Summary in English of the book

EL UNIVERSO
Visión científica, dialectico-materialista

Crítica de la teoría de la relatividad

y de la teoría del big bang1

Gabriel Robledo Esparza

By

Gabriel Robledo Esparza

Monterrey, N. L.
México
2022

1
Robledo Esparza, Gabriel, El Universo. Visión Científica, dialéctico-materialista, Sísifo Ediciones,
México, 2018

1
Index

Introduction
The formation of the scientific conception of the universe
The Macrocosm
The "world system"
The theory of Universal Gravitation
Hegel's critique of Newton's theory
Newtonian attraction and repulsion as a general property
of matter
Kant's theory of heaven
The origin of the Solar System according to Laplace
The position of dialectical materialism (of Marxist philosophy) before the mechanics of
Newton and the Kant-Laplace hypothesis
The contribution of Marxism to the scientific conception of the universe
The Microcosm
The theory of relativity
The Lorentz transformation
The geometric representation of the Lorentz factor
The Lorentz constant as the factor with which it is quantized
contraction of time and space.
History of the Lorentz transformation
Lorentz contraction
General relativity
The theory of gravity and terrestrial gravity
The "supernatural experiment" of the box located in the middle of nowhere
Einstein's first equation, E = mc2
The general theory of relativity allows unraveling the laws
that govern the gravitational field
Einstein's inferences from his general theory of relativity
The properties of the gravitational field
The curved path of solar rays in gravitational fields
The general theory of relativity and the nature of space-time
Physical interpretation of time and space in the
general theory of relativity
Euclidean and non-Euclidean continuum
Exact formulation of the principle of general relativity
The solution of the problem of gravitation on the bases
of the general principle of relativity
Considerations of the universe as a whole
Time and space according to Minkowski
Einstein's second equation
General relativity
The Equivalence Principle
First formulation of gravitational field theory
Einstein's Second Equation: G μν=8 π T μν .
The Gravitational Field Equation
The expansion of the universe
The background of the big bang theory
Hubble's contribution
The expansion of the Universe

2
Big Bang Theory
The birth of the big bang theory
Relativistic cosmology
The formation of the elements
Cosmic background radiation
Hawking and Penrose theorems
The scientific conception of the universe
BIBLIOGRAPHY

3
 Introduction

The cosmological model that currently prevails among the international scientific
community to explain the origin, evolution and destiny of the universe is that of the so-
called "big bang" theory. Its predominance is indisputable, and there is not the slightest
major disagreement in the scientific world about its validity, if anything, only small
discrepancies on secondary issues of the general scheme.
The foundations of this worldview are found in: 1) the marvelous advances in atomic and
corpuscular physics, which allowed modern cosmology, in the study of the observable
universe, mainly that of our galaxy, to know in depth the nature of the nebulae of rarefied
matter, the process of their condensation to form stars and planets, the grouping of these
nebulae and stars into galaxies, the organization of galaxies into larger units, etc., and
the necessary extinction of all these formations and their regression to matter
disaggregated to start a new sidereal cycle; and 2) Albert Einstein's theory of general
relativity.
The "big bang" theory then has a rational core (modern cosmology, whose object is the
"observable" universe and its testing field the "Milky Way") and an anti-scientific envelope
(the Einsteinian theory of relativity).
All the rationality of this theory is nullified by Einstein's misconceptions.
Einsteinian relativity denies the geometry of Euclid and the mechanics of Newton, whose
concepts of time and space are declared inoperative, and instead a relative time and space
are asserted. The same event can take place in different times and spaces simultaneously,
depending on the position of the observers; there are therefore several different times and
spaces with parallel existences.
Time and space, in the Einsteinian version, are influenced by gravitational fields and
these in turn by those, altering each other; time and space contract and curve due to the
action of gravitational fields.
Taken to the extreme, the Einsteinian theory of relativity holds that there are multiple
distinct times and spaces, one for each point of objective reality.
Einstein's theses on time and space are anti-scientific, absurd and preposterous, a true
intellectual scam whose essence is the total distortion of the clear, simple and elementary
concepts of time and space that classical mechanics had established.
Time, as a unit of measurement and temporal flow, is only one: the 360-degree turn of the
globe on its axis and the continuity of those turns that determine the past (those made
before the current one), the present (the current turn) and the future (those that will
succeed the current one).
Space is also one as a unit of measurement and universal continent: it is a determined
part of the terrestrial meridian and the three-dimensional continent of the observable
universe measured by it. Time and space are geo and homocentric.
The “big bang” theory is, like its progenitor, Einstein's theory of relativity, erroneous,
preposterous and unscientific; all the rationality of modern cosmology is annulled and
distorted by the denaturing effect exerted on it by the grotesque relativistic postulates,
which give rise to an absurd, ridiculous, anti-scientific "worldview".
The truly scientific conception of the universe began to take shape with the work of
Copernicus, who after the appearance of the solar system (geocentrism) found its truth
(heliocentrism); Kepler continued down this path and discovered the elliptical nature of
planetary orbits; Newton, for his part, established the general principle of universal
gravitation, the law according to which bodies attract each other, and by applying it to
planetary motion he was able to arrive at the knowledge that the orbits of the planets are
determined by the reciprocal action of two opposing forces, the attraction or centripetal
and the repulsion or centrifugal, and he intuited that these two forces are the ones that
govern all the phenomena of nature.

4
Subsequently, Kant and Laplace formulated their visionary hypothesis, later fully
confirmed by means of the elements provided by quantum cosmology, of the origin of the
solar system: from an undifferentiated nebula, by a series of processes governed by the
Newtonian principle of attraction and repulsion, matter condenses into a central body and
several planets that revolve around it.
Modern cosmology, in its time, unraveled all the transformations that in infinite space
produce the passage from disaggregated matter into its elementary particles to matter in
successive states of aggregation that lead to planetary systems like ours. The formation of
stars from elementary particles, their evolution and its extinction were events precisely
and exactly elucidated by the remarkable cosmological investigations; but these advances
could not be translated into the formulation of a rational worldview due to the dead
weight of the Einsteinian relativistic theory, which prevented the integration of the
contributions of modern physics to a scientific conception of the universe.
Next to science, driven by it and at the same time its promoting agent, the science of
sciences, philosophy, developed.
This, in its development, had reached the highest point where, in Hegel's philosophy,
albeit in an inverted form, it managed to establish the most complete ontology ever forged,
which, obviously, was in essence a worldview.
Infinite matter and its movement were presented by Hegel as a merely spiritual substance
and process, pure thoughts.
Marx and Engels rescue the primordial principle of materialism that stipulates that
matter is substance and thought is only the result of a specific phase of its evolution;
what is primordial is being and what is secondary or derived is thought; thought is the
thinking being.
Armed with this principle, they put Hegelian philosophy on its feet, cast off its
metaphysical casing, and liberate the rational content, which is essentially made up of
epistemology and ontology (scientific epistemology and ontology par excellence).
The Science of Logic2 is the treatise in which Hegel exposes his epistemology and his
ontology. The founders of Marxist philosophy took the dialectical method, the heart of
Hegelian philosophy, developed in the sections The Doctrine of Being and The Doctrine of
Essence of the cited work, and applied it to the unraveling of the laws of the evolution of
human society. They found that the regime of private property had necessarily to be
transformed into socialism and communism, which is its negative essence; the task of
philosophy consisted in conducting that process by which the species would have to
recover its human nature, which private property had stolen from it. However, these
thinkers did not advance in the task of materialistically developing the exuberant
conceptual richness of the Hegelian dialectic, nor, what interests us more at the moment,
in putting in materialist terms the totalizing and exhaustive worldview that Hegel had
exposed, covered with a mystical envelope, in its ontology.
The formation of the scientific vision of the universe is, at the present time, at this point:
1) a first part of it has been completed with the works of Copernicus, Kepler, Newton,
Kant and Laplace; rational cosmology has provided the elements for the confirmation of
the Kant-Laplace theory and its extension until it constitutes a totalizing vision of the
"observable" universe, but it has been diverted from what would be its natural path to
reach the scientific conception of the universe as a whole by the deforming action of the
anti-scientific theory of Einsteinian relativity, which is the foundation of his monstrous

spawn, the "Big Bang" theory.

The task of science is, therefore, to free cosmology from the heavy burden that impedes its
development, Einstein's nefarious theory of relativity and the "big bang" theory, to

2
G.W.F. Hegel, Ciencia de la Lógica, traducción directa del alemán de Augusta y Rodolfo Mondolfo.
Solar, S.A., Hachette, S.A., Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2a. Edición castellana, 1968

5
"straighten" the Hegelian ontology to put it on materialistic feet and integrate these two
elements into the dialectical-materialist scientific worldview.
The concentrated expression of the scientific, dialectical-materialist vision of the infinite
universe is as follows:
-the universe is an infinite totality of matter in movement, formed by infinite parts -of
which our cosmic island (the observable universe, as astronomers and cosmologists
express themselves) is only one of them-,
-that infinite universe exists, simultaneously and successively, as a being that goes within
itself to produce its essence, an essence that comes into existence and acquires the
category of being and in all the phases of these two processes,
-the existing totality is in a constant movement from being to essence and from essence to
being,
–matter in its maximum disaggregation, formed by elementary particles separated to an
extreme degree by repulsion, and inorganic matter, are the being that becomes matter
condensed by attraction and thinking organic matter, which are its essence,
-the highly condensed matter and the thinking organic matter, which are the essence
arising into existence, the essential being, have in themselves the maximum separation
and the inorganic matter as the other in which they have to be transformed,
-in its different parts, the infinite whole is, successively and simultaneously, in all the
phases of that movement, in such a way that there are infinite places in the universe in
which the highly fractionated matter and the inorganic matter exist at the starting point
or at some stage of the transition towards cohesive matter and thinking organic matter
and many others in which they exist as such or at some point of their negation, of the
unfolding of their essence which is the return to the point of origin.

6
 The formation of the scientific conception of the universe

The Macrocosm

The "world system"

Copernicus took the essential step in founding the scientific view of the universe. His
theoretical work was a true intellectual revolution that brought knowledge from the
surface to the interior of reality, from appearance to essence. The world system appeared
as a set of stars placed in various celestial spheres that revolved in circles around the
earth, which was considered the immobile center of the universe. Detailed study of
apparent planetary motions by astronomers before and around Copernicus reached an
impasse in which fundamental questions remained unanswered: there was no way to
explain the regressions of the planets in their careers through the celestial vault or the
great changes in its luminosity; the last expedient with which these obstacles were
attempted to be overcome was the hypothesis of the epicycles, circular orbits that
supposedly described the planets in space, but this theory introduced even more
complications in the geocentric conception of the world.
It is then that the intellectual audacity and power of Copernicus become present.
His intrepidity leads him to abandon the geocentric theory, which rested firmly on the
solidity of common sense and religious dogma, and postulate what was a true heresy in
every sense: a world system that has the sun as its center, around which the known
planets revolve in circular orbits.
The power of Copernicus's cognitive faculty is manifested in the titanic mental work that
he performs: retaining every last detail of the cumbersome and complicated geocentric
scheme, analyzing the accumulated data of the apparent planetary movements collected
by astronomers (of incalculable value were the Tycho Brahe's careful observations of the
evolutions of the planet Mars), transform each of the details of the geocentric conception
into its other, that is, into the actual displacement and forge a total representation of the
world system.

The theory of Universal Gravitation

The cornerstone of the scientific worldview was laid by Sir Isaac Newton with his theory of
universal gravitation.
Newton's conception has as an immediate antecedent the discoveries of Kepler expressed
in his three laws; In the first of them, the German astronomer exposes the nature of the
translational movement of the planets, which he describes as an ellipse at one of whose
foci is the sun; in the second, it establishes that a line that joins the planet and the sun
will cover equal areas in equal times; and in the third, that the square of the orbital
period of a planet is directly proportional to the cube of the semi-major axis of its orbit.
The voluminous collection of data about the positions, distances between them and
movements of the planets and their satellites and the central body accumulated over the
centuries through the careful observations of Ptolemy, Galileo Galilei, Kepler, Tycho
Brahe, etc., allowed Newton determine the existence of a planetary system, whose center
is the sun and of which the earth and the other planets form a part, and explain, in detail
and exhaustively, the laws according to which these elements move in stellar space; of
great importance, and what constitutes Newton's most valuable contribution to the
scientific conception of the universe, is the discovery of universal gravitation as the
ultimate cause of the structure of the solar system and of planetary movements.

7
Newton establishes, in his main work, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy 3, the
following principles:
The mass of bodies is the product of the density by the volume of matter.
Momentum is the product of mass times velocity.
Matter has an innate force, by which bodies remain in the state of rest or rectilinear
motion in which they are. It is a force that belongs to matter in general and, therefore, to
the bodies in which it agglomerates.
Rest and rectilinear motion can only be altered by an external force that acts on the
bodies by putting them in motion or modifying the one that is carried out in a straight
line.
The centripetal force is a kind of "impressed forces" and is the one by which a body is
attracted towards a central point.
Newton then defines the various measures of centripetal forces: the absolute quantity, the
acceleration quantity, and the driving quantity.
"The absolute quantity of a centripetal force is the measure, whether greater or less, of the efficacy of the
cause by which it spreads from the center to the surrounding regions."
Newton has determined two fundamental forces of matter: what he calls the “intrinsic”
force and the centripetal force, for the time being only conceptually placed side by side.
Actions (impressed forces) occur between material bodies; an action between two bodies
comprises the action exerted by one body on the other and the reaction of the receiving
body on the first; the reaction has the same value as the action, but in the opposite
direction.
In the Second Section of his main work, Newton undertakes the task of understanding
the nature of centripetal forces.
Bodies revolving around a center, whose radii to the central point describe areas
proportional to time, are attracted by a centripetal force directed from the point to the
body.
In the third section Newton determines the law of centripetal force when the body in its
movement describes an ellipse.
Once Newton has established all these definitions, propositions, theorems, and laws, he
applies them to the determination of what he calls the "system of the world."
The "world system" is made up of a central stationary body, six planets revolving in the
same direction, almost in the same plane, in different orbits around that center, planets
revolving around three of the primary planets (Earth, Jupiter and Saturn, which are also
immobile centers), and comets.
The primary planets and the secondary planets (satellites) rotate in elliptical orbits
around their respective centers located at one of the foci of the ellipse.
The period of description of the orbit of the planets and their satellites is in the ratio of
1.5 with respect to their distances from the center.
If a radius is drawn from the planets and satellites to their respective centers, it will
describe areas proportional to the description times.
The planets and satellites are kept in their orbits and are perpetually departed from
rectilinear motion by a force that tends to the center of the sun in one case and of the
respective planets in the other and that is reciprocal to the square of their distances from
the center.
The movement of planets, satellites and comets can be preserved for a very long time.
In all bodies there is gravity and it is proportional to the amount of matter they contain.

3
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Auctore Isaaco Newtono, Equite Aurato, Editio Ultima,
Cui accedit Analysis per Quantitatum Series, Fluxiones ac Differentias cum enumeratione Linearum Tertii
Ordinis, Amstælodami, Sumptibus Societatis, M.The Mathematical principles of Natural Philosophy. by
Sir Isaac Newton, translated into English by Andrew Motte, to wich is added Newton’s System of the
world, First American Edition, Carefully revised and corrected, with a life of the author, by N W
Chittenden, M. A., New York, Published by Daniel Adee 45 Liberty Street, 184

8
The force of attraction between two bodies is directly proportional to the amount of matter
they contain and reciprocal to the square of their distances from the center.
The true and immeasurable merit of Newton, what makes an epoch in the field of science,
is his consideration of the forces that originate the movement of the planets and the sun
as powers that act on matter in general and, in the case of what he calls inherent force,
are inherent to it. And this is also what marks the great difference between Kepler and
Newton and highlights the enormous advance that the theory of universal gravitation
meant in the development of science: Kepler discovered the nature and regularity of the
movement of the planets around the sun, while Newton penetrated beyond appearance
and developed a brilliant hypothesis of its causes and extended it to the entire material
world.
Newton establishes that the movement of the planets in the solar system is the result of
the action of two forces, a central one that attracts the planetary body towards the sun
and another that impels it in the direction of the tangent to the orbit that passes through
any point of the same; taken to the limit, the resultant is at each instant a point of the
elliptical orbit that the planet travels. At a place on the path from aphelion to perihelion of
the ellipse, the two forces are equal; from then on the centripetal force is increasing and
the speed of the planet uniformly accelerated, while the tangential force decreases in the
same proportion as the other increases; at perihelion, it reaches its maximum value and
decreases thereafter, and the speed of the planet is uniformly retarded, until it again
equals the centrifugal force. Later, the tangential force increases and at aphelion it
registers its highest amount; in its subsequent evolution it is reduced until it is once
again equal to the central attractive force.
The centrifugal force of the orbital movement of the planets is a “vis insita”, according to
Newton's classification (Definition III), which he considers as inherent to matter; the
centripetal force, on the other hand, belongs to the category of "impressed forces",
described by Newton in Definition IV.
With all these theoretical elements that he has developed, Newton establishes a method of
mathematical-geometrical calculation that allows measuring the masses, the amount of
movement, the speed and acceleration of displacement, the orbits, etc., of the planets,
determining the distances between them and with respect to the sun, the forces they exert
and suffer and many other data with which it is given to forge a full image of the "system
of the world" (of the solar system).
Newton's great breakthrough is his treatment of the orbital motion of the planets as a
contradiction, as the result of two conflicting forces; the limitation of his theory is that he
conceives these forces as external to the body of the planets and independent of each
other.

Hegel's critique of Newton's theory

Hegel, in his Encyclopedia of Philosophical Sciences4, makes a ruthless, excessive criticism
of Newton's theory.
Based on the true fact of the lack of greater dialectical depth in the postulates of Newton's
theory, Hegel completely discredits the scientific work of the geometer, which he even
qualifies as superfluous, since he argues that Kepler's laws contain, and in a higher form,
the very principles that Newton presents as his original contributions to the science of
mechanics.
According to Hegel, Newton's theory does not go beyond Kepler's laws, since it leaves
aside what is the real problem, that is, not that the path of the planets is an ellipse (a
conic section), but what are the circumstances that determine that the planetary
movement describes precisely that geometric figure.

4
Hegel, Georg Wilhelm Friederich, Enciclopedia de las ciencias filosóficas en compendio, Para uso de sus
clases, Edición, introducción y notas de Ramón Valls Plana, Alianza Editorial, S. A., Madrid, 2005

9
This accusation is unfounded, because Newton surpasses Kepler precisely with his
propositions about the causes of the elliptical movement of the planets, that is, about the
dialectical principles (although a dialectic that stops at the positive essence of the
phenomenon) of the concurrence of two contrary forces, the centripetal force and the
centrifugal force, which through their mutual relationship determine the planetary
movement; Already in a previous paragraph we pointed out the limits within which
Newtonian mechanics is constrained.
Hegel argues that Newton's theses constitute only a mathematical transformation of
Kepler's laws, another way of expressing them through the use of the reflexive concept of
“force”; in reality, Kepler only reduces planetary motion to a geometric figure, while
Newton, who thus makes a qualitative leap in the knowledge of celestial mechanics,
develops a theory on the causes of that specific trajectory of the translation of the planets
(ellipse), in which he exposes the nature and interaction of the contradictory forces that
determine it. This discovery of Newton is the necessary antecedent of the theory of the
essential cause, not only formal, of the own planetary movement.
Hegel finally gets to the heart of his critique of Newton's theory. In relation to the concept,
that is, with the full dialectical representation of the phenomenon, the determining forces
of the planetary movement, the centripetal force and the centrifugal force, are taken by
Newtonian mechanics as independent and external forces to the body on which they act;
the insufficiency of Newtonian propositions is highlighted by Hegel when he takes the
relationship between the two mentioned forces to its ultimate consequences: according to
Newton's geometric construction, at the perihelion of the ellipse the centripetal force will
reach its maximum value, widely overcoming the centrifugal force, so its final destination
would necessarily fall to the center of attraction; likewise, in aphelion the opposite
situation arises, which would have to lead to the flight of the planet towards stellar space.
However, inexplicably, that is, without justification in Newton's geometric model,
suddenly, at perihelion, the centripetal force begins to decrease and the centrifugal force
to increase in the same proportion, or, what is the same, the first it becomes unexpectedly
(remember that for Newton the two forces are different, independent of each other and, at
least the attractive force, outside the impelled body) in the second; likewise, in aphelion
the reverse phenomenon occurs. Newtonian mechanics does not explain these events; it
only records them.

Newtonian attraction and repulsion as a

general property of matter

In the preface to The Mathematical Principles... Newton expresses his expectation that all
other natural phenomena be governed by the same mechanical principles that he
discovered in the study of the planetary system and states that in his opinion there are
many indications that matter has a general property by which particles mutually attract
each other, forming different bodies, or repel each other and the formed figures
disintegrate [ea omnia ex viribus quibusdam pendere posse, quibus corporum particulæ per
causa nondum cognitas vel in se mutual impelluntur e secundum regular figures cohærent,
vel ab invicem fugantur e recedunt]5 ; the future task of philosophers is then to know the
nature and functioning of these forces.
Newton establishes the basic principles of modern science, that is, of the science that is a
factor in the negation of the feudal regime and the constitution and development of the
capitalist regime, but at the same time procreates the elements of the revolutionary
conception of the world, the one under whose light the overthrow of capitalism and the
5
Auctoris Praefatio ad Lectorem, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Auctore Isaaco Newtono, Equite
Aurato, Editio Ultima, Cui accedit Analysis per Quantitatum Series, Fluxiones ac Differentias cum enumeratione
Linearum Tertii Ordinis, Amstælodami, Sumptibus Societatis, M. D. CCXXIII.

10
establishment of socialism will take place. His main contribution, which is entirely based
on the recognition of dialectics as the fundamental form of movement of matter and an
indispensable method of knowledge, runs along two lines: (a) the development of a
powerful mathematical tool, calculus, which it is the introduction of the dialectic of the
finite and the infinite to mathematics, and which, with the natural evolutions, still today
constitutes the irreplaceable instrument for scientific knowledge and (b) the formulation
of the brilliant hypothesis, full of dialectic, of the nature of planetary movement, which it
determines as the result of the relationship between two antagonistic forces, the
centripetal force and the centrifugal force, which is a special manifestation of the general
property of matter of attraction and repulsion between its parts constitutive, a quality
that Newton intuits and whose complete clarification in all the fields of nature he hopes
will be carried out by the philosophies of the future.
The solar system is the existing being; it is, therefore, the being that is internalizing itself
to produce its essence and the essence that has come into existence.
Newton culminates the scientific work of discovering, behind the appearance, the positive
essence, the foundation of the planetary system, the law of universal gravitation.
Once this task is completed, the path of determining the negative essence of the solar
system is opened before science, that is, the process by which it becomes such a
determined being and its destiny when its negation emerges as another determined being.
This work is the one carried out by Kant and Laplace with their theory of the origin of the
solar system.

Kant's theory of heaven

In his book Natural History and Theory of Heaven, Kant first makes a tight recount of
Newton's theory, of which he highlights the vision he achieves of a systematic
organization of the planetary world; taking this result as a starting point, Kant extends
this principle to the infinite universe and advances the hypothesis that the multiple stars
found on our cosmic island also constitute an organized system, the so-called Milky Way,
and that the numerous agglomerations of celestial bodies which lie beyond the Milky Way,
are likewise regular organizations themselves and stand in an orderly relationship with
one another.
In the second part of his work, Kant intends to determine "the primitive state of nature,
the formation of the sidereal bodies, the causes of their movement and their systematic
relationship, both within the planetary structure in particular and also with respect to the
creation"6.
His starting point is the Newtonian world system. Six planets revolve around the sun in
eccentric orbits (ellipses), ten satellites revolve around three of those planets also in
elliptical orbits; the sun, the planets and their satellites also rotate around their own axis.
The direction of the movement of translation and rotation of the planets and their
satellites is the same as the rotation of the sun around its axis and all of them occur in
the plane of the ecliptic (determined by the equator of the sun).
The solar system exists and moves in a vacuum; There is no type of matter among its
components that could act on them and produce, direct or divert their movements.
The structure of the solar system and the concordance in the movements of its parts
suggest, therefore, an original material cause that has produced them.
This impulse must come from a mass of matter, which originally filled the entire space
currently occupied by the solar system, which acquired a movement that necessarily

6
Kant, Emanuel, Historia Natural y Teoría General del Cielo, Ensayo sobre la
constitución y el origen mecánico del universo, tratado de acuerdo a los principios de
Newton, Con el estudio de Pedro S. Laplace, Origen del sistema solar, Traducción de
Pedro Merton, Lautaro, Buenos Aires, 1946, p.63.

11
produced the sun as the central star and the planets and their satellites endowed with
their characteristic displacements.
Kant holds the assumption that the materials of which the solar system is now formed
were, at the beginning of time, "dissolved in their primitive elements and thus filled the
entire space of the edifice within which these bodies now revolve...” 7
The primitive elements possessed the simplest and most general properties, but these had
in themselves the tendency to attain a more perfect organization. The primordial matter
was formed by a diversity of species that by virtue of their differences moved and thus the
chaos was organized.
Within the chaos, the formation of points begins where the particles with the greatest
force of attraction accumulate.
These denser particles with greater attractive force attract all the matter of lower specific
gravity contained in the sphere that surrounds them.
The resulting accumulation of matter is in turn attracted by a larger accumulation, and
so on.
In this way, various conglomerates would form around a center of greater density and
attractive force.
The fall towards the center would be counteracted by a repulsive force inherent in matter,
so the vertical fall is transformed into a curvilinear movement around the center.
There is a point in a very large space where the attraction of the elements is strongest.
Towards this point the less dense particles dispersed in that extension will fall.
As a consequence, a body is formed at that central point; When growing, this body has a
greater attractive force and then forces the dispersed particles to join it, with which its
mass increases constantly.
At a certain point in this process, the attractive force of the central body turns into
repulsion and the particles that fall towards it are projected in lateral movements that
surround it.
Large flows of particles are generated that describe orbits around the center, first
intersecting their movements, so they get in each other's way, and then moving in
parallel.
This is achieved by limiting the motion of the particles until they all move in the same
direction, without getting in each other's way, and by reducing the falling motion,
whereby they all move laterally in parallel orbits around the Sun.
The particles are then subjected to an equal falling force and propelling force, in
equilibrium, resulting in their motion in free circles at their height.
Of the dispersed particles, a large quantity is integrated into this parallel circular
movement and a larger quantity is overcome by the attraction and falls towards the
central body.
The particles end up moving in the same orbit, the one that is located in the plane of the
equator of the central body; all the particles that move in different orbits fall to the circle
aligned with the solar equator or to the same central star.
In these circles (rings) the particles begin a new attraction-repulsion process to give rise
to the planets.
The formation of planets based on elementary particles that travel in parallel circles
perfectly explains the fact that, being those composed of masses of such material units,
they must have the same movement, the same speed and the same direction as these.
The heavier particles, which in their fall would have come closest to the central body
before the repulsion worked to produce the lateral-circular motion, would give rise to the
planets closest to the sun; on the contrary, the lighter particles would reach the balance
between attraction and repulsion at a point further away from the central body and would
then give rise to the more distant planets. For the same reason, the planets closest to the
central star are those with a higher density (mass) than those that are further away.

7
Ibídem, p. 67

12
Because the matter that originally forms the mass of the central body does not have very
marked differences in density, the average density of its mass is less than that of the first
planets, which formed with the denser matter.
Kant does not develop a hypothesis of the formation process of the planets from the rings
of elementary particles that rotate in parallel; it only indicates the need for this
transformation to be carried out and that it be in accordance with the principles of
Newtonian attraction, that is, through the concentration of the heavier elements at a
point and the attraction of the less dense ones by them; Although Kant does not expressly
say so, applying his reasoning it follows that all these elements would rotate in parallel
around the center, forming a body of superimposed layers that moves around its own axis
in the same direction as it does around the sun. In a note, Kant notes that the matter of
the circles revolving around the central body is first brought together by the force of
cohesion, and once they have reached a considerable size, the Newtonian attraction fully
operates in them.

The origin of the Solar System according to Laplace

The origin of the solar system can only be found in a fluid of immense extension.
For the planets to have acquired a circular movement around the sun, it is necessary that
this fluid surround it as an atmosphere.
That atmosphere, because of excessive heat, expands far beyond the present limits of the
solar system; upon cooling, it contracts to its current limits.
In its primitive form, the sun must have had the same aspect of the nebulae that are
observed through the telescope: a more or less bright nucleus surrounded by a
nebulosity; When the nebula condenses in the nucleus, it becomes a star.
It is possible, by means of the imagination, to go back to the primitive forms of these
nebulae and arrive at a very diffuse nebula, in which the nucleus would have been totally
blurred.8
Stars are then condensations of originally extremely diffuse matter.
The groups of stars, like the Pleiades, are the result of the condensation of nebulae in
various nuclei.
The condensation of the nebulae in two nuclei forms very close stars that revolve around
each other.
The solar system has as necessary antecedent a nebula composed of extremely diffuse
matter.
By a process of condensation and cooling, this nebula becomes a mass of matter endowed
with a rotational movement.
This rotary movement determines that the equator of that mass forms a plane that passes
through the common center of gravity.
The mass of matter continues in its process of condensation and cooling; contracting, it
separates into a nucleus that retains its rotation and several rings that also retain the
previous movement.
The matter of the rings accumulates around various centers and acquires a rotating
movement in the same direction as its translation.
The clusters of matter that form the different rings are concentrated, due to mutual
attraction, in only one, which is then a planet in formation.
In the end, we already have all the elements that in their evolution will come to constitute
the solar system: a central mass of matter, antecedent of the sun, and agglomerations of
matter that move in orbits around it, which precede the fully formed planets.
The satellites of the various planets follow, all the proportions kept, the same formation
process through which the planets have passed.

8
Exposition du Système du Monde, par M. Le Comte Laplace, quatrième édition, revue et
augmenté par l’Auteur, Paris, M me Ve Courcier, Imprimur-Libraire pour les Mathématiques, quai
des Augustins, no. 57, 1813, p. 431

13
Laplace, like Kant, tries to explain the emergence of the solar system strictly following
Newtonian mechanics.
In the original nebula, the elementary material particles condense, form a center and
acquire a rotational movement around it in accordance with the Newtonian laws of
attraction-repulsion of masses.
Likewise, the formation of the nucleus and the rings and the conversion of these into
spherical masses that rotate on their own axis obeys the principles of Newtonian
mechanics.
Kant's and Laplace's theses about the origin of the solar system constitute a brilliant
intuition.
The main intellectual feat of these two thinkers consists in: (1) the reduction they make of
matter to its constituent elements: the elementary particles that, with that character,
enormously separated from each other, are the substance from which the process begins
formation of the solar system, (2) the consideration of matter as a substance that has its
other in itself and therefore its being is the necessary step from one form to another that
is its essence, as is the case with the transformation of extremely diffuse matter into
bodies of condensed and highly organized matter and (3) the explanation of the dialectic
of the fundamental forces that determine the movement of matter: repulsion, which leads
to the disintegration of matter into its elementary particles and that is at the same time
attraction and in it is transformed and attraction, which, encumbered with repulsion,
produces its integration into larger units (atoms, molecules, substances, compounds,
celestial bodies, etc.), condensation that has in itself the repulsion.
Kant mainly studies the process of condensation of the primordial nebula up to the point
where the nucleus and precursor rings of the planets have been fully established.
Laplace, for his part, emphasizes the description of the transformation of such rings of
matter into the rotating spheres that are the planets. Between the two they formulate a
comprehensive theory of the origin of the solar system.
Kant and Laplace develop the general aspects of the hypothesis of the emergence and
evolution of the solar system (we have already pointed them out two paragraphs back)
and this is their primary contribution to the scientific conception of the universe; the
details of this sidereal process are still very obscure, incomplete and in some of its parts
are a forced application, to say the least, of Newtonian principles.

The position of dialectical materialism (of Marxist philosophy) before

the mechanics of Newton and the Kant-Laplace hypothesis

After pointing out the main flaw in Newton's theory, Hegel does not go on to establish the
concept of planetary motion; however, through the application of the Hegelian dialectic
and based on the scientific advances of the Kant-Laplace cosmological theory, Federico
Engels finds the necessary elements to determine the true nature of the translation of the
celestial bodies.
The planets have in themselves, as a characteristic of the matter that forms them, the
force that drives their rotation movement around their axis and the translational force
that takes them on a curved path that is an orbit around the sun. The specific shape of
the orbit is determined by the relationship between the mutual gravitational forces
(attraction and repulsion of the sun with respect to the planet and of this relative to that),
but the need for the movement of the planet in a closed curve and the force to carry it out
they are inside it, they are intrinsic to it.

The contribution of Marxism to the scientific conception of the universe

Marxist theory has Hegelian philosophy as one of its necessary antecedents.
Hegel's philosophy is the culmination of the entire evolution of philosophical thought,
from Heraclitus to Kant.

14
Hegel, in accordance with his idealistic system, presents the laws of nature and evolution
of matter as if they were those belonging to an immaterial substance, the absolute spirit.
Hegel's idealistic philosophy represents the most complete formulation of the laws of
thought and the evolution of matter, of organic nature and of human society, but
considered as a substance with its own life, not as a reflection of reality, but as the only
reality.
Knowledge (consciousness, the idea) in the form of "spirit" is, for Hegel, a substance with
its own life that in its movement generates matter, nature and human society.
The "spirit" is the reflection in the human consciousness of the evolution of matter,
nature and society; hence, then, in it are understood, in an inverted way, the general laws
of the structure and movement of objective reality.
Hegel's philosophy thus reaches the highest point where he has developed the laws of
motion of matter as laws of thought (dialectic) and the laws of the evolution of nature and
society as those of "absolute spirit."
Hegel's objective logic, which encompasses the first two parts of his logic, being and
essence, contains the most detailed, minute, exhaustive, and comprehensive description
ever made by any philosopher, before or since, of the structure fundamental of matter
and of the most general laws of its motion; This objective logic is, at the same time as the
all-encompassing reflection of the world, a method that can and must be applied in the
most varied fields of knowledge to obtain the exact concept of its object, since this, as part
of reality, is governed also by those general laws.
We find the rational node of the Hegelian postulates in the basic presupposition from
which it starts. For him, external nature exists and is knowable even at its most recondite
levels; In this way, to develop this assumption and take it to its ultimate consequences,
Hegel has had to appropriate, in an alienated form, the results of modern positive
sciences, which have been obtained in practical activity, in industry, and produce from
there the corresponding mental image.
Philosophical thought is the highest phase of the evolution of alienated knowledge.
Philosophy is nourished by the elements provided by all the sciences; his job is to forge a
mental picture of the whole.
This image has the following characteristics:
a) encompasses the totality of reality, the general laws of knowledge and being; introduces
the characteristics of essentiality, necessity and causality into the elements provided by
the positive sciences and links them in the scheme of universal concatenation;
b) it is the level of knowledge furthest from productive activity whose mystification
reaches the highest degree. His work is developed based on the sectoral mental images
provided by the sciences and the result of it is a mental image that includes the totality of
being and knowing; once forged, that image rises up against its humble and distant
origin, that is, from productive activity and declares itself as an independent substance
that has an existence since the beginning of time and that is the foundation and demiurge
of reality and knowledge. It posits itself as first existing in itself, then externalizing itself
in nature, and lastly recovering itself in spirit; it is in this phase that it reaches the
superior form of manifesting itself and in which it claims to possess in and of itself the
ability to endow the knowledge provided by the lower instances with the characteristics of
essentiality, necessity, and causality through its submission to the form of the concept
and the idea, in the same way that its alienated form had imposed itself on the chaos and
accidentality of nature, endowing it with order and harmony; By exercising this intrinsic
faculty, the philosophical spirit collects all the knowledge provided by knowledge of a
lower level and comes through them to recognize in reality the work of the concept and
the idea, that is, the work of itself under another of its forms.
In short, philosophical thought, due to the alienation of the nature of man, becomes a
substance independent of all the other elements of human nature and stands by itself as
the alleged creator of reality and the ultimate foundation of humanity. itself and in the
repository of the faculty of knowledge, with absolute independence of the practical
activity; Philosophical thought thus ignores the whole complicated process by which

15
knowledge is slowly formed in the same practical industrial activity, that is, in
production, then laboriously climbs the other steps of knowledge and finally ends up in
philosophical knowledge; in the same way, it leaves aside the inverse process, that is, the
one by which the knowledge advanced by philosophical thought as a hypothesis or theory
of the world descends to practice to receive the definitive sanction there; The faculty that
the philosophical spirit arrogates to be able to endow inferior knowledge with the
characteristics that allow it to reflect reality with increasing accuracy has its origin in
industrial practice, since it is industry that has really penetrated even the most intimate
levels of the structure of matter and the one that has reproduced its most complicated
movements.
It is Feuerbach who, through the criticism of Hegelian metaphysics, of the mystical shell
of his philosophy, by restoring materialism lays the ground for Marx and Engels to get rid
of that idealistic covering of Hegelian philosophy, to replace it with the materialist
principle of the primacy of being over consciousness —consciousness is nothing more
than being conscious— and preserve its rich rational content. The fundamental basis of
the theory of dialectical materialism, which is the core of the Marxist doctrine, is thus
structured.
In its primitive form, dialectical materialism comprises the following: the fundamental
principle of the primacy of being over consciousness, the recognition of practical human
activity as the only criterion of truth, the exhaustive and detailed compilation of the
general laws of structure and movement of matter that is contained in Hegelian logic and
that is at the same time the most complete method of scientific knowledge, the abstract
representation of the evolution of nature and the reflection, also abstract, of the
development of the human species.
Marx and Engels, based on that essential principle, preserve the Hegelian dialectic as a
method of knowledge in its entirety; they do not make any new formulation of it, any
development of their own, but strictly stick to Hegel's version. Engels makes an
unsuccessful attempt to expound the Hegelian dialectic in materialist language; the result
was that working outline known as the Dialectics of Nature, which contains the famous
and excessively simplified explanation of the "three laws of dialectics" which is, for
revisionism of all ages, the sum and compendium of materialist dialectics.
Armed with materialist principles and Hegelian dialectics, Marx and Engels undertake the
task of filling the two Hegelian schemes of the evolution of nature and the human species
with content. As far as the field of natural history is concerned, there is really little that
the two revolutionary theorists investigate; Of them, Engels is the one who pays the most
attention to this area of knowledge and does so only to order and systematize, based on
the materialist principle and in accordance with the Hegelian scheme, the abundant body
of knowledge provided by the positive sciences that were driven by capitalist production.
Where they carry out the bulk of their theoretical-revolutionary work is in the field of
human history and they do so by applying the nodal thesis of materialism, the Hegelian
dialectic and the Hegelian scheme of the evolution of humanity to this sector of
knowledge. Thus, they develop the fundamental laws of the structure and evolution of
human societies, forging the concepts of socio-economic formation, economic base and
political and ideological superstructure, productive forces and production relations, social
classes, class struggle, social revolution, etc.; They then pass, equipped with the same
instruments and with those first fundamental laws, to the study of the private property
regime to find in it the key to the evolution of the human species, which consists in the
loss, in that socio-economic formation, of the essential characteristics of the species but,
at the same time, in the production of the elements for its restoration in a higher form in
an economic-social formation that must succeed that of private property, in communism;
continue, using all that accumulated theoretical baggage, with the specific analysis of the
last phase of private property, the capitalist production regime, to which they devote a
substantial part of their theoretical work and by means of which they determine in detail
how the process of annulment of the human nature of the species and how the premises

16
for revolutionary change towards communist society are created; the laws of the economy
and of the class struggle of capitalist society are discovered.
As far as the ontology contained in Hegelian philosophy is concerned, neither Marx,
Engels or later Marxists developed it sufficiently to culminate in the construction of the
scientific conception of the universe, which had stopped at Newton's theses and the
hypothesis of Kant-Laplace.
Engels, in his works related to the science of nature 9, fully recognizes the scientific
character of the Newtonian-Kantlaplacean worldview, unconditionally adheres to its
postulates and confronts and enriches it with the advances of the natural sciences of his
time; outlines, very schematically, a hypothesis of the nature of thinking matter as
essence (without calling it that) of inorganic matter and of inorganic matter as the other
(without calling it that way) of the former and of the universality of this dual character of
inorganic matter. material substance and its dialectical movement. However, it does not
include the rich content of the ontology that the German philosopher reflected in his
Logic, so his contribution does not go beyond a reinforcement of what was done by
Newton, Kant and Laplace and an advance of nebulous and incomplete hypotheses about
the nature, structure and movement of the material universe.
Marxism, from its origins, neglected the task of developing the scientific method and the
exuberant ontology contained in Hegel's Logic. The elements extracted from the Hegelian
philosophy by the founders of this doctrine were sufficient to forge the theoretical
instrument that they used in the first establishment of socialism. However, the formal
socialism that was established in the first decade of the 20th century had in itself the
germ of its negation, and by the ninth decade it had totally reverted to capitalism. This
unexpected outcome of the revolution pronounced the death sentence on revolutionary
theory, which was jubilantly thrown into the dustbin of history. What was hailed as the

eternal reign of the capital. In recent years, the idea has been making its way, within the
petty bourgeois intelligentsia, that modern capitalism has the fundamental characteristics
assigned to it by the classics and that, as expected, these have passed to a higher phase
of its existence, where the process of growing impoverishment of salaried workers and the
maturation movement of the determining elements of the change towards a form of
socialist organization that is so in both form and content are blatantly manifested; they
have also reached the conclusion that for the rebirth of revolutionary theory, a
prerequisite for a new phase of the socialist revolution, it is necessary to assimilate
Hegel's Logic in all its extension and depth in its character of scientific method of
knowledge; this will allow us to know the causes of the collapse of the first appearance of
socialism and determine the line of action for the establishment of formal and material
socialism with which modern capitalism is pregnant.
The scientific conception of the universe suffered, in a way, the same fate as the Marxist
theory. Its evolution stopped at the Kant-Laplace hypothesis and at the valuable
precisions and intuitions of Engels, but it did not advance until the integration of a
worldview that understood the universe in its entirety and exhaustively included the
general laws of its nature and movement, because this could only have been achieved by
incorporating the extremely fertile Hegelian ontology contained in The Science of Logic.
For a more complete understanding of the relationship between Hegelian philosophy and
Marxism, see: Robledo Esparza, Gabriel, Capitalismo Moderno y Revolución, t. I, Sísifo
Ediciones, Centro de Estudios del Socialismo Científico, Mexico, 2008 y La Logica de
Hegel y el Marxismo, Sísifo Ediciones, Centro de Estudios del Socialismo Científico,
Mexico, 2009.

9
Engels, Federico, Dialéctica de la Naturaleza, Editorial Grijalbo, S. A., traducción directa del
alemán de Wenceslao Roces, México, 1982, pp. 13-15

17
 The Microcosm

The contribution of spectrography, radio astronomy, quantum cosmology and

modern (quantum) physics to the scientific conception of the universe

Since the mid-nineteenth century the focus of scientific research began to shift from the
macrocosm to the microcosm. Physics became the science of fashion and pushed aside
classical mechanics.
In the study of elementary particles, atoms and molecules, physics initially applied the
principles of classical Newtonian mechanics.
Soon, however, scientists realized that Newton's invented mathematical tool, the calculus,
was, in its primitive form, powerless to solve the new problems facing physics. The
development of this tool became imperative, as well as statistics and probability, another
powerful mathematical ingenuity also devised in the 19th century, disciplines that
received a tremendous boost that made them suitable for the demanding requirements of
science in this phase of his existence. However, despite their sophistication and
refinement, these mathematical devices retained the same foundations as their
progenitors, Newtonian calculus and original statistics and probability.
Armed with this powerful cognitive weapon, physicists perform amazing scientific feats.
Knowledge of the microcosm, of particles, atoms and molecules rises to very high levels.
By means of radio astronomy, spectrometry and quantum physics, it was then possible to
determine in detail the processes of birth, development and extinction, as the case may
be, of the bodies and sidereal aggregates - nebulae, stars, planets, galaxies, etc. - finding
that these are produced under a specific law, by which, from nebulae made up of
subatomic particles, stars are formed, which are grouped into galaxies, in which they are
generated, with the raw material of elementary particles and through specific reactions
rigorously governed by the Newtonian dialectic of attraction and repulsion, increasingly
complex chemical elements, substances that are compounds of increasing complexity
until reaching, as in our solar system, the formation of planets and the appearance of life;
and then, when the stars close their cycle of existence, they dissolve into a nebula of
elementary particles. Modern astronomy, underpinned by quantum physics, has fully
confirmed and enriched with details the brilliant hypothesis of Kant-Laplace and has had
to recognize the validity of Newton's principle of attraction and repulsion as an essential
attribute of matter; Likewise, the Hegelian thesis of the nature of the infinite substance
that exists simultaneously and successively as matter disaggregated into its elementary
particles and matter concentrated in elements, substances and compounds has been
validated.
However, all these achievements of quantum physics and modern astronomy were not
used to complete the scientific conception of the universe, which had been truncated, as
we pointed out in previous paragraphs.
In his place, based on these advances, physicists forged a crude metaphysics based on
the erroneous Einsteinian theory of relativity and ends in the crazy theory of the "big
bang", a conception that has strong remnants of Aristotelian metaphysics, surreptitiously
falls back on creationism and is presented by its authors and epigones as a scientific
worldview.

