“Was Einstein a fake?” asked John Farrell.

Einstein was a nitwit, a plagiarist, and a liar. You can consider him
a fake I suppose.

Under the special theory of relativity (SR), the principle of
relativity was already pointed out by Galileo almost three hundred
years before Einstein. The constancy in the speed of light was
already proposed by Voigt in 1887 to explain the null results of
Michelson’s 1881 experiment. In doing so, Voigt abandoned the
principle of relativity and derived the Voigt transform. By 1897, the
Lorentz transform was already derived by Larmor after a modification
to the Lorentz transform to allow for the principle of relativity. By
1904, Poincare had already pointed out the most important concept of
SR. That is the relative simultaneity. Thus, what Einstein’s
contribution is in SR is still vague unless discussing Einstein’s many
obvious plagiarisms. The special theory cannot be Einstein’s.
However, he did name the hypothesis SR. That would make him a good
marketing person or advertisement specialist at best. shrug

Farrell said “A burgeoning underground of 'dissident' scientists and
self-described experts publish their theories in newsletters and blogs
on the Net, exchanging ideas in a great battle against 'the temple of
relativity'. According to these critics, relativity is not only
wrong, it's an affront to common sense, ...”

Well, the hypotheses known as the special and general (GR) theories of
relativity are merely two such crackpot conjectures. shrug GR has
tons of self-conflicts. SR’s problem is the relative simultaneity
which manifests the twin’s paradox. Believing in the resolution to
the twin’s paradox really requires a lot of faith. Each proposed
resolution is contradictory of the others. There is no favored
resolution.

Bryan Gaensler said "The anti-relativity cranks are not nearly as well-
organised as the creationists. Probably none of them would get along
well enough to form a serious threat to science."

He is quite right. For the crackpots, it is easy to deal with. For
the more serious challenges, all they have to do is to keep silent.
In doing so, they just shove these challenges to the next
generations. To keep the faiths of SR and GR alive, all they need to
do is to brainwash the next generations before the generation get
exposed to any serious challenges.

Farrell said “The anti-relativity movement got underway as soon as
Einstein's first paper on special relativity was published, in 1905.
Some scientists disputed its assertion that the old Newtonian concepts
of absolute space and time — which had never been scientifically
established — were superfluous. Indeed, the attempt to restore these
concepts to mainstream physics has been the essential foundation of
almost every crank theory since.”

This is total nonsense. All Newton’s work is based on the expansion
of the two principles that Galileo discovered. They are the
principles of relativity and equivalence. Newton’s work does not
require absolute space and time. shrug

Farrell said “Even more enraging to some scientists and engineers was
the worldwide fame Einstein attained with the 1916 publication of his
General Theory of Relativity, which extended special relativity and
offered a radically new explanation for gravity.”

Apparently, Farrell did not know of Riemann’s work. By the middle of
the nineteenth century, Riemann had already suggesting curved space as
a possible cause of gravity. After Minkowski wrote down the concise
equation describing flat spacetime from the Lorentz transform, it is
suddenly possible to extend Riemann’s work into four dimensions. Only
the curvature in the temporal dimension yields the effect of gravity.
shrug The first team to study the curvature in spacetime was not
Einstein. The Goettingen group of mathematicians included all the
known characters such as Klein, Hilbert, Schwarzschild, and Minkowski
himself. The Einstein field equations can only be derived after
Hilbert pulled out of the Lagrangian from his *ss. By taking the
partial derivative of this so-called Lagrangian with respect to each
element of the metric, the field equations reveal themselves.

Farrell said “A number of Germans, many of them anti-Semites, despised
Einstein's socialist views and envied his fame.”

Ha ha ha. Who would be jealous of or resentful to a nitwit, a
plagiarist, and a liar. Farrel’s comment involves faith. Only after
establishing Einstein as the Messiah to the faiths of SR and GR, he
can state that groundless statement. shrug

Farrell said “Albert Michelson, famous as the American who devised the
failed Michelson-Morley experiment to detect aether, the invisible
medium that 19th century scientists supposed responsible for the
propagation of light waves through space, never accepted relativity
and he politely admitted this to Einstein when they met.”

Yes, that is because Michelson was very smart. He also saw the
ridiculous religious icon known as the relative simultaneity which
manifests the twin’s paradox. Voigt himself probably did also
discover the Lorentz transform in 1887. However, realizing the
ridiculous nature in relative simultaneity, he opted to discard it in
favor of the Voigt transform.

Farrell said “According to him [Tom Van Flandern], the confusing
‘rigmarole’ of relativity isn't needed to maintain the GPS, even
though in theory it should be.”

