energy γ rays to low-energy infrared lights are flying everywhere around galactic centers (or black holes ), which are indistinguishable from the tiny infrared light's wavelength change.

The space around black holes are **filled with very high-energy particles** moving at light speed (= energy is greater than 10^{6} eV ) causing larger classical Doppler shift's wavelength change and high-energy light at hot temperature, which can easily **mask** the extremely-weak hydrogen's infrared Brγ line (= only tiny 0.5 eV energy ) and make it impossible to measure the tiny relativistic redshift of the weak infrared light's slight wavelength change in the circumstances filled with a lot of lights with much higher energies.

↑ The infrared red lights they used for estimation of the dubious gravitational redishft have about 2 μm wavelength ( this 2.1 K-band ). ← Many stars such as Sun emit these infrared lights with various continuous wavelengths whose wavelength's slight change (= tiny redshift ) cannot be indentified or distinguished.

In only (fictional) black holes near the earth such as Sagittarius A in our Milky way galaxy, astronomers can use the (dubious unseen) orbiting stars around the black holes to roughly estimate the masses of black holes using Kepler law, various ad-hoc models and fitting parameters ( this p.2-left-2nd-paragraph, this p.3-fig.1 ).

This method based on stars around black holes cannot be used in more distant black holes where measurement of precise motion of stars around distant black holes is impossible.

In more distant black holes, they try to rely on much more **unreliable** method called "reverberation mapping" where they roughly estimate the orbiting radius (= directly unmeasurable ) of **unspecific clouds** around a unseen black hole from the time delay or lag between the time when light is emitted from near black hole and the time when this light is reflected from the (unmeasurable) surrounding clouds called broad line region (= BLR ).

↑ But the light (= allegedly emitted from distant black holes ) is naturally reflected from **many particles** and gases (= Not only the cloud of broad line region ) in the dense space in the galactic centers around black holes, and this method must rely on some unknown ad-hoc freely-adjustable parameters ( this p.1-right ). Hence, the precise estimation of the alleged (unmeasurable) distant cloud's motion and radius for obtaining the distant black hole mass only from this light reflected from unknown clouds is **impossible**.

Almost all (dubious) black holes are so far away that we can Not even observe stars' motion around the (unseen) black holes.

Recent (**doubtful**) claim of discovering most distant black hole by Webb space telescope relies only on very **unreliable** ad-hoc interpretation where some hydrogen emission (= Hβ ) line may tell us rough masses of unseen black holes instead of seeing stars around them ( this p.14 6.1 black hole mass ), though this interpretation has No physical grounds.

↑ The rough (unreliable) estimation of the unseen, unmeasurable distant black holes' masses based **only** on line luminosity and width of hydrogen atomic lights = Balmer Hα (= wavelength 656 nm = 6560 Å ), Hβ (= wavelength 486 nm = 4860 Å ) lines allegedly emitted from hot gases around the unseen distant black holes is **impossible** due to hot gases or starts around (imaginary) black holes or galactic centers are continuously emitting **many kinds of lights** with many kinds of wavelengths as continuous spectral lines (= hot stars' temperature is 5000 ~ 10000 K, which emits continuum spectral lines or bright lights with wavelengths from 100 ~ 1000 nm ) which background lights easily mask the hydrogen Balmer H lines (+ lights scattered and modified by insterstellar medium ), make it impossible to estimate based on light wavelength.

This research ( this p.4-5=using artificial parameters, p.6-4.2=discrepancy between theory and observation ) also depends on the ambiguous the hydrogen's Hα spectral line as a means of (baselessly) guessing the unseen distant black hole's mass using various freely-adjustable parameters, and found the discrepancy (= contradiction) between theory and observation. ← **No** reliable evidence of black hole

All other methods also depend on various ad-hoc models and freely-adjustable fitting parameters ( this p.12-lower ) with **No** direct evidence of Einstein black hole.

Gravitational lens is said to be one of relativistic effects where light emitted from distant light sources (= background ) such as bright galaxies, stars or quasars are bent by the strong gravity (= due to unphysical relativistic time dilation or redshift) of the foreground galaxies, unseen black holes or ad-hoc ghost-like dark matter.

They insist when the background star, the center of foreground galaxy and the earth are rarely and perfectly aligned in one line, the background star's image or light is seen as ring called Einstein ring around the foreground galactic center or black hole as phenomena of gravitational lensing.

↑ But it is **too unnatural** and coincidental that the distant (= background ) star and the center of some irrelevant foreground galaxy are just **perfectly aligned** in one line to the earth.