The theory of relativity

The theory of relativity is the frank and determined denial of Euclidean geometry and
Newtonian mechanics. Einstein openly declares the insufficiency of the concepts and
principles of classical mechanics to address and solve the problems that arise in
molecular, atomic and quantum physics. The concepts of time and space and the

18
coordinate system for Euclidean space (x, y and z) are considered obsolete and instead a
relative time and space are postulated and a space-time coordinate system that
incorporates a new dimension and, consequently, a new coordinate, time, t.
Time is both absolute and relative.
Time is relative because it is the course of the earth's rotation on its own axis; Its unit of
measurement is a 360-degree turn of the earth that is divided into 24 equal parts, which
in turn are divided into 60 identical portions and these the same into another 60 (day,
hours, minutes and seconds); this relative time flows constantly (daily) in one direction.
It is absolute because all the phenomena, beings, objects, processes, movements, etc., of
the "observable universe" (which, obviously, includes the observer) are produced in that
flow and therefore their existence is measurable in those units of relative time; time is
objective, one and the same for the entire observable universe and for all observers,
whether it be the subatomic particle, the atom, the molecule, the living body, the thinking
matter, the sidereal star, the undifferentiated nebula, etc.; time is geo and
anthropocentric.
For Einstein, time is only relative and changes according to the speed, the reference
frame, the position of the observer, etc.; therefore, the same “event” can have several
different durations, depending on the point of view from which it is considered, that is, its
temporal magnitude can be t, t+x and t–x simultaneously.
This Einstein proposition is definitely absurd, preposterous, crazy, unscientific; Quantum
physics reached the peak of its successful development not because of Einstein's theory of
relativity, but in spite of it.
Space is also absolute and relative.
Space is relative because it is the continent of planet earth; Its unit of measurement is the
ten-millionth part of the terrestrial meridian measured between the North Pole and the
Equator. Its dimensions are the three that the terrestrial globe has: length, width and
depth.
It is absolute because it is the continent of the "observable universe" and, therefore, all its
phenomena and objects are contained in it, whether it be elementary particles, atoms,
molecules, living and thinking living matter, stars or sidereal nebulae, etc. Space is
objective and one for the entire observable universe.
Einstein, on the other hand, maintains that space is only relative; the same space can
simultaneously be e, e+x and e–x and, in addition, have peculiar characteristics such as
“contract”, “curve”, etc.
In the same way as with regard to time, Einstein's theses related to space are unscientific,
absurd, preposterous and crazy.
In his book Relativity: The Special and General Theory10, Einstein declares at the outset,
in the first chapter, that the "truth" of the geometric propositions (Euclidean) must be
provisionally assumed, although at a later stage (in the general theory of relativity) it will
be seen that this "truth" is limited.
In the second chapter, he states that the Cartesian coordinate systems, used by classical
mechanics to represent the phenomena of reality, are completely determined by the laws
of Euclidean geometry. With this, he qualifies as equally "limited", compared to the
propositions of general relativity that he will later enunciate, both Euclidean geometry
and the means par excellence to represent it, that is, the Cartesian coordinate systems.
Later, in chapter III, he questions the concepts of time and space in classical mechanics.
The purpose of this, he says, is to describe the change in position of bodies in space
through time.
But according to the principles of classical mechanics, Einstein tells us, it is impossible to
determine exactly the concepts of time and space.

10
Einstein, Albert, Relativity: The especial and General Theory, New York: Henry Holt, 1920;
Bartleby. Com, 2000.

19
And to illustrate this difficulty, he endorses us with the first of his absurd and ridiculous
examples, from which he draws absolutely false consequences.

First example.
The magic stone that falls in a straight and parabolic line at the same time.
A traveler drops a stone from the window of a moving train car.
For the traveler, the stone falls in a straight line towards the embankment in a given time.
For an observer on the embankment, it falls describing a parabola and in a longer time.
Depending on the frame of reference, the stone falls in a straight line and in a parabola (it
travels a space e and e+Δe) in a time t and t+Δt simultaneously.
Classical mechanics is powerless to describe this event because it sticks to absolute time
and space, which do not admit this kind of relativity.
This barbarity is exposed by Einstein without any type of demonstration (mathematical or
geometric) and must be believed only because it has come from the powerful mind of the
wise man.
The stone originally moves with the same speed as the wagon relative to the embankment;
when released, the wagon stops communicating its movement and is subject to the
attractive force of the earth, which prints a movement towards the embankment;
Discounting the resistance of the air, the stone will fall in a straight line. And all this will
be completely independent of the place where the event is observed; Both for the traveler
who has dropped it, and for the observer perched on the embankment, there is only one
physical event, which has taken place at only one specific time and place and admits of a
single measurement.
Einstein's supine conclusion is based on nonsense: there are two times and two different
spaces (distances), one for the traveler on the train and the other for the observer on the
embankment.
This first "postulate" will be the basis of all the nonsense that Einstein will formulate in
his subsequent argumentation, until reaching his greatest nonsense: the curvature of
space-time in gravitational fields.
Einstein continues his argument as follows.
Descriptions of mechanical natural phenomena can be made using Cartesian coordinate
systems that represent bodies at rest or in uniform rectilinear motion. The natural laws
that are obtained from here will be valid only in these circumstances.
Bodies at rest or in uniform rectilinear motion are considered as frames of reference for
one another; likewise, the Cartesian coordinate systems that represent them are also
mutual reference frames.
The natural laws that are valid for a reference frame formed by a body at rest or in
uniform rectilinear motion are also valid for all reference frames of the same type that are
in relation to it; Einstein calls this the principle of "special relativity."
This is fully valid for mechanical phenomena, but no longer applies to "recent
developments in electrodynamics and optics". In these new fields, the natural laws, to be
valid, must be in agreement with other types of reference frames and their respective
coordinate systems, and abide in everything by the "principles" that Einstein will have to
establish in his special and general theories of relativity.
Einstein then proceeds to illustrate with several examples the fundamental principle of
his theory: time and distance are not absolute and independent, but have different values
depending on the frames of reference with which they are related.

Second example.
The passenger who travels two different distances in the same time.
The second example that Einstein uses in his book to explain his assertions is the
following: inside a moving train, at a speed v/s with respect to the embankment, a
passenger moves in the direction of the railway's displacement at a speed w/s; the total
speed of the passenger with respect to the embankment is (v+w)/s; in one second, the
passenger will have traveled the distance w in the train and his position relative to the

20
embankment will have shifted v+w. The crazy conclusion that Einstein draws from this is
that the movement of the passenger has both an extension of w and v+w and that this is
due to the fact that the speed of the movement of the railway has produced a contraction
of space for the observer located in the train.
This circumstance leads us to a second objection which must be raised against the apparently
obvious consideration of Section VI. Namely, if the man in the carriage covers the distance w in a
unit of time — measured from the train, — then this distance — as measured from the
embankment — is not necessarily also equal to w.11
The objective fact is the displacement w of the passenger, which occurs within universal
time and in a frame of reference, the railway, which moves at speed v with respect to the
earth.
The observer in the train perceives and measures the event as it occurs: the passenger
advances a space w in a time t inside the railway.
The observer on the embankment, who knows the speed of the train, notices that the
passenger begins his journey at a point x on the train that coincides with a point x' on the
embankment and ends at points y and y', respectively; the distance x-y is equal to v and
the distance x'-y' is equal to the sum v+w, so he subtracts from the distance x'-y', which
he has measured, the value v, which is the distance traveled by the train in time t, and
obtains as residue the space w, which is the space traveled by the passenger inside the
train.
Both observers, one directly and the other indirectly, have concluded that the passenger
has covered a distance w inside the train, so the distance w is the same, whether
measured on the train or from the embankment.
In this second Einstein example, w is the measure of the displacement of the passenger in
the car (moving reference frame) at a time t; w is measured in the specific geocentric units
of space and in those of time determined by the earth's rotation. The wagon moves in
space and time a value v and does so in relation to the embankment, which remains
fixed; space and time t, constitutive of v, are also measured by the geocentric units
already mentioned. Towards the embankment, which is the x-axis, we can project the
point of origin O' of the movement of the train, the point v, which is the measure of the
displacement of the mobile frame of reference, and the point w, which is the measure of
the movement of the passenger in the car. x' will then be equal to v+w.
Through the addition and subtraction of velocities and spaces, which is the classic
method of Galileo's transformation, we can arrive at the determination of all the values
and relations in play. The passenger has a movement in space in relation to the train
equal to w and he does it at a speed w/s; the train, for its part, moves, with respect to the
embankment, a space v at a speed v/s. The passenger moves, relative to the
embankment, at a speed v+w/s, a space equal to v+w.
The fact that occurs on the train can be observed from two perspectives: in one case, a
solipsistic observer-actor (Einstein, for example), will only appreciate his own movement
inside the train and will not take into account what the railway does with respect to of the
embankment, so it will then postulate the irrefutable truth that the passenger has had an
absolute displacement equal to w with a speed w/s; in the other case, a careful observer,
also attached to the mobile reference system, will notice that the passenger has traveled,
from the point of origin O,O', the distance v, which is what the train advances with
respect to the embankment in the same time t, plus the distance w, which is what the
passenger walks in the same train in the same time, that is, v+w, and he does it with a
speed v+w/s. For his part, the observer located on the embankment visualizes the event
in a complete way, just as the non-Einsteinian observer of the mobile system does:
movement of the passenger equal to v+w, and his speed, v+w /s.
The crude sleight of hand performed by the illusionist Einstein is obvious. In the first
place, he grants objective value, full reality to the two scrutiny, to the incompleteness of
the spectator attached to the mobile reference system and to the completeness of the
viewer placed in the rigid reference system. Immediately, as it is about divergent
11
Ibíd, X. On the Relativity of the Conception of Distance, p. 35

21
appraisals of the same fact, the foolish explanation of the different appraisal is pulled out
of the sleeve: in the fixed frame of reference a specific time and space govern and in the
mobile other completely different ones; in the latter, the speed at which it moves causes a
"contraction" of space and a "dilation" of time, that is, v+w shrinks until it is reduced to
space-time w.

Third example.
The ray of light that travels two different distances at the same time.
The third example presented by Einstein is that of the beam of light that is emitted along
the embankment of a railway; A wagon runs parallel to the track at a speed w. The speed
of light at the embankment is c; according to Galileo's transformation, the speed of light
relative to the moving car is c-w. But this is not possible, the eminent physicist tells us,
because the speed of light is always c. If the speed of light is invariant for the two
observers, then the time that elapses in the train is less than the time that the observer on
the embankment counts and thus we have: x, that is, the distance that the light travels on
the embankment, is equal to ct, where c is the speed of light, and x'(<x), the distance that
the same ray of light travels in relation to the moving observer (which sound reason and
Galileo's transformation determine as ct-wt), that is, ct'(t'<t), is the distance traveled by
light according to the gaze directed from the train. With this, Einstein tries, as it says
colloquially, to kill two birds with the same stone. On the one hand, he tries to justify his
principle of relativity by concluding that, in the moving reference system, in the train,
space-time has contracted, so ct is such for the embankment, but it is ct' (t'<t) for the
train; and on the other, he pretends to surprise us by saying that this happens despite or
perhaps because the speed of light is invariant.
What actually happens is the following: from point O of the fixed system a pulse of light is
emitted that travels along the embankment with a speed c; at the same time, the mobile
system moves parallel to the reference system with a speed w; We assume that in the
mobile system an observer is at the point of origin O', where it remains stationary
throughout the process. In the course of time t, the light will have covered a space-time
equal to ct, and the observer, one equivalent to wt, so x equals ct and x1 equals wt, where
x1 is a given value on the axis of the x of the fixed reference system; the fixed observer will
determine x without any problem and the mobile observer will measure the difference
between the speed of light that moves on the embankment and that of its own movement:
c-w, formula that expresses the speed of light in relation to the moving system, but this
does not alter at all the real speed of light on the embankment or in the mental operation
of comparison with the speed of the moving observer. The clumsy conclusion that
Einstein draws from this is that by mentally relating the speed of light to his own, the
mobile observer attributes to light a speed less than c, which, he says, is physically
impossible; hence, the scholar reasons, that the Galilean transformation leads us in this
case to a completely false conclusion, that is, x' equals c-w. Since the speed of light
cannot be altered, so Einstein turns to space-time, which is malleable by definition,
adjusts it to his fanciful requirement and then sets x' equal to ct', where t' is the time after
the speed of the mobile system has “shrunk” it. But what is really tragic (or comical?) of
this matter is that in the mobile reference axis no light ray moves, but only the same axis
and the observer attached to its origin O', so the variable x' does not express any speed or
displacement data of the light; the only possible relation, and the only one that the mobile
observer can measure, is the one between its speed and the speed of light in the fixed
system. The requirement to include in this example the erroneous theory of special
relativity and the Michelson-Lorentzian prejudice of the invariant speed of light, forces
Einstein to construct a monstrous gibberish, from which with strenuous efforts we have
managed to emerge unscathed.
Einstein makes equal the absolute motion of light that occurs in the fixed reference frame
and its displacement relative to the moving reference frame. By endowing the speed of
light with an absolute value, the scientist irremediably undermines the foundations of his
theory of relativity.

22
In a moment we will put numbers to the example of Einstein.
The light signal moves over the embankment.
The railway travels 1 km. per second.
The observer on the embankment measures the speed of light to be 300,000 kms per
second.
The observer on the railway registers the fact that every second the light running parallel
on the embankment is ahead of him by 299,999 km.
If the observer located on the railway knows his movement and knows the speed of light,
he will conclude that on the embankment light moves at the speed that corresponds to it
and that, with respect to him, that it moves at 1 km. per second, the light beam travels at
299,999 kms. per second, as evidenced by the fact that every second it moves away
299,999 kms.
If the railway observer does not know his own movement or the speed of light, he only
perceives the light signal that moves 299,999 km away from him per second.
The observation we are talking about is scientific observation and its purpose is to
establish the laws of nature in an exact way.
The first scientific observation is that of the speed of light. This is determined with respect
to an observer at rest in a fixed reference frame. This research result is a heritage of
science, an undeniable truth.
A particular scientific observer is faced with a certain fact.
In a fixed frame of reference, within which he is as an observer at rest, a light signal is
emitted.
This scientific observer applies the result of the scientific investigation, and since he is at
rest in the fixed reference frame, he infers that the light beam travels at 300,000 kms. per
second, which is the speed determined for light by multiple scientific investigations; but,
as he is also a diligent investigator, he makes the pertinent measurements and finds that
the speed of the specific light pulse is the same as that which scientific experience had
determined.
In his search for the world of facts, this scientist finds that parallel to the fixed frame of
reference in which he is in a state of rest, an object moves at a speed x at the moment of
emitting the pulse; it is then proposed to know what the speed of the object is. His
measurements tell him that every second the emitted light beam moves 299,999
kilometers away from the object; then, since the speed of that pulse, which is already
known, is 300,000 kms. per second, that of the object is 300,000 – 299,999 = 1 kilometer
per second, where 299,999 km. per second is the speed of light relative to the object.
This speed relative to the object does not affect its absolute speed at all, which remains
the same, as given by previous scientific research and unique experience in this case.
If the scientific observer is attached to the object moving parallel to the fixed reference
frame, he will calculate things differently.
He will first identify the pulse moving parallel to his displacement as a ray of light;
making use of his instruments, he will measure the speed of movement of that beam of
light and will find that, given his position, with respect to himself the light moves at a
speed of 299,999 kms. per second.
As a scientific observer, he will take into account that 1) this beam has been emitted in a
fixed reference frame with respect to which he moves at a speed x; 2) that the light beam,
in the reference frame of its emission, moves at a speed of 300,000 kms. per second,
which is what scientific experience has determined.
Performing a simple arithmetic operation, he will find that, if the speed of light is 300,000
kms. per second in the fixed reference frame and the speed relative to itself, which he has
measured, of that light ray is 299,999 km/s, so it is moving relative to the fixed reference
frame at 1 km/s. Einstein claims that the observer located in the object should obtain the
same result in the measurement of the speed of light as the observer in the fixed reference
frame, that is, 300,000 km/s. It would then result that, since the observer in the object
moves at 1 km/s with respect to the light beam, if he measures the speed of that pulse
relative to himself to be 300,000 km/s, then, with respect to the emission frame, he must

23
have a speed of 300,001 km/s, which is absolutely impossible, since it has been
scientifically proven that the absolute speed of light (that is, with respect to a fixed
emission frame) is 300,000 km/s and, furthermore, is contrary to the same Einsteinian
postulate that nothing in the universe can move faster than light, certainly not light itself.
Einstein calls this the principle of invariance of light, which he expresses by saying that
the speed of light will be the same for any observer. He makes this principle one of the
foundations of his special theory.
Einstein claims that a certain physical phenomenon, the displacement of light, is exempt
from the law that he himself has established: all physical phenomena are relative.
Corrected, his postulate is as follows: all physical phenomena are relative, except for the
displacement of light, which is absolute, the same for any observer.
Light is a physical entity like any other, be it the planetary system, the galaxy in which it
is found, the atom, the molecule, the aggregated body, living matter, the human species,
etc.; it does not have any special characteristics that differentiate it from other physical
objects.
Attributing to it an exclusive nature different from that of other physical objects is pure
metaphysics.
Later we will see how this theoretical prejudice is born and developed in the works of
Maxwell, Michelson, Morley and Lorentz and then Einstein shamelessly appropriates it
and makes it one of the pillars of his theory of special relativity.

Fourth example
The example that Einstein exposes in chapter IX of his mentioned work is that of two rays
that fall simultaneously at the ends of a long railroad track, at points A and B; the
midpoint M between A and B is determined. At the same time, a train whose midpoint is
M’, travels along the track in the direction A-B and at the instant when lighting fall the
point M' coincide M. For the observer located at point M, the lights originating at points A
and B have left at the same time and arrives to the opposite end B and A simultaneously;
For the observer in M', the light coming from B arrives first and time later, which depends
on the speed at which the train moves, the one that originates in A; from which Einstein
deduces that for M' the light rays have not originated simultaneously
The lightning strikes are simultaneous in relation to the embankment, but not in relation to
the train, Einstein maintains.
Einstein Scheme

Einstein's explanation
When we say that the lightning strokes A and B are simultaneous with respect to the
embankment, we mean: the rays of light emitted at the places A and B, where the
lightning occurs, meet each other at the mid-point M of the length AB of the
embankment. But the events A and B also correspond to positions A and B on the
train. Let M' be the mid-point of the distance AB on the travelling train. Just when
the flashes of lightning occur, this point M' naturally coincides with the point M, but
it moves towards the right in the diagram with the velocity v of the train. If an
observer sitting in the position M' in the train did not possess this velocity, then he
would remain permanently at M, and the light rays emitted by the flashes of lightning
A and B would reach him simultaneously, i.e. they would meet just where he is
situated. Now in reality (considered with reference to the railway embankment) he is
hastening towards the beam of light coming from B, whilst he is riding on ahead of
the beam of light coming from A. Hence the observer will see the beam of light

24
 emitted from B earlier than he will see that emitted from A. Observers who take the
railway train as their reference-body must therefore come to the conclusion that the
lightning flash B took place earlier than the lightning flash A. We thus arrive at the
important result: Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment
are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of
simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate system) has its own particular time;
unless we are told the reference-body to which the statement of time refers, there is
no meaning in a statement of the time of an event.12
Einstein's statement is categorical: events that are simultaneous with respect to the
embankment are not simultaneous with respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of
simultaneity); each reference body (coordinate system) has its own particular time.
The objective fact, independent of any observer, is the simultaneous fall of the rays at
points A and B on the embankment, an event that occurs in geocentric space-time. The
observer M is in the reference frame of the embankment, which is fixed in the universal
reference frame that is the earth; therefore, your perception and measurement of the
event fully correspond to what has occurred in reality.
The observer M', on the contrary, is in a frame of reference (the train) that moves at a
certain speed with respect to the embankment, and consequently, in relation to the
ground; his perception and measure of lights will be affected by the speed at which the
railway travels; the objective fact of simultaneity will be for him an asynchronous event,
since the light of the ray that falls on B will reach M' first than that of the ray that
descends on A; but this is so not because the ray A has been produced at a later time
than B, but because the observer M' has moved a certain space towards B after the light
emissions have been produced. The observer M' (as long as they are not Einstein or some
other relativistic physicist) can easily calculate, with the data of the instant of time in
which he perceives each one of the rays and the speed at which the train moves, the
instant in which the lights were emitted from both sources and can do so not by some
new, sophisticated mathematical method, but by the means of humble arithmetic.
Let's put numbers to the elementary Einsteinian example. Suppose that points A and B
are 600 kilometers apart and, consequently, the midpoint M 300 kilometers from the
extremes; an object -M'- moves, in the same frame of reference in which A and B are, at
the speed of 150,000 kilometers per second and the observer M' travels on it, who knows
the above data and is also aware that two lightning bolts have struck on the
embankment, at points A and B, without knowing in what time; the event begins to
develop from the moment in which point M' coincides with point M of the embankment in
its displacement and with the fall of the rays in A and B. The light coming from B is
perceived by M´ when 0.0006666 seconds have elapsed since it tied with M, that is, when
the light has advanced 200 kilometers and the same observer 100 kilometers; meanwhile,
the light from A has moved 200 kilometers in the direction of B. The light originating in A
reaches M' when the object has traveled 300 kilometers and the light from A, 600, that is,
at 0.002 seconds from the intersection of M and M'.
The observer M' then has the evidence of the instant in which he tied with M and the
certainty that he perceived the light from B at 0.0006666 seconds from that moment and
from A at 0.002 seconds. By a simple reasoning, the observer, orphan of the sophisticated
modern mathematics of relativistic physicists, concludes that from the moment in which
B reaches M' until when A is perceived by this observer, 0.0013333 seconds pass, in
which the light of B travels 400 kilometers in the direction of A, which, added to the 200
that it traveled in the first 0.0006666 seconds add up to 600; after two seconds, the light
from A and B will have reached the opposite point, that is to say B and A and both have
traveled 600 kilometers from the instant in which M and M' coincide, from which it is
inferred that they have occurred simultaneously. The false conclusion to which Einstein
arrives, and which he immediately adduces as proof of the validity of his theory of special

12
Ibid, IX. The Relativity of Simultaneity, pp. 31-39

25
relativity, is that the movement of the object has dilated time, so that the observer in M' is
aware of light rays asynchronously.
In chapter X of his work, Einstein addresses the issue of relativity in the conception of
distance.
Returning to his second example, our author states that the distance A-B traveled by the
passenger in the train may not be the same measure in the same car as from the
embankment.
Einstein holds the following absurdity: the distance w traveled by the passenger on the
train may not have the same length if measured from the embankment, since the distance
covered by the passenger depends on where the measurement is made from. This is a real
twist to the healthy concept of relativity, which tells us that the distance the passenger
travels is determined by the reference system to which it is related: at time t, the
passenger will travel a distance w in the own train and a distance w+v in relation to the
embankment, and this is so regardless of where and how it is measured; it is not a
question of the same distance that lengthens or contracts according to the point of view
adopted, as Einstein expresses it, but of two different distances, one measured in relation
to (not from) the train and the other to the embankment.

The Lorentz transformation

Once Einstein has fully developed all the elements of his special theory of relativity and
established the remarkable principles of space contraction and time dilation, he proceeds
at once to give them a mathematical formality. As is his custom, he uncritically takes an
intellectual production of his predecessor -in this case Hendrik Antoon Lorentz- the so-
called Lorentz transformation -which, we will see in detail, is a veritable catalog of
mathematical and geometrical errors- and uses it to try to give a veneer of scientificity to
all the theoretical nonsense it has engendered.
Einstein places his example of the light ray traveling along the embankment and can be
considered in relation to the train (see above, example no. 3) in two Cartesian coordinate
systems, whose axes x (x y x') are parallel and their axes z and z' coincide at the moment
of starting the movement of the light.13

The light ray travels from the origin (marked with a K by Einstein) to the point x on the x-
axis of the system K in a time t; the system K' moves, starting from the coincidence point
of the axes z and z', along the x axis, at a speed v, up to the point where the z' axis of K'
has reached in the same time t. The only detectable movements in this representation are:
those of the light ray, which at point x has a value ct, and that of the system K', which at
point x, z' has a value vt.
However, Einstein mistakenly believes that the same light ray also travels along the x-axis
of K' (x') and does so by less than in K, or that the motion of K' (its speed) produces a
reduction in the space traveled by the light ray in the system K and, consequently, in the
time t of the trip, only perceptible by the observer of K, and that then it is possible to

13
Ibidem, Appendix 1, Simple Derivation of the Lorentz Transformation, pp. 139 y ss.

26
somehow relate the supposed movement of the light in K' or the motion of light in K as
perceived by the observer in K' with the actual motion of light in K. In both cases,
Einstein has discovered two remarkable physical facts: a sui generis ray of light traveling
simultaneously through a ct space in one reference system and a ct' space in another,
that is, a single ray of light that has a double nature and unfolds it in two different
coexisting spaces; and a ray of light that has, at the same time, an objective measure in a
reference system and a subjective measure in another, which is provided by the moving
observer.
It is evident that no light ray moves along the x' axis of the system K' and that only the
system itself moves, and it is also unquestionable that neither the parallel movement of
an external object nor the measurement of an observer located in this same one can
produce a clone of the original ray with which it coexists; the only thing that can be
related here is the movement of light in system K with the displacement of system K'
itself, that is, ct with vt and establish the relative speed of the light pulse moving on the x-
axis with respect to the speed of the system K', that is, the relative speed of light with
respect to the moving system K', which is = cv.
Einstein gives a name and a value to his spawn: x' = ct'; c is the speed of light that
supposedly travels through the x' axis of the K' system and t' is the shortest time it
travels, since according to the assumptions established by itself, space has contracted to
the extent vt displacement of the system K' and then the smaller the space, the shorter the
travel time at the same speed.
With these elements, Einstein reissues Lorentz's mathematical artifice. Determine the
motion of the light ray on the x-axis of K as x=ct and the phantom path of the same pulse
on the x'-axis of K' as x' = ct' and then repute these formulas as linear equations that can
be linked to each other to extract from them values of the variables that make them up,
expressed in terms of each other.
Let us remember that the main fallacy of Einstein's argument is that he considers that
the same ray of light that travels along the x-axis to the point x also moves,
simultaneously, along the x'-axis until it reaches the point where x and x' coincide, or that
the speed of the observer and his reference system has produced the shortening of the
light ray and the time of its duration and that therefore two measurements of it coexist,
one for the observer of the fixed system and another for the of the mobile system, and also
that the speed of light is the same in both systems, the one in which the light ray is
produced and the one that serves as a relative reference; light is, for Einstein, the only
matter in the universe whose movement is only absolute, equal in the system in which it
occurs and in relation to another system, the speed of light is invariant.
Added to this fundamental flaw in his argument are the incredible mathematical errors
Einstein makes in his peculiar development of the Lorentz transformation.

The Lorentz transformation

Einstein's dull mathematics
In his “thought experiment”, Einstein establishes that a ray of light is transmitted
rectilinearly and an object moves simultaneously parallel to the ray; Both trajectories are
represented in the x axes (x and x') of two three-dimensional Cartesian systems formed by
the axes x, y, z and x', y', z' (an excess of Einstein to give more showiness to his
argument, because his entire alleged demonstration could be carried out effectively on a
traditional two-dimensional plane). Ray and object have started at the same time from a
point where the origins of the two Cartesian systems coincide. The values that can be
determined on the x-axis of the mobile system are: x 1=0 (K in Einstein's scheme) which is
the point of origin of the ray and x3=ct (x for Einstein) which is the point at which the ray
arrives in a time t, and also a point of coincidence, x2=vt (K' in the Einsteinian scheme)
which is the value of the displacement of the frame K' in K in a time t (vt) when the ray of
light has reached x (ct); on the x’ axis the point x’ is determined, which is the one at
which the light ray arrives in the frame K' and which coincides by definition with x of K.

27
The system of equalities derived from this is the following:
x = ct (displacement of the light ray),
x1 (K') = vt (parallel movement of the object),
x' = ct-vt = x-vt (point on the x' axis that coincides with the point to which the light ray
has reached on the x axis; note that no light ray moves on the x' axis),
x=x'+vt (displacement of the light ray quantified by the sum of the value of the movement
of the object and that of the coincidence point of x with the x' axis)
and the possible relationships that can be quantified
ct/vt (path of the light for each unit of movement of the object) and
vt/ct (displacement of the object per unit of light travel).
All these equalities and relationships are objective, valid regardless of who and from
where they are measured.
For an observer located in the reference system K (fixed), all these results are evident.
From his position he measures the displacements of the light ray and of the object that
are made in a time t and he has no doubt that all the equalities and relationships
determined above are valid.
For his part, the observer placed in the reference system K', if he is not a relativistic
physicist but a true scientist, will behave as follows.
First of all, he will notice that a ray of light moves parallel to the movement of the object.
The speed of light is a value that has been scientifically determined and is represented by
c. The non-relativistic observer takes this into account and goes ahead with his task. Note
that for every unit of time the light ray moves away from the object a certain space; that
space that the light ray separates from the object each unit of time is equal to the
difference between the speed of light c and the speed of the object v (that is, d = c-v), a
value that is called the speed of light relative to the speed of the object; from that formula
he obtains c = v+d and v = c-d, and since the scientific researcher has at his disposal the
data of the speed of light c and of the difference d between it and the speed of the object,
he can then easily find, with a simple subtract, c-d, the velocity v of the object. At this
point, the diligent scientific investigator has determined the values c and v in the
relationship between the motion of the object and that of the light ray.
The diligent non-Einsteinian observer has recorded the precise moment the moving object
coincides with the start of the light pulse's journey; likewise, he knows from his own
experience the instant of time that he has selected to make his measurements; this way,
he gets the elapsed time between those two extremes. This time t is multiplied by the
previously defined speed v of the object and thus establishes the value vt, that is, the
distance that the object has traveled since the moment it was equal to the origin of the
light ray. As our observer has not yet been infected by the theory of relativity or has
already shaken off its nefarious influence, he knows that the time traveled by the object is
equal to the time that the light ray has consumed in its displacement and that, therefore,
for to set the length of the light's journey, it is enough to multiply its speed c by the time t
already established; the path of the light therefore has the extension ct.
At the end of his work, pleasantly surprised by the simplicity of the reasoning that he has
used, in which he has not had to resort to the conceptual distortions of the curvature and

28
contraction of space and the dilation of time, the observer in the system of mobile
reference K' has reached the same conclusions as his colleague, the observer in the fixed
system K, that is, to the same system of equalities and relations, which we have
consigned above, between the variables considered.
However, Einstein, incarnation of ignorance and stupidity, attributes with which he also
endows the observer in system K', incurs a grotesque deformation of the variables
contained in his "thought experiment": to x', which according to with its own scheme and
healthy common sense is equal to c-vt, converts it into ct', space in which the same ray of
light that moves in the x-axis is compressed only for the observer in motion and time that
the motion also dilates only for the observer at K'. Ignorance and intellectual opportunism
that impels him to surprise the world with new nonsense, naturally lead Einstein to
endow a physical phenomenon, the movement of a light ray, with metaphysical attributes;
for Einstein, this pulse of light has a double nature and a double extension in itself and at
the same time: in the K system it travels a determined space and time, but at the same
time, the same light ray has in the K' system a smaller extension and a reduced time due
to the movement of the object.
Einstein has thus endowed the ray of light with the gift of ubiquity: its ability to be in two
places at the same time (systems K and K') and the ability to simultaneously be him and
his other, him and a reproduction of himself that the movement of the object generates.
The quintessential wise man, in his infinite power, grants nature one more physical
property, hitherto unknown: the relative movement of an object produces an alteration of
space and time in which another physical phenomenon, different and completely alien to
it, develops and, at the same time, wonder of wonders, allows him to preserve his own
nature.
The equations from which Einstein starts are the following: x=ct and x'=ct'; then, set them
both equal to 0: x-ct = 0 (1) and x'-ct' = 0 (2); states that those points in space-time that
satisfy equation (1) must also satisfy equation (2); this can only be so in the case of the
relation x' - ct' = λ(x-ct) (3) - realizing that by definition x'-ct' is less than x-ct, he then
invents a factor λ, which makes them equal. We have here a flagrant petitio principii, since
λ, which is what should be obtained from the mathematical exercise, is a presupposition
of it.
From here, Einstein develops, by means of a series of tricks and mathematical errors of a
child, which for the stupidity of the relativistic cohort are mathematical elegance and
beauty itself, a set of formulas 14 that lead to what are the relativistic canonical equations
of space contraction and time dilation:

It is evident that these equations do not represent anything, they are the most resounding
expression of the mathematical indigence of Lorentz and his successor Einstein; they
have no mathematical or geometric value; they constitute a monumental intellectual
swindle.
Einstein, standing firm in his nonsense, states that this derivation of the Lorentz
transformation satisfies the condition
x’²-c²t’²=x²-c²t²
that is, the same absurd formula 0 = 0, but squared: 0² = 0².
Continuing his illuminating dissertation, Einstein tells us that this result can be extended
to y and z, the other two axes of the three-dimensional Cartesian system.

14
Ver: Robledo Esparza, Gabriel, El Universo. Visión Científica, dialéctico-materialista, Sísifo Ediciones, México,
2018, pp. 37 y ss.

29
If we assume a ray of light propagating from the origin of the Cartesian system to the
point (x, y, z), then the length of its displacement r will be found by means of the following
formula (Pythagorean theorem in 3 dimensions):
√r = x 2 + y 2 + z 2=ct ,
Squaring and setting the terms of the equation equal to 0, we obtain
x²+y²+z²-c²t²=0.
In the mobile reference system, the equations will be:
√
'2 '2
'2 '2 '2 2 '2
r ' = x ' 2+¿ y +z =ct ' ¿ and x + y + z −c t =0.
Where x'²+y'²+z'²-c²t'² = λ(x²+y²+z²-c²t²) and 0 = λ0, that is, the same absurd conclusion,
but now extended to all axes of the plane three-dimensional Cartesian, which puts us
before a three-dimensional aberration.
Einstein deduces from this that the Lorentz factor is valid to determine the relationship of
the variables x, y, z of an event in the fixed reference system with the corresponding x', y'
z' of a moving reference system. So
' y −vt ' z−vt
y= z=

√ 1−
v2 y
c
2
√ 1−
v2 .
c
2

Both the original Lorentz equations and the ones Einstein enunciates based on them are
totally incorrect, they do not express any type of real link between the absolute speed of
light in the fixed system and its relative speed with respect to the moving system. They
have no mechanical, physical, mathematical or geometric meaning, they do not state any
theory, hypothesis, principle or physical law: they are totally futile.
It is precisely on the basis of this Lorentzian-Einsteinian monstrosity that Einstein
concocts his famous formula (not the one by which it is popularly known, e=mc²,which is
also essentially wrong), by which he tries to submit to a mathematical formulation the
forces that determine the nature and evolution of the universe; it is evident that being its
false and erroneous foundation, such a formula also constitutes an enormous physical,
mathematical, geometrical nonsense and, due to its totalizing pretensions, cosmological
and philosophical.
The cosmological theory of the big bang is nothing more than a "solution" to the "Einstein
equation", so it also constitutes an abominable theoretical aberration, as we will see in
the corresponding part.
It is evident that a relationship can be established between the real travel of the light ray
in the fixed reference frame and the imaginary travel in the moving frame. This does not
mean, of course, that by virtue of the equations that link these two variables, what does
not exist can come to life. It is only stated that the same conceptual nonsense can be
presented within the framework of a consistent mathematical derivation.
If we start from the original formulas provided by Einstein: x = ct, x' = ct' and x' = ct-vt, we
have the following: if we divide ct' = ct-vt, by c, we obtain t' = t-vt /c, if we then divide both
sides of the equation by t, we arrive at
t ' t vt
= − = 1−
t t ct
vt
ct ( )
and if finally we multiply the two members of the equation by t we reach

(1− vtct )t ;

and, on the other hand, from x’ = ct-vt divided by ct we obtain

x ' ct vt
= − ,
ct ct ct
which gives us

30
 x'
ct
= 1−
vt
ct ( )
what finally remains

x '= 1− ( vt
ct )
x.
The Lorentz constant would thus acquire form and mathematical legitimacy, (1-vt/ct), a
formula that would express the relationship between the speed and extension of a light ray
in a fixed frame of reference and those established, on the same ray, by an observer in
motion, but in no way it would mean what Lorentz and Einstein want, a qualitative relation
in which the movement produces the contraction of space and the dilation of time.

The geometric representation of the Lorentz factor

The core of the Einsteinian nonsense lies in the adoption of the Lorentz factor as the
measure of the contraction of space and the dilation of time in moving reference systems.
The heart of the theory of relativity, the foundation of it, is the mathematical tool called
the Lorentz transformation, which is presented as the negation and overcoming of the
Galileo transformation. Einstein accepts this formula in its entirety, without any
restriction, and makes it the foundation of his theses and thus of modern relativistic
physics.
The Lorentz transformation, which is conceptualized as a mathematical wonder of the
modern era, is a catalog of theoretical, geometric and algebraic errors in which the
nonsense in this matter of Michelson-Morley and Lorentz is summarized.
Since in the sophisticated Cartesian systems of 3 or more variables it was not possible to
represent the relationship between the two aspects of the movement (in the fixed
reference system and in the moving system), it was then necessary to resort to a modest
two- axes Cartesian system: the x axis, in which the values of the movement of the mobile
reference system are recorded with respect to the fixed reference system, vt, and the y
axis, which contains those of the material movement (ray of light, passenger, etc.) in the
moving reference system, expressed as ct' in order to honor the theoretical prejudice of
the invariant speed of light.
Einstein gave the Lorentz equations the "mathematical elegance" they lacked when they
left the hands of this physicist. If we strip the Einsteinian formulation of its finery, then
the simplest, and therefore crudest, way of obtaining the Lorentz factor is revealed: that
is, through the application of the old Pythagorean theorem.
In this formulation, the value of the real movement is attributed, a priori, to the
hypotenuse that artificially extends between the extreme values of vt and ct', which is
determined as ct; It is, in the first place, the classic petitio principii, assuming what must
be proved (that ct is the hypotenuse of the right triangle with base vt and height ct');
secondly, the completely false theoretical prejudice of the invariant speed of light is
incorporated (its relative speed is the same as its absolute speed) and, thirdly, time is
given a different value (local time, they call it) that normal time, generally.
According to this, the following equations are established:
c2t2=v2t2+c2t’2;

c2t’2=c2t2-v2t2;

c2t’2=(c2-v2)t2;

( ) ( )
2 2 2
c v 2 v 2
'2=¿ − t = 1− 2 t ¿
c2 c2 c
t

√
t ' = (1−
v2
c
2
¿ )t ¿.

31
 y
c2t2=v2t2+c2t’2;

c2t’2=c2t2-v2t2;
and since
c2t’2=x’2,
then
( c 2−v 2 ) t 2
( )
2 2
'2 2−¿ v t 2
x 2t v 2
2
=c 2
= 2
= 1− 2
t ¿;
c c c c

( )
2
'2 v 2 2
x = 1− 2
c t ;
c
y ya que
x2=c2t2,
resultan

( )
2
'2 v 2
x = 1− 2
x y
c

√
2
' v
x = (1− 2
¿ )x ¿.
c

√
2
v
(1− 2
¿ ) ¿it is the so-called Lorentz “factor”, which expresses, mathematically and
c
geometrically, in clumsy Lorentz-Einsteinian mathematics and geometry, the contraction
of space and the dilation of time.
In this primitive, simpler derivation of the Lorentz "factor", the monumental
mathematical-geometrical errors of Maxwell and Lorentz stand out clearly, accepted and
sanctioned by Einstein, which are the "support base" of the theory of relativity and of its
grotesque spawn, the “big bang” theory.
From the figure that we have inserted, whose author is Einstein, it follows that x=ct’+vt;
to fit their misshapen conceptual aberration into a mathematical formula that
corresponds to a given geometric figure, our physicists postulate that x2=(ct’)2+(vt)2, where
(ct’)2 y (vt)2 are the legs and x2 the hypotenuse of a supposed right triangle that is formed
√
on a system of Cartesian axes. According to this, x= ( ct ' )2 + ( vt 2 ); but we have already
seen that from Einstein's own definitions it follows that x is = ct'+vt. We then have two
√
values assigned to x: ct’+vt and ( ct ' )2+ ( vt 2 ), which are obviously not equal. In order to be
able to develop a formula that represents the irrational theses of the alteration of space
and time as an effect of the translation of the mobile system, the previously established
primitive value of x is abandoned, a different one is provided, and on this the whole fragile
scaffolding of the Lorentz “factor” is built.
This transmutation of ct'+vt into √
( ct ' )2+ ( vt 2 )is a mathematical-geometric trick of the
worst kind, which is devised with the deliberate purpose of arriving at a preconceived
result, to the determination of the factor of something non-existent, the contraction of
space and the dilation of time.
All the argumentation that leads to the constitution of the Lorentz factor is, therefore,
false both mathematically and geometrically, and the factor itself, in addition to devoid of
real existence, is a scientific counterfeit of the worst kind.
It is evident that there is no functional relationship between the values of the moving part
of the x-axis and those of the fixed part of it; For example, in the Michelson experiment,
the translation of the earth has no influence on the movement of light in the
interferometer and, if we could compare the Lorentzian speculations with reality through

32
some experiment, we would verify that neither in this case nor the Earth's orbit nor the
movement itself have any effect on the dimensions of particles, atoms, molecules and
ponderable bodies.
The fundamental error consists, however, as we explained earlier, in that Lorentz, like
Michelson-Morley, applies a completely inadequate representation system, the
coordinates of a Cartesian plane formed by two perpendicular axes, to what is plainly and
simply a relationship between two variables that is fully expressed by means of two
superimposed lines that have the same point of origin and uses, with incredible
clumsiness, a geometric device, the Pythagorean theorem, in order to algebraically
determine the relationships between variables which only have an elementary arithmetic
ratio between them: vt/ct and ct/vt.
√
Starting from this geometric nonsense (ct= ( ct ' )2 + ( vt 2 ) ), by means of algebraic
transformations of dubious legitimacy, Lorentz arrives at the establishment of the
constant λ, to which he grants a value universal and with whose character it is recognized
by Einstein.
Let it be, as in the argument of Michelson Morley, a pulse of light that is produced in a
reference system that moves in relation to a fixed system (see the diagram inserted above);
then, vt will be the measure of the displacement of the mobile reference system, ct that of
the movement of the light pulse in relation to the fixed reference system and, according to
the irrational assumption of Michelson and Lorentz sanctioned by Einstein, ct' will
express the value of the movement of the light pulse in the moving reference frame.
Lorentz's geometric ignorance, heir to that of Michelson and Morley and progenitor of
Einstein's, forms a right triangle with the leg that is the geometric representation in the
Cartesian plane of the space-time variable x, whose value is equal to the displacement of
the mobile reference frame with respect to the fixed reference frame, that is, vt, the
second of the legs, which represents the space-time variable and with value ct' measured

by the observer located in the mobile reference frame and the hypotenuse, which
corresponds to the movement seen by an observer from the fixed reference frame and has
a ct value. The general formula that physical ignorance postulates of the relationship
between these variables is the following: (ct)2=(vt)2+(ct’)'2. The relationships of the value of
these variables are defined by Lorentz, and after him by Einstein, by the Pythagorean
theorem: the square of the hypotenuse is equal to the sum of the square of the legs, and
from there the various formulas necessary to solve the unknowns you want. By normal
algebraic transformations, the Lorentz equations are derived that give us the so-called
“alteration” of time t→t’ and space x→x’ for the observer of the moving reference system.
The fundamental error of the Lorentz equations is found in the consideration of the speed
of light as invariant (that is, that its speed is the same absolutely and relatively) and in
the postulate of the existence of a special time, different from the time general (an
aberration).
With all this, Einstein already has at hand the elements to reduce the absurd to a
mathematical formula (the same one that Lorentz had previously developed, for which not
even a slight originality can be attributed in this to the father of modern physics).
Because Einstein is uncritically taking a completely erroneous formulation of Lorentz: 1st,
the two legs, the variables x and y, are not in a functional relationship between them, in
which the movements mutually imply each other and the result of their reciprocal
determination is another displacement of such or such magnitude; the two variables are
totally independent, neither of them produces any effect on the other and their only
relationship is that of coincidence in a given space and time; In this way, the
representation of the movement that occurs in the mobile reference system and its
relationship with the fixed reference system cannot be made by means of any Cartesian
system or any other type (at most, the graphic expression of these two variables could be
a pair of superimposed lines, one fixed and the other mobile, both with the same origin)
nor could the values of these variables be obtained by means of the Pythagorean theorem;

33
2nd, furthermore, the variable y is falsely determined, since its speed becomes equal to
that of movement in the fixed reference system; thus, in the case of Einstein's third
example, it is considered that the speed of light emitted in the fixed reference system is
equal to that in relation to the moving reference system, that is, c = c-v.
In short, the absolute and relative values of a motion of the kind Einstein exemplifies
cannot be expressed in any Cartesian or other coordinate system, nor can their values be
determined by the Pythagorean theorem.

The Lorentz constant as a factor with which the contraction of space and
the dilation (or reduction, according to the needs of the Einsteinian
argumentation) of time are quantified.