Originally as perceived by the physicists, GPS receivers call out for
only three satellites to compute the four quantities of unknowns.
They are longitude, latitude, altitude, and time. Yes, it becomes
necessary to synchronize the clocks of the satellites and ground.
There suddenly opens up an opportunity for GR into the design of GPS.
However, someone most likely an engineer realized it takes four
equations to solve for four unknowns. Thus, if there are four
satellites to be incorporated into the computations, it becomes
unnecessary for the synchronization of the satellites and ground as
long as all satellites are synchronized themselves. This eliminates
the need to utilize GR. Is Farrell suggesting Van Flandern as this
genius to think about the very obvious that eluded the original group
of physicists?

Ashby said "Einstein has not been 'blown off'. On the contrary, a
great deal of thought has gone into the problem and all of the known
special and general relativistic effects have been accounted for if
they are predicted to be big enough to be important."

This is total nonsense. GPS proves relative simultaneity wrong. GPS
proves SR wrong. If anyone understands relative simultaneity as
faith, he will be asking how GPS falsifies relative simultaneity.
This proves all of them do not understand relative simultaneity and
SR. shrug

Farrell said “But the most interesting aspect of Van Flandern's
objections to relativity bears directly on Einstein himself and his
professional integrity. According to Van Flandern, Einstein cheated.
Van Flandern told Bethell that he has reason to believe Einstein
manipulated his field equations for one of his most momentous
predictions.”

Van Flandern is correct that Einstein cheated. However, this cheating
happened before the field equations. In the late summer or fall of
1915, Einstein with help from his buddies fudged Gerber’s work to
obtain the observed anomalous advance in Mercury’s perihelion. In
doing so, they also made a few mistakes. It was bragging about this
that caused Hilbert to expose the Lagrangian that yielded the field
equations.

Farrell said “...Carroll Alley, who received his degree in 1962. He
told me he had once hired Van Flandern to do some work in celestial
mechanics. As for knowing Einstein personally, Alley recounted how he
had had the pleasure of attending the last lecture given by the great
physicist before his death in 1955.”

This means Alley attended Einstein’s lectures while Alley was still a
freshman or a sophomore in high school. I believe Alley’s memory was
not as good as what it used to be.

Farrell said “He [Alley] went on to say that Einstein knew that
Mercury's observed perihelion was 43 arc seconds per century more than
Newton's theory predicted.” Thus, the suggestion of “knowing the
answer, Einstein had jiggered the arguments until they came out with
the right value" is very much the truth after all.

Farrell said “As far as I [Carlip] can tell, Van Flandern simply
doesn't understand the Einstein field equations."

I have shown how all physicists do not understand relative
simultaneity and thus SR. Most physicists also believed in the
dependence of the geodesic equations and the field equations besides
the elements to the metric. They also believed in the same divine
field equations as the mathematical model explaining exactly how
gravitational waves propagate. You can very much tell that most
physicists or even all physicists do not understand the field
equations. shrug

Farrell said “Janssen, in particular, worked closely on a review of
Einstein's Mercury paper, and he was not amused about the accusation
that there may have been fudging: ‘Not to put too fine a point on it,
that is crap.’”

The following was how Einstein obtained Mercury’s orbital advance
without using the field equations.

http://www.schulphysik.de/physik/perihel/Perihel.htm

Are Stachel and Janssen for real?

Smolin a specialist in GR said “I have ... personally checked the
calculations about the perihelion of Mercury, as have, I'm sure,
thousands of other people."

Has Smolin checked the math based on the geodesic model that the
geodesic path follows the one with the least amount of time instead of
spacetime?

Smolin said "Sometimes someone has been working for many years on an
idea, and has clearly a huge investment in it.”

Yes, for the physicists to accept the nonsense in SR and GR, it would
represent the greatest embarrassment. Therefore, the religions of SR
and GR must continue at all cost. shrug

Smolin said "I would insist that any proposal for a radically new
theory in physics, or in any other science, contain a clear
explanation of why the precedent science worked." Farrell added
“Einstein did this, as the first page of his paper on special
relativity, ‘On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies’, illustrates
perfectly.”

I need to puke. Einstein’s papers represent plagiarism to the max.
He fudged the derivation in the most nonsensical way to derive at the
Lorentz transform in which he already knew the works of others
before. He also made a series of mistakes to get to (E = m c^2 /
sqrt(1 – v^2 / c^2)). It is so obvious. What the f*ck are the
physicists doing?

Farrel said “...PSR 1913+16, whose orbital decay met predictions based
on the General Theory of Relativity, to the accuracy quoted above
(1000 or so), during a period of 20 years.”

We shall see in several hundred thousand years. The energy must be
conserved. This will cause the orbits of the stars into more
eccentric. Any nearby star will toss them into two independent
stars.

Gaensler said "I feel sorry for these people — because, after all,
there might be someone out there now like Einstein, working in
obscurity, who does have some truly new insight, but scientists just
won't take him seriously because of all these other crackpots we've
had to deal with."

I would agree on this point.