So it is more natural to say that the light emitted from some background star or galaxy is scattered or reflected by vaious gases, dusts and interstellar medium around the foreground galaxy, and this scattered light coming to the earth is observed as light ring instead of the paradoxical Einstein relativistic effect ( this p.2, p.8-right ).

Actually, part of Einstein ring is often dark, completely blocked by some dusts or interstellar medium, and centers of galaxies or areas near black holes are often filled with thick clouds of dusts and gases.

So gravitational lens is Not a proof of Einstein general relativity but just light scattering by interstellar medium or gases.

Einstein general relativity claims light is slightly bent by fantasy gravitational time dilation by massive stars or Sun. But this bent light is much more easily and naturally explained by light refraction (or light **scattering** ) by dusts and molecules around stars.

↑ Einstein general relativity often deliberately **ignores** the far more influential atmosphere or air (= gas ) medium around the earth or massive stars which can more easily modify the light speed, wavelength, frequency and atomic motions.

The refractive index of the air (= 1.0003 ) means the light speed c is significantly slower by the air medium to c/1.0003, which atmospheric influence (= 0.0003 ) is far more influential than the tiny relativistic gravitational effect or time dilation (= allegedly only 45 microseconds/per day = 24×3600 = 86400 sec/day, so relativistic effect is far smaller = 45×10^{-6}/86400 = only 5 × 10^{-10} and more negligible than the air medium's influence of 0.0003 ).

Some people say light refraction is chromatic (= different wavelengths refract differently ) unlike achromatic gravitational lens, but this explanation does **Not** rule out the light **scattering** by thick dusts around galactic centers.

Actually, the observed lights from all planets such as moon are the Sun's lights **reflected** or scattered by them.

Some astronomers try to roughly estimate the unseen black hole's mass by using this (imaginary) gravitational lens, but it is impossible to observe the precise Einstein ring around the galactic center or black hole covered by very thick dusts and debris.

So they have to rely on some ad-hoc speculative lens models with unknown background stars' positions and artificially adjust many free parameters (= including unmeasurable dark matter parameters ) to (baselessly) deduce the masses of distant (fictional) black holes ( this Fig.2, 3.3~4.3=various models, table.6= dark matter model parameters, this p.5-left, this p.12-lower ), which **artificial** models are **Not** the proof or test of Einstein relativity.

↑ In order to explain unusual gravitational lens in the space without black holes (= this gravitational lens is caused by light **scattering** in the interstellar medium, **Not** by Einstein relativity ), they are forced to artificially create ad-hoc convenient concept of unseen dark matter, which can be explained by the real medium in space, as shown in even Einstein paradoxically trying to restore ether which he rejected before.

Pulsars or the radio waves allegedly emitted from the **imaginary** distant neutron stars are often used for dubious tests of negligibly weak Einstein general relativistic or gravitational time dilation effects.

The point is there is **No** direct evidence that these (imaginary) neutron stars really exist in the very distant space, because the neutron stars and black holes are too far away from the earth to directly observe or confirm.

The mechanism of how these imaginary neutron stars emit radio-wave pulses is still **unknown** despite long-time researches ( this introduction, this p.7 ).

This neutron star is very unrealistic (= I don't say it's impossible, but it's a very unnatural and unlikely object ).

For example, the pulsar PSR-B1913+16 is said to consist of very compact and dense neutron stars of 1.4 solar mass within only 20 km radius, which are allegedly spinning 17 times per second emitting radio pulses (and unseen gravitational wave ) at the distance from 21000 light years away from the Earth.

It is more natural to think that the sources of these pulsars = regular light wave such as radio waves are just the space dusts or rotating (or oscillating ) floating objects regularly **reflecting** or passing the lights emitted from other distant stars toward the Earth mixed with the interstellar medium's oscillation, rather than the unrealistically-spinning dense neutron stars.

In order to test the dubiously-tiny Einstein relativistic effects, physicists have to measure the precise period (= allegedly representing the neutron star's orbital period ) and the light (= pulsar ) wave's frequency shift (= representing the neutron's star's velocity change through Doppler effect ) of the detected radio wave pulses.

To know the precise masses and the unseen orbital inclination of the neutron stars and black hole's companion stars, physicists have to rely on very **uncertain** freely-adjustable (post-Keplerian) parameters such as the tiny,tiny general relativistic gravitational time-dilation red-shift or advance of periastron ( this p.1-2 ).

But the precise measurement of pulses or the dubiously-tiny relativistic effect based on extremaly-distant (imaginary) neutron stars or black holes is **impossible**, so all the alleged Einstein tests are **unreliable**, and cannot prove the (paradoxical) Einstein relativity.