The magic rulers and clocks that dance (they extend, shrink, try a slow step that
immediately speeds up, contort) to the rhythm that Hamelin-Einstein plays for them.
In chapter XII of the work under study, Einstein, after in the previous chapters he has
exposed the various examples that, in his opinion, demonstrate the relativity of time and
space (distance) and having cooked a rehash of the Lorentz equations, goes ahead with
the determination of the measure of that relativity by applying the Lorentz constant.
The relativity of distance is measured in the following way:
I place a metre-rod in the x'-axis of K' in such a manner that one end (the beginning) coincides
with the point x' = 0, whilst the other end (the end of the rod) coincides with the point x' = 1.
What is the length of the metre-rod relatively to the system K? In order to learn this, we need
only ask where the beginning of the rod and the end of the rod lie with respect to K at a
particular time t of the system K. By means of the first equation of the Lorentz transformation
the values of these two points at the time t = 0 can be shown to be,

√
2
v
x (beginning of rod)= 0. (1− 2 ¿ )¿
c

x (end of rod) =
√
1. (1−
v2
c
2
¿ ), ¿

the distance between the points being

√ ¿ ¿.
But the meter-rod is moving with the velocity v relative to K. It therefore follows that the

length of a rigid meter-rod moving in the direction of its length with a velocity v is

of a metre.
√ (1−
v2
c
2
¿) ¿

The rigid rod is thus shorter when in motion than when at rest, and the more quickly it is

moving, the shorter is the rod. For the velocity v = 0 we should have
√ (1−
v2
c
2
¿ )=0 ¿
still greater velocities the square-root becomes imaginary. From this we conclude that in the
, and for

theory of relativity the velocity c plays the part of a limiting velocity, which can neither be
reached nor exceeded by any real body. Of course this feature of the velocity c as a limiting
velocity also clearly follows from the equations of the Lorentz transformation, for these become
meaningless if we choose values of v greater than c. If, on the contrary, we had considered a
metre-rod at rest in the x-axis with respect to K, then we should have found that the length of

the rod as judged from K' would have been

√ (1−
v2
c
2
¿ ) ¿; this is quite in accordance with the
principle of relativity which forms the basis of our considerations. A priori it is quite clear that
we must be able to learn something about the physical behaviour of measuring-rods and
clocks from the equations of transformation, for the magnitudes x, y, z, t, are nothing more

34
 nor less than the results of measurements obtainable by means of measuring-rods and clocks.
If we had based our considerations on the Galilei transformation, we should not have obtained
a contraction of the rod as a consequence of its motion.
The measurement of the relativity of time is presented in the following:
Let us now consider a seconds-clock which is permanently situated at the origin (x' = 0) of K'. t'
= 0 and t' = 1 are two successive ticks of this clock. The first and fourth equations of the
Lorentz transformation give for these two ticks:
t=0
and

t=
1 .
√¿ ¿ ¿
As judged from K, the clock is moving with the velocity v; as judged from this reference-body,
1

√ v2
the time which elapses between two strokes of the clock is not one second, but
(1− 2
)
c
seconds, i.e. a somewhat larger time. As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more
slowly than when at rest. Here also the velocity c plays the part of an unattainable limiting
velocity.15
The ruler of a meter, unit of measurement of space, is reduced, in the moving reference
system K', due to movement, to the extent of the Lorentz constant:

√ v2
(1− 2 ¿ ) ¿ and the clock, an instrument that quantifies time, walks, in that same
c
v2
system, more slowly, due to movement, by an amount equal to (1− ¿ ) ¿.
c
2
√
In a crude metaphor, in which he substitutes substantial space and time for the
instruments and units of measurement, Einstein uses Lorentz's formula, to which he has
of course attributed the character of a physical constant, in determining the magnitude
by which space must contract and time expand because of relative motion.
In the above, Einstein suffers from an unfortunate confusion between the units of
measurement of space and time, the respective measuring instruments (ruler and clock),
and substantial space and time; the former cannot be modified in any way by any type of
movement or relationship and in any case their determination and application can only be
made more precise or exact through the progress of measurement methods and
instruments; Any physical alteration that rules and clocks could have due to the effect of
speed would only affect their ability to effectively perform their specific function, but
would have no effect on the objects or movements measured, much less on the substance
of time and space; on the other hand, as we have already seen in the previous
discussions, substantial space and time cannot be affected by relative motion either.
Einstein happily jumps from one concept to another, from units and measuring
instrument to the substance of space and time, uses them interchangeably, mixes them
up arbitrarily, and draws from them consequences that are scientifically false in their
entirety whole.
As we have just seen in previous pages, the Lorentz factor or constant does not express
anything in the field of physics, it is false and erroneous from beginning to end.
However, Einstein has hypostatized it as a universally valid constant, applicable to all
physical phenomena.
It is only necessary to determine a material movement whose speed is known in a
reference system at rest, to then apply the Lorentz constant and express that speed in
relation to a moving reference system that moves at speed v, and vice versa.
Einstein has given his nonsense a universal character.

15
Einstein, Albert, Relativity: The especial and General Theory, XII The behaviour of measuring–
rods and clocks in motion, pp. 42-44

35
 History of the Lorentz transformation
The Lorentz transformation formula, the indisputable foundation of the Einsteinian
theory of relativity, has a peculiar history.
First Albert Abraham Michelson in 1881, and later he and Eduard Morley in 1887,
designed and carried out an experiment that had the purpose of demonstrating the
existence of the ether. There has been no more elusive substance or matter in the history
of physics than this. For some it is a very subtle matter that at rest completely fills space
and within it the movements of the stars and the displacement of electromagnetic and
light waves are produced, without affecting them, only constituting the medium in which
their translations are carried out; for others, the ether has its own movement that
influences that of bodies and waves and these, in turn, act on the ether when they move.
Michelson adheres to the theory of the ether at rest; Taking it as a fixed frame of
reference, it postulates that a ray of light that is emitted on the earth's surface, between
two defined points, will require different times to go from one to the other and return,
according to the direction in which it is radiated.16 17
More precisely, Michelson hypothesizes that a ray of light that is projected in the direction
of motion of the earth's orbit between two points separated by the distance D will take a
longer time to go from one point to another and return than It would take another light
ray that is emitted transversely to the earth's orbit to cover that same area, or the one
that the ray would consume in a similar double trip assuming the earth at rest; the
greater time that the horizontal beam consumes is directly related to the terrestrial
movement. The ether at rest is here considered as the fixed frame of reference, relative to
which the motion of the earth in its orbit is measured.
In his 1881 work, Michelson first establishes the theoretical framework of the experiment
with which he intends to test his hypotheses.
In the work of 1887 Michelson and Morley make a mathematical formulation that has
slight differences from that of 1881.
Michelson's purpose is to prove that the ether is a very subtle matter at rest through
which the earth moves in its orbit around the sun. For this, it requires a fixed frame of
reference with respect to the terrestrial movement, in relation to which the speed of
translation of the terrestrial globe can be determined. According to Michelson, if it is
possible to measure the speed of the earth in its orbit, it will thus be proving that the
aether – the reference frame for that measurement – exists and is at rest. With this in
mind, come up with a hypothesis and design an experiment to test it.
According to his theoretical propositions, a ray of light that moves between two defined
points on the earth's surface in the same direction as the rotation of the earth, must
travel a greater distance by an amount equivalent to the extension of the path covered by
the planet in its solar orbit in the period of time in which the ray travels from one of the
given points to another. Make D the distance between the two points and d the distance
the earth travels in the time that the ray travels from one end of D to the other.
Its first mathematical postulate is, therefore, D+d = the total distance traveled by the light
beam between the extremes of D. That space is traversed at the speed of light, V, so the
travel time T of the ray of light is equal to D+d/V.
His second proposition states that a ray of light moving in the opposite direction to the
translation of the earth will travel a total distance equal to D-d, so the time T1 used in its
journey will be equal to D-d/V.
According to this, the trip in the direction of the earth's translation will be 2d greater than
the trip in the opposite direction and the sum of the two will be 2D.

16
Michelson, Albert A., Master, U. S. Navy, The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous
Ether, American Journal of Science, 1881, 22: 120-129
17
Michelson, Abraham Albert and Morley, Eduard, On the relative Motion of the Earth and the
Luminiferous Ether, American Journal of Science, 1887, 34 (203): 333-345

36
Michelson needed to compare the distance traveled by the light ray in the direction of the
translation of the earth with the movement of a light pulse that was not affected by it, in
order to determine the distance traveled by the planet and the speed of its displacement.
Its fundamental hypothesis is that the sum of the path contrary to and in the direction of
the orbital movement of the earth is greater than the sum of two identical movements not
influenced by the translation of the planet.
To support his hypothesis, he uses two theoretical resources: 1) he assumes an earth at
rest, without orbital movement, so that the distances traveled by the light rays in the
opposite trips will be equal to D and the times used equal to D/V in both directions and 2)
estimates that a ray of light that travels back and forth in a direction transverse to the
Earth's orbit will not be influenced by the translation of the planet and then the distances
will be equal to D and the times equal to D/V
In his theoretical reasoning he uses these two expedients indiscriminately.
Michelson has thus far made two fundamental theoretical errors.
The first of these is that it considers that the movement of the ray of light and the
translation of the earth are independent of each other, but they have their origin in the
same fixed point of the ether. Once the lightning has been emitted, it follows its course at
a certain speed, while the earth, for its part, moves at another speed; According to this,
the earth carries with it in its movement the extreme points between which the luminous
pulse moves, but not the lightning itself; In this way, the final end moves away to a
certain extent and the ray has to "reach" it at a point further ahead of the fixed frame of
reference
The terminal points of the distance D are firmly attached to the earth by the force of
gravity that it exerts on them; that is why they move simultaneously with it. The ray of
light is a kind of matter that is also subject to the attraction of the earth, so it is also
dragged by the orbital movement of the planet, in such a way that it moves at its specific
speed V within the space D and at the same time, together with this space, it moves at
speed v at the same time as the earth in its orbit. The distance that light travels in any
direction on the surface of the earth will always, of necessity, be equal to D, the speed at
which it travels equal to V, the characteristic speed of light, and the time of its journey
equal to D/V.
Michelson's second theoretical error is found in the assumption that the total space
traveled by the light ray in the direction of the movement of the Earth's orbit is greater
than the distance traveled transversely by the light in the round trip movements between
two points separated by the distance D.
According to the same Michelson assumptions – outward trip equal to D+d and return
trip, D-d-, the trip in the direction of the Earth's rotation will be 2d greater than the trip
in the opposite direction, but the sum of the two it will be 2D, so there will be no
difference to what happens when the earth is considered at rest or in transverse motion.
Michelson himself has left his hypotheses and experiments without matter.
D+ d D−d
Michelson uses, in his theoretical dalliances, two pairs of formulas: T¿ , T 1=
V V
D D
and T¿ , T 1= ; whence it turns out that
V −v V +v
D+ d D D−d D
= and = ;
V V −v V V +v
also that
D+ d D−d 2 D
T+T1= + =
V V V
and likewise that
D D V
T+T1 = + =2 D 2−¿ v ,
V −v V +v
2

V ¿

37
hence
2D V
=2 D 2−¿ v .
V
2

V ¿
That is, according to the Michelson pair, the sum of the round trip times of the light ray
2D V
in space D oriented in the direction of the Earth's orbit, y 2 D 2−¿ v , it is the same
V
2

V ¿
as the time 2T0 required by the ray of light that is made to travel transversely an equal
2D
distance or placed longitudinally on a stationary earth, that is, .
V
However, radically denying the theoretical assumptions that he had established,
V
Michelson pulls out of his sleeve a non-existent difference between 2D 2−¿ v
2 and 2T0 –
V ¿
which by the renowned physicist's own previous definition is 0- and gives you the firm
2
v
and definitive value of 2 DV ¿ or, better yet, τ =2 DV 2 2 , or, more categorically,
V ( V −v 2 )
2
v
almost 2 T 0 2 .
V
In order to validate his hypotheses and confirm his theoretical calculations, Michelson
designed a specific experiment and built an ad hoc apparatus to carry it out.
He made an interferometer with two arms perpendicular to each other, each 11 meters
long, with freedom of movement to orient it in any direction. In the longitudinal arm he
placed two mirrors, one at the beginning, at an angle of 45º, and another at the end,
vertically, and in the transverse arm he placed another at the end of it, also at a right
angle. In front of the first mirror he installed a telescope. In line with the longitudinal
arm, and focused on the first mirror, he placed a sodium light emitter.
A ray of light is sent towards the first mirror located in the longitudinal arm and there it
is divided into two; one of the rays that result from the division is reflected in the direction
of the mirror that is in the transverse arm, from where it returns to the original mirror,
which it passes through, to later reach the telescope. The other ray from the split passes
through the first mirror and reaches the end mirror of the longitudinal arm, from where it
is reflected back to the source mirror, which reflects it back to the telescope. At the end of
their round trip, the wavelength of the two rays is recorded by the telescope.
Since the arms have the same length, the two rays will travel the round trip in the same
time and the fringes recorded by the telescope, an expression of their wavelength, will
fully coincide... unless something alters the path of one of them and affect their
displacement, which will be recorded as a phase shift (interference) of their wavelengths.
According to Michelson's theoretical considerations, if one of the arms of the
interferometer is kept in the same direction as the earth's orbital motion and the other in
a transverse position, when a ray of light is emitted the two resulting rays will make their
round trips at different times, covering different distances; The cause of these divergences
would reside in the displacement of the terrestrial globe, which can be measured by the
offset of the wavelength of the horizontal ray with respect to the vertical ray; this
interference was theoretically calculated by Michelson and should have a value of 0.04
wavelength of sodium light.
In 1881 Michelson performed the experiment and found no interference in the wavelengths
of the two light rays.
In 1887 he repeated it in conjunction with Morley and reached the same result: the times
reversed and the distances traveled by the two light rays are always the same, whatever
the direction in which the interferometer has been placed.

38
In this way, the hypotheses advanced since 1881 by Michelson were left without proof: by
this means it was not possible to demonstrate the existence of the ether or measure the
orbital speed of the earth.
We have stopped at this immediate antecedent of Lorentz's formula because it contains all
the fallacies, theoretical errors and mathematical blunders that will later be reproduced
and expanded by Lorentz, from whom Einstein will take them to give a "scientific"
foundation to his theory of relativity.
In the Michelson-Morley experiment, the interferometer is firmly attached to the surface of
the earth and participates in the inertia of the planet; the reference frame of the test is the
globe itself and the displacement of the rays is carried out between determined, fixed
points on the earth's surface.
The earth moves around the sun, which is its fixed frame of reference, and relative to it
the course and speed of its motion are determined.
The motion of the earth and the motion of lightning in the interferometer are completely
independent of each other; the displacement of the earth has no influence, either to
accelerate or retard it, on the course of the rays subject to experimentation, whatever may
be the direction in which they are emitted; in the same way, the pulses of light do not affect
the orbit of the earth at all.
The ether is something completely indeterminate, without any fixed point that can serve
as a frame of reference, neither for the movement of the earth nor for the displacement of
the light rays of the experiment.
Therefore, the Michelson-Morley experiment is absolutely pointless, totally ineffective in
proving what its designers set out to do. The ether is completely ungraspable; in it is
impossible to fix a reference point against which to measure the speed of the earth or that
of the rays of the interferometer. Likewise, the speed of the Earth's orbit cannot be
determined by means of the speed of light in the interferometer, nor can the speed of light
in the interferometer be determined using the speed of light in the interferometer.
The Michelson-Morley experiment is based on absolutely false theoretical assumptions,
which are also the foundation of the theory of relativity.
The notable inconsistency of the Michelson-Morley experiment lies in the fact that it can
only attempt to test its hypotheses in the reference frame of the interferometer itself, since
the aether, which would be the second reference frame, has no fixed point that could be
used as such.
On this basis, Michelson and Morley develop a mathematical formulation that, in addition
to having the original vice of its theoretical foundation, incurs in gargantuan arithmetical,
geometric, algebraic, etc. errors.
The starting formulas in Michelson's argument in 1861 are the following:
D+ d d d
T= = and T 1= D−d = 1 in which D is the distance between the two mirrors of
V v V v
each of the arms of the interferometer, d the distance that the earth travels in the time
that the light covers the distance D, T the time that the light ray takes on its journey
distance between the two mirrors of the horizontal arm, T1 the return time of the light ray,
T0 the time that the light ray spends on the outward or return trip when the earth is at
rest, V the speed of light and v the speed of the earth's orbital motion.
The elementary formulas of movement are: e = vt, v = e/t and t = e/v, where e is space, v,
speed and t, time.
The time that light takes to travel the space between the two mirrors of the horizontal arm
of the interferometer in the direction of the rotation of the earth is equal to the distance
between them divided by the speed of light: T = D/V.
The travel time of the earth is equal to the space traveled by the light ray divided by the
orbital speed of the earth: t = d/v. From where it is obtained: D/V = d/v, T = t.
These are two different but simultaneous movements: every meter that the light advances
in the interferometer in 1/300,000,000 of a second, (3.333e -9 seconds) the earth moves
0.0001 meters.

39
T = 11 meters / 300,000,000 meters per second = 0.00000000366 seconds (3.666e -8
seconds); t = 0.0011 meters / 30,000 meters per second = 0.00000000366 seconds
(3.666e-8 seconds).
The independence of the two speeds is clearly manifested in the fact that whatever the
speed of the earth in its orbit, the distance D between the two longitudinal mirrors of the
interferometer would always be covered in time T.
If by some miraculous chance a point in the ether could be fixed at which the beginning of
the journey of the light ray in the interferometer coincided with that of the simultaneous
motion of the earth, then in the interferometer the light ray would travel a distance D in a
time T and, simultaneously, in relation to that ethereal point, the earth with all its
contents, the interferometer and the light ray included, will have moved the distance d in
the same time T. The time that the light ray of the interferometer takes to pass, in the
ether, from the point of origin to the point where it reaches the second mirror of the
D+ d
longitudinal arm, will be , where D+d is the total distance that the ray of light
V +v
travels in the ethereal frame of reference and V+v the total speed of its displacement. T =
11 meters + 0.0011 meters / 300,000,000 meters per second + 30,000 meters per second
= 0.00000000366 seconds (3.666e-8 seconds).
The set of formulas for the outward journey of the light beam in the horizontal arm of the
interferometer is then as follows:
-In the reference frame of the interferometer (earth):
T = D/V.
-In relation to the hypothetical frame of reference of the ether:
D+ d
T= and
V +v
t = d/v.
Michelson performs a crude transposition of the terms of the two formulas:
D+ d
In T= , the distance D of the two mirrors in the interferometer, which is the distance
V
the light travels in the outward displacement, is replaced by D+d, which is the distance
the light ray travels in relation to the hypothetical ether. Michelson makes equal
quantities different: D = D+d. On this absurdity he builds all the mathematical scaffolding
that supports his hypotheses.
D+ d d
Next, Michelson establishes the equality = ; and from there he infers that
V v
Dv
d= . Of course, these last two formulas are spurious, like the one from which they
V −v
come.
The time T1 that the light ray spends on its return trip through the horizontal arm of the
interferometer, in the opposite direction to the earth's movement, is: T1 = D/V.
Regarding the alleged ether:
D−d
T 1= and
V −v
t = d/v.
As in the case of the outward journey, Michelson makes a mixture of the two formulas for
the return motion of the light beam in the interferometer.
D−d
In T 1= Michelson substitutes the distance D of the interferometer with D-d, which
V
is the relative distance of the back ray relative to the aether, and the velocity V in the
interferometer with the velocity V-v relative to the aether; establishes the absurdity that D
= D-d and V = V-v. Based on this conceptual and mathematical error, Michelson draws
the following conclusions:

40
 D−d d 1 y d = Dv , which are also completely wrong.
T 1= = 1
V v V +v
From the equations we established above for the back and forth motion of the light ray in
the horizontal arm relative to the hypothetical reference frame of the aether,
D+ d
T= and
V +v
D−d
T 1=
V −v
it follows that T −T 1=2 ( dv ) and T + T 1= (D+d
V +v
+ )(
D−d
V −v
=2 ) ( )
D
V
, which means that,

relative to the supposed ether reference frame, the outward journey is 2d longer than the
return journey, but that the sum of both is equal to the round trip in the terrestrial reference
frame.
By Michelson's definition, the round trip of the light beam in the vertical arm of the

interferometer is = 2 ( VD ) .

Under the assumptions made by Michelson, and by correctly performed calculations, we

find that the round trips in the interferometer of the two beams into which the original
light beam splits are in theory, by necessity, equal, and that, consequently, they must
arrive simultaneously at the telescope and, therefore, do not produce any interference in
their wavelengths.
Michelson's experiment, in accordance with the hypotheses and theoretical principles
established by himself, was completely superfluous, since making the correct calculations
would necessarily lead to the theoretical conclusion that by means of it, it was impossible
to know anything about the ether or of the orbital motion of the earth.
Without restraint on the path of denaturing the concepts and theoretical principles that
he himself had established, Michelson reaches the following conclusions:
v
T −T 1=2T 0 and
V
T1
V =VT − V = VT- T1/2T0
2 T0
and expresses that if T-T1 could be measured it would be possible to find the speed of the
movement of the earth through the ether; he proposes to show that with the wavelength
of yellow light as the standard, that quantity, if it exists, is measurable.
For the measurement, he develops a series of equations, in which, from
D D
T= and T 1= arrives at establishing the difference between the sum of the
V −v V +v
round trips of the light ray in the horizontal arm when the orbital movement of the earth
is taken into account and the one obtained from them considering the earth at rest

( )
2
V 2D v .
(T+T1)-2T0, or what is the same 2 D − = almost (?)2 D .
2
V −v
2
V V
2

According to Michelson, the experiment should show that, because of the earth's orbital
motion, the ray traveling along the horizontal arm of the interferometer in the direction of
the earth's motion travels back and forth a greater distance than it travels in the vertical
arm; that difference between them could be quantified by means of the formula that we
stated above and recorded in the spectrogram of the light rays, which would account for
the interference between their wavelengths.
This part of Michelson's theoretical-mathematical argument rests, like what has already
been analyzed, on a colossal misconception.

41
In the starting equations he makes an arbitrary mixture of the motions of the light rays in
the reference frame of the interferometer and in the hypothetical frame of the aether. Set
V and V-v and V and V+v equal and swap the first term for the second term in each case.
And on this beginner's mistake he builds the flimsy and fragile edifice of his theoretical
conclusions. It was therefore absolutely necessary that the experiment designed to test
Michelson's hypotheses have a negative result, a "null result", that did not show
2
v
anywhere the difference 2 D 2
between the two light beams of the interferometer; it was,
V
in short, an idle experiment.
In short, the Michelson-Morley experiment is based on false theoretical assumptions,
attempts to test hypotheses that are by definition impossible, and makes elementary
mathematical and geometrical errors.
Its main conclusions are: (1) with this instrument it is not possible to prove the existence
of the ether or its influence on the speed of light, (2) in the same way, it is impossible to
measure with it the speed of the Earth's orbit and (3) light has, on the earth's surface, an
invariant speed, independent of the speed of the source and the direction of its
displacement.

Lorentz contraction
Given the failure (null result) of the Michelson-Morley experiment, there was a movement
among theoretical physicists aimed at explaining the causes of this resounding misstep,
while preserving all the false theoretical assumptions and the original mathematical and
geometric errors.
Thus, they tried to explain the disaster by issuing a new hypothesis, as fanciful as those
of Michelson-Morley: the horizontal ray of light in the direction of the movement of the
earth had not completely traveled the round trip path determined by the theory, greater in
2
v
2D 2
than the double trip of the transverse ray, because the displacement of the earth
V
in its orbit had caused the contraction of the horizontal arm of the interferometer to exactly
the same extent that the horizontal ray had to exceed the vertical!
Based on this unusual explanation, a general hypothesis is formulated: matter
(elementary particles, atoms, molecules, terrestrial bodies, etc.) contracts longitudinally in
2
v
the direction of its movement, in direct proportion to its speed and in the measure 2 D 2
.
V
And all the geniuses of physics then dedicate their immeasurable mental energy to the
development of the theory of that contraction at all levels of existence of matter in motion
and to design multiple and complicated experiments to validate it. That is to say, to verify
the real validity of the theoretical-mathematical nonsense of Michelson-Morley!
The one who put the most effort into this edifying task was Hendrick Antoon Lorentz.
In his works The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Aether (1892) and Aether Theories
and Aether Models (1901-1902), Lorentz sets out his position on Michelson's hypotheses
and experiment.
After making a brief review of the experiment and expressing his total agreement with
Michelson's theoretical postulates - he only points out a deficiency in them: in the journey
of the light ray through the vertical arm the rotation of the earth is not taken into account
- and with the mathematical and geometrical treatment given to it, it exposes its
explanation for the null result: the orbital movement of the earth has contracted the
horizontal arm of the interferometer in an extension equal to the excess in it of the path of
the light with respect to that of the ray that it moves along the vertical arm or both rays
2
v
when the earth is considered at rest, that is, in 2 D 2
..
V

42
The cause of the contraction is made to reside in the molecular forces of matter, which
originate the shrinkage of the "ponderable bodies" in the direction of their movement. 18
The nonexistent difference between the total travel of the light ray that travels
longitudinally to the Earth's orbit in relation to the one that does it transversally,
obtained by means of mathematical devices with which an attempt is made to prove an
absolutely false theory, is taken by Lorentz as foundation of his famous "transformation";
On this imaginary discrepancy he builds a whole “theoretical” building that attempts to
explain the null result of his wise colleague's experiment due to a contraction of the
longitudinal arm of the interferometer caused by the speed of the earth's orbital
displacement!; that reduction is, of course, equal to the imaginary disparity between the
two full trips of the light pulse. Lorentz takes what Michelson gives him in the rough and
refines it into a whole body of mathematical formulas that are now used to support the
hypothesis that the shortening at the molecular and even atomic level of the material of
which the interferometer is made is the result of the speed at which the earth moves in its
orbit. From there he extracts a “general physical law”: movement causes a contraction of
matter in the direction in which it moves; this shrinkage basically has the dimensions
that Michelson determined for the difference of the light trips, and is established by
means of the mathematical formulas developed by him, with the due corrections and
extensions made by Lorentz.
The unreal difference postulated by Michelson is the basis of Lorentz's theory on the
contraction of ponderable bodies due to the effect of the speed at which they move and of
all the mathematical ingenuity -the so-called "Lorentz transformation" and the "Lorentzian
metric"- elaborated with the purpose of giving certainty to that hypothesis; Based on this
illusory basis, Lorentz's mathematical theory and artifice are also false and erroneous in
their entirety.
The theory of relativity is built firmly on the "Lorentz transformation" and the "Lorentzian
metric"; these constitute the muscle and nerve of the absurd hypotheses and clumsy
mathematical developments of the theory of relativity and of the so-called "Einstein
equation"; therefore, the theory of relativity and "Einstein's equation" are also false and
wrong from start to finish, just like its progenitor, Michelson's theory.
The "big bang" theory is postulated as a solution to the "Einstein equation", so it also
suffers from the same shortcomings as its predecessors; that is, it is false and erroneous
in its entirety.
An entire branch of physics, relativistic physics, has become an industry of the consumer
society.
A true worldwide legion of "researchers" dedicate their "noble" efforts to ruminate all the
theoretical and mathematical rubbish of the theory of relativity, of the "Einstein equation"
and of the "big bang" theory, to "enrich" these "wonderful" "scientific" productions and
popularize them in order to make them suitable for assimilation by consumers. The most
stupid imagination and fantasy have been the favorite instruments of this modern
industry, whose most conspicuous representative is Stephen Hawking; Here the borders
between true science and science fiction have been definitively erased, producing a true
intellectual monstrosity, whose nature moves between the vastest ignorance and
excessive arrogance.
Michelson and Morley develop a mathematical formulation that, in addition to having the
original vice of its theoretical foundation, incurs in gargantuan arithmetical, geometric,
algebraic errors, etc.
In his 1899 and 1904 works, Simplified theory of electrical and optical phenomena in
moving Systems and Electromagnetical phenomena in a system moving with any velocity
smaller than that of light, Lorentz set out to study the influence of the earth's rotation on

18
Lorentz, H. A., Aether Theories and Aether Models, (1901-1902), Lectures on Theoretical Physics,
Volume I, Authorized Translation by I. Silverstein, PH. D. and A. PH. Trivelli, Macmillan and Co.
Limited, London, 1927.

43
electrical and optics phenomena and advances the hypothesis that the dimensions of
solid bodies are altered by their movement through the ether.19
Lorentz declares that he is prepared for the task of undertaking the solution of the
problem of the influence of the terrestrial movement on electrical and optical phenomena
and immediately develops what, in his opinion, is the theory and the mathematical
background necessary for it.
Without any grip on physical reality, and only as an occurrence generated by the failure
of Michelson's experiment, Lorentz pulls out of his sleeve the argument by which he
explains that the failure is due to the contraction of the horizontal arm caused by the
orbital movement of the earth, a reduction that would be the same as the expected excess
of the light beam that has traveled through that joint of the interferometer.
Lorentz states two hypotheses: (1) the movement produces a contraction of matter in the
direction of displacement; this reduction occurs initially in the very atomic structure of
matter and extends to “ponderable bodies” (such as the interferometer arm) and (2) the
orbital motion of the earth is added to or subtracted from the motion of matter that takes
place in the same direction as that of the Earth's orbit.
In the work of which we have made extensive transcriptions, Lorentz focuses his efforts
on the development of the theory of contraction in the direction of movement of
elementary particles, atoms, electro-magnetic fields, electrostatic systems, electric forces,
magnetic, etc. and configures a model, based on Maxwell's equations, absolutely devoid of
any point of contact with reality. It is, plain and simple, a speculative model that collects,
supports and magnifies the monstrous theoretical, geometric, mathematical and
arithmetical errors of Michelson and Morley.
Electrons, says Lorentz, contract in the direction of motion, so they take on an ellipsoidal
shape and their axis tilts in the direction of motion. Atoms, molecules, internal forces,
also suffer a deformation due to movement. The "ponderable body" gathers all these
contractions and its dimensions are also reduced.
Lorentz starts from the same theoretical prejudice that is the foundation of the Michelson-
Morley hypothesis: the translational movement of the earth is added to or deduced from
all the movements that occur in the terrestrial globe in the horizontal direction (parallel to
the equator).
Contrary to Michelson, he considers that the influence of the earth's rotation on a light
beam cannot be detected by any optical experiment carried out with a terrestrial source
[hence the null result of Michelson's experiment], but it is possible to do it in the
movements of the rest of the matter (particles, atoms, fields, systems, “ponderable
bodies”), whose speed is less than that of light.
Precisely here lies the knot of the Einsteinian muddle: the postulate that light has a
different nature than the rest of matter; at the ends of the earth, its speed is always the
same in whatever direction it travels, while the motions of other forms of matter, which
are slower than light, are influenced by orbital motion of the earth, which must be added
or subtracted from its own movement; Lorentz's speculations have the purpose of
determining the action of the orbital displacement of the earth in material movements
with speed less than that of light.
It is evident that light is a matter like the others and is subject to all the laws of the
physical world; terrestrial matter (particles (photons, protons, neutrons, etc.), atoms,
molecules, forces, fields, "ponderable bodies"), which includes the light that is produced
on the planet and its sources, carry within themselves the orbital movement of the earth,
so when they make their own movement, in any direction, this is at the same time a
movement of terrestrial translation. It is a question of a single movement that has two
aspects: in the example of the light of the interferometer, which moves in the medium
constituted by the earth's atmosphere, the ray produced by the lamp moves at a speed

19
Lorentz, Hendrik, Simplified Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Systems
(1899), Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences, 1899 1: 427-442.

44
determined by the impulse provided by it source and by the refraction of the medium and
with it the arm of the artifact travel too, whatever the direction in which it is aligned; that
same movement is also a displacement with respect to the sun, at a certain speed -the
speed of the earth with respect to the sun-. In the arm of the interferometer, light travels
at the speed that its emitter has given it -300,000 kms. per second without discounting
the refraction caused by the earth's atmosphere- and the earth, with respect to the sun,
at 30 kms. per second; For each meter that light travels in 0.000000003333 seconds
(3.333e-9 seconds), the earth moves 0.0001 meters. It is, as we can see, the same
movement -the movement of light at the speed provided by the emitting force- referring to
two frames: one, the earth, which is the place where the movement originates and
develops, and another, the sun, around which the orbital movement of the planet occurs.
They are not two movements that are added or subtracted, but only one that has two
different aspects.
The fundamental theoretical error, which originates with Maxwell and extends to Einstein
through Michelson and Lorentz, lies in the consideration of the movement of terrestrial
matter in the direction of the planet's orbit as the addition or subtraction of the
movement of the Earth's orbit to own; In this way, in the example that we have just given,
the speed of light in the interferometer would be, in the direction of the movement of the
Earth's orbit, equal to 300,030 kms. per second, in the opposite direction, at 299,970
kms. per second and in the transverse direction at 300,000 kms. per second.
Based on the results of the experiments with the interferometer, and without any physical
evidence to confirm it, Lorentz launches his hypothesis to the world that the cause of the
failure is the contraction of the horizontal arm produced by the Earth's rotation. Taking
this hypothesis as something certain, he immediately ventures to speculate about the
alterations that the orbital movement of the earth must produce in the microcosm
(particles, atoms, molecules, electric and magnetic fields, etc.) and finds (only theoretically
and supported in all the erroneous assumptions that we have carefully pointed out) that
here is the core of the contractions of the "ponderable bodies", since all these elements are
deformed with movement, acquiring an ellipsoidal shape, while their axis is tilted in the
direction of the movement. Completely mounted on the slide of speculation, Lorentz
expresses the general principle: matter always contracts in the direction of its movement
and this reduction has a specific measure: The Lorentz factor.
This purely speculative conclusion is the basis on which Einstein builds his theoretical
aberrations, as we will see later.
Lorentz introduces a model to represent his conjectures based on an extended Cartesian
coordinate system. It is a three-dimensional model made up of three axes that represent
three variables, x, y and z, and an implicit variable, t, time.
The Cartesian coordinate system is an instrument used to graphically represent, by
geometric means, mainly spatial movements and functional relationships between two or
more variables.
But it turns out that throughout his argument Lorentz makes the variables y and z equal
to 0, so that his coordinate model is reduced in practice to a single axis, the x axis, which
in this case is made up of two parts, one fixed -the fixed reference system- and a mobile
one -the mobile reference system-; in the second it represents the event as it occurs in the
moving reference system, and in the first, its relationship with the system at rest (the
ether, the sun, etc.).
The clumsy Einsteinian metaphysics arrives, through the Lorentz transformation, at
determining the "expansion" of space and the "dilation" of time as physical phenomena
endowed with real existence. The absurdity is magnified if we reach the forced conclusion:
the contracted or expanded space-time coexists with the normal space-time; here we fully
enter science fiction, separated, if it is, from official science by just a very thin membrane,
where we find the windows of space-time, parallel worlds, time travel (to the past or to the
future), etc. Of this nature is the classic example, enunciated with great seriousness, of
the interstellar journey that consumes a few months of the life of the traveler, who

45
returns still enjoying his youth, but finds his terrestrial companion pitifully old (paradox
of the Twins).
The mathematical-geometrical statement of Lorentz's theory has its strongest basis in
Michelson's formulas relative to the longitudinal and transverse travel of light rays in the
interferometer he built. We have already seen how, to establish the apocryphal difference
between these displacements, Michelson fixes the formulas for the total round trip time in
V
the longitudinal direction, 2 D 2 2 , and for the distance traveled in this time,
V −v
2
V
2D 2 2
, and from there, by successive transformations, determines the difference
V −v
2
v
mentioned as D 2 . This same formula is what Lorentz uses to measure the supposed
V
contraction of the longitudinal arm of the Michelson interferometer.
In order to give his lucubrations an appearance of scientificity, Lorentz decides to
introduce a whole mathematical-geometric apparatus in their development. First, it
postulates the existence of two groups of three variables in three-dimensional space and
one independent variable that can be represented in two Cartesian coordinate systems: x,
y, z and t and x', y', z' and t'. The deformation of ponderable bodies can be known if the
transformation is made from a system in which the earth is taken at rest to another in
which it is considered in orbital motion. This change is made by applying the Michelson
difference factor to the variables of the original system, which in Lorentz takes the form of
2
C
2 2
, and to which he assigns the notation β 2. In this way, the contraction of the
C −v
ponderable bodies is expressed as follows: x' = xβ, y' = y, z' = z and t' = tβ.20
This "Lorentz factor" is what Einstein uncritically takes to convert it into the measure of
his fanciful contraction of space and dilation of time.
Lorentz's cognitive process is quite tortuous. Without previously having had before him a
host of physical phenomena in which evidence of changes in the extension of ponderable
bodies presumably related to the orbital movement of the earth were presented, which
would have required a theoretical analysis of them and, in ultimately, its integration into
a mathematical model, he ventured, only because the failure of Michelson's experiment
required an explanation, to get out of his caletre a supposed physical phenomenon
consisting of the deformation of bodies in the direction of the displacement of the Earth's
orbit, which he extended to all matter in the sense of its motion. Once that contraction
had been invented, and since it was the explanation of the "null result" of Michelson's
experiment, he took from Michelson his entire mathematical formulas, which are
erroneous and unfounded, as we have already seen, and seasoned them with a pair of
three-variable Cartesian coordinate systems, excessive representation apparatus since the
only variable that changes in those planes is the x; With these instruments in hand, he
makes a petitio principii: all terrestrial matter is subject to a deformation caused by the
movement of translation of the planet and the theoretical way to prove it is applying
inversely the deformation factor to matter in its current state to get to know what its original
form would be in a state of rest that can only be found in the imagination. In this way, his
question of principle is unassailable, because the only way to prove that it is not true
would be to keep the earth at rest and then observe the form that matter would acquire
when the force causing its deformation ceased. This is a sui generis method, a true
novelty in the field of physical science, which will later be taken to unsuspected heights
by Alberto Einstein.

20
Lorentz, H. A., Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System moving with any velocity less than that of
light, Reprinted from the English version in Proceedings of the Academy of Sciences of
Amsterdam, 6, 1904, p. 14

46
Lorentz applies his transformation method -which would later be known by physical
science as "the Lorentz transformation"- to two electromagnetic systems that have all the
characteristics determined by Maxwell; one of them is at rest and the other is in motion.
Through pure mathematical reasoning, and conscientiously employing his latest scientific
method, he transforms Maxwell's original formulas for the electromagnetic field, through
the inverse use of the β factor, into what they would be in the case of the field being in a
state of rest.
In the same way, it postulates that in the constituent atoms of matter, where the origin of
all deformations is found, the orbits of the electrons are ellipsoidal, shortened in the
direction of movement; by using the transformation factor he finds, theoretically, that in the
rest state these orbits must be circular!
Atomic and molecular contraction, which Lorentz has supposedly sufficiently proved
theoretically, is the basis of the trickery of the contraction of matter in the direction of its
movement and, therefore, of the deformation of terrestrial matter in the direction of
movement. orbital motion of the earth.
It is important to dwell on this modus operandi of Lorentz because it clearly shows us the
way in which relativistic physics later appropriates the true scientific achievements and
deforms them to adapt them to its anti-scientific and absurd conceptions.
Maxwell's equations are the mathematical expression of the great theory of this true sage
about electromagnetism. His conception expresses the true nature of electromagnetic
forces, determining them as electric and magnetic fields that dialectically engender and
negate each other. Lorentz distorts Maxwell's equations by "transforming" them by using
his factor; it turns them into a caricature of their original form, without any scientific
value. Later, Einstein will complete this task by subjecting Maxwell's equations to a
"revision" according to the erroneous and absurd postulates of the theory of relativity.
Modern physical science, in what is rational and true, has had to advance dragging that
dead weight that is relativistic physics; first, it has to arrive at scientific truth by breaking
through the relativistic dogmatics that permeate the entire field of physical science; later,
since each truly scientific production is taken over by relativism in order to “correct” it
with its nonsense, true science has to rescue it from its clutches with strenuous efforts.
And so on. Physical science cannot get rid of relativism because this constitutes a true
dogmatic body, to which all physicists necessarily surrender their profession of faith.
In short, Lorentz's theory of the physical contraction of ponderable bodies attributable to
the speed of their motion is wrong and absurd from start to finish. It has its origin in an
"occurrence" of the physicist in the face of the failure of another "occurrence" by his
colleague Michelson and uses as a mathematical instrument an equally mistaken formula
that has absolutely false theoretical foundations.
The contraction factor and the transformation of coordinate systems, both constitutive of
Lorentz's theory, are the core of the so-called “Lorentzian metric”; this, in turn, is a
fundamental element of the theory of relativity and of the Einsteinian equation and,
through them, of the big bang theory and of all the "world views" that declare themselves
"solutions to Einstein's equation”. All modern relativistic physics and Einsteinian
worldviews are based on the colossal errors, absurdities, aberrations, etc. of Michelson's
and Lorentz's theories and are therefore false and unscientific from start to finish.
In the following quotes, Einstein expresses clearly and forcefully the inaccurate,
unscientific, absurd and far-fetched theses of special relativity.
The rigid rod is thus shorter when in motion than when at rest, and the more quickly it is
moving, the shorter is the rod…
…If we had based our considerations on the Galilei transformation we should not have obtained a
contraction of the rod as a consequence of its motion.
…As a consequence of its motion the clock goes more slowly than when at rest… 21
Possessed of a truly monstrous madness, Einstein stands as the supreme discriminator of
what is and is not science and dictates to nature how its laws should be: they must
necessarily adjust to the Lorentz transformation, that is, to the irrational theses of
21
Ibìd., XII. The Behaviour of Measuring-Rods and Clocks in Motion, pp. 42-44

47
relativity that are all summed up in the postulate of the absolute malleability of time and
space. Armed with this hilarious instrument (the special theory of relativity), Einstein
grants, from his high seat, certificates of scientificity right and left to the anxious,
expectant and modest ideas that aspire to become unobjectionable natural laws.
Our train of thought in the foregoing pages can be epitomized in the following manner.
Experience has led to the conviction that, on the one hand, the principle of relativity holds true,
and that on the other hand, the velocity of transmission of light in vacuo has to be considered
equal to a constant c. By uniting these two postulates we obtained the law of transformation for
the rectangular co-ordinates x, y, z and the time t of the events which constitute the processes of
nature. In this connection we did not obtain the Galilei transformation, but, differing from
classical mechanics, the Lorentz transformation.
The law of transmission of light, the acceptance of which is justified by our actual knowledge,
played an important part in this process of thought. Once in possession of the Lorentz
transformation, however, we can combine this with the principle of relativity, and sum up the
theory thus:
Every general law of nature must be so constituted that it is transformed into a law of exactly the
same form when, instead of the space time variables x, y, z, t of the original co-ordinate system
K, we introduce new space-time variables x', y', z', t' of a co-ordinate system K'. In this connection
the relation between the ordinary and the accented magnitudes is given by the Lorentz
transformation. Or, in brief: General laws of nature are co-variant with respect to Lorentz
transformations.
This is a definite mathematical condition that the theory of relativity demands of a natural law,
and in virtue of this, the theory becomes a valuable heuristic aid in the search for general laws of
nature. If a general law of nature were to be found which did not satisfy this condition, then at
least one of the two fundamental assumptions of the theory would have been disproved… 22
But not only that. Already in the enjoyment of his role as historical conscience of physical
science, he corrects Newton, Maxwell and others.
The classic Newtonian formula of energy, E = mv2, is changed, due to Einsteinian
ignorance, through the use of the Lorentz transformation, by E = mc2, a physical and
mathematical aberration, completely wrong; the canonical equation of kinetic energy,
2
mc
2 E k=

√
mv , is converted, by the same artifice, into
E k= 2
v , an expression that it also
2 1− 2
c
suffers from the same defect as the previous one: its absolute physical-mathematical
emptiness.
The brilliant formulas of Maxwell, by which this true sage submits the laws of the
electromagnetic field to the scientific domain, are taken by Einstein and totally deformed
by "correcting" each and every one of them with the Lorentz factor. 23
In this part of his work, Einstein has established the fundamental principle of special
relativity: space contracts and time dilates relative to bodies moving uniformly along a
straight line.
To prove his point, he has adduced a colorful variety of absurd examples, in which he
thoughtlessly conflates objective reality with subjectivity, exact measurement with an
observer's personal appreciation, and so on.
In the first example, a single fact, the fall of the stone from the train to the embankment,
which objectively can be totally vertical or parabolic to some extent (depending on how
much it is reduced and when the inertia of the horizontal movement that gives it the train
and the resistance that the medium opposes to it), but which can only be one of these two
things, is considered by Einstein as capable of having two natures, vertical and parabolic
at the same time, depending on whether the event is observed from the train or from the
embankment. The physical fact is stripped of all its own objectivity and is endowed with a

22
Ibíd., XIV.The Heuristic Value of the Theory of Relativity, pp. 50-51
23
Ver: Einstein, Alberto, On the electrodynamics of moving bodies, Doc. 23, Volume 2: The Swiss
Years: Writings, 1900-1909 (English Translation supplement), The collected Papers of Alberto
Einstein, English Translation, Anna Beck traslator, pp. 140-171

48
double objectivity coming from the (optical) subjectivity of the observer. With this
example, Einstein does not yet enter the field of special relativity, since he does not argue
anything that shows that time and space have contracted for the observer of the train,
and hence the straight path of the stone, while for the observer of the embankment
normal time and space are maintained, so the path of the falling object is also normal; he
has only established the general principle that there are no independent physical
phenomena, but that they are all relative:
…The positions relative to the body of reference (railway carriage or embankment) have already
been defined in detail in the preceding section. If instead of “body of reference” we insert “system
of co-ordinates,” which is a useful idea for mathematical description, we are in a position to say:
The stone traverses a straight line relative to a system of co-ordinates rigidly attached to the
carriage, but relative to a system of co-ordinates rigidly attached to the ground (embankment) it
describes a parabola. With the aid of this example it is clearly seen that there is no such thing as
an independently existing trajectory (lit. “path-curve” (That is, a curve along which the body
moves)), but only a trajectory relative to a particular body of reference 24
In the second example provided, Einstein does not apply the theoretical prejudice of the
contraction of space and the dilation of time due to the effect of the uniform linear
displacement of the object, but he takes an important step in this direction by
establishing that the distance traveled by the passenger in the train is not necessarily the
same if it is measured at the train or from the embankment, that is, it can be smaller or
larger depending on the case. The passenger travels through the space w in the train that
moves at a speed v with respect to the embankment and moves the space v+w relative to
the embankment; and those distances remain the same wherever they are measured
from: the distance w traveled on the train is the same as evaluated on the train or from
the embankment, and v+w is unchanged whether it is determined from the embankment

or from the train. Einstein gives the same distance, the distance traveled by the
passenger on the train, two different values, one objective and the other subjective,
depending on whether it is measured from one point or another.
…This circumstance leads us to a second objection which must be raised against the apparently
obvious consideration of Section VI. Namely, if the man in the carriage covers the distance w in a
unit of time — measured from the train, — then this distance — as measured from the
embankment — is not necessarily also equal to w.25
In the third example, Einstein already introduces his theoretical prejudices of the
contraction of space and the dilation of time and of the invariance of the speed of light. A
ray of light moves along the embankment at speed c; Parallel to it, the train moves at
speed v. The author intends to determine the speed of propagation of light in relation to
the train and, committing a beginner's blunder, identifies this movement with that of the
passenger in the train of the previous example; the movement of the passenger is
effectively carried out on the train, but the light travels exclusively on the embankment,
so they are not comparable to each other in any way; the light does not travel along the
path of the train, but only relative to it. From this false premise Einstein draws the
strange conclusion that because of the movement of the train, space in it contracts and,
therefore, in relation to it the light moves a smaller space. It then asserts the principle of
the invariance of the speed of light, which here translates into the irrational proposition
that the speed of light is the same in the embankment, which is where it occurs, then in
its relationship with the motion of the train (where no lightning travels). If space is
smaller and the speed of light is invariant (both on the embankment and relative to the
train, light travels, according to Einstein, at 300,000 km per second), then the relativity
formula, originally determined by Einstein as (c-v)t, it is now ct', where t' is the original
time t but reduced (this true biblical miracle of taking time in his hands and contracting
it, the immeasurable intellectual power of Einstein can well do) in the same proportion as
the relative speed increased (from c-v to c).
24
Einstein, Albert, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, III. Space and Time in Classical
Mechanics, p. 10
25
Ibíd., X. On the relativity of the conception of distance. p. 35

49
Einstein's fourth example is a monument to intellectual stupidity.
In the famous embankment two extreme points A and B are determined and between
them the middle point E; two pulses of light are sent simultaneously from A and B to E. It
is evident that the two pulses will arrive at the center of the length A-B at the same time.
If a point E' is fixed on the train moving in the A-B direction and E and E' are made to
coincide at the moment the light pulses are emitted, then the pulse coming from B will be
the one that reaches E' first and that of A certain time later, defined this difference by the
speed of the train. This, which is easily understandable even for a child of physical
science, gives rise to a colossal clumsiness of the eminent sage. It gravely expresses that
the pulses arrive asynchronously at E' because relative to the train they have not been
produced simultaneously. This means, plain and simple, that Einstein considers that a
single physical fact has two natures at the same time, for one reference system it is
simultaneous and for the other it is asynchronous.
Events which are simultaneous with reference to the embankment are not simultaneous with
respect to the train, and vice versa (relativity of simultaneity). Every reference-body (co-ordinate
system) has its own particular time…26
In Einstein's recasting of the Lorentz factor, the ineffable sage produces a "thought
experiment" that has his characteristic hallmark.
Imagine two superimposed three-dimensional Cartesian coordinate systems with a
common origin, denoted K and K' and with axes x, y, z and x', y' z'. A ray of light with a
speed c and the coordinate system K' moving at speed v start simultaneously from the
point of origin; At time t the light ray will have arrived on the x axis of system K at the
point x = ct, which corresponds to the point x' = x-vt or (c-v)t of the x' axis of system K'.
The light pulse has traveled only one path, on the x-axis, which has taken it to point x
(ct); in that same route the axis x' has accompanied it, at a speed v, in such a way that its
origin has moved the distance vt; the x' axis extends to infinity and a point of this
extension, x', coincides with the point that the light has reached on the x axis, a place
that is determined by subtracting the distance ct from the length vt, that is, ct-vt. The
speed of light relative to the K' frame is therefore c-v. The light has not made two
journeys, one in x and the other in x', but only one in x whose speed c is compared with
the speed v of the reference system K'; this relation is undoubtedly c-v; the relative speed
of light with respect to the K' frame, within the K frame, is c-v.
Relativistic ineptitude makes the same ray of light travel, simultaneously, with the same
speed c, two different paths, one of which is only perceptible to the observer attached to
the system K and the other, which is only recorded by the observer attached to the system
K'. In the system K the light registers, in the time t, the distance ct; At the same time, in
the K' system, that same light pulse has the length ct-vt; for the obtunded relativist
mentality, since according to the Lorentzian prejudice light has only absolute speed
(invariant) and not relative, then in the distance ct-vt the radiation cannot be translated to
the speed c-v, but, without discussion, only with speed c; but since that space is less than
ct, then the pulse must traverse it in a shorter time, t', different but the same as the time t
that the light consumes in its journey ct. With all these disparities, Einstein already has
the elements for his restatement of Lorentz's formula: the light ray travels,
simultaneously, in the system K the distance ct and in the system K' the extension ct';
and this is so because the speed at which K' moves has produced the contraction of space
and the dilation of time that affect to the physical phenomenon and can only be perceived
in this transmutation by the observer in motion. This is Einsteinian metaphysics in all its
splendor!
After enlightening the world with his inane examples and "thought experiments", Einstein
appropriated the Lorentz factor or constant and made it the ideal instrument for
measuring special relativity.
With it in hand, he determines the measure of the contraction of space and the dilation of
time that causes the speed of bodies and elevates that factor to the category of a universal
constant.
26
Ibíd., IX. The Relativity of Simultaneity, p. 32

50
The raw material for the flimsy foundations of the theory of special relativity was provided
to Einstein by the theoretical ramblings of Michelson-Morley and Lorentz.
Michelson stated:
1) the invariability of the speed of light in any direction that was emitted on the earth's
surface and whatever the speed of the emitter and
2) the erroneous form of calculation that makes equal the absolute speed of light in the
reference frame in which it is emitted and the speed of light in relation to any other
reference frame (in the example of the interferometer: V = V +v).
Lorentz, for his part:
1) supported the fanciful hypothesis of the physical contraction that the movement of the
earth produces in the "ponderable bodies" that move in the same direction as the planet
and pointed out as its nucleus the alteration that molecules, atoms, particles,
electromagnetic fields, etc. in motion have for that same cause, and
2) gave a mathematical form to that supposed contraction based on Michelson's mistaken
calculation of the speed of light in the interferometer and thus determined the so-called
universal Lorentz constant.
All this "theoretical" and "conceptual" wealth was presented already finished before the
greedy eyes of Einstein, who, having conceived the plan of a major scientific swindle,
made it his own in its entirety and only added his aberrant conception of time and space
as completely malleable substances (instead of the physical Lorentzian contraction he
postulated the metaphysical contraction of space and dilation of time) and illustrated it
with absurd, unfounded, childish, incredible, ridiculous, stupid examples, totally
inconsistent, both factually and logically, mixing irreflexive of objective and subjective
criteria, etc.
In this way Einstein laid the foundations for his theory of relativity, the greatest
intellectual fraud of the 20th century.

51
 General relativity

The principle of relativity of space-time is the substance of Einstein's physics and this, in
turn, the heart of modern relativistic cosmology.
Einstein declares that in the second part of his work he will carry out a generalization of
the principle that he has exposed in the first.
In a rambling chapter, through a winding exposition that corresponds to his tortuous
thinking, Einstein explains the transition from his special theory of relativity to the
general theory.27
The theory of relativity was initially forged considering only two reference systems, one
mobile and one fixed, and only uniform rectilinear motion; the reference systems were
represented in Cartesian coordinate systems that included the spatial variables x, y, and
z and an additional variable for time, t.
Einstein proposes to expand the field of application of his theory and develops the theory
of general relativity.
In this, all material systems, fixed or mobile, whatever their shape (flat, spherical, etc.) are
considered subject to the postulates of relativity (mainly that of the absolute malleability
of time and space), without any of them having the privilege of being the reference system
par excellence, all movements, whether rectilinear, curved, circular, elliptical, uniform,
accelerated, uniformly accelerated, retarded, uniformly retarded, or any possible
combination of these, all types of space, linear, curved, open, closed, spherical,
contracting, expanding, etc., and all kinds of time, dilated, shrunk, regressing,
progressing, etc.

The theory of gravity and terrestrial gravity

Einstein's first extension of the special theory is with respect to the earth's gravitational
force.28
From the outset, he discards the thesis of action at a distance, postulated by classical
mechanics, and in its place establishes the proposition that bodies are surrounded by a
"gravitational field", which is as much a part of their being as the matter that itself forms
them.
The gravitational field is related to distant bodies according to the Newtonian law of
attraction in direct proportion to their masses and inversely to the square of their
distances. This means that the force of attraction is greater the closer the attracted body
is to the attractant and the greater its mass.
Einstein finds that the gravitational field has a "remarkable" property.
According to her
…Bodies which are moving under the sole influence of a gravitational field receive an
acceleration, which does not in the least depend either on the material or on the physical state of
the body. For instance, a piece of lead and a piece of wood fall in exactly the same manner in a
gravitational field (in vacuo)…29
Einstein demonstrates this peculiarity in the following way:
According to Newton, Force = ma, where, says Einstein, m is the inertial mass, which
constitutes a constant of the accelerated body; that is, m remains the same whatever its
speed. [This is the general formula, which is valid for any body and any type of strength].
In the free fall of bodies on the earth's surface, if gravitation is the cause of acceleration,
then we have:

27
Ibíd., XVIII. Special and General Principle of Relativity, pp. 69-73
28
Ibíd., XIX. The Gravitational Field, pp. 74-77
29
Ibidem, p. 76

52
Force of gravity = ma, where m is the mass of the attracted body (which Einstein calls
gravitational mass) and the acceleration due to the intensity of the gravitational field. [It is
the application to a specific case of the general formula].
From these two formulas Einstein extracts the following:
Acceleration = inertial mass/gravitational mass x intensity of the gravitational field; by
means of mathematical tricks (confession of part) the reason is equal to the unit, with
what we already have: inertial mass=gravitational mass.
It is true that this important law had hitherto been recorded in mechanics, but it had not been
interpreted. A satisfactory interpretation can be obtained only if we recognize the following fact:
The same quality of a body manifests itself according to circumstances as “inertia” or as “weight”
(lit. “heaviness”)...30
In Newton's general formula, F = ma (Force = mass times acceleration), m (mass) is the
amount of matter measured by its volume and density together. (Newton, Principia,
Definition I).
Inertia, also in Newtonian mechanics, is the intrinsic force of matter by which a body of
mass x is kept in a state of rest or uniform motion in a rectilinear direction.

The vis insita, or innate force of matter, is a power of resisting, by which everybody, as much as
in it lies, endeavours to persevere in its present state, whether it be of rest, or of moving
uniformly forward in a right line. Definition III
This force is ever proportional to the body whose force it is; and differ nothing from the inactivity
of the mass, but in our manner of conceiving it. Upon which account, this vis insita, may, by a
most significant name, be called via inertiæ, or force of inactivity But a body exerts this force
only, when another force, impressed upon it; endeavours to change its condition; and the
exercise of the force may be considered both as resistance and impulse; it is resistance, in so far
as the body, for maintaining its present state, withstands the force impressed; it is impulse, in so
far as the body, by not easily giving way to the impressed force of another, endeavours to change
the state of that other. Resistance is usually ascribed to bodies at rest, and impulse to those in
motion; but motion and rest, as commonly conceived, are only relatively distinguished; nor are
these bodies always truly at rest, which commonly are taken to be so. 31
Newton expresses the abstract, general and simplest form of intrinsic force.
Intrinsic force or inertia is proportional to mass; Other things being equal, the greater the
mass, the greater the inertia of the body.
The mass of the body is the same in any circumstance; in the same way, the intrinsic
force is always the same, whether the body is at rest or in any form of motion.
Various forces act on bodies of determined mass and inertia, providing them with
different movements: impulse, brake, attraction, repulsion, etc.
An impressed force is an action exerted upon a body, in order to change its state, either of rest,
or moving uniformly forward in a right line. Definitions. Definition IV.
This force consists in the action only; and remains no longer in the body, when the action is over.
For a body maintains every new state if acquires, by its vis inertiæ only. Impressed forces are of
different origins; as from percussion, from pressure, from centripetal force. 32
The impressed forces act on the mass of the body and its intrinsic force without altering
them; the only thing that changes is its state (rest or uniform rectilinear motion).
That is why it is absurd, as Einstein does, to speak of "inertial mass" and "gravitational
mass" as something different. The mass of a body, its only mass, which has a certain

30
Ibídem, p. 77.
31
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Auctore Isaaco Newtono, Equite Aurato, Editio
Ultima, Cui accedit Analysis per Quantitatum Series, Fluxiones ac Differentias cum
enumeratione Linearum Tertii Ordinis, Amstælodami, Sumptibus Societatis, M., p. 3
Newton´s Principia The Mathematical principles of Natural Philosophy. by Sir Isaac Newton,
translated into English by Andrew Motte, to wich is added Newton’s System of the world, First
American Edition, Carefully revised and corrected, with a life of the author, by N W Chittenden,
M. A., New York, Published by Daniel Adee 45 Liberty Street, 184, pp.73-74
32
Ibídem.

53
inertial force, receives the action of one or several forces that, overcoming inertia, give it a
defined movement.
In the case of gravitation between planets, they are two bodies with masses and intrinsic
forces defined between which there is a force of mutual attraction; one planet exerts an
attractive force on the other and vice versa.
This impressed gravitational force does not alter at all the mass and the intrinsic force of
the planet that receives the attractive action (and, of course, neither those of the one that
exerts it); therefore, there is no specific mass of gravitational attraction, as Einstein
claims.
If it is the mutual attraction between a planet and a body on its surface or in the
immediate vicinity of it, we arrive at the following: the planet and the surface body have
perfectly defined intrinsic masses and forces; the attractive force (an impressed force) acts
on them, affecting their state (rest, motion), but not their masses or their intrinsic forces.
Here too there is neither an inertial mass nor a gravitational mass, but only the mass of
the body.
What has Einstein done in this argument that leads to the equalization of the different
"inertial mass" and "gravitational mass"? Logically (from formal logic) he has expressed a
tautology, A = A: inertial mass equals gravitational mass, mass equals mass, m = m.
But what is the purpose of this idle task of the sage?
Einstein points out that in free fall the masses of bodies have a "remarkable" property.
This simply means that in this movement the general law of attraction of bodies does not
apply. According to this, bodies attract each other according to Newton's Law, so in free
fall, bodies of different masses should descend at different speeds depending on their
dissimilar masses. But "remarkably" experience tells us, from Galileo to the present day
(there has not yet been a conclusive experiment on this matter, because the most exact
nevertheless register infinitesimal differences proportional to their masses between the
speeds of fall of the different bodies), that in a vacuum all bodies fall with the same speed,
whatever their mass. We then have the following situation: in the gravitation between the
planets (sun and earth, for example) Newton's law of attraction rules in its entirety; in the
free fall of bodies towards the surface of a planet this has no validity; and, lastly, on the
surface of the planet it becomes valid again, as can be deduced from the weight of bodies
on earth, which is nothing more than the measure of attraction of the planet over its
masses, which is greater or lesser as they are major or minor.
This "anomaly" is taken by classical mechanics and by Einstein himself as a de facto
exception to Newton's general law, but no one has even tried to give a rational, logical,
convincing explanation of this exceptional fact.
Later we will address this interesting matter of the free fall of bodies, on which the highest
authority on the subject, Galileo Galilei, had only reached the feeble conclusion that the
equal descent of bodies in a vacuum "was highly likely” and he had done so by employing
cheap sophistry in his dispute with Aristotle.
…Because if we find as a fact that the variation of speed among bodies of different specific
gravities is less and less according as the medium becomes more and more yielding, and if finally
in a medium of extreme tenuity, though not a perfect vacuum, we find that, in spite of great
diversity of specific gravity [peso], the difference in speed is very small y almost inappreciable,
then we are justified in believing it highly probable that in a vacuum all bodies would fall with the
same speed…33
Be that as it may, Einstein's cunning takes advantage of this omission of science to slip,
without any justification, his fallacious theory of relativity.
The mass of bodies has, according to Einstein, a relative manifestation. In a situation (for
example, the fall of bodies on the earth's surface), the mass appears as "inertial mass",
that is, as a mass whose fundamental attributes, volume and density, are not affected by
the attractive force of the earth, but only its abstract nature, its only being that it has in
33
Galileo Galilei, Dialogue Concerning Two New Sciences, Translated by Henry and Alfonso Salvio,
Macmillan, 1914, p. 72.

54
common with the masses of all other bodies and that is the same in all of them, on which
the attractive force exerts an also abstract action that is the same for each body and
produces in them the same result: an identical fall speed regardless of their mass. In
other circumstances: in the distance relationship between planets and in the bodies lying
on the surface of a planet, the masses act on each other with all their characteristics,
volume and density, so the attraction follows the law Newtonian and the masses are then,
for Einstein, “gravitational masses”.
Relativity would be expressed in the following: in free fall the masses reveal their inertia
(in the Einsteinian sense); those same masses, located on the surface, show their
gravitational attraction.
This consideration of the free fall of bodies as an event that confirms the foundations of
the special theory of relativity and extends them to forge a general theory, is another of
Einstein's great intellectual bungling.
Einstein's cunning is blatant: he takes a situation -an apparent exception, still under
scientific dispute, to the general law of gravitation- that does not contain any of the
essential elements of his two theories, and reputes it as a special way of behaving masses
of bodies with respect to universal attraction, in which they really do not act as such
masses, which he calls inertia (a concept that has nothing to do with the intrinsic force or
vis inertiæ of classical mechanics, since for Einstein inertia is a state in which the
attractive force ceases to act on the masses, while for Newton it is an essential
characteristic of the mass on which a force is exerted, which can be attraction), puts it in
relationship (relativity of the situation) with another circumstance in which the mass does
suffer the action of the attractive force and thus already has in its power the extended
(general) relativity that will open the door to modern science. We have already extensively
exposed the falsity of the special theory of relativity, a characteristic that also belongs to
the general theory (in this expanded form of his theory, up to this point, Einstein has only
given the following elements: multiple reference frames K and other types of movements
different from the uniform rectilinear one and the masses of the bodies are taken in their
relative states of indifference (which Einstein improperly calls “inertia”) and receptivity
with respect to the attractive force); well, this extension that Einstein makes of the
principle of relativity (false, as we already know), does not even meet the elementary
demands of its own theory.

The "supernatural experiment" of the box located in the middle of nowhere

Already in possession of his "magic wand" of general relativity, Einstein is about to use it
to discover the unfathomable secrets of the universe, knowledge until now hidden behind
the pre-eminence of the erroneous Newtonian mechanics.
He proposes the realization of a prodigious “experiment”. In a piece of the universe devoid
of matter, attractive force, etc., that is, in the middle of nowhere, sustained by the sole
mental force of the wise man, which is not small, a closed box the size of a room is placed
in the which is located an observer provided with the appropriate measuring instruments
and experimental elements (box, observer, instruments and elements have all been taken
from the prodigious mind of the quintessential scientist); the nothing in which the box is
located is a Galilean frame of reference, that is, one in which rest and uniform rectilinear
motion can occur and in which, of course, an external observer is also situated; the box is
a body of reference for the internal observer.
A mysterious force pulls the box from the top and gives it an acceleration equal to that of
bodies in free fall near the earth's surface.
The internal observer leaves free bodies of different masses, which fall towards the floor of
the box with an acceleration equal to that of the bodies in free fall on the earth's surface.

55
 …The observer will further convince himself that the acceleration of the body towards the floor of
the chest is always of the same magnitude, whatever kind of body he may happen to use for the
experiment.34
This observer will consider, according to Einstein, when assessing his experiment, that he
is in a gravitational field the same as that of the earth, that an attractive force of gravity
such as the terrestrial force acts on him and the bodies used in the experiment and that
the box is at rest, suspended from a string, in that gravitational field.
…the man in the chest will thus come to the conclusion that he and the chest are in a
gravitational field which is constant with regard to time. Of course he will be puzzled for a
moment as to why the chest does not fall in this gravitational field. Just then, however, he
discovers the hook in the middle of the lid of the chest and the rope which is attached to it, and
he consequently comes to the conclusion that the chest is suspended at rest in the gravitational
field.35
The external observer, on the other hand, will determine that what produces the
acceleration of the box and the "fall" of the bodies inside it is the traction produced by the
Einsteinian force impressed on the entire assembly.
The box, relative to the Galilean reference space, is subject to accelerated motion; but,
also, in its relationship with itself, it is at rest.
…Even though it is being accelerated with respect to the “Galilean space” first considered, we can
nevertheless regard the chest as being at rest…36
And from this supposed simultaneous double state of the box, the knowledge of which
allows the principle of relativity to be extended to reference bodies accelerated with
respect to each other, Einstein draws the conclusion of the validity of his generalization of
relativity.
We have thus good grounds for extending the principle of relativity to include bodies of reference
which are accelerated with respect to each other, and as a result we have gained a powerful
argument for a generalized postulate of relativity. 37
Einstein's mental power cleared a good part of the universe of matter and attractive force;
With that same remarkable ability, he placed an object (box) in the middle of that
nothingness, endowed it with an inhabitant, measuring instruments and experimental
objects and imprinted on it an accelerated movement equivalent to that of the fall of
bodies on earth; Likewise, with this extraordinary faculty, the wise man turned the
inhabitant of the box into a solipsistic observer, who only knows himself and his
immediate environment and ignores all the rest of the outside world.
Let us take as certain the supposed “objectives” that Einstein establishes: a piece of the
universe without matter or acting forces, that is, nothing; a material box placed in that
pielago, to which an accelerated movement is provided; and a real human being and real
instruments and elements of experimentation. The first thing we have to note is a flagrant
contradiction: a something that is in the middle of nowhere. Hegel had already made
concrete being emerge, in his logical scheme, from the dialectical relationship between
being and nothingness. Our apprentice philosopher (later on we will see with what
audacity he pontificates about the origin, nature and destiny of the universe, making
them depend on the solution given to his twisted mathematical formulas) has gone even
further and from nothing alone has brought forth determined being, the something, the
magic box. Where there is no matter or acting forces, nothing can exist; For this reason,
from the outset, there is no such thing as a “Galilean” frame of reference to which
Einstein alludes; Taken this argument to the extreme, the box, its contents, or any
movement do not exist either; Einstein's example does not refer to anything real, it does
not prove anything at all and it has no scientific value either as a hypothesis or as an
experiment to prove it.

34
Einstein, Albert, Relativity: The Special and General Theory, XX. The Equality of Inertial and
Gravitational Mass as an Argument for the General Postulate of Relativity, p. 79
35
Ibídem, pp.79-80
36
Ibídem, p.80
37
Idem.

56
But let us recognize for the time being the wise man the power of his intellect and let us
see there the “Galilean” space and the box pulled by the mysterious force.
In his absurd example, Einstein makes several beginner's mistakes.
It expresses that when the observer releases the bodies he is carrying for his experiments,
they fall towards the floor at the same speed, as if it were free fall on the earth's surface.
But this is completely false. According to its strange representation, a traction force
moves the box; the floor of this transmits the movement to the observer, who, in turn,
does it to the objects of his experiment; when the observer releases the objects, they stop
receiving the traction force and therefore their movement ceases, they remain motionless
in the same place where the force ceased to act; On its journey, the floor of the box meets
the objects that have remained immobile and, after the collision, which will be more
intense for those with a greater mass and less intense for those with a reduced mass,
provides them with the force of traction that she exerts; the objects again acquire a
movement determined by the traction force that pulls the box and will exert a different
pressure on the floor according to the respective amount of their masses. The objects
released by the observer do not fall, they remain immobile and in that place the floor of
the box reaches them; their different masses determine different pressures (weight) on the
floor of the box.
Einstein maintains that the internal observer believes that the box is at rest in a
gravitational field and therefore the acceleration of falling bodies is the same regardless of
their mass; For his part, the external observer sees the matter "objectively" and knows
that the box is moving rapidly and the objects left to their own devices inside stop
receiving the traction force and remain motionless in space until the floor stops them and
gives them their accelerated movement.
Then, the conclusion that is imposed, in the perverted Einsteinian logic, is that the box is
both at rest and in accelerated movement and that it is at the same time in a gravitational
field and in a space without gravity.
And here we have the principle of relativity working to its full extent!
In relation to the internal observer, the force that keeps him attached to the floor of the
box is a gravitational force; in relation to the external observer, it is a pulling force.
Therefore, it infers the Einsteinian sharpness, the same force is gravitational or traction
depending on the observer, it is a relative force.
What Einstein is comparing, giving them equal objective value, is what one observer
believes it to be with what another observer knows it to be; therefore, for Einstein the
imagined gravitational field and the experimental box are a reality; the acting force is both
a chimerical gravitational force and a true pulling force; and the masses involved are both
inertial and gravitational. Prejudice and science are the same; and in Einstein's case it is
literally so.
Einstein declares that the internal observer's interpretation of what happens with and in
the box as a phenomenon of gravitational acceleration is based on the scientific principle
of the equality of acceleration that a gravitational field provides to falling bodies, or what
is the same, the law of equality of inertial mass and gravitational mass, which he qualifies
as a natural law.
…we must rather admit that his mode of grasping the situation violates neither reason nor
known mechanical laws...
…
We must note carefully that the possibility of this mode of interpretation rests on the
fundamental property of the gravitational field of giving all bodies the same acceleration, or, what
comes to the same thing, on the law of the equality of inertial and gravitational mass. If this
natural law did not exist, the man in the accelerated chest would not be able to interpret the
behavior of the bodies around him on the supposition of a gravitational field, and he would not be
justified on the grounds of experience in supposing his reference-body to be "at rest". 38
In fact, it is a strange scientist that Einstein has made; he knows a natural law and finds
that the results of his experiments agree with it; however, his capacity and his desire for

38
Ibídem, pp. 80-81

57
knowledge do not drive him to inquire about the environment of the box (matter, forces,
etc.), in order to fully grasp objectivity; instead it just assumes that it is in a gravitational
field. This "scientific" observer, lacking in understanding, is none other than Einstein
himself, who gives this assumption of his offspring objective value when he states that the
gravitational field exists for the internal observer.
…A gravitational field exists for the man in the chest, despite the fact that there was no such field
for the coordinate system first chosen…39
We have already had the opportunity to learn about the fallacy on which Einstein bases
his arguments: the existence of an inertial mass, which in no way corresponds to the
Newtonian inertia that all masses possess, which endows bodies with the property of
being attracted by the gravitational field with the same acceleration, independent of their
masses. We also know that he has cunningly used an apparent exception, still sub judice,
to the law of universal gravitation to supposedly demonstrate the validity of his general
theory of relativity, even though the former has nothing to do with its postulates.
This example lacks, like that of free fall on the earth's surface, the essential elements to
be considered as illustrative of relativity, be it special or general: there is not in it an event
whose motion (uniform, rectilinear or of any other type) can be determined from two or
more different observatories (by Einstein's definition, Galilean space is nothing, so it
cannot be a reference body, and thus only the box would remain as the only valid
reference system ) with different measures of time and space and that these discrepancies
obey the displacement speed.
Like all the examples Einstein has adduced, the one with the box in empty space is
absurd, implausible, completely removed from reality, constructed through misguided
speculation, grotesque, and ultimately laughable.
In the search for fields of application for his relativistic theory, Einstein leads us to the
field of kinetic energy40, and in connection with this he makes a development that leads
him to the establishment of his famous first equation: E = mc2. The consumer society has
endowed this formula with a very high media value, as a compliment to the prejudices of
the urban petty bourgeoisie. It has granted it the nature of the highest product of human
intelligence, and it has made its author the paradigm of the most powerful individual
intelligence. However, the equation that purports to determine the universal relationship
between mass and energy, E = mc2, is completely false, unscientific in its entirety, a gross
occurrence of a reduced mind.

Einstein's first equation, E = mc2

In classical mechanics, the kinetic energy of a body is given by the following formula:
2
mv . Einstein then proposes that the Lorentz transformation be applied to the
E k=
2
classical formula to give it the configuration that corresponds to it in the theory of special
2
mc
E k=

√
relativity and arrives at the following result: 2
v .
1− 2
c
Einstein declares that the most important general result reached by the special theory of
relativity concerns the concept of mass.
And immediately he puts into work one more of his famous “thought experiments”.
In the first place, it establishes that the law of conservation of energy, according to the
special theory of relativity, must be valid not only in the fixed coordinate system ( K), but

39
Ibídem, p. 82
40
Einstein, Albert, Relativity: The especial and General Theory, XV. General Results of the Theory,
pp. 53 y ss.

58
in any other coordinate system (K') in uniform rectilinear motion with respect to the first.
It tells us that the Lorentz factor is decisive in the transition from one system to another.
After this introduction, Einstein proceeds to perform the transformation of a quantity of
energy from one coordinate system to another.
A body moving with speed v and absorbing an amount of energy E0 in the form of
radiation without undergoing an alteration in speed in the process, has, as a
E0

√ v2 .
consequence, its energy increased by the amount
1− 2
c
This is so because you have first represented the energy in the fixed coordinate system
and then in the moving coordinate system. And since he has already imposed on science
the disastrous prejudice of the Lorentz factor, which he has endowed with the quality of a
physical constant, then he only applies it to this special case and thereby obtains the
metaphysical representation of energy.
But it is a specific amount of energy that the radiation carries with it, which is measured
by certain physical procedures and is completely independent of the coordinate system
from which it is observed.
The total energy is, for Einstein
2
mc + E0
ET =

√ v .
2
1− 2
c
The "thought experiment" consists briefly of the following: an object moves in space with a
uniform rectilinear motion; on its journey it receives and absorbs a beam of radiation that
has an energy quantified in E0. The problem posed is based on determining the energy of
the object before and after the assimilation of the energy of the radiation.
2
The energy of the moving object is obtained by the formula E k =
mv ; mass is given by the
2
relationship between density and volume; the speed is known by means of the
relationship between the space covered and the time used to do it, which is achieved by
establishing a reference system, a Cartesian coordinate system, although only one axis
will be used, say the x ; the values thus established are substituted in the kinetic energy
equation and we then have the energy of the moving object, to which the energy of the
radiation is simply added and thus the total energy after reception is obtained,
2
mv
ET = + E0 .
2
If another coordinate system is built to accompany the object in its movement, then the
values obtained in the experiment are not altered at all by this mental operation, since it
has no physical significance; just as it happened with the fixed coordinate system, which
was used to measure a movement on which it had no influence. The objective fact: the
moving object, its mass and speed, the radiation beam and its energy content and its
transfer to the object, is not affected at all by the mathematical-geometrical procedures
used for its measurement and representation, nor by the situation of any observer.
In this "thought experiment" the perverse mechanism that Einstein uses to infect physical
science with his anti-scientific theses is clearly highlighted.
We have already seen how the scholar par excellence took from Lorentz the factor of the
supposed physical contraction of matter due to its movement, an absurdity that he used
as the basis for his theoretical nonsense of the contraction of space and the dilation of
time. Nonsense added to absurdity gives a monstrous result: the special theory of
relativity.

59
In his original approach, Einstein postulated that the same physical phenomenon had a
double nature: one for the observer located in a fixed reference system and another for
the observer who is in a reference system in uniform rectilinear motion; this was so, he
illustrated, because in the second system the movement was the cause of the contraction
of space and the dilation of time, or, in other words, of the contraction of the rulers of
measurement and the slowing down of clocks. The mere statement of these arguments
reveals their irrationality. If the movement affects the extension of the rules and the
functioning of the clocks, this is a physical-mechanical stumbling block that can be
overcome by discounting the difference with real, universal space and time; if it is real
space that contracts and real time that dilates, then we are facing a supernatural, biblical
phenomenon, a shrinkage of the terrestrial sphere and the stopping of the sun's race,
actions that only Jehovah-Einstein can carry out.
The passage from one nature to another of the same physical phenomenon proposes to be
carried out by the demiurge Einstein only by means of a mental operation (mathematical-
geometric): the transformation of one coordinate system into another: K (x, y, z, t) in K' (x',
y', z', t').
In the end, in that “thought experiment”, Einstein only “transforms” x and t into x' and t'.
Einstein has hypostatized the Lorentz factor; gives it a life of its own, detaches it from any
type of transformation and considers it to have value in itself.
In this way, with this living instrument in his hands, he arrives at the different rational
physical productions and simply applies the metaphysical standard of the Lorentz factor
to them.
Thus, we have, on the one hand, Maxwell's rational equations referring to
electromagnetism, and on the other, the metaphysical formulation of the same by
Einstein through the application of the Lorentz constant, the formulas of Newtonian
mechanics and their Einsteinian mystification, etc.
Einstein, once he had firmly established the edifice of the special theory of relativity and
begun the development of the general theory, which had as its core the crazy conception
of the curvature of space-time, considered himself sufficiently equipped theoretically to
launch into a colossal undertaking: to establish a general law of the structure and
movement of matter, valid for the microcosm and the macrocosm, and condense it into a
single equation, the so-called "Einstein equation" (the second).
Einstein enjoyed a very special reputation in the scientific community. Physicists were
sure that he was a great mathematician, so they overlooked his total detachment from
experimental work and took all his theoretical aberrations for granted, which they
considered to be based on powerful mathematical-geometrical instruments; for their part,
the mathematicians forgave his notorious weakness for numbers, pertinently pointed out
by his elementary mathematics teacher, and even gave him their generous support,
convinced of the genius of his physical conceptions.
In the preparation of his renowned equation (second) he had to use two powerful
mathematical tools: the absolute differential calculus and the mathematics of tensors,
which had been developed to very high levels by mathematical and geometric science.
With the help of renowned mathematicians, Einstein put to work all his recognized
intellective capacity to distort these remarkable products of human ingenuity by applying
the Lorentz factor, thereby completely stripping them of their scientific character and
leaving them fit to be used in the development of their fraudulent proposals.
Convinced of the power of his thought, which had allowed him to contract space and
dilate time, he decided to grant himself broader faculties and make time and space unite
into a single substance, space-time, and acquire the ability of.... bending!
He built in his imagination a mutual relationship between space-time and matter and
energy. Matter and energy exert an action on space-time, curving it to some extent, and
the curvature of space-time, in turn, acts on the properties of matter and energy.
The Newtonian principle of universal attraction was replaced by the Einsteinian fantasy of
universal curvature. In cosmology, for example, the planets do not revolve around a
central body by virtue of the gravitational force that exists between them, but because the

60
space that surrounds the central star has a certain curvature and this determines the
course of the displacement of the planets.
Einstein considers that this mutual imaginary relationship between space-time and
matter and energy can be subjected to a universal mathematical equation that is
applicable to everything that exists, the micro and the macrocosm.
On one side it must contain a geometric mathematical instrument that defines the
different degrees of curvature that space-time can have; on the other, the various states
in which matter and energy can be found; and also, relating the two extremes, the
necessary correspondence between them (degrees and states).
For the left side of his second equation, Einstein takes a pre-existing mathematical tool,
the Ricci tensor -which systematizes the various possible types and degrees of curvature-
and completely deforms it using the Lorentz factor. On the right side he places a metric
tensor, by which the properties and states of matter (density, volume, pressure, various
stresses, etc.) are determined; this metric tensor is also a result of the evolution of
physical science which Einstein completely distorts, also through the inevitable Lorentz
factor.
The finished form of the Einstein field equation is
G μν=8 π T μν .
In it includes Minkowski's development of the Lorentz factor, the so-called
"hypergeometry"; As we will see later, this grotesque mathematical-geometrical absurdity
introduces total chaos in the determination of time and space, thus giving rise to the
emergence of a large number of physical absurdities, among which the existence of
multiple dimensions and the circularity of time -the absolute confusion between the
present, the past and the future.
Einstein's "(second) equation" aims to be the universal formula in which the most general
properties of matter and energy are summarized, the instrument par excellence for total
knowledge of the universe. But, for example, when it comes to the solar system, all she
can say is that the planets move in an elliptical orbit around the sun because the space
around the central star has been curved that way by the action of the sun matter. We
thus find ourselves with a very poor conception that establishes that the sun exerts a
force on something insubstantial such as space-time and none on the solid matter of the
planets, which have a movement of unknown origin and nature and that coincidentally
transit through the space surrounding the sun, whose curvature determines its elliptical
path.
These reduced scopes of Einsteinian general relativity contrast with the richness of
Newtonian mechanics: the world system is based on universal gravitation, which explains
the relationship between physical entities well determined by physical forces that are also
exactly measurable. This scientific conception recognizes its antecedents in the works of
Copernicus and Kepler and is the necessary logical-historical precedent of the Kant-
Laplace theory, which describes the origin and development of the planets from the
undifferentiated nebula to their constitution as circulating bodies in around the sun.
The "Einstein equation" (second), the ultimate result of the evolution of the "Lorentz
factor", is the sum and compendium of all the aberrations, errors, absurdities and
nonsense of the Einsteinian theory of relativity; it carries to its ultimate expression the
profoundly unscientific character of these conceptions and is completely useless for
reflecting objective reality in the slightest measure. In a later paragraph we will examine
in detail the nature of this equation.
Einstein's corruption of the kinetic energy equation by means of the "Lorentz factor" is
based on the famous "Einstein equation" E = mc2 (different from the one we have just
seen, but just as wrong). The latter is reached if Einstein's formula
2
mc + E0
ET =

√
2
v
1− 2
c

61
we subtract the energy from the radiation and from the movement. The remainder is E =
mc2, which is something like the energy of the body at rest.
This formula has acquired a huge, inordinate fame, not only in the scientific community,
but among ordinary people. It is considered that it is the highest expression of the
excellence that physical science has achieved with the theory of relativity and, of course,
proof of the genius of its creator, Albert Einstein, the most powerful mind that humanity
has ever produced.
However, the "Einstein equation" has a more prosaic origin and nature. It constitutes a
denaturation, through the application of the "Lorentz factor", of the classical mechanic’s
equation relative to the mechanical energy of a body at rest,
There is consensus among exegetes of Einstein (explaining, commenting on, interpreting,
etc., Einstein's texts is a whole profession, very lucrative, which has been exercised by a
large portion of physicists for more than a century) about the origin and first formulations
of the “great” first “Einstein equation”.
The first derivation is found in Einstein's work Does the inertia of a body depend upon its
energy content?41, published in 1905.
Then I will insert an extensive excerpt from this work, which will serve for the subsequent
argument.
The setting for his thought experiment is a set of two orthonormal coordinate systems,
one at rest and the other in uniform rectilinear motion along the x-axis of the former. He
first establishes a premise that, he warns, he will later use in the development of his
arguments. In the system at rest, a ray of light is produced that travels in a line that
starts from the origin and makes an angle j with the x-axis. In the fixed system the energy
of the light pulse is l and in the moving system, which has no physical relationship with
the phenomenon, it is l increased by the Lorentz factor,
v
1− cosϕ
V
l

√
,

[ ]
2
v
1−
V
where V is the speed of light.
It is the same silly, not to say dumb, argument that we have just examined: a physical
phenomenon has a double nature, physical and metaphysical at the same time; the
former is intended to be represented as it is in a fixed coordinate system and the latter to
be produced by the moving coordinate system; in this, without having any physical
relationship with the object, the movement increases its energy by the amount of the
Lorentz factor.
Einstein has brought to excellence his method of transposing the physical to the
metaphysical. He appropriated a coordinate transformation formula that had been
developed from a specific physical phenomenon. Later, he endowed his equation with the
character of a universal physical constant. Now, before any physical phenomenon, he
postulates that its true nature can only be known if it is referred to a moving coordinate
system.
The determination of the supposedly true properties and characteristics of an object is
done through a process of transubstantiation from the physical to the metaphysical. To
any physical phenomenon, whose nature true science has sufficiently revealed, obtuse
relativism, ignoring even its own transformation protocol, only applies the miraculous
formula of the Lorentz factor and thus fixes its metaphysical entity.
A strange symbiosis was then established between true science and the relativistic
caricature of science. Physical science, burdened by the inevitable cult of relativism,
41
Albert Einstein, Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content?, The collected papers
of Albert Einstein, Volume 2: The Swiss Years Writings, 1900-1909, pp.172-174. {Annalen der
Phisik 18 (1905): 639-641]

62
reveals the various aspects of reality; for its part, nefarious relativism systematically
distorts those achievements by applying the Lorentz factor and the entire legion of errors
and fallacies of Einstein's theories. During the last hundred years physical science has
advanced constantly overcoming the obstacles that relativistic metaphysics opposes.
The light ray is produced in a certain space, which can be delimited by a Cartesian
coordinate system that has its origin at the same point where the ray begins its journey.
The energy of the beam is determined by the canonical (classical) formula for kinetic
energy; In the coordinate system, the speed and position of the ray can be represented,
but not the other element of the equation, that is, its mass. The determination of the mass
of the photon is something completely external to the coordinate system. Therefore, the
energy of the light pulse cannot be represented in the fixed coordinate system.
Another coordinate system is mentally forged, devoid of any materiality, which is endowed
with a uniform rectilinear movement and an observer is also mentally attached to it. This
system has no physical relation to, and no material influence on, the path, speed, mass, or
energy of the light ray.
The energy of the light pulse is therefore one and the same, no matter what coordinate
system it is referred to for its representation.
The premise that Einstein has established is, as we have determined, absolutely false.
From which it follows that everything that derives from it, whose culmination is the first
"Einstein equation", E = mc2, is also false and erroneous.
In the previously established coordinate systems Einstein now develops the core of his
"thought experiment".
It places an object at the origin of the fixed system and makes it emit two light rays in
opposite directions, which have a certain inclination in relation to the x-axis (angle j); The
problem of determining the energy of the object before and after the emission arises.
Label H and E the energy of the object in relation to the fixed and mobile coordinate
system, respectively, H1 and E1 to that same energy after the emission and H0 and E0
before the emission.
In the fixed system, the energy before emission, E0, is equal to the energy after emission,
E1, plus the sum of the energy emitted in both directions, a quantity that Einstein denotes
as L. This is the physical truth of freak. It is evident that the parameters of the
established coordinate system do not intervene here at all: there is no determination of
the position or of the measure of the energy that can be expressed in the coordinates x, y
and z of the fixed system. Therefore, there is no matter to make any transformation to any
other type of coordinates.
In the illusory mobile system, the energy before the emission, H0, is equal to the energy
after the emission, H1, plus the sum of the energy emitted in both directions, quantity
that Einstein denotes as L, but mystified by the Lorentz factor. It is evident that no type of
transformation has taken place between both systems: only the Lorentz factor has been
mechanically applied. By the way, Einstein has an unforgivable lapse here, since H0 and
H1 are the same energies E0 and E1, but increased by the Lorentz factor, so H0 is equal to
E0 E1

√ [ ] √ [ ]
2 and H1 equals to 2
v v . Their equations should then look like this:
1− 1−
V V

[√[] ]√ []
v v
1− cosϕ 1+ cosϕ E1 + L
E0 E1 L V L V
= + +

√ √ √
2
2 2 2 = v
[ ] [ ] [ ]
2 2 2
v v v v 1−
1− 1− 1− 1− V
V V V V

After all these manipulations, Einstein continues with the development of his "thought
experiment".