Because the weak pulses or low-energy radio waves (= telescopes on the Earth can detect only radio waves with long wavelength ) allegedy emitted from neutron stars are known to be significantly **modified** by various materials in the space, and hidden in many indistinguishable noises ( this p.4 ).

Radio pulses or light waves traveling a extremely long distance in the space are known to be changed, scattered, and slowed down depending on their wavelengths through the unknown interstellar mediums, which various unknown medium noise influence is strong enough to change the periods and shapes of the original pulses, which makes the precise tests of Einstein tiny relativistic effects **impossible**.

So astronomers have to **artificially manipulate** various unknown **parameters** called dispersion measure (= DM, this p.4, this p.1-2 ) and choose some artificial models ( this p.2-lower, this p.4, this p.3 ) allegedly representing the **unknown** ( changeable ) interstellar mediums, dusts ( this p.13 ) and light scattering ( this p.7 ) in each different pulsar ( this p.3-4 ) to compare their artificially-manipulable models with Einstein relativity.

The 4th paragraph of this site says

" the high precision of the timing measurements required that the researchers take into account many astrophysical **contaminations**. For example, free electrons in the interstellar medium cause a **time-varying**, dispersive effect that must be **subtracted** from the pulsar timing."

Contrary to the media-hype like saying "neutron stars emit radio pulses at extremely regular interval (← ? )", the actually-observed radio pulses are extremely-**chaotic** irregular and just randomly-oscillating meaningless noises, far from regular beautiful pulses ( this p.11 ).

Astronomer have to **artificially create** (fictionally) regular pulses through picking up pulses suitable for their (relativistic) models, deliberately removing a lot of unneeded noise pulses ( this p.6 ). ← It means they artificially **change** the original pulse shapes consisting of many chaotic meaningless noises by choosing various free parameters such as dispersion measure representing unknown interstellar mediums randomly scattering radio pulses, which manipulation is called "de-dispersion ( this 6.2, this p.6, this 3rd-paragraph )"

Furthermore, the unknown interstellar mediums are Not static but always fluctuating and **changing**, which are constantly influencing and changing the shape of pulses from the imaginary distant pulsars, by scattering the radio waves ( this p.2-left, this p.23-34 ), hence the precise reliable tests of Einstein's dubiously-tiny gravitational time dilation using extremely-distant imaginary objects are intrinsically **impossible** without artificially manipulating free parameters or ad-hoc models of unknown interstellar mediums.

These unknown interstellar mediums or dispersion mesure (= DM ) **elongating** the light waves traveling an extremely long distance can explain the redshift or tired light ( this p.2, this p.2 ) even without relying on fantasy expanding universe.

Measurement of the slight pulse change of (imaginary) pulsars = PSR1913+16 is said to give indirect evidence of Einstein relativistic gravitational wave, but this is completely **untrue**.

First of all, the extremely-weak gravitational wave has **nothing** to do with Einstein relativistic prediction, because Einsten general relativity is unable to conserve or carry the energy as a form of (gravitational) wave, hence, the gravitational wave must be expressed as the unrealistic "pseudo-tensor ( this p.3-4, = gravitational wave pseudo-tensors magically vanish seen from different coordinates or observers ! this p.1-3rd-paragraph, this p.19-last-paragraph, this p.2, this-intro-1st-3rd-paragraphs )" **contradicting** Einstein original relativistic tensors.

Physicists can artificially create and choose many **different** forms of gravitational wave's pseudo-tensors ( this p.2-lower, this p.8 ).

↑ Choosing an artificial gravitational wave's **pseudo**-tensor out of infinite choices means it has **No** power to predict or test Einstein relativity.

And the measurement of this pulsar for the artificially-chosen gravitational wave's pseudo-tensors **irrelevant** to Enstein relativity also had to deliberately maipulate the unknown interstellar parameters = dispersion measure ( this p.434-right-lower ) and pick up some artificial models, which means the pseudo-gravitational waves can **Not** be used for verifying or testing Einstein relativity at all, contrary to the media-hype such as "Einstein relativity has passed all the tests !"

Estimation of (imaginary) neutron stars is based on fictitious effective mass instead of real masses of neutrons ( this p.2-last, this = this p.2 ).

The perihelion for Mercury is said to move only 0.012 degrees for **100** years due to doubtful Einstein relativity which effect is too **tiny** to believe (= there are many other factors irrelevant to Einstein relativity such as many-body complicated forces working among various shaped planets to cause such a negligibly-tiny orbital change for 100 years ), and we don't need too small Einstein relativistic effect for our daily life at all.