63
Having established the object energy differences between the fixed system and the moving
system before and after the emission, determine the difference between those differences:
L
H 0−E 0−( H 1 −E1 )= −1

√
2
v .
1− 2
V
This last difference is, for Einstein, the kinetic energy of the light pulses.
It makes the differences H 0−E 0and H 1−E 1the kinetic energies K0 and K1 of the object
before and after the emission (NB: of an object moving in the fixed coordinate system!) and
the differences of these the kinetic energy of the pulses of light.
L
K 0− K 1= −1

√ [ ]
2
v .
1−
V
It is one more of the gross mystifications of the sage. In humble classical mechanics, the
kinetic energy of the object is established by the ratio of its mass and its speed; but in the
Einsteinian experiment it is held that it is measured by the link between the mass and the
speed of the mobile coordinate system, which has a merely virtual existence and is totally
external to the object, and not by the movement of the object itself! The kinetic energy of
rays is determined by the relationship between their masses and the speed at which they
travel. But in the formula that Einstein has extracted, by means of his brown
mathematics, from his previous lucubrations, the kinetic energy of an object is defined by
means of the speed of the moving coordinate system, by something that has a merely
virtual existence, without any physical relationship with the energy of the light pulses and
not by its own movement!
From here, through tortuous mathematical manipulations, Einstein arrives at the final
determination of the relationship between mass and energy.
2
L v
K 0− K 1= 2
V 2
From this it follows, says Einstein, that if a body releases the energy L in the form of
L L
radiation, its mass decreases by 2 ; that is,
M = 2 , and, transposing terms, L=M V 2,
V V
which in modern notation is E=mc2, energy equal to mass times the speed of light
squared.
As we have already seen, this equation has its origin in the absurdity of measuring the
kinetic energy of an object, not by its real movement, but by the imaginary movement of a
coordinate system. This determination is made by applying the "Lorentz factor", a formula
whose irrational, mathematical and geometrically erroneous nature we have already
sufficiently explored.
Consequently, E=mc2 is physical, mathematical and geometric nothingness. There is no
necessary relationship between the mass of an object and the speed of light that
determines the energy of the object. c2 is not a physical constant, but the result of the
most remarkable mathematical and geometrical aberrations of all time. It is the invention
of a totally insane mind because of the thirst for notoriety that tries to surprise the world
with the most absurd theories.
The first "Einstein equation" establishes the so-called general law according to which the
energy of any object (both the celestial body and the sub-atomic particle) is determined by
its mass multiplied by the speed of light squared.
The nonsense of this physical "principle" is obvious. First of all, there is no physical
relationship between the mass of an object and the speed of light. Second, there is no
general energy common to all objects.
Light is a matter like any other; it is known that it has a speed that is not surpassed by
that of any other known object, which does not mean that objects with speeds greater than

64
that of light cannot exist in the observable universe. Because of this singularity, relativistic
necromancy has endowed light with supernatural properties: contrary to what happens
with ordinary objects, light has the same absolute and relative speed, its speed is an
absolute limit for the speed of all objects and serves as a matter of expression of the
energy they contain.
Light, like any physical object, has mass, and as a moving object, kinetic energy. It is a
beam of photons, with a certain mass, that moves at a certain speed. Its energy is
mechanical energy and is expressed in the formula
2
mc .
E k=
2
If this is applied to any other mass (from the sub-atomic particle to the celestial body)
only its kinetic (mechanical) energy will be obtained and only for when it moves at the
speed of light. That is the absurdity that relativism wants to pass off as the pinnacle of
physical science.
The energy of an object is its ability to do work. Mechanical energy is the ability to develop
a specific work, a mechanical movement, Chemical energy, chemical reactions. Electric
energy, electric fields. Magnetic energy, magnetic fields. Radiation energy, electromagnetic
radiation. Nuclear energy, the formation of atomic nuclei. Ionization energy, the binding of
an electron to its atom. Gravitational energy, the formation of gravitational fields. Thermal
energy, mobility of molecules and atoms. Heat energy, heat energy transfer. Etc.
Multiplying the mass of a chemical compound by the speed of light will tell us absolutely
nothing about the extent of its ability to produce chemical reactions; similarly,
multiplying the mass of subatomic particles by c2 will in no way indicate the extent to
which they form atomic nuclei; and so on.
After the formula E=mc2 was perfectly grounded in relativistic ignorance, the followers of
the master formed a church to render due worship to him.
The work of the exegetes ran in two ways.
For the first, there is an exalted competition to establish the newest way to derive the
equation. The most absurd "thought experiments" are designed to extract, from the most
absurd physical situations, the miraculous formula.
By the second, a feverish activity is developed to determine, with this formula, the energy
contained in the sub-atomic particle, in the atomic nucleus, in the atom, in the
substance, in the celestial bodies, in the stellar formations, in living objects, etc. The most
twisted equations and the wildest calculations are used to transform the most varied
forms of real energy into the illusory relativistic energy.
In a paper from 1907, On the relativity principle and the conclusion drawn from it 42,
Einstein addresses the same problem of the equivalence of mass and energy.
In another work, On the development of our views concerning the nature and constitution of
radiation43, Einstein continues to explore the relationship between mass and energy.
The new coordinate system is a physical place in space (a physical frame) in the
neighborhood in which the object is moving; From the new coordinate system, the
physical phenomenon that consists of the emission of radiation in opposite directions by
the moving body is observed.

42
Einstein Albert, On the relativity principle and the conclusion drawn from it, The collected Papers
of Albert Einstein, Volume 2. Doc. 47. The Swiss Years: Writings 1900-1909 (English translation
supplement). English Translation. Anna Beck Translator. Peter Hanas Consultant. John Stachel
Editor.
43
Einstein Albert, On the development of our views concerning the nature and constitution of
radiation, The collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 2. Doc. 60. The Swiss Years: Writings
1900-1909 (English translation supplement). English Translation. Anna Beck Translator. Peter
Hanas Consultant. John Stachel

65
The physical location (physical system) at relative rest may or may not have a physical
influence on the activity of the object. If it does, then it will be immediately reflected in the
measurements and characteristics of the emission. Therefore, E0, E1 and L have, at time τ,
a certain value in which the influence of the mobile physical location (physical system) is
included, if it exists.
The measurement of the values E0, E1 and L can be done in the coordinate system that
can be established in situ, in the moving object itself, or from any other Cartesian
coordinate system, fixed or moving. The in situ measurement will be more or less exact,
depending on the precision of the instruments used and its result will be determined by
the formula already exposed, E0 = E1+L (the energy before the emission is equal to the
sum of the remaining energy in the object after emission plus what was emitted as
radiation). The measurement from, let us say, a material system at rest relative to the
moving object, using the same instruments as in the previous case, will have to discount
the alterations due to the speed and direction of its own movement; once this is carefully
done, the measurements from the system at rest will perforce agree with those made in
situ. There is no physical relationship on the part of the Cartesian system at rest that could
cause an alteration in the physical nature of the emitting object and therefore neither in the
energy it possesses before and after time t, nor in the amount of radiation emitted.
The Einsteinian equation
1
L '=L .

√ 1−
v2
c
2

it is absolutely wrong; after all L' = L. All the argumentation that Einstein develops from
then on is, therefore, absolutely and totally wrong, a denaturation of Newtonian
principles.
Einstein outlines two scenarios:
1) An object at rest that emits radiation (rays of light) in opposite directions. In the period
t1-t0, it emits radiation with an energy value of L and the energy E0 prior to the emission
passes to E1 after the emission.
The corresponding equation is
E0 =E1 + L(energy of the radiation).
All measurements are made on site. The observer is completely integrated into the object.
Einstein's purpose is to put this situation as a point of comparison with the same object
in motion.
2) The same object, but now moving; In an adjoining space there is a physical system, at
relative rest, which is endowed with a Cartesian coordinate system.
It is evident that if the movement to which the object is now subjected has an effect on
the quantity and quality of the emissions, it will be immediately integrated into the
measurement made in situ.
The observer in the fixed physical system, after discounting the alterations in perception
produced by the movement of the object, captures exactly the same situation (in quantity
and quality) as the observer in situ.
Einstein then proposes to calculate the energy of the emitted radiation in relation to the
new coordinate system.
First, Einstein makes a bold claim: the amount of radiation emitted from the object is
related to its speed of travel. This is essentially false. The emission of radiation is the
result of an internal atomic process of the object completely independent of the speed at
which it moves. The amount of emissions and the changes in it are absolutely due to
these internal processes.
Put more crudely, the movement of an object does not produce the emissions.
Second, Einstein maintains that the radiation emissions of a moving object decrease its
energy and therefore its mass, which is true; but to this he adds that this decrease in

66
energy and mass is due to the movement of the object and that it can be calculated by
means of the Lorentz factor in the following way:
In the coordinate system attached to the object at rest, the emission process is expressed
as follows:
E ' 0 =E ' 1 + L'
formula that implies the effect of the speed of the object on the emission and its
measurement by the Lorentz factor.
Explicitly
1 1 1
E0 =E1 +L

√ 1−
v2
c
2
√ 1−
v2
c
2
√ 1−
v2
c
2

L
1
Therefore, the energy lost by the object due to the emission,

function of the speed of the object.

√ 1−
v 2 is, for Einstein, a
c
2

The main argument for the demerit of the Einsteinian "thought experiment" is that there
is no causal relationship between the radiation emissions and the movement and speed of
the object.
But, in addition, as we have already seen, the Lorentz factor is a formula that has no
physical basis and also constitutes a mathematical and geometric aberration.
That is why any consequence obtained through its application is completely false,
erroneous, from the physical, mathematical and geometric points of view.
E0, E1 and L are the same regardless of the system from which they are quantized, that is,
at rest, moving, accelerated, etc.
Follow Einstein
By subtraction and omitting fourth or higher order terms in v/c, we obtain
1 L 2
E ' 0 −E0=E ' 1−E1 + v.
2 c2
However, E ' 0 −E0 is nothing other than the kinetic energy before the light is emitted and
E ' 1− E1 is nothing other than its kinetic energy after emission44.
Einstein has taken E0 from his hypothetical object at rest and E'0 from his also
hypothetical same object, now in motion, in his relation to an observer placed in a
material system at rest; it is not possible to obtain a real or hypothetical difference
between the two situations completely unrelated to each other; one measurement is made
on an object at rest and another on the same object in motion, but the object can only be
at rest or in motion. If it is at rest, the difference is taken between E ' 0 −E0 , which gives us
the result L; if it is moving, also the difference between E0 of the first hypothesis and E0 of
the second is non-existent.
E ' 0 −E0 are the energies of the object before the emission of radiation in cases 1 and 2,
respectively. Therefore, no relationship between them (addition, subtraction, etc.) can
result in any amount of emission, as would be the constituent of what Einstein calls the
kinetic energy of the object, that is, the amount of energy contained in the radiation.

The difference between E ' 0 ∧E0 is, according to Einstein's obtuse reasoning, one

th of E0 . But we already know that the term E ' 0 is spurious, it has no existence, so the
√ 1−
v2
c
2

difference also has no reality. The only thing that exists is E0 .

44
Idem.

67
The right side of the equation says that the difference E ' 1− E1 , which is by definition

√
2
v 2 , plus 1 L v 2, that is, the half of the difference between L' and L, which is the v
1−
c
2 2 c2 c
2

2th of L, is equal to E ' 0 −E0.

E1 is something non-existent so the difference E ' 1− E1 does not exist either.
This means that Einstein, in his classical way of proceeding, makes this equation
0−E0=0−E 1+0 L,
what remains like this
−E0 =−E1,
where the equation of the kinetic energy of the object is nowhere to be found, neither
before nor after the emission.
To be consistent with itself, Einstein's equation should have been
E ' 0 −E0=( E ' 1−E1 ) + ( L '−L ),
namely,
1 1 1
E0 −E 0=E1 −E1 + L −L

√ v2
1− 2
c √ v2
1− 2
c √ v2
1− 2
c
formula that is also false, but that is consistent with Einstein's hypothetical assumptions.
On the right hand side of the equation
1 L 2
E ' 0 −E0=E ' 1−E1 + v
2 c2
Einstein makes another formulation of the kinetic energy of the object.
1
L
Using an unorthodox mathematical operation, convert to

Einsteinian expression of the supposed kinetic energy of the object corresponding to the
√ v2 ,
1− 2
c
which is the

emission made, in
1 L 2
2 c2
v , what is Newton's kinetic energy formula 1 m v 2 impertinently
2 ( )
combined with Einstein's spurious formula 𝐸=𝑚𝑐 (here we clearly see what the source of
2

Einstein's highly celebrated equation is and, therefore, where its erroneous formulation

√
2
v which in turn originated in a
derives from: it comes from something non-existent 1− 2
c
series of grotesque occurrences (by Michelson and Morley, Lorentz and Einstein himself)
that led to the elevation of 𝑐2 to the status of a fundamental physical constant, replacing
the Newtonian term 𝑣2.
If 𝑀0 denotes the mass of the body before the emission, and 𝑀1 its mass after the emission, then
one can put, neglecting terms of higher than the second power
1 2 1 2 1 L 2
M0 v = M1 v + 2 v
2 2 2c
L
M 0=M 1 + 2 .
c
Thus the inertial mass of a body decreases upon emission of light. The energy emitted must be
reckoned as part of the body's mass. From this it can be concluded further that each absorption
or release of energy brings about, respectively, an increase or decrease of the mass of the body
involved.45

45
Ibídem, p. 386

68
 L
From this equation, M 0=M 1 + 2 , by means of not very orthodox manipulations, the so-
c
called “Einstein's (first) equation” is extracted, E (L) = mc2, whose true unscientific nature
we have diligently demonstrated.
A precision:
In the above a distinction is made between the two Einstein equations, which we
designate as the “first” and the “second” equation.
The "first" equation is the best known: E = mc2. The "second" is the field equation:
G μν=8 π T μν , where T μν is the energy stress tensor and G μν=R μν−¿ 1 g μν
R ¿is the Einstein
2
tensor formed by the Ricci curvature tensor, R μν, the metric tensor, g μν, and the scalar of
curvature R.

The general theory of relativity allows unraveling the laws

that govern the gravitational field

With the example of the "supernatural experiment" of the box located in the middle of
nowhere, Einstein considers that he has obtained the necessary elements to extend the
theory of relativity beyond the limits of its special form: in the first place, the introduction
of a movement other than the uniform rectilinear one, that is, the uniformly accelerated
movement, to which it assimilates the acceleration produced by a gravitational field on
bodies falling towards it; secondly, the addition of a reference body in which gravity does
not exist (the “Galilean” space as Einstein calls it) to which a body that has a gravitational
field (the box) is related.
But not only that; the illustrious sage has also found the true nature of the gravitational
force and the laws that govern it, all absolutely unknown before him.
Einstein maintains that gravitation is a force that has a general and a special nature. By
the first it acts between bodies in direct proportion to their masses and inversely to the
square of the distance; bodies are related to each other through the gravitational
character of their masses determined by their volume and density. By the second, a body
attracts another in a certain measure, independent of its volume and density, that is, of
its mass; one body exerts attraction on the other, but only in its abstract character of
being-something, without paying attention to its fundamental physical characteristics, so
the attractive force is the same for all bodies, whatever their mass.
The gravitational force acts in two ways: as such, bodies are related by means of the
physical characteristics of their masses, whose unit Einstein calls “gravitational mass”; in
its special form, a body, by means of its physical characteristics (volume and density),
that is, its "gravitational mass", attracts another by acting on its abstract being
(regardless of its physical characteristics), to which Einstein called "inertial mass".
Bodies possess a mass that is gravitational and inertial at the same time, but it manifests
relatively as one or the other: gravitational mass, in the attraction between bodies, and
inertial mass, in free fall.
Einstein adds one more element to his remarkable contribution to the knowledge of the
nature of gravitational forces and fields: the acceleration of the movement of a body in a
space free of gravity produces a gravitational field.
This conceptual gibberish is what Einstein presents as the novel foundations of the
general theory of relativity.
From our consideration of the accelerated chest we see that a general theory of relativity must
yield important results on the laws of gravitation. In point of fact, the systematic pursuit of the
general idea of relativity has supplied the laws satisfied by the gravitational field… 46

46
Einstein, Albert, Relativity. The Special and General Theory, XX. The equality of Inertial and
Gravitational Mass as an Argument for the General Postulate of Relativity, Translated by Robert

69
The systematic application (by Einstein) of the idea of relativity (developed by Einstein)
has provided the laws of gravitation (to Einstein's liking, not the ones that manifest in
reality), that is, a whole new body of ideas that the quintessential physicist launches into
the world to the amazement of all. We will see a little later how these new laws are
nothing more than the extension of all the absurdities and nonsense already expressed in
his special theory of relativity: the different measure of time and space of the same event
(its dilation or contraction) has evolved to the no less insane concept of gravitation as the
curvature of space-time.
Einstein began the argument about expanding the special theory of relativity to become
general with a variation of his railroad example. He wondered what the standing observer
in the car would think if the brakes were suddenly applied, and now that he has all the
scientific threads in hand, here is his sublime conclusion:
…It is certainly true that the observer in the railway carriage experiences a jerk forwards as a
result of the application of the brake, and that he recognizes in this the no uniformity of motion
(retardation) of the carriage. But he is compelled by nobody to refer this jerk to a “real”
acceleration (retardation) of the carriage. He might also interpret his experience thus: “My body of
reference (the carriage) remains permanently at rest. With reference to it, however, there exists
(during the period of application of the brakes) a gravitational field which is directed forwards and
which is variable with respect to time. Under the influence of this field, the embankment together
with the earth moves non-uniformly in such a manner that their original velocity in the
backwards direction is continuously reduced.47
…But he is compelled by nobody to refer this jerk to a “real” acceleration (retardation) of
the carriage. He might also interpret his experience thus: “My body of reference (the
carriage) remains permanently at rest. With reference to it, however, there exists (during
the period of application of the brakes) a gravitational field which is directed forwards!
O holy simplicity!
The transition from the special theory to the general theory of relativity has been a
complete fiasco, an inextricable conceptual entanglement, an absolute confusion of ideas,
a complete superseding of science by opinion: a gravitational field can be created by pure
imagination of their existence, the free fall of bodies is the same as their absolute lack of
motion, a reference system can be simultaneously a gravitational field and a "Galilean"
system, rest is also accelerated motion, uniform rectilinear motion is motion curved
accelerated, etc. This clumsy equalization of opposites is the contrary of a true dialectic, it
is sophistry of the worst kind.

Einstein's inferences from his general theory of relativity

The properties of the gravitational field.

In Chapter XXII of his book, having established the bridge between his special and
general theory, Einstein sets out to draw some inferences from the latter.
In the first place, it expresses that the "theoretical" elements achieved make it possible to
derive properties of the gravitational field.
If we know any natural process that occurs in space-time and we know the place it
occupies in a Galilean reference frame K, then it is possible to determine how this process
appears from the perspective of the reference body K', which is accelerated in relation to
K. Given that this reference body K' has, by the mere fact of being accelerated, a
gravitational field, then the view from K' apprehends the gravitational properties of this
body that act on the natural process considered.
In the example of the box that moves in a vacuum (this one, an external “Galilean”
reference frame K), the natural process, the free “fall” of bodies, which is an accelerated
movement, occurs inside it (reference frame K'). For K', therefore, no matter what reality

W. Lawson, New York: Henry Holt and Company, 1920. New York: Bartleby. Com, 2000, p.82
47
Ibídem, pp. 82-83

70
is, this natural process appears to occur in a gravitational field and this influences the
field, determining the fall of the bodies in the experiment with the same acceleration.
Acceleration in gravityless space produces a gravitational field!
It is opportune to point out here another of the follies of the sage par excellence.
The gravitational field of a body is the stripe of attractive force, its extension, that
surrounds it. All bodies have this zone of attraction, which is directly proportional to their
mass. Such a gravitational area is, by its nature, completely independent of the type of
movement that the body has, whether it be rectilinear uniform, retarded or accelerated, or
curved also uniform, retarded or accelerated, or whether it is at relative rest, although,
from then, it can be formally influenced by it. Hence, then, the monstrous ignorance of
Einstein, who attributes to the box of his unfortunate example a gravitational field
generated by the acceleration that it has with respect to a “Galilean” frame of reference.
It is evident that the box, by the mere fact of being a material object, has a gravitational
field that surrounds it; it is also true that the internal observer and all the objects that he
carries with him are surrounded by his attractive zone; it is equally unobjectionable that
there are relationships of mutual attraction between all these elements; and it is also
unquestionable that these relationships give rise to a gravitational field of the box with
specific characteristics, of course very different from those produced by a massive body
like the earth. That peculiar gravitational field does not exert or suffer any genetic
influence on and from the accelerated movement to which the box is subjected, so its
attractive properties cannot be extended to that, as Einstein wants.
On the other hand, under the absurd hypothesis that the acceleration produced a
gravitational field, this would not be, in the example given, an inverse replica of the
terrestrial gravitation, but one especially determined by the masses of the box and of the
bodies in it contained.
The considerations of Section XX show that the general theory of relativity puts us in a position
to derive properties of the gravitational field in a purely theoretical manner. Let us suppose, for
instance, that we know the space-time “course” for any natural process whatsoever, as regards
the manner in which it takes place in the Galileian domain relative to a Galileian body of
reference K. By means of purely theoretical operations (i.e. simply by calculation) we are then
able to find how this known natural process appears, as seen from a reference body K' which is
accelerated relatively to K. But since a gravitational field exists with respect to this new body of
reference K', our consideration also teaches us how the gravitational field influences the process
studied.
For example, we learn that a body which is in a state of uniform rectilinear motion with respect
to K (in accordance with the law of Galilei) is executing an accelerated and in general curvilinear
motion with respect to the accelerated reference-body K' (chest). This acceleration or curvature
corresponds to the influence on the moving body of the gravitational field prevailing relatively to
K'. It is known that a gravitational field influences the movement of bodies in this way, so that
our consideration supplies us with nothing essentially new.48

The curved path of solar rays in gravitational fields

Another inference that Einstein draws from his early approximations to the general theory
of relativity is that light rays travel in curvilinear paths in gravitational fields.
The author insists on his argument for the relativity of motion, which can be the same,
uniform and rectilinear for an observer located in a "Galilean" frame of reference and
accelerated (or retarded) and curvilinear for an observer placed in a gravitational field.
It states that all bodies exert an attractive force on light rays moving through their
gravitational fields, which produces a curvature in their path and a change in their speed
(retardation). In common objects within our reach these changes are not perceptible due
to their infinitesimal smallness. But at a cosmological level, the curvature of the rays of
the so-called fixed stars is observable and measurable when they pass through the
vicinity of the sun. It has been determined that for rays of starlight passing grazing by the
sun it is 1.7 arc seconds.

48
Einstein, Albert, Op. cit.. XXII. A few Inferences from the General theory of Relativity, pp. 87-88

71
 However, we obtain a new result of fundamental importance when we carry out the analogous
consideration for a ray of light. With respect to the Galileian reference-body K, such a ray of light
is transmitted rectilinearly with the velocity c. It can easily be shown that the path of the same
ray of light is no longer a straight line when we consider it with reference to the accelerated chest
(reference-body K').
From this we conclude, that, in general, rays of light are propagated curvilinearly in gravitational
fields. In two respects this result is of great importance.
In the first place, it can be compared with the reality. Although a detailed examination of the
question shows that the curvature of light rays required by the general theory of relativity is only
exceedingly small for the gravitational fields at our disposal in practice, its estimated magnitude
for light rays passing the sun at grazing incidence is nevertheless 1.7 seconds of arc. This ought
to manifest itself in the following way. As seen from the earth, certain fixed stars appear to be in
the neighborhood of the sun, and are thus capable of observation during a total eclipse of the
sun. At such times, these stars ought to appear to be displaced outwards from the sun by an
amount indicated above, as compared with their apparent position in the sky when the sun is
situated at another part of the heavens. The examination of the correctness or otherwise of this
deduction is a problem of the greatest importance, the early solution of which is to be expected of
astronomers. (By means of the star photographs of two expeditions equipped by a Joint
Committee of the Royal and Royal Astronomical Societies, the existence of the deflection of light
demanded by theory was confirmed during the solar eclipse of 29th May, 1919. (Cf. Appendix
III.)) 49
What is powerfully striking is the grotesque Einsteinian method of reasoning: first, by
crooked speculative paths, absurd examples, etc., he arrives at absolutely false
conclusions; then he takes a natural process, the essential properties of which have been
generally established and experimentally proven, and presents it bathed in the revealing
light of fraudulent discoveries, so that now, thanks to what he bombastically calls the
postulates of the general theory of relativity, has a more precise and fuller meaning.
Einstein refers us to the natural process of the propagation of light.
Experimentally it has been shown that in a vacuum (absence of matter and gravity) light
propagates rectilinearly and with an invariant speed; from here, to the contrary sensu, the
hypothesis is formulated that in gravitational fields light moves curvilinearly and with
variable speed. The only proof of the validity of this last proposition is the deviation
suffered by the rays of light coming from the fixed stars in their grazing path by the sun.
Well, Einstein inverts the whole process: first he "discovers" that a gravitational field
originates with the acceleration of bodies (a total falsehood, as we have already seen),
then that this gravitational field produces the "belief" that a certain natural process exists
(the free fall with equal acceleration of all bodies, for example) and, finally, that this
imagined natural process actually materializes in existence, now endowed with new
properties that the general theory of relativity has imprinted on it. The scientific validity of
the hypothesis of the curved trajectory and variable speed of light in gravitational fields is
established by Einstein in the false postulate of his theoretical bungling when he
proposes to extend the considerations he made regarding his experiment with the ethereal
box to the properties of a ray of light; with this he intends to demonstrate that, with
reference to the accelerated box, its trajectory is no longer straight nor its speed invariant
and that, for that very reason, by that value provided by the "postulate" of general
relativity, the general law can be expressed that "light rays propagate in curvilinear paths
in gravitational fields."
In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of
the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental
assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred,
cannot claim any unlimited validity. A curvature of rays of light can only take place when the
velocity of propagation of light varies with position. Now we might think that as a consequence of
this, the special theory of relativity and with it the whole theory of relativity would be laid in the
dust. But in reality this is not the case. We can only conclude that the special theory of relativity
cannot claim an unlimited domain of validity; its results hold only so long as we are able to
disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g. of light). 50

49
Ibídem, pp. 88-89

72
 The general theory of relativity and the nature of space-time

The general theory of relativity makes it possible, according to Einstein, to know the
influence that a gravitational field exerts on a natural process whose laws were already
known when gravitation was absent.
But more important than that, the author points out, is the fact that the general theory of
relativity allows us to establish the nature of the gravitational fields themselves.
The fundamental principle that governs this matter is that gravitational fields are
determined by the type and magnitude of the movements of bodies and by variations in
space-time.
The purpose of the general theory of relativity is to formulate a general law of the
relationship between the motion of bodies, the time and space in which they move, and
the existing gravitational field.
In the example of the transmission of light…. we have seen that the general theory of relativity
enables us to derive theoretically the influence of a gravitational field on the course of a natural
process, the laws of which are already known when a gravitational field is absent. But the most
attractive problem, for the solution of which the general theory of relativity provides the key,
concerns the investigation of the laws satisfied by the gravitational field itself. Let us consider
this for a moment.
We are acquainted with space-time domains which behave (approximately) in a “Galileian”
fashion under suitable choice of reference-body, i.e. domains in which gravitational fields are
absent. If we now refer such a domain to a reference-body K' possessing any kind of motion, then
relative to K' there exists a gravitational field which is variable with respect to space and time.
(This follows from a generalization of the discussion in Section XX. 92 General theory of
relativity). The character of this field will of course depend on the motion chosen for K'. According
to the general theory of relativity, the general law of the gravitational field must be satisfied for all
gravitational fields obtainable in this way. Even though by no means all gravitational fields can
be produced in this way, yet we may entertain the hope that the general law of gravitation will be
derivable from such gravitational fields of a special kind.51
We also find here the usual substantiation of Einstein's theoretical errors: the nature of
gravitational fields only finds its full explanation through the use of the instruments that
he has forged in his absolutely erroneous general theory of relativity.
In the special theory of relativity, Einstein concluded that there are two related reference
systems, one fixed and the other in uniform rectilinear motion, a natural process that
takes place in the second of them is affected by the speed at that this one moves with
respect to the first one with a contraction of the space and a dilation of the time in which
it is produced (only perceptible for the observer located in the second system), in a
measure that is determined by the Lorentz transformation.
The alterations of the space-time of a natural process are attributed by Einstein, in the
special theory, to the sole action of the speed of the second reference system.
In this part of the general theory, Einstein lays the foundations for the extension of the
role of time and space in natural processes; time and space are no longer only modified by
the action of the speed of the natural process, as in the special theory, but now have their
own life, they are substance, they constitute true forces that determine the properties of
natural processes, they form the gravitational field of the bodies. They have gone from
being a passive object to becoming an active subject.
It is evident that this extension of the principle of relativity is as false as the postulate
from which it proceeds. Time and space do not constitute material elements on which
natural processes can influence, much less objective factors that determine the properties
of matter, for example its gravitational force (field); time is, plainly and simply, the
duration of a natural process that is conventionally measured in units that are set
according to a standard movement, in this case the rotation of the earth, and is included
in sidereal time, that is to say, that, computed in the same way, in which the natural
50
Ibídem, pp. 89-90
51
Ibídem, pp. 91-92

73
processes of the "observable universe" occur, to which the terrestrial spin belongs;
Likewise, space is the three-dimensional continent of natural processes and its magnitude
is established according to the pattern of the measurements of a terrestrial meridian,
which is applied to all the phenomena of the “observable universe”.
Einstein began his argument about the general theory by vigorously rejecting the
assumption of classical mechanics of the instantaneous action at a distance of the force
of gravity and also the existence of the ether, an imponderable substance that was
supposed to fill space and through which the various forces were transmitted between
bodies; however, in the development of its postulates it falls back on an even more naive
metaphysics by endowing time and space with a substantive character, a material
existence from which they determine the properties of natural processes or are
determined by them.
As we have already established before, all bodies have, in the space that surrounds them,
a gravitational field that is the container of the force of attraction of the bodies; this is an
extension of the internal attractive force that gives them cohesion. The fundamental
characteristics of this attractive force between bodies are determined by the nature of the
cohesive force, since it is the same one that is projected abroad, and by its mass; its
action consists of attracting to the body everything that is within its gravitational field or
that enters it. The magnitude of the attractive force is in inverse proportion to the
distance from any point in the gravitational field to the attracting body, so it has its
maximum value on the surface of the body, from where it decreases until it reaches = 0 at
outer limit of the gravitational field.
The gravitational force is attraction and at the same time repulsion. The cohesive
attractive force is also a repulsive force, exactly what is necessary so that the separation
of matter is maintained within the parameters within which its properties are fully
manifested; in the same way, the constitutive attraction of the gravitational field is
immediately a repulsive force that preserves the mutual relations of the bodies at the
point where the system they integrate requires it according to its nature.
Attraction becomes repulsion and vice versa. In a dialectical relationship, the internal
attraction force is transformed, under certain circumstances, into repulsion, and this, in
turn, into attraction. The internal processes of the bodies develop through these
alternating transmutations between attraction and repulsion. In the same way, the force
of attraction between the bodies is changed into a repulsive force and this, in turn, into
that; these conversions determine the mutual relations between bodies and their
movements.
In the planetary system, the solar body is surrounded by a wide gravitational field which
is a continuation of the internal gravitational force. The planets also have their own
gravitational field and their location and movement with respect to the sun are
determined by the attractive force of the central body, the repulsion that this is in itself
and the gravitational force of the planets, since the exact relationship between all these
aspects are what make it possible for the planet to remain in orbit, without falling
towards the center or escaping into infinite space. The movement of the planets in their
orbits is carried out by means of the alternating transformation of attraction into
repulsion and vice versa; at perihelion, the force of attraction changes into repulsion and
this takes the planetary body to aphelion; here, repulsion is changed to attraction and the
planet then moves towards perihelion, and so on, in an elliptical motion. This is so, as we
have already said, because attraction and repulsion are themselves and their other and in
him they become and from him they constantly become.
The gravitational force is exerted in a space that includes the volume of the sun and that
of the planets and their extension, which are their gravitational fields; it is that force
extended in space that produces the relationship between the central star and the planets
and that determines their movement in an elliptical orbit; it is also the one that would
define the trajectory of any foreign body that entered the solar system, such as a ray of
light coming from some distant star. Space is only the container of this force and has no

74
material effect on its nature or magnitude. Similarly, the attractive force has no influence
on space or time.
The gravitational field of the sun and the planets forms a spherical shell precisely because
it is the extension of a spherical body; consequently, the part of the space that this field
occupies is also spherical; but that in no way means that gravitation has curved space,
but rather that a curved object has filled a space that itself is formless and infinite. That
is why it is not the shape of space, which does not have any of its own, but the genetic
movement and the curved gravity field that produce the elliptical movement of the
planets; this orbiting is generated by the force that extends through the gravitational field,
which has a certain curvature that has been provided by the gravitational force of the
central star.
The movement of the planets in elliptical orbits has its causes, first, in the impulse that
their genesis has provided them from the rotating nebula that condenses into a central
body and rotating rings of matter that later become solid bodies, in planets, and, second,
in the gravitational force that the central body and its satellites have acquired precisely in
the process of their formation. This planetary movement occurs in a pre-existing part of
space that is the continent of our galaxy; this spatial plot is only the place where that
displacement occurs and its role only consists of being its receptacle, without influencing
its nature and development at all. For their part, neither do planetary processes (nor do
gravitational fields, therefore) have any material effect on space, other than being
produced in it.
The time of natural processes is their duration measured by the time unit, carefully fixed,
which is equal to a 360o rotation of the earth on its own axis; this is the universal clock,
both of the macrocosm and the microcosm. Earth's rotation is the unit of measurement of
time, against which all the processes of the universe are compared to determine their
duration, and also the engine of time that flows producing the universal present, past and
future: this rotation of the earth what is happening now is what determines the present,
today; the previous ones, the past; and the later ones, the future of the “observable
universe”; in this time that runs in such a way all natural processes take place.
This time considered in this way is not subject to any change in its nature caused by the
different material elements and processes that exist and occur in the universe; it is the
same for elementary particles, atoms, molecules, chemical substances, living beings, the
planetary system, the galaxy, the entire "observable universe" and for atomic and
chemical reactions, life, planetary movements, the formation of stars, the constitution of
galaxies, etc. Everything is measured with him and in him exists.
The bodies and the fields and the gravitational forces that make up the solar planetary
system exist and are exerted in geocentric time and with it the duration of their processes
and movements is measured. Neither the field nor gravitational forces have any influence
on time; they cannot cause alteration of any kind that changes their nature as a unit of
measurement and engine of the temporal flow based on the Earth's rotation. They cannot
lengthen it, contract it, distort it, or in any way affect its being. On the other hand,
neither can time determine the characteristics of the natural processes that take place in
gravitational fields, neither as a unit of measurement nor as a temporal flow.
In his special theory of relativity, Einstein concludes that the uniform rectilinear
movement of the reference frame in which certain physical phenomena occur causes, for
the mobile observer, the contraction of space and the dilation of time in which they
unfold. In the general theory, Einstein maintains that in accelerated reference frames,
which he equates with a gravitational field, and in gravitational fields proper, space and
time are affected by the gravitational force and with them the natural phenomena that
there they occur
Einstein's claim that gravitational fields influence space and time, altering them in some
way, or that space and time, in turn, act on the natural processes that occur in gravitational
fields by determining them, is, for all the reasons that we have exposed, absolutely
preposterous and absurd.

75
 Physical interpretation of time and space in the
general theory of relativity

Einstein's argumentative method moves in an incessant vicious circle: he announces with

great fanfare the development of a new theory that will revolutionize human knowledge,
then he announces that he proceeds to enumerate the fundamental "postulates" of the
same, and then he does a parenthesis to discuss some matter that in his opinion will
allow the reader to understand more fully the new principles; At the end of his digression,
he proclaims again the majesty of his theses, notifies that now he will expose the
fundamental ideas of his theory, and again some methodological or other question
attracts his attention diverting it from the stated purpose; and so on without interruption.
That is why in his two main works, Relativity The Special and General Theory and The
Foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, we do not find a systematic, exhaustive
exposition of the postulates of the general theory of relativity, but a jumble of secondary
topics, repetitive, without order or concert; it must have been his exegetes who, through
tortuous labor, discovered what his master meant.
In Chapter XXIII of his Relativity… Einstein announces that he will proceed to expound
on the physical interpretation of time and space; but faithful to his discursive method,
before that he ruminates again on the subject of the nature of time and space in special
relativity to point out the insufficiency of this conception in the face of the more complete
and profound one of general relativity (which, of course, he will never enunciate).
He then proposes to investigate, by means of rulers and clocks, what happens with time
and space in a flat disk that rotates uniformly around its center.
He invents a reference frame K, free of gravity, in which the reference body R and the
observer OK are at rest, and a reference frame K' formed by the reference body R', which
is a disk with uniform rotary motion, in which the observer OK' is at rest in relation to the
disk; the reference body R' has a radius r and a circumference C.
The starting point is the consideration of the disk as an object that has a gravitational
field generated by its circular motion.
The observer OK' intends to find exact definitions about the meaning of the data of time
and space in reference to the disk R' and for this he performs experiments on it.
Place clocks in the center and on the edge of the disk, which are at rest with respect to it.
From the point of view of the OK observer, the clock in the center has no speed, the one
on the edge is in motion due to rotation and, by the result of section XII (of Einstein's
book), the first one works more slowly than the second (petitio principii). The modest sage
considers that his theoretical eccentricities are physical principles endowed with an
unquestionable validity and that therefore they can be automatically applied to theoretical
problems, without the need for any justification. In this case, he has made use of his
remarkable discovery: the movement alters the functioning of watches.
If an observer were placed in the center of the disc, he would appreciate the situation in
the same way as the OK observer. [Einstein says nothing about the observer OK' (where
he is located, etc.), he only orders him to carry out the experiment].
The general conclusion that Einstein draws from this, and which is supposed to be the
same as the one the OK observer arrives at, is that, on the disk, or more generally, in any
gravitational field, a clock will go faster or slower than according to the position in which it
is located.
For this reason, says Einstein, it is not possible to obtain a reasonable definition of time
with the help of clocks that are at rest with respect to the reference body.
The OK observer measures the circumference of the moving disk with his standard ruler,
but in doing so, this ruler is reduced and is less than unity because according to section
XII (petitio principii) moving bodies undergo a shortening in the direction of movement
(rule and circumference of the disc are shortened accordingly); but if OK uses his ruler to

76
measure the radius of the disk, it will not suffer any alteration in its extension, since its
length is not subject to the action of the speed of rotation of the disk.
If OK measures first the circumference and then the radius of the disk, the relation
between this and that will not be π, but less than π.
This is why, says Einstein, with a ridiculous academic pedantry, that the propositions of
Euclidean geometry cannot be applied exactly to the rotating disk, nor in general in a
gravitational field, and the idea of a straight line, pontificates the sage also loses its
meaning.
Following this same path of reviling old Euclidean geometry, Cartesian coordinate
systems and, in general, Newtonian mechanics, much inferior, according to Einstein, to
his luminous scientific revelations contained in the special and general theories of
relativity, the sage illustrates us by saying that the coordinate system x, y, z is also no
longer useful to define the space-time situation of the disk and in the same way an exact
meaning cannot be assigned to natural laws (that is, while are not in accordance with the
supposed scientific postulates of Einstein).
Once this digression has been exhausted, the author, as is his custom, solemnly
promises his readers that now, after making an "ingenious" detour, the postulates of
general relativity (which he has not yet exposed) will be able to be applied in their entirety.
extension.
This example given by Einstein has the same nature as that of all those he conceives with
his wild imagination: either they are completely removed from the matter at hand, or they
refer to it but their results prove exactly the opposite of what has been proposed, the
assumptions on which they are based and the processes and movements they describe
are absolutely fanciful, completely removed from reality, but also ridiculous, puerile, and
so on.
There is a pitiful muddle in this Einsteinian example. Einstein deplorably confuses time
with the device used to measure it (mechanical, electrical, electronic, atomic, etc.) and
spatial extension with the instrument used to quantify it (physical rule, etc.) and uses his
concepts interchangeably, without any rigor, exchanging them capriciously.
In the example, the time that a point on the outer circumference of the disc takes to
complete a 360o turn, the same as the central point remains immobile, passes in the
temporal flow formed by the succession of Earth days and is likely to be measured by the
equally determined unit. The physical clock (mechanical, electrical, electronic, atomic,
etc.) placed in the great circle of the disc has been previously synchronized with the clock
placed in the center of the disc and the two are matched with the clock that
conventionally represents the universal unit of measurement. Einstein assures that, when
the turn of the disc is completed, the clock placed in the last circle will work more slowly
for the external observer and will have a discrepancy with the clock placed in the center
(which is synchronized with the conventional clock); the time marked by the clock located
in the last circle of the disc for a complete revolution is less than the time computed in
the central clock. The fact that the clock of the great circle marks a lower time than that
of the center is due, Einstein tells us, to that the circular movement, faster at the edge of
the disk, slows down the flow of time and, consequently, the functioning of the watch;
then, the unit of measurement is no longer the universally recognized one, nor is the flow
of time determined by the earth's rotation, time has dilated.
Joshua52, in order to achieve his military purposes, asked Jehovah to stop the sun and
the moon; and the supreme being did so. Einstein has surpassed that feat of divinity,
since a simple mortal, although perhaps the most "intelligent" of all those who have
existed, with only his imagination (a form of thought) he managed in his example,
although do not stop the course of the stars, at least (and it is not little) slow down the
rotation of the earth, measure and universal engine of time, and thus reduce the value of
the unit to calculate it and slow down its slide. And his feat is even more remarkable

52
Josué 10:13, Antiguo Testamento.

77
because, while with one of his powerful arms (metaphorically speaking, because we
already know that what he uses is his immeasurable mental energy) he slowed down the
terrestrial rotation, with the other he maintained the normal course of the terrestrial
rotation; that is to say, that this worthy precursor of the science fiction genre forged, with
pure brain, two parallel worlds with two different times.
Let us suppose, as Einstein wants, that the clock of his fanciful experiment has ticked
more slowly. Since a reduction in its pace (a specific physical phenomenon) cannot be due
to the action of time (as a unit of measurement or temporal flow), then it must have
physical causes that affect the material of which it is made, the movement of its
mechanism, the electronic or atomic processes that determine its operation, etc., and
thus we would find ourselves faced with the physical problem of knowing how the speed
of the rotating movement materially acts on the constitution and physical structure of the
watch, giving rise to a change in its normal running .
The ruler used by the external observer and the one placed in the center of the disc are an
exact replica of the universally accepted ruler that is based on the longitude of the
terrestrial meridian; According to the law of the special theory of relativity, that is, with
Einstein's pseudoscientific trickery, the ruler that is placed on the edge of the disk, which
in principle is the same as the other two, at the end of the first rotation will suffer a
reduction in its length for the same reason that the circumference of the disk will have
shortened proportionally to its speed, a reduction that we can know through the Lorentz
transformation. Accordingly, Einstein draws the foolish conclusion that since the observer
at the center of the disk measures the radius with the universal ruler and the observer at
the edge with the ruler contracted by the gravitational field, then the radius is no longer
in the ratio of 3.1416 to 1 with the great circle, but to a lesser extent. Einstein tells us,
without flinching in the least, the following nonsense: 1) my law, the principle of special
relativity I discovered, causes the speed imparted to a body to produce a contraction of the
same in the direction of movement; 2) this same cause gives rise to a decrease in the length
of the ruler we use to measure the body; 3) Consequently, the space has also been reduced
in the same proportion.
If we suppose that due to a certain physical action caused by the speed the disc contracts
in a certain magnitude from the circumference towards the center, this reduction does
not affect in any way the space in which this phenomenon unfolds, nor as a unit of
measure nor as a universal continent; on the contrary, it reaffirms them as such, since
this shrinkage can only be computed with the conventional unit of spatial measurement
that has universal validity and the quantity that decreases the space that the body now
occupies is at the same time the volume of the space that is added to the existing
separation between the body and the adjacent objects; at the end of the process the
absolute extension will be the same and will only be distributed differently between the
bodies and the separations between them.

Euclidean and non-Euclidean continuum

Using another deplorable example, such as his peculiar way of arguing, Einstein
concludes that the Euclidean continuum and the Cartesian coordinate system, which he
had used in an expanded version to represent the variables considered in the special
theory (x, y, z and t), were clearly insufficient to simulate the elements of the general
theory, so it was necessary to develop a new mathematical-geometric model that would
allow their full characterization.
In the same way that in the special theory he brazenly appropriated the Lorentz
transformation and made it his own, so here, in the general theory, Einstein takes the
advances of renowned mathematicians and, ruthlessly disfiguring them, incorporates
them into his theoretical monstrosity.

78
Gauss had explored the representation of a two-dimensional continuum by a system of
curved coordinates, arranged as abscissas and ordinates, placed side by side and
separated by an infinitesimally small distance ds; what is characteristic of this model is
that in it each point of the continuum thus located represents an event, and a succession
of points in the coordinate system its movement.
Riemann starts from this Gaussian coordinate system and extends it in such a way that it
can represent an n-dimensional continuum by means of the coordinates x, y, z… n; in this
new system, events can be represented by contiguous points (determined by the
coordinates x, y, z…n), separated by infinitesimally small spaces, in such a way that the
distance between them is expressed differentially (ds) and is fixed by the infinitesimally
small variations dx, dy, dz… dn of the n-dimensional coordinates; the movement of these
events is also represented by infinitesimally small movements of the points. The distances
and movements of these points are calculated by means of the ancient formulas of
Pythagoras and the no less venerable ones of Newton's differential calculus.
To this evolution of the representative coordinate systems of objective reality, Einstein
collaborates in the usual way: he appropriates them without further ado and distorts
them according to his interests.
He considers the Minkowski coordinate system, which he has used to represent events
according to special relativity, insufficient to characterize them from the point of view of
general relativity; the cause of this he makes lie in the fact that in that system the
continuum is represented by discrete points, widely separated, which makes it impossible,
he says, to have a precise concept of time and space and therefore also to assign an exact
meaning to natural laws.
He then takes the Riemannian extension of Gauss's system and, completely denaturing it,
assigns it a formless constitution, which he quite appropriately calls a "mollusk"; in this,
the discrete is annulled and continuity is established, in such a way that each point of
the “mollusk”, immediately adjacent to the other, corresponds to a specific clock and rule.
Einstein asserts that with this instrument it is possible to appropriately represent
objective reality, which is made up of points without a solution of continuity, each of
which exists in a certain space and time that have infinitesimal variations from one to
another of the contiguous points. Objective reality is a continuum of multiple points that
meet, each one of them, in a specific space and time, of a different nature.
The blunder committed by Einstein in his special theory of relativity by expressing that
for the same event there are two different times and spaces, is raised to the nth power in
his argument on general relativity, in which he states that there are multiple times and
spaces different, as many as there are contiguous points in objective reality.
Here Einstein ends the “ingenious detour” (so he describes it, modestly) that he had to
take to arrive at the exposition of the postulates of his theory of general relativity.

Exact formulation of the principle of general relativity.

In chapter XXV of his work, Einstein asserts that he is in a position to formulate exactly
the fundamental principle of his theory of general relativity. Previously, in chapter XVIII,
he had advanced a provisional form of it: "All reference bodies K, K', etc., are equivalent for
the description of natural phenomena (formulation of the general laws of nature), whatever
be his movement”, which he qualifies as insufficient in view of all the arguments, already
extensively commented on by us at the time, which he adduced in the following chapters.
He indicates that the most complete formulation, the one that incorporates all later
developments, is the following: “All Gaussian [Gaussian-Riemannian, he should have said]
co-ordinate systems are essentially equivalent for the formulation of the general laws of
nature.”53

53
Einstein, Albert, Op. cit. XXVIII. Exact formulation of the General Principle of Relativity, p.115

79
There is in Einstein a reiterated confusion between what objective reality is and the
means and instruments to measure and represent it; thus, we have already seen how he
uses indistinctly, and makes them equivalent, absolutely interchangeable, the concept of
the physical phenomenon of time and the instrument used for its measurement and the
notion of space and the "ruler" with which its extension is determined; in the same way, it
substitutes one for the other, indiscriminately, by equating objective reality and the
coordinate systems devised to represent it.
Thus, it is not the objective reality that is subject to general relativity, but its
mathematical-geometric representation, the Gaussian coordinate systems, in such a way
that it is these that give the character of scientific truth to the laws of nature.
The great power possessed by the general principle of relativity lies in the comprehensive
limitation which is imposed on the laws of nature in consequence of what we have seen above. 54
Later, when he tries to clarify the fundamental principle of his theory, he has no less than
to turn to objective reality to find there the manifestations of general relativity.
…non-rigid reference-bodies are used which are as a whole not only moving in any way
whatsoever, but which also suffer alterations in form ad lib. during their motion. Clocks, for
which the law of motion is of any kind, however irregular, serve for the definition of time. We
have to imagine each of these clocks fixed at a point on the non-rigid reference-body. These
clocks satisfy only the one condition, that the “readings” which are observed simultaneously on
adjacent clocks (in space) differ from each other by an indefinitely small amount. This non-rigid
reference-body, which might appropriately be termed a “reference-mollusk,” is in the main
equivalent to a Gaussian four-dimensional co-ordinate system chosen arbitrarily. That which
gives the “mollusk” a certain comprehensibleness as compared with the Gauss co-ordinate
system is the (really unqualified) formal retention of the separate existence of the space co-
ordinates as opposed to the time co-ordinate. Every point on the mollusk is treated as a space-
point, and every material point which is at rest relatively to it as at rest, so long as the mollusk is
considered as reference-body. The general principle of relativity requires that all these mollusks
can be used as reference-bodies with equal right and equal success in the formulation of the
general laws of nature; the laws themselves must be quite independent of the choice of mollusk. 55
The general principle of relativity, rescued from the conceptual obscurity of its creator,
can be expressed by saying that objective reality is made up of formless bodies, made up
of a multitude of contiguous spatial points that are separated by infinitely small
distances; each of these points has a specific time and space. These shapeless bodies are
a continuum of multiple points whose time and space vary by infinitely small amounts
from one adjacent point to another; they constitute, therefore, also a continuum of
numerous spaces and times that vary infinitesimally. Einsteinian formless bodies can be
perfectly represented by Gaussian-Riemannian coordinate systems.
If for the moment we leave aside the primitive conception of objective reality as "molluscs"
(formless bodies), we find here the essence of Einstein's scientific swindle: the complete
distortion of the clear, simple and elementary concepts of time and space. Later we will
see how this deformation is the battering ram used for the assault on the fortifications of
science and philosophy that is consummated with the taking of the square by Einstein's
anti-scientific relativistic theory and the stupid, to say the least, theory of " big Bang".

The solution of the problem of gravitation on the bases

of the general principle of relativity

Once again Einstein was one step away from formulating "more precisely" the
fundamental postulate of his theory (what we have presented as such is not something
that Einstein has expressly exposed, but rather an inference of ours obtained from the
obscure farrago of his arguments). In chapter XXIX of the popularization work that we

54
Ibídem, pp. 118
55
Ibídem, pp. 117-118

80
have been analyzing56, it is arranged to solve the problem of gravitation in accordance
with the general principle of relativity.
Of course, we can anticipate that in this case he will not be able to fulfill his offers either
and that this "problem" will not be resolved, at least explicitly.
In chapter XXII of the cited work Einstein had made some inferences of his general
principle of relativity from the transformation of a Galilean reference system to another in
which a gravitational field existed (absurdly attributed by our author to the accelerated
movement of a body); In the analysis of this supposed gravitational field, Einstein finds
some characteristics of it that, in his opinion, can only be fully understood through his
general theory of relativity. The first one postulates the equivalence of inertial mass and
gravitational mass, which determines the fall of bodies with the same acceleration in the
gravitational field; the second, the proposition that light rays travel in curvilinear paths in
gravitational fields; the third, that gravitational fields are structures of space-time
determined by the masses of the bodies
In this part of his work, Einstein argues that the general theory of relativity must get rid
of that special case in which its nature is manifested through the transformation from a
Galilean reference frame (without gravity) to a Gaussian-Riemmanian one (with a curved
gravitational field) and establish the general case, that is, the general law of the
gravitational field. And as is his custom, he leaves us expectantly awaiting the revelation
of the wise man, which does not occur, since he only gives some indications of the
requirements that the generalization of the law of the gravitational field must fulfill, the
main one of which is that it must also satisfy the general postulate of relativity (which, we
already know, has not been able to express and we formulate purging its chaotic
ramblings).
Using the same expedient, we can establish that the general law stipulates that the
characteristics of the gravitational field can be obtained without starting from a Galilean
system (without gravity), only by directly applying a Gaussian-Riemmanian reference
system (space- curved time).
At this point Einstein has completed the herculean (mental) task of forging, to the
astonishment of the world, the portentous theory of relativity in its two parts, the special
and the general.
In the previous discussion we have addressed the issues of the general theory of relativity.
There we find that Einstein replicates the mechanism he used to establish the special
theory.
In the first place, establish the theoretical prejudices that will serve as the foundation for
his conceptual edifice. Next, he appropriates various productions of physical science and
mathematics, systematically deforms them and, thus distorted, applies them to the
development of his theory. Finally, season all this with absurd and puerile examples.
The first principle that Einstein establishes is that of the nature of the earth's gravitational
force. The force of gravity, in classical mechanics, is a field that surrounds the body. Its
intensity is determined by its mass and by distance; in the vicinity of the body is more
intense and decreases until it disappears as the distance is greater. Its fundamental
characteristic is to attract other bodies in direct relation to their masses and inversely to
the square of the distance. The interaction of bodies is carried out through the physical
characteristics of their masses: volume and density.
But the force of terrestrial gravity also has, according to Einstein, a "remarkable"
property: in free fall, bodies are attracted to the surface of the planet with an acceleration
that is not applied to the physical mass of the body, but to its mass " inertial”, so the
increase in speed is the same, whatever the density and volume of the attracted body.
The terrestrial force of gravity is one, but, according to the theoretical prejudice sustained
by physical science, Galileo and Newton included, it acts differently depending on whether

56
Ibídem, XXIX The solution of the problem of gravitation on the basis of the general principle of
relativity, pp.119-124

81
it is exerted on the surrounding sidereal bodies, bodies in free fall and bodies lying in the
Earth land surface. In the former and latter cases the attraction operates to the fullest
extent according to masses and distances; in the second, the gravitational force imparts
the same acceleration to all bodies, whatever their mass.
In accordance with this, Einstein discovers in the mass of bodies a double nature: its
gravitational character and its "inertial" property, which manifest themselves, relatively,
"according to the circumstances".
Inertia is the intrinsic force of bodies that keeps them at rest or in uniform rectilinear
motion; Its measurement is proportional to the mass and is obtained by quantifying the
force that is necessary to impart to the body to move it from rest, add speed to the current
rectilinear movement or modify it.
In the orbital movement of the moon, for example, the star, driven by the centrifugal
force, inertially tends to follow a movement in a straight line; the terrestrial attraction is
what overcomes the inertia of the satellite and forces it to follow the elliptical orbit. The
measure of the inertia of uniform motion in a rectilinear direction is given by the intensity
of gravity at that specific point in space, determined, as is known, by the masses of the
planet and its satellite and the distance between them.
In free fall, the body is at rest at the point where it begins its displacement; the inertia
that it possesses at this moment is overcome by the force of terrestrial gravity, which
immediately gives it an accelerated rectilinear movement.
In both cases, the gravitational force of the earth acts on the masses of the satellite and of
the objects, respectively, bending their inertia with a force that is determined by the
physical masses (volume and density) and the distance.
Here Einstein's ignorance and recklessness come to the fore.
For him, in one case the terrestrial gravity acts on the gravitational mass and in the other
on the inertial mass. But we already see that in both situations the gravitational force
acts on the physical masses of the bodies to impose themselves on their inertia and rise
above it, giving them a certain movement.
With the aim of astonishing the world and letting it know that the theory of relativity is
going to put order in all the theoretical mess of classical mechanics, Einstein postulates
that the first law of general relativity is the following: the same quality of a body it
manifests itself [in the gravitational field], according to the circumstances [i.e., "relatively"]
as "inertia" or as "weight". This is the first "scientific" proposition that the theory of
relativity issues about the nature of gravity; this statement is, as has been shown,
completely false.
The theoretical prejudice of the equality of the rate of descent, from the same height, in a
vacuum, of bodies of different masses, comes directly from Galileo Galilei.
In his work Discorsi e Dimostrazioni Matematice, intorno à due nuoue scienze Attenenti alla
Mecanica & i Movimenti Locali57, Galileo undertakes the task of unraveling the laws of the
free fall of bodies.
Galileo's positions constitute a direct denial of the ideas held by Aristotle in his treatise
About Heaven; in it, according to Simplicio, one of the interlocutors in the dialogues of the
Discorsi, the Stagirite had established that bodies of different weight move in one and the
same medium with different speeds, those that are to each other in the same ratio as
their weights, in such a way that, for example, a body that is ten times as heavy as the
other will also move ten times as fast.
[Galileo refers to the following passage from Aristotle's "On Heaven":
Now that it is impossible for an infinite weight to exist will become apparent from what follows. In
effect, if such a weight moves such a (distance) in such a time, such another (greater) will do it in

57
Discorsi e Dimostrazioni Matematiche, intorno à due nuoue scienze Attenenti alla Mecanica & i
Movimenti Locali; del Signor Galileo Galilei Linceo, Filosofo e Matematico primario del
Serenissimo Gran Duca di Toscana. Con una Appendice del centro di grauità d’alcuni Solidi. IN
LEIDA, Appresso gli Elsevirii. M. D. C. XXXVIII

82
 less time, and the times will be in inverse ratio to the weights; v. g.: if a half weight (moves) in so
much time, a double weight will do it in half that time…]58
Through a series of arguments full of sophistry, Galileo reaches a conclusion: "... it is
highly probable that in a vacuum all bodies must fall at the same speed"(underlined by
GRE) 59
It is a mere demonstrative dialectic, based on false syllogisms, in the manner of the
sophists, and not a deduction based on the principles of a scientifically proven theory.
In the mouth of another of the participants in the dialogues of which his work is
composed, Galileo openly challenges Aristotle.
It is possible, he tells us, to prove, by means of a short and conclusive argument, that a
heavier body does not move faster than a lighter one.
His speech unfolds as follows.
One and the same body, moving in a single medium, has a fixed speed determined by
nature.
Let us take two bodies with different natural velocities.
If the two bodies join:
-the fastest will be retarded by the slowest;
-the slowest will be accelerated by the fastest.
We have that a large stone moves at the speed of eight and a smaller one with a speed of
four.
Together they make a stone bigger than the one that moved at the speed of eight.
If the one with the lower speed retards the one with the higher speed, then the two joined
stones will not move at the sum of the two speeds, but at a lower one.
The two stones together have more weight than the larger stone alone.
Consequently, a heavier body (the two stones together) moves [proportionally] more slowly
than the lighter one (the larger stone alone).
Which shows that Aristotle's statement is false.
Simplicio, the supporter of the Aristotelian theses in the dialogues of Galileo's work,
replies that the small stone, when added to the larger one, increases the weight of the
latter and, therefore, its speed.
Through another of the dialogue partners, Galileo replies that Simplicio is wrong because
he does not distinguish between heavy bodies in motion and at rest.
A stone placed on a scale (at rest, therefore) gains more weight when another weight is
placed on top of it.
When it is in free fall motion, the weight placed on the large stone does not increase its
weight because it does not join with the stone but falls with it [NB This is the core of the
sophism].
For this reason, during the free and natural fall, the small stone does not press on the
large one and consequently does not increase its weight.
The weight of the larger one would only be increased if the larger stone moves faster than
the smaller one.
But it has been concluded that when the smaller stone moves more slowly, it slows down
the speed of the larger one, so the combination of the two would move more slowly. Which
is contrary to Aristotle's proposition.
Consequently, the larger stone and the smaller stone move at the same speed because
they have the same specific gravity.
Galileo establishes a false and arbitrary premise: If two bodies with different natural
speeds join together, the faster one will be retarded by the slower one and the latter will
be accelerated by the faster one.
The union of two bodies falling at different speeds gives rise to the formation of a new
body whose weight or mass is the sum of the weights or masses of each of them.
58
Aristóteles, Acerca del Cielo. Meteorológicos., Introducción, Traducción y Notas de Miguel Candel,
Editorial Gredos, Madrid, 1996, p. 66.
59
Galileo Galilei, Dialogue Concerning Two New Sciences, Translated by Henry and Alfonso Salvio,
Macmillan, 1914.

83
This union, which Galileo performs mentally, in Aristotelian reality can only be the one
that occurs when, in free fall, the larger body catches up with the smaller one (otherwise,
the smaller one would never catch up with the larger body). larger size). The result is a
body of a larger size, equal to the sum of the two original bodies. In Aristotle's mechanics,
that larger body will have a larger speed, proportional to its new weight or mass.
As we can see, Galileo constructs a spurious extension of the Aristotelian theory: the
union of the body with the lower weight to the body with the higher weight will necessarily
retard the speed of the latter. Of course, Aristotle never, anywhere, expressed this idea.
Once he attributes this absurdity to it, Galileo concludes that, since Aristotelian
reasoning leads to two opposite conclusions: larger bodies move both faster and slower,
both are necessarily false.
From there, without any logical transition or support in the laws of physics or mechanics,
Galileo abruptly arrives at a conclusion: the largest and the smallest stone descend at the
same speed because they have the same specific gravity.
What Galileo is trying to say with this is that at a certain height all bodies are subject to a
force of gravity of the same intensity; and, he concludes, since the power of attraction is
the same at that height for any body, whether its mass is greater or less, it will provide
them with an equal speed.
But the equal force of gravity is exerted on each of the mass points of the object, so the
total force is the sum of the forces applied to each of them. This means that a larger mass
concentrates a larger attractive force, and vice versa. Equal gravity (specific as Galileo
calls it) has a different action on different masses
What Galileo postulates is that specific gravity acts on the abstract being of bodies, on
their mere being, empty of what gives it its characteristics as a corporeal being, that is, its
volume and density together.
So far, Galileo has only used crude sophistry to try to prove a theoretical prejudice; and of
course he has not succeeded and could not have done so.
Once he had expressed the axiom of the equal rate of descent of all bodies, whatever their
weight, Galileo set about testing it with various experiments.
Following in this the ideas of Aristotle, he carried out experiments on the descent, from
the same height, of bodies of different weights in media of different resistances,
specifically in water and air. He found that the discrepancies in the speed of bodies were
larger in water than in air, that is, that the difference in speed between bodies of different
specific gravities is more marked in more resistant media. And, consequently, he
concludes "I came to the conclusion that in an environment totally devoid of resistance all
bodies should fall with the same speed".60
SALV. …Our problem is to find out what happens to bodies of different weight moving in a
medium devoid of resistance, so that the only difference in speed is that which arises from
inequality of weight. Since no medium, except one entirely free from air and other bodies, be it
ever so tenuous and yielding, can furnish our senses with the evidence we are looking for, and
since such a medium is not available, we shall observe what happens in the rarest and least
resistant media, as compared with what happens in denser and more resistant media. Because if
we find as a fact that it is a fact that the variation of speed among bodies of different specific
gravities is less and less according as the medium becomes more and more yielding, and if finally
in a medium of extreme tenuity, tough not a perfect vacuum, we find that, in spite of great
diversity of specific gravity[peso], the difference in speed is very small and almost inappreciable,
then we are justified in believing it highly probable [underlined by GRE] that in a vacuum all
bodies would fall with the same speed.61
SALV. …Let me once more explain that the variation of speed observed in bodies of different
specific gravities is not caused by the difference of specific gravity but depends upon external
circumstances and, in particular, upon the resistance of the medium, so that if this is removed,
all bodies will fall with the same velocity; and this result I deduce mainly from the fact which you
have just admitted and which is very true, namely, that, in the case of bodies which differ widely
in weight, their velocities differ more and more as the spaces traversed increases, something

60
Ibídem, p.117
61
Ibídem, p.118

84
 which would not occur if the effect depended upon differences of specific gravity. For since these
specific gravities remain constant, the ratio between the distances traversed ought to remain
constant, whereas the fact is that this ratio keeps on increasing as the motion continues. Thus a
very heavy body in a fall of one cubit will not anticipate a very light one by so much as the tenth
part of this space; but in a fall of twelve cubits the heavy body would outstrip the other by one-
third, and in a fall of hundred cubits by 90/100, etc.62
Contrary to all subsequent physicists and mechanics, Galileo is careful not to regard the
fall of bodies with equal speed in a vacuum as an indubitable physical fact; extremely
cautious, he only expresses that it is “highly probable” that this is the case.
The definitive proof of the validity of this hypothesis could only be obtained, says Galileo,
by carrying out the experiments in a space devoid of any medium, in a vacuum, which at
that time was impossible to find in nature or to produce artificially.
Galileo's experiment does not lead to any scientific conclusions.
This is not a hypothesis based on a theory about the physical or mechanical nature of
bodies (the laws of their mutual attraction, for example), of which free descent is a special
case of which, by inferences made from experiments, their consonance or not with the
principles can be accredited. Its exceptional character would also have to be sustained in
the physical or mechanical nature determined by the mass of the bodies.
It is simply a collection of facts from which an arbitrary conclusion is drawn; a different
inference can legitimately be made from them: in a vacuum, bodies will descend at a
speed proportional to their weight, but the differences between the speeds of bodies of
different masses that can be experimented with will be infinitesimally small, so that
cannot be accurately detected.
Galileo also performs experiments with two pendulums of the same extension, which have
bodies of different masses at their ends. He finds that, when the two pendulums are
taken out of rest simultaneously and at the same point on the circumference, their
periods are always synchronized, and that, due to the resistance of the medium, the arcs
covered are constantly decreasing, to a greater extent that of the object with less mass,
until both return to rest in the vertical.
Although he does not expressly say so, Galileo presents his experiments with pendulums
as arguments in favor of his postulate of the equal rate of fall of bodies in a vacuum.
These experiments add nothing to what he had previously established on this point.
Neither with his sophisms first, nor with his experiments later, has Galileo been able to
prove his hypothesis, which is why, honestly, he has qualified its reality as "highly
probable".
However, ignoring this warning, subsequent physicists and mechanics, including Newton,
based on the undoubted scientific authority of the Lyncean philosopher, have considered
as an irrefutable truth what for him is only probable.
In his monumental work, Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy, Newton makes
only a passing reference to the Galilean hypothesis, implicitly claiming it to be true.
The accelerative quantity of a centripetal force is the measure of the same, proportional to the
velocity which it generates in a given time.
Thus the force of the same load-stone is greater at a less distance, and less at a greater : also the
force of gravity is greater in valleys, less on top of exceeding high mountains; and yet less (as
shall hereafter be shown), at greater distances from the body of the earth; but at equal distances,
it is the same everywhere; because (taking away, or allowing for, the resistance of the air), it
equally accelerates all falling bodies, whether heavy or light, great or small. (NB) (underlined by
GRE)
Definition VII. 63

62
Ibídem, p.119
63
Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Auctore Isaaco Newtono, Equite Aurato, Editio
Ultima, Cui accedit Analysis per Quantitatum Series, Fluxiones ac Differentias cum
enumeratione Linearum Tertii Ordinis, Amstælodami, Sumptibus Societatis, M. The Mathematical
principles of Natural Philosophy. by Sir Isaac Newton, translated into English by Andrew Motte, to
wich is added Newton’s System of the world, First American Edition, Carefully revised and
corrected, with a life of the author, by N W Chittenden, M. A., New York, Published by Daniel

85
For mechanics and physical science after Galileo, it was a proven truth that bodies of
different weights fall in a vacuum at an equal speed; Therefore, instead of looking for a
theoretical support, for example in the theory of universal gravitation, to explain this
phenomenon, it was preferred to consider it as a natural curiosity, a capricious exception
to the laws of gravity (a "remarkable property" of bodies in free descent, says Einstein). All
the efforts of the scholars were then dedicated to the design and execution of multiple
experiments aimed at proving Galileo's thesis, a task in which they are still involved,
without obtaining, as it could not be otherwise, any positive result.
Actually, the nature of the fall of bodies in a vacuum is of no theoretical or practical
interest; Mechanics and physical science advanced enormously despite carrying the
Galilean prejudice as a ballast, and practical industrial activity, which is based on the
portentous modern technological development, has not needed at all the clarification of
that physical singularity.
However, having maintained a modest existence as a scientific dogma (if we can call it
that), Einstein gave it a powerful boost, a new life, by making it the foundation of the
general theory of relativity.
The second principle that general relativity brings to physical science is the following: the
accelerated movement of bodies produces a gravitational field.
The proof of this assertion is provided by Einstein with the more than unfortunate
example of the magic box he placed in the middle of nowhere, which has already been
analyzed in detail by us. Einstein makes relativity rest, in this example, on the double
nature of what happens in the box, depending on whether it is observed from an external
Galilean frame of reference or from the box itself. In the second case, the observer "will
conclude that he is in a gravitational field" in which "the acceleration of the body toward
the floor of the box is always of the same magnitude, whatever kind of body you can use
for the experiment”.
The gravitational field supposedly created by the movement of the box exists, for the
coarse Einsteinian dialectic, subjectively in the "conclusion" of the observer and, through
that appreciation, as a full field of objectivity.
And, of course, Einstein ponders these nonsenses as the scientific instrument that "has
provided the laws that govern the gravitational field."
The third principle that Einstein attributes to his general theory of relativity is expressed
by saying that through accelerated motion, which creates a virtual gravitational field (that
is, it exists only for the observer), the laws of real gravitational fields can be established.
Thus, the general theory of relativity provides the full explanation of an observed
astronomical phenomenon. The light coming from the fixed stars suffers a deviation in its
trajectory towards the earth when it passes through the vicinity of the sun.
Thanks to the theory of general relativity, it can be scientifically assured that the
gravitational field of the sun bends the ray of light on its journey towards the earth. This
is where Einstein derives the general law that light travels in a curvilinear path in
gravitational fields.
Of course, this "discovery" is no merit of the theory of relativity. It is, first of all, a fact
observed by astronomers in their scrutiny of outer space. Second, it is a perfectly
explainable phenomenon with Newton's theoretical postulates: it is a gravitational event
between two bodies of a different nature, the central planet and luminous matter, which
can be determined by the law of attraction in accordance with masses and distances.
In the magnum opus that we have mentioned, more than a hundred years before
Einstein, Newton refers in the following terms to the force of gravity and its relationship
with light.

Book II. of the movement of bodies,

Section XVI. Of the motion of very small bodies when agitated by centripetal forces tending to the
various parts of a large body.

Adee 45 Liberty Street, 184, p. 76

86
 Proposition XCVI. L theorem:
The same things being supposed, and that the motion before incidence is swifter than afterwards; I
say that if the line of incidence be inclined continually, the body will be at last reflected, and the
angle of reflexion will be equal to the angle of incidence
.
Scholium
These attractions bear a great resemblance to the reflections and refractions of light made in a
given ratio of the secants, as was discovered by Snellius; and consequently in a given ratio of the
sines, as was exhibited by Des Cartes. For it is now certain from the phenomena of Jupiter´s
satellites, confirmed by the observations of different astronomers, that light is propagated in
succession, and requires about seven or eight minutes to travel from the sun to the earth.
Moreover, the rays of light that are in our air (as lately was discovered by Grimaldus, by the
admission of light into a dark room through a small hole, which I also tried) in their passage near
the angles of bodies, whether transparent or opaque (such as the circular and rectangular edges
of gold, silver, and brass coins, or of knives, or broken pieces of stone or glass), are bent or
inflected round those bodies as if they were attracted to them (underlined by GRE); and those rays
that which in their passage come nearest to the bodies are the most inflected, as if they were
most attracted; which thing I myself have also carefully observed. And those which pass at
greater distances are less inflected; and those at still greater distances are a little inflected the
contrary way, and form three fringes of colours.

In the figure s represents a knife, or any kind of wedge AsB; and gowog, fnunf, emtme, dlsld, are
rays inflected towards the knife in the arcs owo, nvn, mtm, lsl; which inflection is greater or less
according to their distance from the knife. Now since this inflection of the rays is performed in
the air without the knife, it follows that the rays which fall upon the knife are first inflected in the
air before they touch the knife. And the case is the same of the rays falling upon glass. The
refraction, therefore, is made not in the point of incidence, but gradually, by a continual
inflection of the rays; which is done partly in the air before they touch the glass, partly (if I
mistake not) within the glass, after they have entered it; as is represented in the rays ckzc, biyb,
ahxa, falling upon r, q, p, and inflected between k and z, i and y, h and x. Therefore because of
the analogy there is between the propagation of the rays of light and the motion of bodies, I
thought it not amiss to add the following Propositions for optical uses; not at all considering the
nature of the rays of light, or inquiring whether they are bodies or not; but only determining the
trajectories of bodies which are extremely like the trajectories of the rays. 64
Nothing contributes, nor could it, the theory of relativity to the knowledge of this
gravitational phenomenon.
As we will see later, Einstein considers that one of the fundamental characteristics of
gravity is that it curves the space that surrounds bodies; In this way, the ray of light that
passes grazing the sun is deflected not by the gravitational force of the star, but because
it enters a curved space that determines its trajectory.
The fourth principle enunciated by Einstein expresses that in any gravitational field a
clock will go more slowly and a rule will be less than in a field without gravity, which
causes the deflection of the sun's rays.
If this is a metaphor to say that time expands and space contracts due to the effect of
movement, it is terribly unfortunate, since it tries to explain an absolutely false fact; if, as
is also possible, Einstein believes that motion actually slows down clocks (be they
mechanical, electronic, atomic, etc.) and shrinks rulers (whatever material they are made
of), we find before an irremediable stupidity.

64
Ibídem, p. 246

87
As we have already had the opportunity to see, neither the units of measurement, nor the
measuring instruments, nor space nor time suffer any alteration due to movement.
Newton attributes the deflection of light in a gravitational field to a physical force coming
from a material object, while Einstein refers it to a metaphysical fluid emanating from
matter, which upsets rulers and clocks (i.e., space and time) and through them influences
the light pulse
He mentally designs a very peculiar object: an abstract disc, without any physical
characteristics, that rotates around its center, driven by a completely unknown force, in a
totally indeterminate space; Several real, material clocks and rulers are placed on that
virtual disk along one of its spokes, starting at its outermost point and reaching the one
that coincides with the center. In addition, in an act of circus acrobatics, next to each rule
and clock, suspended in the void or, if you prefer, placed on the virtual disk, Einstein
places an observer for each measuring instrument.
This ghostly disk has no volume or density, so it has no gravity either; but this is not an
obstacle for the "great" Einstein, who mentally provides it with a rotating movement and
in this way generates a gravitational field without any material basis.
At the end of the first lap, the miracle has occurred: the respective observers verify that
the clock located on the circumference runs more slowly than the one in the center and
the ruler placed more externally has a shorter length than the one attached to the center.
Like all the thought experiments that Einstein has used before, the one that concerns us
now has the purpose of demonstrating a theoretical nonsense, it is based on assumptions
that are physically impossible, it uses logically disjointed arguments and it reaches totally
false conclusions.
The fifth theoretical principle that supports the general theory of relativity is the following:
objective reality is made up of multiple points without a solution of continuity, each of
which exists in a certain time and space that have infinitesimal variations of one to
another neighboring point. The coordinate system that represents this continuum is the
Riemmanian extension of the Gaussian coordinate system.
The Gauss-Riemmann coordinate system is originally used to represent the curvature of a
surface by parallel transport.
Einstein makes it his own and completely deforms it. It endows it with four coordinates -
in addition to the classic x, y, z includes the time t as one more coordinate- which
correspond to a four-dimensional continuum that is physically impossible; this
Einsteinian monstrosity is completely inoperative to represent anything physical.
Since it is an extreme alteration of the original formulas, by means of the transformation
that Einstein has made to them, the curvature of nothing can be found; but, furthermore,
since space-time is an entelechy, nothing, no formula can determine the curvature of
what has no physical entity.
Likewise, the points that form the Einsteinian continuum have no real existence either,
since they are located with that inefficient instrument that is the four-dimensional
coordinate system.
Einstein, once he has corrupted the original Gauss-Riemman formula, uses it, in the form
of the Ricci tensor, to integrate the left part of his field equation, the one in which he
intends to give life to a general model of the material system, applicable both to the macro
and to the microcosm. It is evident that this "Einstein field equation" is wrong by nature,
since its starting point, as we have seen, is mathematically and geometrically incorrect.
In short, the fifth theoretical principle of the general theory of relativity constitutes an
aberrant distortion of the Gauss-Riemman coordinate system and the mathematical
instrument that accompanies it, and it is totally wrong.
In chapter XXV of his work, Einstein formulates what he calls "exact formulation of the
principle of general relativity": all Gaussian coordinate systems are essentially equivalent
for the formulation of the general laws of nature.
This means that in order to give a certain fact the category of a general law of nature, it is
necessary that it has been subjected to the despotic requirements set by Einstein, that is,

88
that it can be explained by means of the Einsteinian formula that is a degeneracy of the
Gauss-Riemmanian coordinate system
It must be approached as a system of multiple points separated by infinitesimal
distances, each of which exists in its own distinct time and space, or, in Einstein's words,
has a particular clock and ruler attached to it and possesses a determined specific
curvature. It is evident that the character of a general law of nature cannot be given to
any fact by subjecting it to the relativistic distortion of the Gauss-Riemman system.

Considerations of the universe as a whole

At the end of the formulation of his theory of relativity (special and general), Einstein is
convinced that he has made a great revolution in physical-mechanical science, at least of
the same magnitude as that of Copernicus.
Once he has supposedly demolished classical mechanics, rises on those ruins his theory
as the new canon for the construction of a scientific cosmology.
Let us note that the Einsteinian claim implies that the guide for determining the nature of
the universe is that grotesque, absurd and unscientific theory of relativity - to which the
world must conform tightly- and the instrument offered to carry out this work, the
mathematical hulk that is based on the Lorentz factor – a catalog of very serious
arithmetic, algebraic and geometric errors – and culminates in the convoluted, erroneous
and pretentious “Einstein field equation”. It is evident that the result could not be
anything other than that ridiculous and completely lack of science theory of the Big Bang.
In his work of giving the guidelines under which the nature of the "universe as a whole"
should be established, Einstein begins by considering that the first answer that comes to
mind is that the universe, with respect to space and time, is infinite.
He expresses that this common conception does not correspond to that which follows
from Newton's theory, according to which the universe is a finite whole, has a center and
a limit after which is the void.
The stellar universe would thus be a finite island in an ocean of infinite space.
By means of reasoning that has his characteristic hallmark – childish “thought
experiments” – Einstein completely annihilates the Newtonian vision of the universe that
he has fabricated.
Because the truth is that Newton never, anywhere, explicitly or implicitly exposed a
totalizing theory of the universe; the purpose of his investigations was the determination
of what he called "the world system", that is, the solar system known at that time (sun,
primary planets, secondary planets and comets). The only with "totalizing" air that
Newton expressed was his intuition that all material phenomena obeyed the forces of
attraction and repulsion; he expressed his expectation that the laws according to which
these forces acted would be discovered in the future by scientists.
After having attributed to Newton a conception of the universe that he never exposed, and
after smashing it with his proverbial intelligence, Einstein proposes a new way to
approach the problem of the totality of the cosmos.
Newton's cosmological view necessarily led, Einstein explains, into conflict with the laws
of thought. However, by another path, opened by modern non-Euclidean geometry, this
obstacle can be avoided and then the infinity of space can be doubted without
contradicting logic.
And, as is his inveterate habit, to prove his assertion Einstein gives us a series of his
"thought experiments".
In the first of them he “thinks” of a two-dimensional world, with inhabitants also of two
dimensions; this flat world would be infinite.
In the second, the world is also two-dimensional, but not a flat surface, but spherical. The
universe would then be finite but limitless.
In the third, and based on the three-dimensional spherical space "discovered by
Riemman", the universe is a finite sphere (of a finite volume) and has no limits.

89
The dilemma between an infinite universe (that of common sense) and a finite one in the
form of a spherical universe (that of "modern non-Euclidean geometry") is then presented
to astronomers and physicists.
The theory of relativity has, fortunately, the solution to this dilemma.
Einstein argues as follows.
According to the general theory of relativity, the geometric properties of space are
determined by matter.
We can know the geometric structure of the universe if we know what the general state of
matter is.
The speeds of stars are small compared to the speed of light. (?)
So (?), as a rough approximation, we can reach a conclusion about the nature of the
universe as a whole if matter is treated as if it were at rest.
The gravitational fields produced by matter influence clocks and rulers. [That is, they
generate differences in rules and clocks, which depend on the material point in which
they are located.]
Therefore, the geometric structure of the universe cannot be Euclidean. [Because in the
Euclidean universe all clocks keep the same time and rulers have the same measure.]
But it is possible that it is quasi-Euclidean (?), because according to the calculations the
metric of the surrounding space is only influenced to a very small extent by masses even
of the magnitude of the sun. [That is, the drift of the clocks and the different extension of
the rules would be very small.]
The universe would be like an irregularly curved surface in its individual parts that does
not deviate appreciably from a plane. It would be an infinite universe.
This quasi-Euclidean universe cannot exist because the average density of matter would
necessarily be zero, that is, there would be no matter anywhere.
The results of the calculations (carried out with the mathematical tools of the theory of
relativity?) indicate that if matter is uniformly distributed, the universe would have to be
spherical or elliptical.
But the distribution of matter is irregular, so its individual parts would deviate to some
extent from the spherical; the universe would then be quasi-spherical (?), finite and
limitless.
The theory (of relativity?) provides a connection between the extent of the universe and
the density of matter. [The universe can only have an extent where the density of matter
is greater than 0.]
In a popular paper of a later date65, Einstein reports on the advances in the cosmological
hypothesis based on the general theory of relativity.
According to Friedman's calculations, the existence of a universe with a density of matter
greater than 0 in constant expansion is possible.
Hubble showed that the spectral lines emitted by extragalactic nebulae show a redshift
that increases regularly with distance. This shift is interpreted as an expansion of the
entire star system, as the Friedman gravitational field equations require.
This expanding universe must have an origin in time.
The theory of the expanding universe, together with the empirical data of astronomy, do
not allow a decision about the finitude or infinity of the universe.
The point at which the cosmological hypothesis of the theory of relativity has arrived, as
Einstein attests in this booklet, is the following: the universe is quasi-spherical or quasi-
elliptical, it has had an origin and it is constantly expanding. And, curiously, relativism
could not pronounce at that time on the finitude or infinity of a universe that did not
exist, had a beginning in nothing and outside of time, has created its matter and its own
time and space and expands in the nothing timeless.
This is precisely the starting point of the big bang theory.

65
Einstein, Albert, La estructura del espacio en conexión con la teoría de la relatividad general, Sobre
la teoría de la relatividad, diciembre de 1916, pp. 87-88. www.informatica.com.ar.

90
Einstein's cosmological theory, obtuse and confusingly exposed - as is the habit of the
sage - in his two popularizing works cited, has a vice of origin: it is the continuation of the
unscientific theory of relativity and the result of the application of the erroneous
mathematical ingenuity called "Einstein's field equation", which has its foundation in the
Lorentz "factor", this compendium of monumental arithmetic, algebraic and geometric
blunders.
Following the usual pattern, Einstein begins his "reasoning" by making an arbitrary
extension of Newton's ideas by attributing to him a cosmology that he never developed.
The first universe that "thinks," a flat world with two-dimensional inhabitants, is, to say
the least, a foolish assumption: a universe that is a plank, thicknessless, infinitely
extensive far and wide, and that has above and below it an infinite nothingness
This is not the naive intuition of some ancient Greek philosopher, but a possibility that
emerges from the new non-Euclidean geometry; Fortunately, Einstein rules it out, thus
sparing reality the work of adjusting to the demands of the quintessential physicist.
The second cosmological option that non-Euclidean geometry presents, no less aberrant

than the first, is that of a two-dimensional world: a board, without thickness, infinitely
extensive in length and breadth and that has above and below it an infinite nothingness.
At this point Einstein has taken a firm step on the way to discrediting ordinary people's
idea of an infinite universe. Modern science, non-Euclidean geometry, provides the
necessary elements to rise above this popular prejudice and thus arrive at the truth in
this matter; For now, it makes muscle exploring some possibilities of what the geometric
structure of the universe could be like. The serious error of this Einsteinian position lies
in the fact that it assigns to physical science, enriched by non-Euclidean geometry and
the theory of relativity, the role of judge of last resort regarding the nature and structure
of the universe.
Whether it is finite or infinite, spherical, elliptical or otherwise, supported at its corners
by four elephants, etc., its true being can only be determined by a mathematical formula
(Einstein's field equation, for example) according to non-Euclidean geometry and the
theory of relativity, that is, with those anti-scientific errors whose true nature we have
already pointed out sufficiently extensively.
In this exercise, Einstein postulates the geometric possibility (non-Euclidean geometry) of
a finite universe, but without limits. The world-sphere that Einstein's ingenuity has
constructed is a mere abstract spherical surface, without thickness, that surrounds
nothing, that is, nothing that encloses nothing; let us grant the existence of something
like this: such a sphere would be self-contained, that is, it would be self-limiting,
therefore it would have a limit. Non-Euclidean geometry discredits itself through its main
proponent.
The third possibility is based on Riemman's remarkable "discovery" of three-dimensional
space: a material, spherical, three-dimensional, finite, and limitless universe.
Non-Euclidean geometry, thanks to Riemman's discovery (the three dimensions of
classical geometry!), provides reality with the last option to which to adjust its nature.
Two paths remain for modern cosmology: that of the infinite universe of common sense,
or the spherical world of non-Euclidean geometry, a dilemma that will promptly resolve
the general theory of relativity.
After having strengthened his intelligence with these exercises, the scholar now intends to
use the entire arsenal of the theory of relativity to delve deeply into the elucidation of this
matter.
According to the general theory of relativity, gravity exerts its action on matter by
determining the metric of space and time: to each material point there corresponds a
specific space and time, or as Einstein says, a specific clock and rule. In view of this, the
universe, whatever its shape and extension, could not be Euclidean, that is, it would not
be governed by a time and space of general validity.
Here Einstein has slipped the relativistic claim: the structure of the universe will have to
be, from the outset, an aggregate of matter whose spatial and temporal metric will be

91
different for each of its points. That is to say, it has to adhere closely to the absurdity of
the relativity of time and space, whose anti-scientific nature we have repeatedly
highlighted.
However, Einstein points out with absolute determination, it has been found that the
forces of gravity between the material parts are actually so small that the spatial and
temporal differences between their constituent points are infinitesimal.
The universe may accordingly be quasi-Euclidean.
The theory of relativity prescribes that the universe must be made up of matter in which
the gravitational metric differences between the points that form it exist in an
infinitesimal measure.
This quasi-Euclidean universe could be a flat board of finite thickness, but infinite length
and breadth.
The density of matter in that universe would be 0; there would be no matter in it and
therefore it could not exist.
Calculations -illuminated by the general theory of relativity- indicate that in a spherical
universe -authorized by non-Euclidean geometry-, if matter were uniformly distributed,
its mean density would necessarily be greater than 0. The existence of such a universe it
would be possible.
But matter is irregularly distributed in the observable universe, so instead of a sphere,
the entire universe would be, let anyone understand, a quasisphere, in which the mean
density would be greater than 0. [To be consistent with itself, Einstein should have
allowed the universe to take the form of his "mollusk".)
In the final part of the first work to popularize his theory, Einstein formulates the
relativistic definition of the universe: a quasi-spherical accumulation of matter that has an
average density greater than 0, quasi-Euclidean because in each of the infinitesimal points
(Euclidean) that constitute it, a specific clock and rule govern but between them exist
infinitesimal differences that form a non-Euclidean aggregate, finite and without limits.
In the second popular essay (dated 1916, but with data from later years) Einstein adds a
very important connotation to the relativistic worldview.
Hubble found, through spectrography, that the light from the most distant stars was
redshifted.
With this it was assumed that the universe as a whole was expanding.
Projections back in time and space were made and it was assumed that the universe -
matter, space and time - must have had an origin; and since then the activity of
determining how and when the beginning of the world had been and what its evolution,
from that starting point, to the present, became the favorite sport of physicists.
With all this material provided, the general theory of relativity left the way open for the
emergence of the most ridiculous, childish, grotesque and, above all, anti-scientific
worldview, the big bang theory.
The proposition of the expansion of the universe is the most absurd hypothesis that has
ever been raised. It is based on a capital and inexplicable error of children, the confusion
between the red shift of the spectrum of stellar rays due to the distance they travel from
the source to their destination, an extension that can be several light years, and that
which has its origin in the length of the trajectory of the supposed recession of the
emitting star with respect to the receiver, a magnitude that, according to the machinators
of this malicious lie, is a few thousand kilometers per second. The spectral record of light
collects, by determining the redshift, the distance that the light has traveled from its
starting point; on a journey of several tens and even hundreds of light years this
translates into a displacement of the black lines of the spectrum of a few millionths of a
millimetre. Assuming without conceding, as the jurists say, that there was a recessive
movement of the star, this displacement of a few thousand kilometers in a second would
also have an effect that would add to that of the distance before the retreat, but would
result in a translation of the black lines in the spectrum of the order of millionths of
millionths of a millimeter, a quantity that would be indistinguishable from the main one,
absolutely impossible to determine.

92
Well, Hubble's clumsiness leads him to transpose the terms and consider that the redshift
that comes from the distance traveled from the star to the destination, in this case the
earth, is the expression of a non-existent recession of a few thousands of kilometers per
second.
This wild hypothesis implies several absurdities:
1) that the redshift due to the enormous distance traveled, the only thing distinguishable
in the spectrum even if there was a recession of the emitting star, is the expression of an
imaginary movement of an extension that is infinitely small in comparison and that if it
existed it would be inseparable from total displacement;
2) that the shift caused by the capital distance would not appear in the spectrum, but
that of the infinitely smaller length would;
3) that the spectrum would record what the light traveled in the last second from the star
in recession and not what it traveled over tens or hundreds of light years, and
4) that the spectrum can capture the displacement of the star; but it and the light pulse it
emits are instantly separated and there is no physical means by which the speed of
recession is reflected in the ray.
The hackneyed hypothesis, converted into unobjectionable scientific truth by relativistic
ignorance, of the expansion of the universe is completely and absolutely false.
The absurd assumptions and implications of the relativistic worldview founded by
Einstein are as follows:
1) a total nothingness; a nothing without matter, or space, or time;
2) within it, a point that is also nothing and that nevertheless contains in nuce the origin
and development of the universe;
3) the origin of matter, space and time from nothing;
4) the development and expansion of the universe through nothing;
5) the universe as an accumulation of matter formed by material points that have a
specific gravitational metric (time and space) for each of them;
6) the universe as a quasisphere (?) that “floats” in nothing;
7) a finite universe, but without limits [finitude itself is a limit];
8) a universe that is constantly expanding through nothing;
9) the foolish claim that it is relativistic physics, through its erroneous mathematical
formulas, that is going to say the last word about the nature of the universe.
We will see later what the true nature of Einstein's field equation is: G μν=8 π T μν , where
T μν is the energy stress tensor and G μν=R μν−¿ 1 g μν
R¿ is the Einstein tensor formed by the
2
Ricci curvature tensor, R μν, the metric tensor, g μνand the scalar of curvature R.
It is an equality whose absolute irrationality lies in the fact that something that has no
physical entity, the abstract energy and momentum of matter, measured by a tensor that
is a hodgepodge of several denatured physical tensors, is presented exerting an action
through which it curves the space-time -metaphysical continuum invented by Einstein
and Minkowski- that is non-existent, without any materiality. This imaginary extension,
completely unreal, is considered as a factor that produces effects on matter, determining
its movement.
It is the pinnacle of Einsteinian irrationality: an equation, elaborated using a crude
adulteration of absolute calculus through which valuable mathematical, physical and
mechanical tensors (of Ricci, Maxwell, Newton, etc.) have been mystified, with which it is
intended to quantify, through the use of an instrument without any physical-
mathematical value, a non-existent effect that comes from an unreal agent and acts on an
imaginary four-dimensional continuum.
It is evident that with this contraption absolutely nothing can be known; Of course, it is
completely powerless to have a scientific view of the universe, but it is the appropriate
instrument to produce all kinds of aberrant and ridiculous conceptions, among which the
big bang theory stands out in its own right.