GPS, which is said to be the only application of Einstein relativity, does **Not** need Einstein, which is just useless and wrong.

*(Fig.U) Driving force to expand universe is dark energy ← NOT diluted ? Unreal negative pressure ?*

Big Bang
and expanding universe are just **fantasy**.

There is **No** evidence indicating our universe is expanding so rapidly, as seen in the fact that our solar system is Not expanding at all.

The current cosmology claims the entire universe is expanding by **fictional** dark energy with **unreal** negative pressure, which is said to be Not diluted even by the space expansion ( this 2nd-paragraph ). ← Dark energy is Not a real thing !

They baselessly conjecture that universe is expanding only from the fact that light emitted from more distant stars is redshifted (= longer wavelength ), which can be more naturally explained by lights from more distant stars tend to **lose** their energies, elongate their wavelength by being scattered by more dusts and or by oscillating other molecules while light is traveling an extremely **long** distance.

The most conclusive evidence of **fantasy** Big Bang is said to be an *uniform* cosmic microwave background (= CMB ) which is unrealistically **mis**interpreted as a remnant of the beginning of our universe.

But it's **impossible** for each microwave to keep an intact state of very ancient light wave from the early universe for as long time as 13.8 billion years !

So it is more **natural** to think that the uniform cosmic microwave filling all space is an evidence of uniform light "medium (= slightly oscillating at 3 K )" **filling** space.

The current astronomy focuses **only** on fictional science saying this cosmic microwave may indicate fantasy parallel universes. ← nonsense.

Astronomers often cite "Olber's paradox (= why night sky is dark )" as a reason for the (fictional) expanding universe or BigBang, but this Olber's paradox does **Not** justify the expanding universe at all.

According to Olber's paradox, if the universe is static and infinite filled with luminous objects (= stars ), every sight line from the Earth will eventually intersect a bright object, it means the night sky will be **bright**, hence, the universe should be finite and **expanding** (= BigBang ) to solve this paradox and make the night sky dark.

And they **misleadingly** claim that even if dusts or debris in the space could absorb the light, they heat up and eventually reradiate the same light **towards** the Earth (← this is **wrong** ), hence the existence of dusts doesn't solve this Olber's paradox ( this resolution ).

↑ But this logic of expanding universe intentionally **avoids** the case where many dusts and objects in the space block and **reflect** the light **back** to the stars, as seen in the solar eclipse ( this 5th-paragraph ).

In conclusion, Olber's paradox is caused by **forgetting** the case of light **reflection**, and the expanding universe and BigBang are **false**.

*(Fig.G) ↓ Black hole, gravitational wave are illuson. *

Gravitational wave is also **unreal**, too weak, so useless and meaningless forever.

Furthermore, gravitational wave itself **contradicts** Einstein relativity, so wrong.

Gravitational wave is too weak. They say too weak and dubious gravitational wave could slightly change 4-km arm only by 1000-times smaller than a proton = only one atom displacement in Sun-earth distance ( this last paragraph ) ! ← Too small change to detect correctly.

The wavelength of laser light to detect gravitational wave is far longer than arm's change. Longer light cannot detect smaller change ( this p.16, this p.3 ) !

This p.12-last-paragraph says

"The lengths of each arm
in the LIGO detectors is around L ~ 3 km, meaning that we have to detect a change
in length of L ~ 10^{-18} m. This seems like a crazy small number: it’s smaller than the
radius of a proton, and around 10^{12} times **smaller** than the **wavelength** of the light used
in the interferometer" ← It's impossible to detect such a tiny gravitational wave effect by seeing the interference of light wave whose wavelength is 10^{12} longer the target tiny change (= so interference itself does Not occur ).

Einstein general relativity has basic defects, it cannot conserve energy or carry wave ( this p.5-last, this p.5-last-paragraph, this p.2-(2) ).

This is why physicists had to artificially introduce unphysical concepts called "pseudo-tensor (= Not real tensor of Einstein relativity, this 4-6th paragraphs, this p.1-right-middle )" as doubtful gravitational wave which **contradicts** Einstein theory ( this p.13-14, this p.1, this p.1-middle-3rd~5th-paragraphs ).

Gravitational wave pseudo-tensors is said to unrealistically vanish seen from different coordinates or observers ! this p.1-3rd-paragraph, this p.19-last-paragraph, this p.2, this-intro-1st-3rd-paragraphs )" **contradicting** Einstein original relativistic tensors.