93
Newton, with his famous phrase: "Physics, beware of metaphysics", warned modern
science of the agonizing attack of Aristotelian metaphysics; Hegel, in his time, parodying
Newton, alerted philosophy to the excesses of modern physical science, which, rising
above its modest origins, sought to establish itself as the science of sciences, in the new
philosophy (mechanistic materialism): “Metaphysics, beware of physics”, warned the
philosopher; in that same sense, today we can say: "Philosophy (dialectical-materialist),
beware of physics (relativist)".

Time and space according to Minkowski

Einstein's "philosophical" conception of time and space finds its geometric expression in
Minkowski's postulates of a new non-Euclidean geometry, of a hypergeometry.
In his classic work, Space and Time66, Minkowski first announces, to whet your appetite,
the mathematical and geometric wonder that is about to give birth, to the astonishment of
the world.
In true Einsteinian style, he expresses, with pathetic modesty:
Gentlemen! The views of space and time which I want to present to you arose from the domain of
experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. Their tendency is radical. From now
onwards space by itself and time by itself will recede completely to become mere shadows and
only a type of union of the two will still stand independently on its own. 67
He then sets out the basic definitions of his "theory."
The world point is a point in space at a given time: x, y, z, t.
The world is the multiple of all possible value systems x, y, z, t.
Substance is something perceivable that exists anywhere and at any time.
The world line of a substantial world point can be recognized through time.
The movement of the substantial point in a time dt is equal to dx, dy and dz.
A curve in the world is the course of the substantial point in the world [successive
movements dx, dy, dz in successive dt], a world line whose points can be related to the
coordinate t from -∞ to +∞.
All the laws of physics can be expressed as relationships between world lines.
If the world line is divided by a random point where x, y, z, t = 0, the upper section would
be t > 0 and the lower t < 0.
The origin of the three-dimensional coordinate system (x, y, z) would be the origin point of
the time coordinate.
If the origin of space is held fixed, then it is possible to subject the x, y, z axes at t = 0 to
arbitrary rotations about the origin corresponding to linear transformations of the
expression x2+y2+z2.
You can also replace x, y, z, t by xα-t, yβ-t, zγ-t, where α, β, γ are any constants.
The time coordinate can then be given an arbitrary direction t' in the middle of the world
that is equal to t > 0.
The problem that then arises before Minkowski's intellective capacity is, in his own words,
the following: How to reconcile the orthogonality of the coordinate system with a time line
of changing direction. Or, put another way, how to reconcile the rationality of three-
dimensional Cartesian coordinates with the absurdity of four-dimensional space-time.
The question that is presented to Minkowski is not so much a concept, but a
mathematical-geometrical one; Einstein's teacher has no doubt about the truth of his
student's nonsense: the contraction of space and the dilation of time, and ultimately, the
hypergeometry that he founds has as its main purpose to endow the nonsense of his most
advanced pupil of a colorful mathematical and geometric clothing.

66
Minkowski, Hermann, Space and Time, Minkowski's Papers on Relativity, translated by Fritz
Levertoff and Vesselin Petkov, Edited by Veselin Petkov, Free version, Minkowski Institute Press.
67
Ibídem, p. 37

94
A coordinate system has as its specific purpose the spatial location of a point, either in a
two-dimensional plane or in three-dimensional space; it does not matter what the point
physically is, the only thing that is of interest is its representation in a coordinate system,
which by definition is spatial, and space by necessity is three-dimensional.
Minkowski starts from the imperative imposed by his theory of space-time to create a
coordinate system with four dimensions, something that is a physical impossibility.

It proposes the adoption of a coordinate system based on a hyperboloid of two sheets.

The equation with which Minkowski begins his argument is the following:
c2t2-x2-y2-z2 = 1.
The canonical equation of the two-sheet hyperboloid is:
+x2/a2+y2/b2-z2/c2+1 = 0;
this is the mathematical tool by which a point on a three-dimensional body can be defined
which is the result of the revolution of a hyperbole, y2-x2 =1, about its major axis.
But Minkowski completely denatures this geometric field by adding one more dimension,
ct, which has no place, either mathematical or geometric, in the hyperboloid.
In the geometric figure of the hyperboloid, which by definition is a three-dimensional
body, no other dimension can be represented besides the classic x, y, z.
Immediately Minkowski abandons his ambitious pretensions and conforms, as Einstein
will later do, with a two-dimensional space in which he makes the variables y and z equal
to 0 and works only with ct, x and the upper arm of the 2-leaf hyperbole, to which
attributes the value c2t2-x2 = 1.
There is also a huge misconception here; c2t2 (velocity times time) is a measure of space
and not a variable like y in the classical form of the hyperbola equation, nor one of time
as Minkowski claims it to be.
Minkowski's device is a counterfeit coordinate system that has only two, a vertical that
represents time but in which a variable is used that symbolizes a space: ct, velocity times
time, and a horizontal that corresponds to only one of the three spatial dimensions.
There is another gross error in this misshapen coordinate system. We already pointed out
that the time coordinate is a hybrid mixture of time and space, ct; well, the coordinate x,
which is spatial by definition, also necessarily implies the time t. This pernicious duplicity
introduces a real mess into the Minkowskian model, from which nothing rational can

95
come out, nor, of course, as our physicist claims, a new vision, full of scientificity, of time
and space.
The portent announced by Minkowski of a new coordinate system that would include a
new dimension, time, t, together with the traditional ones of space, and that would reflect
an unknown nature, discovered by him, of space and time, is reduced to a ridiculous two-
dimensional representation that, on the one hand, has a coordinate that represents time,
but in a hybrid form (ct), that is, by means of a space, and on the other one that only
represents one of the spatial dimensions and that in itself incorporate time. They stand
out, compared to the classic 3-coordinate Cartesian system, the poverty (only one spatial
coordinate) and the dirty sleight of hand (substituting time with space) of the Minkowski
system.
To the two coordinates Minkowski adds a two-sided hyperbole -it is what remains of the
pretentious hyperboloid that would represent the world-. This geometric figure, also two-
dimensional, has at this point in Minkowski's argument the role of a reference curve that
provides, at the point where it is cut by the time line t', in a change of coordinates x→x’,
t→t', in which the angle that the prime coordinates (') have in relation to the original ones
represents the speed of their displacement, the tangent that determines the new time t
and the new distance x of the event B seen from the perspective of the moving observer.
This is, of course, a completely misplaced artifice. It has been established with the sole
purpose of giving geometric form to the relativistic nonsense of the contraction of space
and the dilation of time, which, as we have already seen, constitute a great nonsense, a
colossal error, completely lacking in scientific character.
The origin of the equation that is the starting point of Minkowski's musings, c2t2-x2-y2-z2 =
1, is an extension of an old acquaintance of ours, c2t2 = x2+y2+z2, in which ct is the
distance traveled by a ray of light in time t, in a three-dimensional space, extension that
√
is obtained by means of the Pythagorean theorem:ct= x 2 + y 2+ z2 .
If we convert c2t2 = x2+y2+z2 in c2t2-x2-y2-z2, the latter is always by definition = 0. Under no
circumstances can it be equal to any other quantity. From this it follows that, whether
expressed as equal to 0 or to any other quantity, from this point one cannot proceed by
any mathematical or geometric path.
Let us now see the evolution of the Minkowski scheme. First, he proposes as a space-time
scenario devised by Einstein a simple system of two orthogonal coordinates, t (ct) and x in
which he inserts an almost unknown geometric body, a two-sheet hyperboloid; then he
abruptly abandons his original proposition and substitutes the hyperboloid with the two-
leaf hyperbole that is its generatrix; then, it ends up using only one of the leaves, which is
defined by the equation y2-x2 =1(where the constants a and b of the canonical equation
have the value of 1),
The basic system of Minkowski's “hypergeometry” is made up of two orthogonal
coordinates, x and y, of which the second represents time t by means of a hybrid, ct; It is
evident that in this reduced and very simple system not only the values of four
coordinates, x, y, z and t, cannot be represented, as Minkowski wants, but not even those
of the three classical coordinates of a three-dimensional Cartesian system; each point of
the four quadrants can only be defined by the value of the corresponding x and t
coordinates, which simply and plainly means that its full spatial location will be
completely outside the system. Neither the time nor the space represented by the basic
Minkowski scheme have a different nature from the one that classical physics has
attributed to them, and the representative system does not go beyond being an
elementary two-dimensional graphic. A world point corresponds to the situation of an
event in relation only to the x-axis and at a time that is determined on the t-axis; a world
line is a succession of world points cut off (one-dimensional) that can be a line parallel to
the x axis (simultaneous events), or to the time axis (an event at rest), a straight line with
any inclination or a curve which express a limping (two-dimensional) evolution of a world
point in time and in one-dimensional space, with uniform or accelerated motion,
respectively.

96
In his basic scheme, which is a reference system at rest, without any relation to
something physical (the earth, for example), with respect to which it would be immobile,
but an exclusively mental product, Minkowski places a world point B on the point (1,1) of
its coordinate system. Next, he conceives another Minkowskian coordinate system, as or
more lacking in physical support than the previous one, which moves, in the same space-
time, at a certain speed v, in a uniform rectilinear movement, and in it he places an
observer. The world line of the world point B is a line parallel to the t axis and that of the
moving observer can be represented by a line that starts from the origin and has an
inclination determined by the speed.
For the observer attached to point B, the value of this locus on the x-axis will always be
the same over time; for the moving observer, his own position at x will change over time,
but the x-value of point B will always be the same.
According to the theoretical definitions and the lame system of coordinates proposed by
Minkowski, according to which the world lines of his example are drawn, time and space
have the same nature as in classical mechanics and point B is always found in the same
place, either for the observer at rest or for the one moving with any type of movement and
speed.
So far, Minkowski has not been able to prove the announced conceptual novelty of space
and time and has only developed a distorted and mutilated system of coordinates that,
despite everything, confirms what Minkowski insists on denying: the full validity of the
theory classic about time and space.
The fundamental purpose of Minkowski is to provide the aberrations of his advanced
student Alberto Einstein (on the contraction of space and the dilation of time) with a
mathematical-geometric artifice that gives them the appearance of a rationality that they
do not have.
The most his pupil had come to was the design of a scheme of two three-dimensional
Cartesian coordinate systems, which in practice were reduced to only two superimposed
horizontal axes, x and x', in which he represented the equations of the erroneous Lorentz
factor.
Minkowski takes a bold step forward. On his basic coordinate scheme, he grafts a two-leaf
hyperbole, whose canonical equation is y2/a-x2/b = 1.
To establish the connection we take a positive parameter c and look at the structure c2t2–x2–y2–z2
= 1:

"Minkowski1" by Hermann Minkowski - Raum Zeit (Minkowski). Licensed under Public

Domain via Wikimedia Commons -
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minkowski1.png#/media/File:Minkowski1.png

It consists of two sheets separated by t = 0 by analogy with a two-sheeted hyperboloid. We

consider the sheet in the region t > 0 and we will now take those homogeneous linear
transformations of x, y, z, t in four new variables x´, y´, z´ t´ so that the expression of this sheet

97
 in the new variables has the same form. Obviously, the rotations of space about the origin belong
to these transformations. A full understanding of the rest of those transformations can be
obtained by considering such among them for which y and z remain unchanged. We draw (Fig. 1)
the intersection of that sheet with the plane of the x- and the t-axis, i.e. the upper branch of the
hyperbola c2t2 – x2 = 1 with its asymptotes. Further we draw from the origin O an arbitrary radius
vector OA´ of this branch of the hyperbola; then we add the tangent to the hyperbola at A´ to
intersects the right asymptote at B´´; from OA´B´ we complete the parallelogram OA´B´C´; finally,
as we will need it later, we extend B´C´ so that it intersects the x-axis at D´. If we now regard OC´
and OA´ as axes for new coordinates x´, t´, with the scale units OC´ = 1; OA´ = 1/c, then that
branch of the hyperbola again obtains the expression ct´´2 – x´´2 = 1; t´ > 0, and the transition
from x, y, z, t to x´, y´, z´, t´ is one of the transformations in question. These transformations plus
the arbitrary displacements of the origin of space and time constitute a group of transformations
which still depends on the parameter c and which I will call Gc.
If we now increase c to infinity, so 1/c converges to zero, it is clear from the figure that the
branch of the hyperbola leans more and more towards the x-axis, that the angle between the
asymptotes becomes greater, and in the limit that special transformation converts to one where
the t´-axis may be in any upward direction and x´ approaches x ever more closely. By taking this
into account it becomes clear that the group Gc in the limit c = ∞, that is the group G∞, is exactly
the complete group which is associated with the Newtonian mechanics… 68
In the original plot of his schematic, inserted above, Minkowski establishes a basic
system of two orthogonal coordinates in two-dimensional space; the vertical axis t
represents time and the horizontal axis x only one of the three spatial dimensions. On
that diagram, locate world point B at coordinates (1(t), 1(x, which also “represents” y and
z)).
He immediately poses the cardinal problem of relativistic physics: the transformation of
one coordinate system into another, x, y, z, t, which is at rest, in x', y' z' t', which is
displaced at the velocity v with respect to the first and, of course, that of the world point B
in B'; that is, the determination of the spatial and temporal location of the world point B
in the coordinate system x', y', z', t'.
In this schematization, the direction of movement of the second coordinate system
remains completely undefined, although its starting point coincides with the origin of the
first.
The complete indeterminacy of the direction of movement, which is closely linked to the
lack of specification of the y and z coordinates (a given value of x can correspond to an
infinite number of values of t, y and z), makes any type of change of coordinates
impossible; there is no way to fix the coordinates of B in terms of the coordinates of the
moving system.
Suppose that in his "thought experiment" Minkowski tacitly established the direction of
motion of the second frame along the x-axis of the first frame. In this case, x' will be by
definition equal to x-vt, that is, the location of B at x' (B') will be separated from the
location of B at x by the distance vt that the second system has advanced in the x-x'
direction at time t. In Minkowski's luminous words, the world line at world point B will be
a line parallel to the time axis running from (1(x), 0(t)) to (1(x), 1(t)) and the world line of
world point B' will be the same as B but shifted to the left in the rest coordinate system.
From Minkowski's bizarre system, according to his own concepts and presuppositions,
through the twisted intricacies of his argumentation, the only thing that can be extracted
is the following: the world point B has a certain physical nature and a space-time location
specific in the fixed coordinate system; the moving frame of reference has no influence,
physical or otherwise, on the quality or location of B.
Minkowski expresses that through his scheme transformations can be made from the
fixed coordinates to the coordinates of any mobile system as long as the speed of the
latter is less than that of light. In his "thought experiment", he produces a completely
immaterial coordinate system, which is not attached to any physical object. This
phantasmagorical system has a displacement through space, which implies that it
occupies successive spaces in consecutive times; Minkowski's absurd assumption is that

68
Ibídem, pp. 39-40

98
the incorporeal system moves in a material medium and with its movement contracts and
dilates the infinitesimal portions of space and time that it travels in its spatial and temporal
translation. Minkowski's "hypothesis" necessarily requires a completely elastic space and
time, which first contract and expand and then resume their normal dimensions, once the
system advances an infinitesimal distance in its locomotion. It is in this sense that
Minkowski says that there are multiple spaces and times.
…Hereafter we would then have in the world no more the space, but an infinite number of spaces
analogously as there is an infinite number of planes in three-dimensional space. Three-
dimensional geometry becomes a chapter in four-dimensional physics. You see why I said at the
beginning that space and time will recede completely to become mere shadows and only a world
in itself will exist.69
Like his most conspicuous pupil, Minkowski claims that space and time are not what
classical mechanics always considered, but that they have a different nature, which had
remained hidden from science until these thundering Jupiters of relativism came to reveal
it.
In the corresponding parts of this work we have repeatedly established how unscientific,
absurd and grotesque this relativistic "concept" of space-time is.
Here we will only point out that Minkowski's fundamental purpose is to give Einsteinian
nonsense a supposedly scientific mathematical-geometrical garb.
We have already seen how our physicist established the general framework of his
coordinate system, which turned out to be a true fiasco, a reduced system of only two
coordinates, completely inoperative to represent any physical phenomenon. Subsequently,
he produced a metaphysical coordinate system, without any material object, which he
made to move in real space.
Of course, all this is enough to completely and without appeal discredit Minkowskian
geometry, which is thus evidenced as a great scientific fraud.
However, we will continue to analyze Minkowski's remaining unscientific propositions in
detail because, together with the previous ones, they constitute the foundation of
relativistic cosmology that has its maximum expression in the “big bang” theory.
Having accomplished the first part of his edifying task, Minkowski set about, armed with
his enormous intellectual power, designing the geometry of the transformation of the
basic system at rest into a moving system, whose coordinates are, respectively, x, y, z, t
and x', y' z' t'.
The "canonical" equation of the Lorentzeinsteinian coordinate transformation is, as we
have established, the following:

What Minkowski will try in the continuation of his work is to give a geometric form to this
mathematical axiom.
His first step in this direction is to insert into his basic model of coordinates the
representation of the constant c, that is, of the speed of light, considered this matter in
the theory of relativity as the absolute, as the only thing whose movement does not it is
related to no other, as the only body "that does not cast a shadow."
To do this, it attributes a special metric to the two coordinates: to the one of time, it gives
each unit of measure a value of 0.00000003333 seconds or 1 second and to the one of
space, of 1 meter or 300,000,000 meters, in such a way that the units of each coordinate
coincide exactly with those of the other.
With thought, which in him is a very powerful instrument, Minkowski makes two rays of
light appear from a certain point, moving in opposite directions; The geometric
representation of this mental exercise would be, in a three-dimensional coordinate
69
Ibídem, pp. 40-41

99
system, a line on the x-axis, which has a positive value to the right of the origin and a
negative value to the left.
In the lame Minkowski coordinate system, those two rays are represented as two lines,
one in each of the upper quadrants, starting from the origin and inclined at 45⁰.
It is evident that these lines do not represent any physical reality.
Then add the leaf of a hyperbole whose equation is t2/a-x2/b = 1, where the constants a
and b are the same units as the coordinates t and x, so the formula looks like this: t2-x2 =
1.
This hyperbole can be, in the Minkowski system, the world line graph of a world point in
curvilinear motion; however, it does not represent anything specifically physical, nor does
it constitute a geometric element that defines in any way the special space and time that
the physicist is determined to show.
In what follows we shall see the role that Minkowski makes this geometric device play in
determining the coordinate system x', y' z', t'.
In the basic framework of his coordinate system, having placed the geometric referent of
the constant c (the two lines with 45⁰ inclination) and the insubstantial hyperbole sheet,
Minkowski fixes a stationary world point B whose coordinates are (x, t). Next, determine a
moving coordinate system (x', t'), which starts from the origin and at time t0 coincides in
all its parts with the system at rest; the mobile system is represented in the system at rest
by two straight lines that correspond, one to the axis of coordinates t', and the other to
the axis x', which he obtains in a very peculiar way: in his own words, to locate the
coordinate t' “we draw from the origin O an arbitrary radius vector [underlined by GRE]
OA' of this arm of the hyperbola; then we add the tangent to point A' of the hyperbola...”.
The radius vector OA' is not as arbitrary as Minkowsky claims; in reality, according to the
internal logic of its scheme, it is the representation, in the fixed system, of the
displacement of the mobile system; in the “philosophical” language of the physicist, it is
the world line of the moving coordinate structure, which defines through the tangent of
the angle formed by AOA', which is equal to x/t and expresses the speed v of the moving
system. It is clear that in this way the axis t' of the mobile system is not established, as
Minkowski claims, but the world line of the system as a whole, and it is also evident that
to determine what he calls t', the hyperbole sheet is completely superfluous, since the
same result can be reached with only the knowledge of the values x and t of the mobile
system in the fixed one, with which it is possible to find the tangent of the angle Ot-Ox
and, therefore, the speed of the structure.
In summary, up to this point Minkowski has dazzled us with the configuration of the
basic scheme of an absolutely inoperative, mutilated, deformed, caricatured coordinate
system, totally ineffective to represent physical reality, the inclusion in it of two world
lines that symbolize two rays of light that run in opposite directions and that are also
completely unnecessary, the implantation of an unknown geometric figure, a hyperboloid
of two sheets that later degrades to a hyperbole sheet, which is decidedly inapplicable in
this case, the determination of the axis of coordinates t' through the procedure of using
the velocity of the moving system as the tangent that gives the inclination of t' in relation
to t, but which actually only gives the position of the entire moving system, and not of the
axis t', in the system at rest.
Once Minkowski has drawn the fictitious coordinate axis t', he makes it intersect the
hyperbole; then take the crossing point and draw the corresponding tangent. To this line
it assigns the coordinate character x' of the mobile system; From here, a line parallel to
the previous one, which has, with respect to the x axis of the fixed system, the same
inclination as t' with respect to t, is assigned the role of axis x' of the mobile coordinate
system.
The representation of the coordinate system x', t' in x, t is entirely inconsistent with
Minkowski's basic assumptions (which, we have sufficiently shown, are absolutely
unscientific): 1) the world line of the translation of the moving frame is invested with a
nature that in no way has, be the axis t' of the same; 2) the x' axis is determined based on
that non-existent t' axis, for which it does not have any entity either. Consequently, in

100
this situation it is impossible for the system x', t' to be established; The main objective of
Minkowski's hypergeometry, that is, to transform some coordinates into others in which
the supposedly different nature of time and space is represented (that space shrinks and
time dilates) cannot be achieved in any way.
The scientific wonder that should astonish the world, the unveiling of a hidden nature of
time and space, has led to the invention of a miserable representative system that does
not even manage to configure normal space and time and that, on the contrary,
grotesquely deforms them, and into the fabric of a nest of insoluble contradictions.
Minkowski continues with his dazzling “thought experiment” and now works on the
geometric location of events B and B'; to do this, it makes point B to be placed at (1, 1) of
the right line C (which represents a ray of light that starts from the origin) and B' at the
intersection of the tangent that passes through point A' of the hyperbole with the same
line C, such that BB'=OB. Point B' has coordinates A'(t', which is actually v = x/t), C'(1')
(which is the conjugate of A'). OB represents the distance from the origin to event B
measured by the speed of light; OB' the distance from the same starting point to the event
B' (i.e. to the same event B but at its location relative to the moving coordinate system);
section BB' is the Minkowski geometric representation of the coordinate transformation
from t, x to t', x'; thus, according to the "canonical" equations of the coordinate

transformation, C' (x') is equal to x−vt

√ 1−v 2 ; x-vt has a fully identifiable geometric
c
2

representation in the Minkowski scheme, although it does not indicate it in any way: it is
the part of the line AB that is located to the right of the point of intersection with the
world line of the mobile system, this last erroneously named axis t'; however, the other

part of the equation,

√ 1−v 2 which determines the step from x to x' (from B to B'), has no
c
2

geometric representation in the system Minkowskian.

From the entirety of natural phenomena, through successively enhanced approximations, it is
possible to deduce more precisely a reference system x, y, z, t, space and time, by means of
which these phenomena can be then represented according to certain laws. But this reference
system is by no means unambiguously determined by the phenomena. One can still change the
reference system according to the transformations of the above group Gc arbitrarily without
changing the expression of the laws of nature in the process.
For example, according to the figure depicted above one can call t0 time, but then must
necessarily, in connection with this, define space by the manifold of three parameters x´, y, z in
which the laws of physics would then have exactly the same expressions by means of x´, y, z, t´
as by means of x, y, z, t. Hereafter we would then have in the world no more the space, but an
infinite number of spaces analogously as there is an infinite number of planes in three-
dimensional space. Three-dimensional geometry becomes a chapter in four-dimensional physics.
You see why I said at the beginning that space and time will recede completely to become mere
shadows and only a world in itself will exist. 70
Minkowski has formed a pile of strange and useless mathematical-geometrical puzzles
with which he intends to establish a general way of transforming the coordinates of a
fixed reference system into those of a moving one, but with the restriction that in the
latter the space and time necessarily undergo an alteration that does not affect the
physical laws themselves; he orders these elements heedlessly and asserts that the
geometry of that mutation is fully manifested there. We saw earlier that with this
hypergeometry Minkowsky would not even have been able to locate the point where he
was standing. But the stupid relativistic arrogance first takes for granted what it has not
even tried, and then boasts that not doing has allowed it to expose the true nature of time
and space, that is, space-time, a substance malleable, composed of infinite times and
spaces, as many as coordinate transformations are possible.
…If at any worldpoint x, y, z, t there is a worldline passing through it and we find it parallel to
any radius vector OA´ of the previously mentioned hyperboloidal sheet, we may introduce OA´ as

70
Ibídem, p. 40

101
 a new time axis, and with the thus given new concepts of space and time, the substance at the
worldpoint in question appears to be at rest. We now want to introduce this fundamental axiom:
With appropriate setting of space and time the substance existing at any worldpoint can always be
regarded as being at rest.
This axiom means that at every worldpoint the expression
c2dt2-dx2-dy2-dz2
is always positive, which is equivalent to saying that any velocity v is always smaller than c. Then
c would be an upper limit for all substantial velocities and that is precisely the deeper meaning of
the quantity c. In this understanding the axiom is at first glance slightly displeasing. It should be
noted, however, that a modified mechanics, in which the square root of that second order
differential expression enters, is now gaining ground, so that cases with superluminal velocity
will play only such a role as that of figures with imaginary coordinates in geometry. 71
After considering that he has completed his task of geometrically illustrating the
transformation of coordinates, with what supposedly would have shown graphically the
veracity of the Einsteinian nonsense of the contraction of space and the dilation of time,
Minkowski continues with his mission to reveal the Eleusinian mysteries of space and
time.
Through the world postulate an identical treatment of the four identifying quantities x, y, z and t
becomes possible. I want to explain now how, as a result of this, we gain more understanding of
the forms under which the laws of physics present themselves. Especially the concept of
acceleration acquires a sharply prominent character.
I will use a geometric way of expression, which presents itself immediately when one implicitly
ignores z in the triple x, y, z. An arbitrary worldpoint O can be taken as the origin of space-time.
The cone
c2t2-x2-y2-z2 = 0
with O as the apex (Fig. 2) consists of two parts, one with values t < 0, the other one with values t
> 0.

"Minkowski2" by Hermann Minkowski - Raum Zeit (Minkowski). Licensed under Public

Domain via Wikimedia Commons -
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minkowski2.png#/media/File:Minkowski2.png

The first, the past lightcone of O, consists, we can say, of all worldpoints which “send light to O",
the second, the future lightcone of O, consists of all worldpoints which “receive light from O" (4.
Editor's and translator's note: I decided to translate the words Vorkegel and Nachkegel as past
lightcone and future lightcone, respectively, for two reasons. First, this translation reflects the
essence of Minkowski's idea - (i) all worldpoints on the past lightcone “send light to O", which
means that they all can influence O and therefore lie in the past of O; (ii) all worldpoints on the
future lightcone “receive light from O", which means that they all can be influenced by O and
therefore lie in the future of O. Second, the terms past lightcone and future lightcone are now
71
Ibídem, p. 41

102
widely accepted in spacetime physics.) The area bounded solely by the past lightcone may be
called before O, whereas the area bounded solely by the future lightcone - after O. Situated after
O is the already considered hyperboloidal sheet
F = c2t2-x2-y2-z2 = 1, t>0.
The area between the cones is filled with the one-sheeted hyperboloidal structures
-F = x2+y2 +z2 -c2t2 = k2
for all constant positive values of k2. Essential for us are the hyperbolas with O as the center,
located on the latter structures. The individual branches of these hyperbolas may be brief called
internal hyperbolas with center O.
Such a hyperbola would be thought of as the worldline of a substantive point, which represents
its motion that increases asymptotically to the velocity of light c for t = –∞ and t = +∞.
If we now call, by analogy with vectors in space, a directed line in the manifold x, y, z, t a vector,
we have to distinguish between the time-like vectors with directions from O to the sheet +F = 1, t
> 0, and the spacelike vectors with directions from O to –F = 1. The time axis can be parallel to
any vector of the first kind. Every worldpoint between the future lightcone and the past lightcone
of O can be regarded, by a choice of the reference system, as simultaneous with O as well as
earlier than O or later than O. Each worldpoint within the past lightcone of O is necessarily
always earlier tan O, each worldpoint within the future lightcone is necessarily always later than
O. The transition to the limit c = ∞ would correspond to a complete folding of the wedge-shaped
section between the cones into the flat manifold t = 0. In the figures this section is intentionally
made with different widths.
We decompose any vector, such as that from O to x, y, z, t into four components x, y, z, t. If the
directions of two vectors are, respectively, that of a radius vector OR from O to one of the surfaces
±F = 1, and that of a tangent RS at the point R on the same surface, the vectors are called normal
to each other. Accordingly,
c2tt1-xx1-yy1-zz1 = 0
is the condition for the vectors with components x, y, z, t and x1, y1, z1, t1 to be normal to each
other.
The measuring units for the magnitudes of vectors in different directions may be fixed by
assigning to a spacelike vector from O to –F = 1 always the magnitude 1, and to a timelike vector
from O to +F = 1, t > 0 always the magnitude 1/c
Let us now imagine a worldpoint P(x, y, z, t) through which the worldline of a substantial point is
passing, then the magnitude of the timelike vector dx, dy, dz, dt along the line will be
d τ =1/c √ c 2 dt 2−dx 2−dy 2−dz2
The integral ∫ d τ=τ of this magnitude, taken along the worldline from any fixed starting point
P0 to the variable end point P, we call the proper time of the substantial point at P. On the
worldline we consider x, y, z, t, i.e. the components of the vector OP, as functions of the proper
time τ ; denote their ẍ first derivatives with respect to τ by ˙x, ˙y, ˙z, ˙t; their second derivatives
with respect to τ by ẍ, ÿ, ¨z, ẗ, and call the corresponding vectors, the derivative of the vector OP
with respect to τ the velocity vector at P and the derivative of the velocity vector with respect to τ
the acceleration vector at P. As
c2˙t2-˙x2-˙y2-˙z2 = 0
it follows that
c2˙tẗ-˙xẍ-˙yÿ-˙zz = 0;
i.e. the velocity vector is the timelike vector of magnitude 1 in the direction of the worldline at P,
and the acceleration vector at P is normal to the velocity vector at P, so it is certainly a spacelike
vector.

103
 "Minkowski34" by Hermann Minkowski - Raum Zeit (Minkowski). Licensed under Public
Domain via Wikimedia Commons -
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Minkowski34.png#/media/File:Minkowski34.png

Now there is, as is easily seen, a specific branch of the hyperbola, which has three infinitely
adjacent points in common with the worldline at P, and whose asymptotes are generators of
a past lightcone and a future lightcone (see Fig. 3). This branch of the hyperbola will be
called the curvature hyperbola at P. If M is the center of this hyperbola, we have here an
internal hyperbola with center M. Let  be the magnitude of the vector MP, so we recognize
the acceleration vector at P as the vector in the direction MP of magnitude c2/.
If ẍ, ÿ, ¨z, ẗ, are all zero, the curvature hyperbola reduces to the straight line touching the
worldline at P, and we should set  = ∞.72
In this part of his dissertation, Minkowski uses the same basic scheme: a fixed two-
dimensional Cartesian coordinate system with perpendicular axes t (y) (vertical) and x
(horizontal).
It establishes, as a starting point, in the same way as in the previous argument, a three-
dimensional geometric figure, in this case a cone whose vertex is at the origin and whose
surface is generated by the rotation of the double right triangle that forms the axis t, the
coordinates of the x axis and the c lines placed in the two upper quadrants of the system,
which have a 450 inclination with respect to the two axes. At the bottom of the Cartesian
plane the physicist places an inverted replica of that cone and, after calling the origin t =
0, gives the top the value t > 0 and the bottom t < 0.
The canonical equation of the cone is y2/b2+z2/c2 = x2/a2; this means that any point on
the cone is defined by that relationship between three spatial coordinates. But what
Minkowski proposes in his equation is a nonexistent figure, a four-dimensional cone that
can be defined with four coordinates. With that formula it is not possible to locate any
point on any cone; there is not a cone, nor, in general, a single geometric body, which has
four dimensions. Anything that Minkowski comes up with to represent in this pair of four-
dimensional cones that he has invented would be hopelessly and totally distorted; the
geometric image would be a monstrous distortion of reality.

72
Ibídem, pp. 43-47

104
The cone of the upper part gives Minkowski the denomination of “cone of light of the
future” and defines it as “all the world points that “send light to O””; he gives the name of
the “cone of light of the future” to the one in the lower part and considers it to be made up
of “all the points of the world that “receive the light of O””.
In the cone at the top and in the spaces between the two cones, he places two
hyperboloidal sheets, also endowed with four dimensions, which, like the cone, cannot in
any way represent any three-dimensional geometric figure.
He calls these sheets "internal hyperbolae with center O" and gives them extreme
importance in his scheme. Geometrically, it considers them as world lines that represent
a movement that increases asymptotically at the speed of light c for t = -∞ and t = +∞. It is
a world line that comes from the past, where it began its trajectory with a speed that at
first is practically that of light and later descends until it reaches its minimum point at t =
0; from there it begins to increase and is projected into the future, where it will acquire
the speed of light again. It is a movement that in its first part is constantly slowed down
and in the second constantly accelerated.
But it is evident that these world lines (internal hyperbolas) have no role yet in the
abstruse Minkowskian system; they are, quite simply, an element included for the sole
purpose of making Minkowski's scheme more lavish (and also more unintelligible).
This part of Minkowski's "hypergeometry" is very important, because the entire artificial
construction, made by the champions of the "big bang" theory, of the periods of the
supposed evolution of the universe, from its origin to its current state, is directly based on
it.
This graphic representation is described as a cognitive instrument that provides the
necessary elements (and very powerful, relativist physicists boast) to establish the true
and real causality between the various "world points" (for example, between the various
phases of the evolution of the universe).
In this new function of the Minkowskian scheme, the origin of the system is a certain
event; from there, vectors that represent the possible movements of the event itself or of
its physical effects in space-time depart to all the points of the Cartesian plane. These
translations can be towards the points of the upper and lower cones and are called "time-
like" vectors; or they can be directed towards the intercone spaces and then they are given
the name of vectors “like space”.
Time-like vectors represent motions, either of the event itself or of its physical effects, that
have a speed equal to or less than the speed of light; the vectors “like space”, which fall in
the intercones, symbolize those translations with speeds higher than those of light. It is
evident, according to the internal logic of the Minkowskian system and one of its
fundamental postulates, which states that nothing moves at a speed greater than the
speed of light, that vectors "as space" have no existence, they are nothing. physical;
however, contradicting himself, Minkowski treats them as physical entities.
Causality is then established as follows: only the motions of the event and its effects that
start from t = 0 along t > 0 and move with speeds equal to or less than the speed of light
can produce results in the future (can cause (affect, send light to) future events); likewise,
only motions with speeds equal to or less than the speed of light and coming from t < 0
can cause or affect the event.
All this is nothing more than a gross tautology. If movements with speeds greater than the
speed of light are physically impossible, then in the substance of the world the relations of
the supposed causality between events can only occur through displacements with speeds
equal to or less than the speed of light.
This is the profound truth that Minkowski promised us: something can be the cause of
another something and something can be caused by another something, as long as the
causal influence is exerted with movements that have speeds less than or equal to the
speed of light. The event is placed in the center of a sphere of influence; this influx is
received from (past light cone) and exerted on (future light cone) all events that are
contained in that globe.

105
This absolute indeterminacy is qualified by relativistic stupidity as a new and powerful
method of knowledge, with which it is possible to penetrate all the arcana of the world,
time and space.
The notion of causality proposed by Minkowski is absolutely superficial, since it is based
on the external relationship between events; it is totally inoperative to describe reality,
since it lacks the fundamental internal nexus, the necessity that defines the cause and
effect relationship.
Minkowskian causality is not such, but rather an enumeration of events ordered
according to criteria based on abstruse mathematical and geometric formulas,
erroneously constructed and ineffective in reflecting the links between events.
Minkowski's concept of causality is definitely anti-scientific, obviously primitive and
insubstantial, far below the notions on this matter developed by ancient Greek
philosophy. Actually, it does not refer at all to the category extensively explored by
philosophy throughout its history, but to a completely superfluous relationship between
indeterminate events. It is an "occurrence", a "joke" that comes to complement the
despicable "stitches" and "chirigotas" of his student Einstein.
Philosophy, science of sciences and unknown land for all physicists, but especially for
relativists, with Einstein at the head, reached the end of its path with ontology and
dialectics -the latter, the scientific method par excellence- from Guillermo Federico Hegel,
to the full understanding of the concepts of causality, accidentality, possibility, necessity,
etc.73
With the edifice of the special theory of relativity firmly in place and Minkowski providing
him with the hulk of "hypergeometry", Einstein gives a new impulse to his devious fantasy
and, enthusiastically, prepares to concoct another physical mess. Extends the scope of
his speculations in order to establish a "general" theory of relativity and formulate, based
on it, an all-encompassing equation, suitable for the description of the properties of
matter, space and time and their mutual relationships in any place and at any time, what
has been called Einstein's "equation".

General relativity
In the theory of special relativity, the relationship between space, time and matter was
considered in an object that is observed from two points, a fixed coordinate system and
another in uniform rectilinear motion; the object was placed, according to the needs of the
argument, either in the fixed or mobile coordinate system.
The work of Hercules that Einstein is now carrying consists of the study of relativity in
the case of movements other than the uniform rectilinear one. Its declared purpose is to
include all possible movements and the most different speeds.
In the end, he reduces his analysis to a single type of movement, the uniformly
accelerated one, among which gravitation is included.
It establishes the hypothesis that the free fall of bodies, an essential characteristic of
terrestrial gravity, is a specific form of accelerated movement, which can be explained by
the laws that govern accelerated movement in general.
There is, Einstein maintains an absolute equivalence between uniformly accelerated
motion and the action of gravity on a body in free fall toward the earth's surface.
In the example of the levitating “mystery box”, which we have already sufficiently analyzed
in a previous paragraph of our work, Einstein maintains that it is impossible for the
observer inside the box to know if he is subjected to accelerated motion or gravity; the
litmus test for dull Einsteinian intelligence is that, according to the wise man, objects fall
with the same acceleration, regardless of their mass, in the box subjected to an upward
73
Ver: G.W.F. Hegel, Ciencia de la Lógica, traducción directa del alemán de Augusta y Rodolfo
Mondolfo. Solar, S.A., Hachette, S.A., Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2a. Edición castellana, 1968,
Libro Segundo, La doctrina de la esencia, Tercera sección. La realidad. Segundo Capítulo. La
realidad. Accidentalidad. Necesidad relativa. Necesidad absoluta. Tercer capítulo. La relación
absoluta. Relación de causalidad. La causalidad formal. La relación de causalidad determinada.
Acción recíproca. Pp. 479-505

106
pulling acceleration at speed g, as in the same box at rest on the earth's surface, which,
as we showed in the cited place, is completely false.
Previously we have given an account of two "thought experiments" that Einstein has
carried out, from his desk, to provide proof of the validity of what he calls the "principle of
equivalence".
The first of them, sufficiently analyzed by us, is the already mentioned "weightless box";
the second, which we have already addressed, that of the "magic disc", which when
turning transforms the ratio between diameter and circumference of the circle into π+.
In what follows we will try to go behind the evolution of Einsteinian thought on this
matter throughout his writings.
In the second half of the period 1905-1910, Einstein began his speculations on general
relativity. In several of his writings he approaches the subject from various points of view.

The Equivalence Principle

The primary task of the sage is, at this stage, to establish what he calls the "principle of
equivalence."
We will first transcribe what Einstein expresses in his paper On the relativity principle and
the conclusion drawn from it.74
V. PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY AND GRAVITATION
§17. Accelerated reference system and gravitational field
We consider two systems Ʃ1 and Ʃ2 in motion. Let Ʃ1 be accelerated [93] in the direction of its X-
axis, and let  be the (temporally constant) magnitude of that acceleration. Ʃ2 shall be at rest, but
it shall be located in a homogeneous gravitational field that imparts to all objects an acceleration
- in the direction of the X-axis.
As far as we know, the physical laws with respect to Ʃ1 do not differ from those with respect to E2;
this is based on the fact that all bodies are equally accelerated in the gravitational field. At our
present state of experience, we have thus no reason to assume that the systems Ʃ1 and Ʃ2 differ
from each other in any respect, and in the discussion that follows, we shall therefore assume the
complete physical equivalence of a gravitational field and a corresponding acceleration of the
reference system.
This assumption extends the principle of relativity to the uniformly accelerated translational
motion of the reference system. The heuristic value of this assumption rests on the fact that it
permits the replacement of a homogeneous gravitational field by a uniformly accelerated
reference system, the latter case being to some extent accessible to theoretical treatment. 75
That is, Einstein claims to obtain the laws of gravitation precisely by elision of gravity.
§18. Space and time in a uniformly accelerated reference system
We first consider a body whose individual material points, at a given time t of the nonaccelerated
reference system S, possess no velocity relative to S, but a certain acceleration. What is the
influence of this acceleration r on the shape of the body with respect to S?
If such an influence is present, it will consist of a constant-ratio dilatation in the direction of
acceleration and possibly in the two directions perpendicular to it, since an effect of another kind
is impossible for reasons of symmetry. The acceleration-caused dilatations (if such exist at all)
must be even functions of ; hence they can be neglected if one restricts oneself to the case in
which  is so small that terms of the second or higher power in  may be neglected. Since we are
going to restrict ourselves to that case, we do not have to assume that the acceleration has any
influence on the shape of the body.
We now consider a reference system ∑ that is uniformly accelerated relative to the nonaccelerated
system S in the direction of the latter's X-axis. The clocks and measuring rods of ∑, examined at
rest, shall be identical with the clocks and measuring rods of S. The coordinate origin of ∑ shall
move along the X-axis of S, and the axes of ∑ shall be perpetually parallel to those of S. At any
moment there exists a nonaccelerated reference system S' whose coordinate axes coincide with

74
Albert Einstein, On the relativity principle and the conclusion drawn from it, The collected Papers
of Albert Einstein, Volume 2: The Swiss Years: Writings 1900-1909 (English translation
supplement) Doc. 47. English Translation. Anna Beck Translator. Peter Hanas Consultant. John
Stachel, Editor. [Jahrbuch der Radioactivitat und Elektronik 4 (1907): pp. 411-462
75
Ibídem, p. 302.

107
the coordinate axes of ∑ at the moment in question (at a given time t' of S'). If the coordinates of a
point event occurring at this time t' of S' are ξ, η, ς (with respect to ∑), we will have then
x' = ξ [ξ of ∑ corresponds to x' of S' at time t' of S']
y' = η [η of ∑ corresponds to y' of S' at time t' of S']
z' = ς [ς of ∑ corresponds to z' of S' at time t' of S']
because in accordance with what we said above, we are not to assume that acceleration affects
the shape of the measuring instruments used for measuring ξ, η, ς. We shall also imagine that
the clocks of ∑ are set at time t' of S' such that their readings at that moment equal t'. What
about the rate of the clocks in the next time element τ?
First of all, we have to bear in mind that a specific effect of acceleration on the rate of the clocks
of ∑ need not be taken into account, since it would have to be of the order 2. Furthermore, since
the effect of the velocity attained during τ on the rate of the clocks is negligible, and the distances
traveled by the clocks during the time τ relative to those traveled by S' are also of the order τ 2,
i.e., negligible, the readings of the clocks ∑ may be fully replaced by readings of the clocks of S'
for the time element τ.
From the foregoing it follows that, relative to ∑, light in vacuum is propagated during the time
element τ with the universal velocity c if we define simultaneity in the system S' which is
momentarily at rest relative to ∑, and if the clocks and measuring rods we use for measuring the
time and length are identical with those used for the measurement of time and space in
nonaccelerated systems. Thus the principle of constancy of the velocity of light can be used here
too to define simultaneity if one restricts oneself to very short light paths.
We now imagine that the clocks of ∑ are adjusted, in the way described, at that time t = 0 of S at
which ∑ is instantaneously at rest relative to S. The totality of readings of the clocks of ∑
adjusted in [96] this way is called the "local time" σ of the system ∑. It is immediately evident that
the physical meaning of the local time σ is as follows. If one uses the local time σ for the temporal
evaluation of processes occurring in the individual space elements of ∑, then the laws obeyed by
these processes cannot depend on the position of these space elements, i.e., on their coordinates,
if not only the clocks, but also the other measuring tools used in the [97] various space elements
are identical.
However, we must not simply refer to the local time σ as the "time" of ∑, because according to the
definition given above, two point events occurring at different points of ∑ are not simultaneous
when their local times σ are equal. For if at time t = 0 two clocks of ∑ are synchronous with
respect to S and are subjected to the same motions, then they remain forever synchronous with
respect to S. However, for this reason, in accordance with §4, they do not run synchronously with
respect to a reference system S' instantaneously at rest relative to ∑ but in motion relative to S,
and hence according to our definition they do not run synchronously with respect to ∑ either.
We now define the "time" τ of the system ∑ as the totality of those readings of the clock situated
at the coordinate origin of ∑which are, according to the above definition, simultaneous with the
events which are to be temporally evaluated.
We shall now determine the relation between the time τ and the local time σ of a point event. It
follows from the first of equations (1) that two events are simultaneous with respect to S', and
thus also with respect to ∑, if
v v
t 1− x =t 2− 2 x 2
2 1
c c
where the subscripts refer to the one or to the other point event, respectively. We shall first
confine ourselves to the consideration of times that are so short that all terms containing the
second or higher power of τ or v can be omitted; taking (1) and (29) into account, we then have to
put
x 2−x 1=x ' 2−x ' 1=ξ 2−ξ 1
t 1=σ 1 t 2 =σ 2
v=γt =γτ
so that we obtain from the above equation
γτ
2( 2
σ 2−σ 1= ξ −ξ1 )
c
If we move the first point event to the coordinate origin, so that σ 1=τ y ξ 1 ¿ 0, we obtain, omitting
the subscript for the second point event,
σ=τ [1+γξ/c2]. (30)

108
 This equation holds first of all if τ and ξ lie below certain limits. It is obvious that it holds for
arbitrarily large τ if the acceleration γ is constant with respect to ξ, because the relation between
σ and τ must then be linear. Equation (30) does not hold for arbitrarily large ξ. From the fact that
the choice of the coordinate origin must not affect the relation, one must conclude that, strictly
speaking, equation (30) should be replaced by the equation
2

σ =τe γξ / c
Nevertheless, we shall maintain formula (30). (1. In accordance with (1), we thereby also assume
a certain restriction with respect to the values of ξ=x 1 ¿.76
[Time in a gravitational field].
According to §17, equation (30) is also applicable to a coordinate system in which a homogeneous
gravitational field is acting. In that case we have to put ф = γξ , where ф is the gravitational
potential, so that we obtain

σ =τ 1+
[ ] ф
c
2

[The action of the gravitational field dilates time from σ to τ].