↑ Because when some observers may detect gravitational wave (= fictitious pseudo-tensor ) at the detector on the earth, other observers moving differently can Not observe the same gravitational wave (= pseudo-tensor ) even by using the same detector, due to gravitational wave unrealistically **vanishing** seen by some observers, which is fatal relativistic **paradox**.

Physicists can artificially create and choose many **different** forms of gravitational wave's pseudo-tensors ( this p.2-lower, this p.8 ), which means the artificially-created gravitational wave (= unphysical pseudo-tensor), which contradicts Einstein relativity, can**not** be used to test Einstein relativistic prediction.

The idea of predicting the existence of (doubtful) gravitational wave just by measuring light pulse (= there is No evidence these light pulses called pulsars are emitted from unseen distant neutron stars, these pulsars probably originate from simple vibrating dusts or debris reflecting light waves emitted from other stars somewhere else ) is baseless, because it's impossible to know the precise orbital motion (of imaginary neutron stars ) only from light pulses due to uncertain inclinations or precession of the (unseen) distant star's orbits.

↑ Observed light pulses are irregular and **chaotic** due to being scattered by various interstellar medium (= precise estimation of this interstellar medium's random light scattering is **impossible** ), so astronomers have to introduce artificial noise model or modify the irregular pulses called de-dispersion ( this p.6, this middle ) so that they look like regular pulses, which **artificial** manipulation and unpredictable interstellar noise make the prediction of pulsars **unreliable**.

↑ Research on (imaginary) gravitational wave emitted from the distant pulsars PSR 1913+16 relied on many **freely-chosen** parameters ↓

This p.438-Table 2 mentions many free parameters of pulsars' orbits, which are different depending on artificial models.

This p.439-left says many unmeasurable parameters such as artificially-chosen two pulsars' mass M=m1+m2, which are directly unmeasurable.

This-left-1st-paragraph says parameters are different depending on chosen models.

Table 5 shows various freely-chosen parameters including instrumental parameters.

As a result, there is **No** evidence of gravitational waves, and even if gravitational wave existed, it **contradicts** Einstein relativity which cannot carry real energy and momentum.

The 1st, 7th, 9-10th paragraphs of this hyped news say

"A team of physicists has developed a method to detect gravity waves with such low frequencies that they **could** (= just speculation, detecting too weak gravitational wave is impossible ) unlock the secrets behind the early phases of mergers between (imaginary) supermassive black holes." ← **meaningless** research on fictional distant objects.

"Their new method of detection is based on analyzing pulsars and neutron stars that emit radio waves at highly regular intervals (= untrue ). Dror hypothesized that searching for a gradual slowdown in the arrivals of these pulses could reveal new gravitational waves (= Indirect detection of gravitational wave by seeing pulsars is doubtful, subject to many **free** parameters and models )"

" not much is known about their origin. There are two theories. The leading idea is that these waves are the result of a merger between two supermassive black holes.."

"The other main theory is that these waves were created by some sort of cataclysmic event early in the universe's history.."

↑ No matter how many times physicists claim the (too weak, useless) gravitatinal wave may originate from the distant (imaginary) black hole or early universe, it is **meaningless** and waste of time, because we can Neither go to such unrealistically-distant universe nor confirm them.

In fact, guessing (imaginary) gravitational wave by measuring radio waves allegedly emitted from (hypothetical) neutron stars or pulsars is **irrelevant** to prediction by Einstein relativity due to their reliance on many free fitting parameters and models.

↑ This research paper also says ↓

p.2-left-3rd-paragraph says "The list of **model parameters** used is extensive and
pulsar-specific "

p.2-right-1st-paragraph says "remind the reader that the best-fit parameters are **not**
equal to the true physical parameters"

p.2-right-last-paragaph says "These **uncertainties** make any extraction of a GW (= gravitational wave ) signal on a pulsar-by-pulsar basis **impossible**"

p.3-left-4th-paragraph says "However, the current **uncertainty** on P is too large to detect their values for old
millisecond pulsars. **Models** of magnetic dipole.."

↑ As seen here, research on (imaginary) gravitational wave and black holes depends heavily on artificially-chosen models and fitting **free parameters**, which are completely **irrelevant** to Einstein relativistic theory full of fatal paradoxes.

This-left-2nd-paragraph (= about pulsar allegedly emitting gravitational wave ) says

"Two such **parameters** exist for the DDGR **model**, while the BT model has three, EH and H88 each have four,.. as well as the number of instrumental **free** parameters."

Feel free to link to this site.