§19. The effect of the gravitational field on clocks
If a clock showing local time is located in a point p of gravitational potential ф, then, according to
(30a), its reading will be (1 + ф/c 2) times greater than the time τ , i.e., it runs (1 + ф/c 2) times
faster than an identical clock located at the coordinate origin. Suppose an observer located
somewhere in space perceives the indications of the two clocks in a certain way, e.g., optically. As
the time ∆τ that elapses between the instants at which a clock indication occurs and at which
this indication is perceived by the observer is independent of τ, for an observer situated
somewhere in space the clock in point p runs (1 +ф/c2) times faster than the clock at the
coordinate origin. In this sense we may say that the process occurring in the clock, and, more
generally, any physical process, proceeds faster the greater the gravitational potential at the
position of the process taking place.77
It is an unfortunate confusion between the mechanism that measures time and time
itself. Physical processes can alter the workings of clocks, but not time.
There exist "clocks" that are present at locations of different gravitational potentials and whose
rates can be controlled with great precision; these are the producers of spectral lines. It can be
concluded from the aforesaid that the wave length of light coming from the sun's surface, which
originates from such a producer, is larger by about one part in two millionth than that of light
produced by the same substance on earth.78
[Absurd example, totally out of place. The difference in wavelength is not due to any
gravitational effect, but to the distance traveled by sunlight].
§20.The effect of gravity on electromagnetic phenomena
These equations too have the same form as the corresponding equations of the nonaccelerated or
gravitation-free space, however, c is here replaced by the value

[ ] [ ]
c 1+
γξ
c
2
ф
=c 1+ 2
c
.

From this it follows that those rays that do not propagate along the ξ-axis are bent by the
gravitational field; it can be easily be seen that the change of direction amounts to γ/c2 sin φ per
cm light path, where φ denotes the angle between the direction of gravity and that of the light
ray.
With the help of these equations and the equations relating the field strength and the electric
current of one point, which are known from the optics of bodies at rest, we can calculate the
effect of the gravitational field on optical phenomena in bodies at rest. One has to bear in mind,
however, that the above-mentioned equations from the optics of bodies at rest hold for the local
time σ. Unfortunately, the effect of the terrestrial gravitational field is so small according to our

76
Ibídem, pp. 302-305
77
Ibídem, p.302-306
78
Ibídem, pp. 306-307

109
 γx
theory (because of the smallness of 2 ) that there is no prospect of a comparison of the results
c
of the theory with experience.79
Einstein has made a true mishmash between the various reference systems: at rest (S), in
uniformly accelerated motion (∑) and a system S' that coincides in everything with ∑, but
is different from it; true Einsteinian gibberish. Einstein's purpose in this part of his work
is to establish the theoretical equivalence of accelerated systems with gravitational fields.
The first thing he tries to do is apply the "Lorentz factor" to accelerated motion with
respect to time and space. According to the special theory, the change of coordinates of an
event, from a coordinate system at rest to another in uniform rectilinear motion, is carried
out with the following formulas:

.
It is evident that to make the passage from a system at rest to another uniformly
accelerated, it is only necessary to substitute, in the previous formula, the uniform
rectilinear velocity with the form that expresses the velocity increased by the acceleration,
v 0 +at
v= .The transformation formulas in uniformly accelerated motion would be as
2
follows, if we follow Dr. Einstein's prescriptions to the letter.
1
x−
2
( v 0 t+ at )
2

x '=

√
1 2,
2
( v 0 +at )
1− 2
c
y '= y ,
z '=z ,

( )
1
( v +a t )
2 0
1− t
c
t '=

√
.
1 2
2
( v 0 +at )
1− 2
c
If accelerated systems are like gravitational fields, then, making the x-axis coincide with
the line of gravitational force, according to Einstein's own assumptions, the
transformation equations of gravitational motion would be thus
1
x−
2
( v 0 t+ g t 2)
x '=

√
2
1 and
2
( v0 + g t )
1−
c2

79
Ibídem, p. 307

110
 ( )
1
(v +g t)
2 0
1− t
c
t '=

√
.
1 2
( v +¿ )
2 0
1− 2
c
where g is the acceleration due to the force of gravity.
Einstein denies the theoretical instruments that he has previously developed and throws
himself into a rough sea that contains a formless mixture of mathematical and geometric
elements, which he manipulates at will to reach the already advanced conclusion of time
dilation due to acceleration, and, consequently, also because of the force of gravity. In his
“thought experiment” (yet another one!) he establishes, with the sole force of his thought,
three Cartesian coordinate systems, denominated respectively, S, which is at rest, ∑,
which has an accelerated movement with respect to S and S', whose coordinate axes
coincide at all times with the coordinate axes of ∑. It ascribes a specific time to each of
the coordinate systems, t to S, t' to S ', and σ to ∑; the instant after t' is called τ. t is the
time in the system S, t' is the time in the system in uniform rectilinear motion S'; S and S'
are in the same geocentric time and, as we have already sufficiently demonstrated, the
physical displacement does not produce any effect on the time domain in which the
systems are and move; therefore, the Einstein times t and t' are the same, the geocentric
time t. As will be seen immediately afterwards, it is held that the system ∑ coincides at all
times and in all its parts with S ' so that t, t' and σ are equal, the geocentric t; τ, the time
unit after t', is also the geocentric time unit t, so the unit that measures t, t', σ and τ, is
the second, the geocentric time unit. He names the axes of the system S, x, y, z, those of
∑, ξ, η, ζ and those of S ', x', y', z'. It postulates that at time t' of S ' the values of ∑ (ξ, η, ζ)
are equal to those of S' (x', y', z'). The problem that Einstein poses is the determination of
the behavior of clocks (time) in a coordinate system ∑ in accelerated movement with
respect to the system S, that is, the relationship between t, t´ and σ at the moment τ
immediately after t', or, in other words, the ratio between the time τ and the local time σ.
We have just determined that this is a completely fictitious problem, without any
scientific basis, and that the only thing that supports it is the supreme stupidity of the
genius who considers his aberrations to be great scientific advances. Highlighting the
absolute falsity of the fundamental assumptions from which he starts, it follows by
necessity that all the developments he makes and the conclusions he reaches are also
totally erroneous, without any physical meaning and that instead of paying for his
hypothesis of the equivalence of accelerated systems and gravitational fields completely
discredits it. In the system S he places two point-events that are found at certain places
on the x-axis and at specific times, in such a way that their relationship with the system
S' is
v
t ' 1=t 1− x
2 1 and
c

v
t ' 2=t 2− x
2 2.
c
The condition for t'1 and t'2 to be synchronous, simultaneous in S ', that is, for t'1 = t'2, is
that
v v
t 1− x =t 2− 2 x 2.
2 1
c c
The prototype of all the wise men who have been in the world uses here a completely false
petitio principii: there are two different times, t and t', and to fix the difference he applies
the formula that he has forged in his special theory, but without including the Lorentzian

111
radical
√ v 2 , although retaining the spurious disparity between t and t' and
1− 2
c
determining it in an absurd way, subtracting from t1 and t2 the part v/c2 of the points x1
and x2, respectively. This is so because he has uncritically applied here his formulas for
the transformation of coordinates, which he had developed on the subject of the length (x)
of the journey of a light ray and not, NB, of the position x of a material point. In addition,
the element c2 was the result of applying the Pythagorean theorem to the classical
problem of special relativity of the transformation of coordinates in the displacement of a
light ray; in the “thought experiment” that we are analyzing, it is about the position of a
material point, in whose determination the speed of light has nothing to do. The use of c2
is due to the arrogance of the wise man who considers the results of his crazy
speculations as constants of nature happily discovered by him and which he then
attributes indiscriminately to any physical phenomenon that is put in front of him. From
the equation of equality of the times t1 and t2, a true physical-mathematical-geometric
monstrosity, by means of despicable algebraic manipulations, Einstein arrives at the
result that he had already advanced: in the system Σ its local time, σ, is less than τ, the
time element after t', according to the equation

[ ]
σ =τ 1+
γξ
c
2 .

Of course, this equation has no value, since, as we have established, all the times that
Einstein devised in his obfuscated mind, t, t', σ and τ, are physically and astronomically
equal, so the inequality postulated in this work of the eminent sage is absolutely invalid.
Furthermore, as always happens to him, this result that he has obtained is completely
contrary to the assumptions from which he has derived his argument; has equated the
coordinate systems S' and Σ, from which it follows that their time units t' and σ are also,
by necessity, equal, and therefore the time element after them, τ, also has the same value
in the two systems; however, with commendable mathematical cunning, he makes τ = t'
and < σ, having previously postulated the equality of t' and σ. To the abstruse Einsteinian
mindset, τ is simultaneously equal to and less than t'.
From the perspective of the same Einsteinian discourse, the Lorentz factor used in the
previous equation suffers from at least three errors: 1) It is the addition to the unit of a
relation and not the square root of the subtraction of a relation to the unit, as in the
original formula, and the numerator of the ratio is the multiplication of two different
factors and not the square of the speed of the moving reference system. 2) But Einstein's
mathematical ineptitude is manifested in all its magnitude in the configuration of the
numerator of this equation. The original Lorentz factor, adjusted for the acceleration of

√ ( )
2
1
the moving system, should be, in relativistic language,
( v +at ) , that is, the
2 0
1− 2
c
numerator of the relationship would be, as in the equation of uniform rectilinear motion,
a velocity squared; but instead of going his own way, the former schoolboy reprimanded
by his elementary math teacher introduces an irrational formula, multiplying a velocity
(acceleration γ) by a distance (ξ), (γ ξ) = ф a sterile operation, without any possible result,
the classic sum of apples and pears. Formally, from the point of view of basic
mathematics, this equation of time in accelerated motion is completely wrong; it
completely annuls all the argumentation that Einstein later deploys based on it. 3) In
special relativity, the transformation of coordinates was made between two different
systems, one fixed and the other mobile, the second of which moved along the x-axis of
the first; in the new version, brought to life by Dr. Frank-Einstein of physics, the change
of coordinates is made between two systems, S' and Σ, which are the same point by point
and move simultaneously, superimposed one on the other; they are one and the same. In
his amazing speculative journey, Einstein has performed the following intrepid mental

112
actions: he has created two different entities, then he has made them one, and finally he
has reestablished the difference without abandoning the sameness; before this dialectic,
the Hegelian dialectic pales, stunned. Firmly supported by the prejudice that he has
established of the equivalence between accelerated systems and gravitational fields,
Einstein extends to gravitation the results regarding accelerated movement obtained in
his exciting adventure of thought that we are analyzing. And he does this in his typical
way: he takes the formula he has obtained, gives it the character of an unobjectionable
physical law, and once invested with this nature, applies it to a phenomenon that
develops under completely different circumstances. The conclusion reached by Einstein is
that the acceleration has "made the clock go faster" in the coordinate system Σ. Without
any transition, it equals the gravitational potential, that is, gravity multiplied by the
distance to the center of force, which could be called the “acceleration potential”, that is,
the acceleration multiplied by the distance ξ traveled by the system Σ, and the result,

ф=γξ, substitutes it in the previously obtained formula, which is as follows σ =τ 1+

[ ] ф
c
2 ,

an equation that is also mathematically inconsistent, like that of time in accelerated

motion, since it implies the multiplication of a speed by a distance, an operation against
nature, hybrid, impossible to produce any result, and physically a real mess with no
scientific value. This means, for the ineffable sage, that at point p in a gravitational field

the clock reading is 1+

( )ф
c
2 times larger than the time τ, or, to put it another way, the

clock at p runs
(1+ cф )
2 times faster than an identical clock placed at the origin coordinate.

We have already precisely established the irrational character of the Einsteinian claim of
the existence of several times ascribed to the different coordinate systems. We have also
emphatically expressed that there is only one time, physical-astronomical-
geohomocentric, that governs the "observable" universe, both for the microcosm and for
the macrocosm and, of course, also for all the coordinate systems that the relativistic
ingenuity can invent.
According to this, Einstein's silly proposition, in which he maintains that gravitational
fields speed up clocks, is an aberration, an absolute physical impossibility.
But, in addition, that conclusion flagrantly contradicts the same assumptions anticipated
by the physicist. In the treatment of accelerated movement, he used three coordinate
systems and the acceleration of clocks was referred to the accelerated movement of one of
those structures; As far as gravitation is concerned, there is only one coordinate system
determined by the line of gravitational force and it is not in motion, but at rest. In the
case of accelerated motion, the event points are in the system at rest; in gravitational
motion the object itself is the one in accelerated motion in a fixed reference system. In the
analysis of accelerated motion, he made a baroque transformation of coordinates from x,
y, z to ξ, η, ζ and x', y', z'; Regarding gravitation, he did not carry out any type of
transformation and he only assume that he used a single coordinate system and from this
only one axis, which we have called x; the dilation of time due to gravitational effect is
obtained by means of the direct application of the formula elaborated for the non-
gravitational accelerated movement. We have, then, two results: in one, the dilation of
time has been obtained by metaphysical means, through the movement of an entity
produced mentally, a certain system of coordinates, whose accelerated displacement
produces the fastest functioning of the clocks, surely incorporeal; in the other, a real
movement, the free fall of a body in a gravitational field, causes the physical alteration of
the clocks, which work more quickly and, consequently, time dilates.
The thaumaturge of physics has perfected his experimental method: by mental means he
only produces accelerated reference systems that alter intangible clocks, and with it, real
time, making it faster, it also speculatively gives rise to ethereal clocks whose

113
mechanisms are altered by a real physical force, gravity, which in turn modifies real time,
dilating it.
The force of gravity produces an acceleration in the free fall of an object towards the
center of force. The acceleration due to gravity can be represented, in free fall, in a
coordinate system that has the line of the accelerating force acting on the object as the
vertical x-axis. If it is the terrestrial gravity, then the time t is the geocentric time at any
point on the globe and the acceleration g the increase in the rate of fall per unit of time in
the gravitational field of the earth (it is certainly not, as it is considered by classical
mechanics and by Einstein himself, a constant value, but rather a variable depending on
the increase in the force of gravity as the object approaches the center of force).
If we denote on the x-axis the starting point of the free fall as x1 and the end point of the
free fall as x2, then we will have that the distance between the two points is x = x2 - x1 =
1
2
( v 0 t + g t ) . For the representation of the free fall of bodies in a gravitational field, only a
2

Cartesian coordinate system is necessary and from this only the axis that coincides with
the line of attractive force is used, which we have called the x-axis above. The time t is
only one, the same one that rules for the coordinate system and the gravitational field;
geocentric time passes the same for the entire gravitational field.

First formulation of gravitational field theory

In sum:
1. The differences in gravitational potential give rise that in the same field gravity make
one clock move faster than another. The measure of the difference is the Lorentz factor.
For Einstein it is a physical phenomenon that has metaphysical implications. Gravity
makes clocks run faster and thereby dilates general, universal time. Gravity has a double
effect, according to the reference system from which it is considered; that is, in the system
K is the physical, normal effect and in K' it is the metaphysical effect, but always dealing
with the same gravity and the same affected object or process.
2.- Gravity produces the curvature of light rays (and in general of all electromagnetic
radiation) to an extent that is determined by the Lorentz factor.
In a 1911 paper, On the influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light 80, Einstein
continues to explore the grounds of the theory of gravity as part of the theory of general
relativity.
§ 1. A Hypothesis Concerning the Physical Nature of the Gravitational Field [3]
In a homogeneous gravitational field (acceleration due to gravity, ) let there be a coordinate
system at rest K, which is oriented in such a way that the lines of force of the gravitational field
run in the direction of the negative z-axis. In a space free of gravitational fields, let there be
another coordinate system K' that moves with a uniform acceleration (acceleration ) in the
direction of its positive z-axis. So as not to complicate the analysis unnecessarily, we will
disregard the theory of relativity for the time being, and consider, instead, the two systems
according to conventional kinematics, and the motions occurring in them according to customary
mechanics. Material points not subjected to actions of other material points move relative to K as
well as relative to K' according to the equations
2 2 2
d xv d yv d zv
2
=0, 2
=0 2
=−γ
dt dt dt
For the accelerated system K', this follows directly from Galileo's principle, but for the system K
at rest in a homogeneous gravitational field, this follows from the experience that all bodies
undergo the same, constant, acceleration in such a field. This experience of the identical falling of
all bodies in the gravitational field is one of the most universal experiences that the observation
of nature has yielded to us; nevertheless, this law has not been granted a place in the
foundations of our physical edifice.
But we arrive at a very satisfactory interpretation of the empirical law if we assume that the
systems K and K' are, physically, perfectly equivalent, i.e., if we assume that the system K could
likewise be conceived as occurring in a space free of a gravitational field; but in that case, we

80
Ibídem, p. 310

114
 must consider K as uniformly accelerated. Given this conception, one can no more speak of the
absolute acceleration of the reference system than one can speak of a system's absolute velocity
in the ordinary theory of relativity. With this conception, the equal falling of all bodies in a
gravitational field is self-evident.81
Einstein holds that material points moving in a space free of gravitational forces have,
relative to an accelerating coordinate system, the same acceleration [of the system] and
travel the same distance, in time t. Material points in a gravitational field (therefore
subject to acceleration) move at the same speed and cover equal distances in equal times.
These are material points with identical mass and energy. In the first case, they move
anyway in the fixed frame, but, according to Einstein, they have, on the basis of the
Galilean principle, an acceleration equal to [but in the opposite direction] than the
accelerated frame of reference. In the second case, it is also about material points with
identical mass and energy for each one, to which the gravitational force is applied, which
produces a constant acceleration in them and makes them travel equal distances in equal
times.
Einstein has done one more of his countless theoretical chicanery. Noting that he sticks
to conventional kinematics and traditional mechanics in his analysis, he brings into play,
in his “thought experiment”, material points (an abstraction), a fixed coordinate system
(in a gravitational field) and an accelerated coordinate system (both also exclusively
mental products). He places the two systems opposite each other and in an indefinite
place the material points in motion. He intends to draw consequences from the
relationship of material points with one system (in constantly accelerated motion in a
space without gravitational fields) that are equally valid for their relationship with the
other system (at rest in a gravitational field). The subterfuge that Einstein uses is that he
puts two completely different phenomena in front of each other. In one, the material
points, whatever their movement or if they are in a state of rest, are referred to a
constantly accelerated system and it is this movement, not that of the objects itself, that is
obtusely considered as their attribute and the which is going to be the point of
comparison, that is, a movement that the material points in question do not possess in
any way. In the other, it is the movement of objects in free fall that is considered. From
the first part of his experiment, the wise man draws the rigged conclusion that the
material points move at the same accelerated speed, since he has stupidly attributed that
of the accelerated system to them. From here, he immediately establishes that this
conclusion is applicable to the free fall of material points in a gravitational field and, to
top it off: which gives the self-evident character to the principle of the equal fall of bodies.
The mechanism is as follows: he establishes a completely false fact: the accelerated
movement of material points, which is actually that of an accelerated coordinate system;
from there he draws the conclusion that the points are subject, notwithstanding the
movement they really possess, to an accelerated movement in relation to the accelerated
system and that this is their characteristic movement and independent of their masses
and the forces that impel them; does not express it that way, but it follows from his entire
argument that, in this sense, objects of different masses have the same acceleration,
since the acceleration of the accelerated system is absurdly attributed to them (for
Newtonian mechanics, according to F = ma and a = F/m, an equal acceleration of equal
masses is obtained from the application of an identical force and the distance traveled is
the same for all points; but, equally, different masses subject to different forces have
dissimilar accelerations and cover variable spaces; no way, neither according to
Newtonian mechanics nor common sense, different masses subjected to equal forces have
equal accelerations); this postulate, which the wise man boasts he has established
without going beyond the limits of conventional and traditional Newtonian physics (in

81
Albert Einstein, On the influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light, The collected Papers
of Albert Einstein, Volume 3: The Swiss Years: Writings 1909-1911 (English translation
supplement) Doc. 23. English Translation. Anna Beck Translator. Don Howard, Consultant.
Edited by Martin J. Klein, A. J. Kox, Jürgen Renn, and Robert Schulman [Annalen der Physik 35
(1911): 898-908]

115
reality he has attributed to Newton theoretical horrors that he never enunciated and that
do not come from the body of principles of the doctrine of this yes truly wise), is used by
Einstein to give supposedly scientific support to what until then had been considered as a
fact of experience without any scientific explanation: the equal fall of all bodies in
gravitational fields. It is evident that Einstein's boorish argumentation does not give any
scientific character to this "principle"; on the contrary, he leaves it the same as it was
before, devoid of any theoretical support.
Previously we have demonstrated the falsity of the "principle" of the equal fall of bodies,
the absolute lack of justification for it in physical science and the total contradiction in
which it finds itself with all the postulates of rational mechanics.
For Einstein, interested in prove by any trick their nonsense, the equal acceleration in the
free fall of identical material points is explained, not by sound physical principles, but by
"the most universal of experiences that the observation of nature has given us", " the
equal fall of all bodies”; the Einsteinian nonsense lies in the fact that it extends what is
true for material points, which by definition have equal masses, to bodies with different
masses, which are the ones referred to by the so-called law of the equal fall of bodies
(uncritically accepted Galilean prejudice by Newton); considers that this law "has not been
given a proper place in the foundations of our physical edifice" thus becomes self-evident;
the latter means that no support has been provided in physical science for what is only a
hypothesis, untested and unverifiable, which contradicts all the widely experimentally
confirmed scientific principles of mechanics; to accept its validity is to abdicate physical
science and put in its place the most aberrant prejudices.
This physical absurdity is "proved" by Einstein, in another work of which we immediately
transcribe the corresponding part, by means of an argument in which all relativistic
stupidity shines: he places objects of different masses suspended in their favorite ethereal
place, the one in which there is no matter, nor gravity, nor anything; next to it, it gives
rise to two mental products that are also outside the material world, a coordinate system
at rest and another that moves in relation to the first with a constant acceleration; then
Einstein's foolish conclusion is that objects of various masses, which are not endowed with
any motion, have the same accelerated velocity relative to the moving coordinate system!
And this has to be so in Einstein's clumsy logic so that it agrees with the theoretical
prejudice of the equal acceleration of bodies in free fall, whatever their mass.
Let now K be an inertial system. Masses which are sufficiently far from each other and from other
bodies are then, with respect to K, free from acceleration. We shall also refer these masses to a
system of co-ordinates K', uniformly accelerated with respect to K. Relatively to K' all the masses
have equal and parallel accelerations[NB. This is so, according to Einstein, because when facing
the accelerated system, motionless objects move relatively away from K' and do so precisely at the
speed of this coordinate system; hence the foolish conclusion that these bodies move at the same
speed regardless of their masses, as curiously also happens in free fall. GRE]; with respect to K'
they behave just as if a gravitational field were present and K' were unaccelerated. 82
In the case of the particle in the system K (a gravitational field), we find a certain
accelerating force (gravitational potential) that acts on the mass of the bodies in the same
terms that follow from the aforementioned formula, F = ma; that is, since the force exerted
is the same, the measurement of the mass determines the acceleration of the falling
object, which is greater the greater the mass. In free fall, bodies descend with an
acceleration determined by their masses: bodies with different masses fall with different
speeds. This is the physically correct conclusion, in accordance with all the principles of
mechanics.
However, for Einstein it has more scientific value, in fact a fundamental scientific value,
since it makes it the theoretical foundation of his doctrine of general relativity, "the
extremely strange and confirmed experience that all bodies in the same gravitational field
fall with the same acceleration...”83

82
Ibídem, p. 380
83
Einstein, Albert, Four Lectures on the Theory of Relativity. Held at Princenton University in May
1921. The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. Volume 7. The Berlin Years: Writtings. 1918-1921.

116
An "extremely strange experience" turned into the foundation of the most considered
scientific theory of the last 150 years! On this very weak foundation, a misshapen
building has been built, the theory of general relativity, built with blundering physical,
mathematical and geometric errors, absurd assumptions, childish examples and an
intellectual arrogance inversely proportional to the scientific validity of its hypotheses.
With this trick Einstein is intended to give the appearance of a scientifically reasonable
theory to the deviations of his general relativity. The starting point is the conceptual
distinction between inertial mass and gravitational mass. This difference makes it reside
in a different behavior of the same mass in different situations; when the mass moves in
the absence of a gravitational field, then the inertia of the bodies leads them to have the
same speed as the uniformly accelerated system to which they are referred, no matter
what their specific mass and motion may be; in a gravitational field, the gravitational
characteristic of mass, Einstein argues, results in bodies of different mass, affected by
different attractive forces (greater than that acting on the larger mass), moving with equal
accelerations and traveling the same distances (a true physical nonsense that is the
foundation of the so-called "principle of equivalence", that in turn is the very heart of the
Einsteinian theory of gravitation).
The sleight of hand is evident: he tries to discredit Newtonian mechanics in order to
substitute it freely with “relativistic mechanics”, but for this he uses the same Galilean
prejudice, incidentally endorsed by Newton, of the equal fall of bodies; With this, he
denies all the enormous wealth of scientific content of classical mechanics and only leaves
it, and makes it the foundation of his aberrant hallucination, a minor hypothesis, false
and without any theoretical support, to which Newton only granted a minimal
importance, and that on an occasional form.
The truly amazing thing is that the "new" gravitational theory only has two feeble
elements: The Galilean hypothesis of the equal fall of bodies in a gravitational field and
the alleged (theoretical) Einsteinian discovery of the deflection (curvature) of light rays
because of gravitation.
The contrast between the exuberant scientific content of Newtonian mechanics and the
intellectual indigence of the gravitational "theory" of general relativity is remarkable. The
relativistic mountain gave birth to a skinny mouse. Einstein's presumptuously called new
theory of gravitation has contributed absolutely nothing to the development of physical
science and, on the contrary, has been the starting point for the perpetration of the most
notorious scientific fraud on record, which has lasted for more than a hundred years.
The hypothesis of the equal fall of bodies did not have further development in the hands
of relativists; essentially it was used to give "brightness and splendor" to the Einsteinian
nonsense that in the relativistic imagination replaced Newtonian mechanics. The
gravitational bending of light rays’ proposition was used to support the left-hand side of
Einstein's second equation. Integrated to the Ricci tensor, it allowed to establish the
parameters of the so-called space-time curvature through the degree of deflection
experienced by a hypothetical ray of light when traveling through space-time curved by
the gravitational force generated by a certain amount of matter and energy expressed by
the various tensors contained on the right side of the equation. Of course, that second
equation is a bad copy, a brutal denaturation of Poisson's equation; this is considered as
the canonical equation of the Newtonian gravitational field, which therefore includes and
is faithful to all the theoretical principles of scientific mechanics. The height of relativistic
"science" consists in substituting the Newtonian attraction for the curvature of space-time
and, for example, calculating planetary orbits by abstruse formulas that ultimately give
results equal to or similar to those of classical mechanics, without contribute nothing new
in this area.
Einstein takes a leap into the void. As far as the gravitational field is concerned, he
abandons the necessary assumption that the masses of material points are equal and

Doc.71. English Translation. Alfred Engel, Translator. Engelbert Schucking. Consultant. p. 317

117
adopts the Galilean prejudice (which we have already studied at length) of equal
acceleration for bodies with different masses.
This is totally false and this gross error is the foundation of the entire scaffolding of the
gravitational theory of general relativity.
Einstein maintains that the physical effects of acceleration in a space without
gravitational force are identical to those produced in a gravitational field.
The purpose of the work that we analyze is to establish the total equivalence of non-
gravitational accelerated systems and gravitational systems. We have seen, with sufficient
detail and the required diligence, that the "mental experiment" and the formulas derived
from it conclusively demonstrate the absolute falsity of that principle. With this, the
theory of general relativity is stripped of any rational basis and, consequently, everything
that derives from it, mainly the "Einstein equation" and the different solutions to it,
especially the one provided by the big Bang Theory"

118
 Einstein's field equation
Gravitational field

ac 2
The results of Einstein's theory, x=ξ + t andτ =ct , relative to accelerated systems, are,
2
by what he pompously calls "the principle of equivalence", applicable to the theory of
gravitation. Gravity can be considered an accelerating force and then it is only necessary
to replace the acceleration  by the gravitational potential Φ; the gravitational field is just
a special case of the "acceleration field".
According to the equivalence hypothesis, a system K in a state of uniform acceleration in
the x-direction is strictly equivalent to a system at rest in which there is a static
gravitational field.
The principle of the constancy of the speed of light is valid only for Galilean systems with
uniform rectilinear motion. In an accelerating or static gravitational field, it no longer
rules; now the law of the change of the speed of light is imposed as a function of the
acceleration of the moving reference system.
We have already seen that the Einsteinian equations referring to the acceleration of a
mobile reference field are mathematical and geometric nothingness, they have no validity,
neither in the field of mathematics nor in that of physics; well then, applied to gravitation,
they give, by necessity, also a catastrophic result; they are, in the gravitational field,
equally erroneous and inane.
In a gravitational field, the acceleration due to gravity is related to the inclination of the
light ray with respect to the straight line that joins the emission source with the center of
force of the body towards which it is directed. The ray that travels directly between the
emitting body and the receiver's center of force adds the acceleration due to gravity to its
speed c: c = c0 + gt. As the light ray moves away from the center, the force of gravity
exerted on it is less intense, so the gravitational acceleration is less; when the photon
passes in front of the attracting body, but outside its gravitational field, then it moves at
its normal speed; and in the case of having transposed it, after being under its influence,
it recovers its characteristic speed. The increase in the speed of light in a gravitational
field is determined by the inclination of the light pulse with respect to the straight line
that joins the emitter with the center of force of the receiver and by the force of gravity of
the latter.
In this new incursion into the field of brown physics, neither does Einstein contribute
anything to justify his hypothesis of the equivalence of uniformly accelerated systems and
gravitational fields.

Einstein's Second Equation: The Gravitational Field Equation

After he claimed to have discovered, through general relativity, the true nature of
gravitation, Einstein decided to continue to illuminate the world with the wonder of his
remarkable, unique intelligence. He then proposed to develop all the inventions and
discoveries he contributed to physical and mathematical science in his theory of relativity,
in order to, based on them, elaborate an ecumenical mathematical formula that could
define matter, time, space and movement at any time and place.
We have just seen the fiasco that resulted from Einstein's determination of the nature of
gravitation: for him it is not a question of a relationship between material objects, but of
the link between real objects and the instruments designed to measure space and time,
that is, the rulers and the clocks; gravity alters the march of clocks and the length of
rulers, and thereby transmutes time and space; the objects that are in a gravitational field
are not directly related to the object that produces it, but to the space-time that

119
surrounds it, and its nature and movement are determined by the metric of the field, that
is, by the alteration that gravity has produced in space-time.
Gravitation is, for Einstein, the mutual relationship of, on the one hand, physical objects,
with, on the other, a metaphysical entity, space-time, this exclusive product of the
feverish mind of the wise man. It is a question of a double metaphysics: a supernatural
relationship between matter and measuring instruments and another of the same nature
between those metaphysical instruments and space and time; for the confused brain of
Einstein it is about something indiscernible: the changes in the instruments produce
transformations in space and time or these give rise to modifications in the instruments.
Einstein reached the following remarkable conclusions:
-Gravity alters the functioning of clocks; a clock located at a point p with gravitational

potential ф runs
(1+ cф )
2 times faster than an identical clock located at the origin

coordinate.
-Gravity, in addition to the processes that occur in the clock, accelerates any physical
process, which is faster the greater the gravitational potential.

-Gravity increases the speed of light by c 1+

[ ] ф
c
2 when the ray travels along the line

running towards the center of force; the increase is smaller the greater the angle between
the direction of the ray and that of gravity and is zero when the ray moves parallel to the
center of force.
-Gravity bends rays traveling in directions separated by the angle φ of the line of
gravitational force toward the center of force.

( cф )
-Gravity increases the energy of the radiation in E2 1+ 2 , where E2 is the energy before

emission.
-Gravity causes all bodies to move, regardless of their mass, with the same constant
acceleration in the gravitational field.

-Gravity causes the frequency of the radiation to increase by v 2 1+

( Фc )
2 , where v2 is the

frequency at the point of emission.

-The terrestrial and solar gravities give rise to radiation from the sun having, upon

reaching the earth, a lower frequency than that of the emission by v 0 1+

( Фc )2 , where Ф is

the negative difference between the two gravities (-Ф).

-Gravity produces the alteration of the movement of the clocks (it makes it faster) and this
means that the frequencies they measure are faster.
Einstein has promised on many occasions to reveal, by means of the postulates of general
relativity, the true nature of gravitation, and countless times he has considered it fully
exposed in the works with which, day in and day out, he overwhelmed the Annalen der
Physik; his point d'honneur consisted in weighing his nonsense as the new physical-
mechanical science, which comes to surpass and render obsolete classical physics and
Newtonian mechanics. Literally, in his imagination, he consigned Kepler, Galileo, and
Newton to the dustbin of history.
But we already see that the only thing it can tell us about gravity is that it alters the
functioning of rulers and clocks, that in general it accelerates all physical processes and
that it provides equal acceleration to all bodies in free fall.
This means, first of all, that gravity transmutes space and time; for Einstein, gravity
produces a specific space-time, a metaphysical metric that has its origin in the physical
characteristics of objects.

120
What Einstein posits as the foundation of modern physical science is an aberration of the
worst kind; neither space nor time are substances on which any physical action can be
exerted.
Gravity cannot alter time, which is the flow of a typical duration of a movement or a
process, always of the same length, which is repeated without interruption and is used to
measure the duration of everything that happens in the “observable” universe, nor to
modify the operation of comparing (measuring) the singular durations with the standard
duration.
Likewise, gravity cannot affect space, which is a three-dimensional, formless continuum
of infinite extension, containing all the objects and movements of the infinite universe;
from that continuum a type extension is taken, which is used to measure all the particular
spaces that form the "observable" universe; gravity does not influence the comparative
function (measurement) of the type extension.
Rulers and clocks are instruments that relate the unit of measurement (refractory to
gravity) with the object of measurement. Rulers and clocks, as measuring instruments,
are invulnerable to the action of gravity. Any disparity that appears between the universal
prototype of measurement and the individual instrument must have its cause in physical
imperfections of the latter, which, once its defects have been corrected, will recover its
specific function. The alterations of the measuring instruments only affect their
performance as such, but in no way influence the universal space and time, nor the
corresponding units of measurement.
Second, gravity does not speed up all physical processes, as Einstein maintains. The
mass, energy, frequency, etc. of bodies, particles and radiation are not altered by gravity.
Third, gravity does not provide equal acceleration to all bodies in free fall.
Finally, gravity does not increase the speed of light because of slower clocks in regions
with higher gravitational potential.
All that Einstein has presented as attributes of modern gravitational theory, which he and
no one else has happily developed, and which comes to supersede Newtonian mechanics
and physics to the full, is in reality a catalog of absolute physical impossibilities and
aberrations, without any scientific content, theoretical nothingness.
To this fundamental flaw we have to add the infallible mathematical and geometric errors,
not even justifiable in a schoolboy, which reveal Einstein's absolute ignorance and
incompetence in this matter, with which he intends to demonstrate and justify his absurd
propositions.
A special mention deserves his “thoughts experiments”. They are the most resounding
denial of the scientific method. They constitute a formless hodgepodge of reference
systems, times, spaces, coordinate axes, etc., unreal assumptions (not hypotheses), which
contradict all established physical laws, in some cases definitely mere occurrences, which
combine the most capricious way, all these elements managed at will, to the best of his
knowledge and belief.
Suffice it to point out that Einstein is the only physicist who never carried out an
experiment, at a time when he was forced, and so were all the other physicists, to follow
up each enunciated hypothesis with the action of justifying it experimentally.
Einstein intends to reduce this novel theory of gravity, which is physical nothingness, to a
mathematical equation of universal validity.
It is evident that any formulation that the wise man comes up with will come burdened
with the main defect of his theory: the absolute nullity, the totally anti-scientific character
of each and every one of his propositions. His equation will also be null and unscientific
in its own right.
The first thing he sets out to do is determine the area in which gravity acts.
He establishes that the environment in which objects and gravity exist is a four-
dimensional medium, formed by the three classical spatial dimensions and one more, that
only relativism can perceive, time. From the outset, he warns against any objection by
arguing that simple common sense finds it impossible to imagine a four-dimensional

121
extension, and that to understand it an exceptional force of thought is necessary, which,
of course, only relativism possesses.
He credits Minkowski with being the first to mathematically endow the nonsense of the
four-dimensionality of space. We have already exhaustively analyzed the so-called
Minkowskian hypergeometry and in that examination we were able to establish that the
proposition of the existence of a fourth dimension constitutes a physical absurdity and
that the whole device invented by the teacher of such an outstanding student to embody
this nonsense is also a mathematical-geometric monstrosity worthless
…The generalization of the theory of relativity has been greatly facilitated considerably by
Minkowski, a mathematician who was the first one to recognize the formal equivalence of space
coordinates and the time coordinate, and utilized this in the construction of the theory… 84
In this work, as an introduction to the formulation of his second equation, Einstein
repeats the same arguments that he advanced when he set out to prove the equivalence
principle.
…Let K be a Galilean frame of reference, i. e., a system relative to which (at least in the four-
dimensional region under consideration) a mass, sufficiently distant from other masses, is
moving with uniform motion in a straight line. Let K' be a second system of reference which is
moving relative to K in uniformly accelerated translation. Then, relative to K', a mass sufficiently
distant from other masses would have an accelerated motion such that its acceleration and
direction of acceleration are independent of the material composition and physical state of the
mass.
…for the above-mentioned relation of freely movable masses to K' may be interpreted equally well
in the following way. The system of reference K' is unaccelerated, but the space-time territory in
question is under the sway of a gravitational field, which generates the accelerated motion of the
bodies relatively to K'.
This view is made possible for us by the teaching of experience as to the existence of a field of
force, namely, the gravitational field, which possesses the remarkable property of imparting the
same acceleration to all bodies...
It will be seen from these reflections that in pursuing the general theory of relativity we shall be
led to a theory of gravitation, since we are able to "produce" a gravitational field merely by
changing the system of co-ordinates. It will also be obvious that the principle of the constancy of
the velocity of light in vacuo must be modified, since we easily recognize that the path of a ray of
light with respect to K' must in general be curvilinear, if with respect to K light is propagated in a
straight line with a definite constant velocity.85
They are the same false, physically untenable arguments that we have already analyzed:
in a region without gravity, masses will have an acceleration independent of their material
composition, in a gravitational field all bodies fall with the same acceleration and light will
be curvilinear with respect to an accelerated system, and all this seasoned with the
nonsense that the same fact has two natures, one that becomes evident for a system of
coordinates and a different one for a distinct system; therefore, it is possible to produce a
gravitational field just by changing the coordinates.
With these firm foundations in place, which define the gravitational field, Einstein
proceeds to determine the four-dimensional environment in which it exists.
His arguments are fully exposed in his work The Foundation of the General Theory of
relativity, The collected papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 6, The Berlin Years: Writings,
1914-1917, pp.146, 150-151, 151-174, to which we refer to our readers who want to
know Einstein's lucubrations in his own words.
Then we make a summary account of the Einsteinian propositions on this matter.
84
Einstein, Albert, Fundamental Ideas and Methods of the Theory of relativity, Presented in Their
development, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. Volume 7. The Berlin Years: Writtings.
1918-1921. Doc. 31, English Translation. Alfred Engel, Translator. Engelbert Schucking.
Consultant. p. 136
85
Einstein, Albert, The Foundation of the General Theory of relativity, The collected papers of Albert
Einstein, Volume 6, The Berlin Years: Wrigtings, 1914-1917, A. J. Kox, Martin J. Klein, and
Robert Schulmann, Editors, Jozsef Illy and Jean Eisenstaedt, Contributing Editors, Rita
Fountain and Annette Pringle, editor Assistants, English Translation of Selected Texts, Alfred
Engel, Translator, Engelbert Schucking, Consultant, Doc. 30, pp. 146-200, Princenton University
Press, 1997. P. 146.

122
Einstein's equation of the gravitational field is the logical-historical continuation of the
Lorentz transformation equations.
To cap off his theory of special relativity, Einstein established the equations of motion for
a light ray in three-dimensional space:
d x 2+ d y 2 +d z 2=d c 2 t 2 [ d s2 ] (1) and
d x ' 2+ d y ' 2 +d z ' 2=d c 2 t ' 2 [ d s ' 2 ]
(2).
(1) is the equation of the displacement of a light ray in a fixed reference system, in three-
dimensional space; in it √
d c 2 t 2is the distance traveled by the pulse in time dt; (2) is the
equation of the same trip of the same ray in a reference frame with uniform rectilinear
motion relative to the frame at rest.
We have already established in the corresponding part that the first equation is the
rational expression of the phenomenon considered and the second is its metaphysical
formulation, in which dx', dy', dz' and dct' are the same lengths dx, dy, dz, and dct but
the variables x, and z contracted and the variable t dilated by the movement of the mobile
system and this alteration is only perceptible by an observer attached to the mobile
system; This contraction necessarily implies, when considering the speed of light equal to
c in the mobile system, that time expands in it.
Likewise, we have been aware of the "thought experiment" from which Einstein infers, in a
clumsy way, through a less than childish "reasoning", the contraction of space and the
dilation of time.
Next, Einstein establishes the following equalities:
d x 2+ d y 2 +d z 2−d c 2 t 2 [ d s2 ]=0 (3) and
d x ' 2+ d y ' 2 +d z ' 2−d c 2 t ' 2 [ d s ' 2 ]=0 (4).
The first equation (3) is irreproachable mathematically, geometrically and physically, but
the second (4) is wrong in every way.
The first equation is the mathematical expression of a geometric representation of the
infinitesimal movement of a point (the distance traveled by the light ray from his
experiment, for example) in a three-dimensional space, that is, of the diagonal of the
cuboid that is formed with the x, y, z values measured on the corresponding axes of an
orthonormal Cartesian system. The distance ds [dcdt] is the square root of the sum of the
squares of the movements of the point with respect to each of the coordinate axes. And, of
course, if we subtract the infinitesimal distance traveled from the square root of the sum
of the squares of the displacements dx, dy, dz, we have a value of 0 as a result. Or,
expressed in its quadratic form, the square of the diagonal is equal to the sum of the
squares of the infinitesimal displacements; hence it is also inferred that the subtraction of
one term from the other necessarily results in 0.
Einstein then equates the two formulas; assuming that each one is equivalent to 0, then
they are equal to each other:
d x 2+ d y 2 +d z 2−d c 2 t 2 [ d s2 ]=d x ' 2 +d y ' 2+ d z ' 2−d c 2 t ' 2 [ d s ' 2 ];
this is patently false within Einstein's own assumptions, even though it is formally

correct, dx’ is not, according to Einstein, equal to dx, but to dx 1−

√ v 2 and so on with dy'
c
2

and dz'; each is smaller than its K-system counterpart. Similarly, dct' [ds'] is not equal to

dct [ds], but to dct 1−

√ v 2 , that is,
c
2
√ 1−
v 2 times smaller. Hence, then, ds is not an
c
2

invariant, as Einstein claims, since when passing from one coordinate system to another
its value changes.
Since according to Einstein the two equations have the same value ds2, then he continues
to work only with the first one: d x 2+ d y 2 +d z 2−d c 2 t 2 [ d s2 ] =¿ 0.

123
Convert the distance dct (ds) to the infinitesimal displacement of the point in a fourth
dimension, the time t.
The equation of ds space in a four-dimensional continuum is, according to Einstein's
brown mathematics and geometry, the following:
d s 2=d x 2+ d y 2 +d z 2−d c 2 t 2 [ d s2 ] .
The right-hand part of the equation implies that we first establish the square of the
infinitesimal distance traveled by the point (or the ray) in the form of the indicated sum of
x2, y2, z2 and subtract from it that same sum already made that it materializes on the
diagonal of the cuboid, also raised to the second power, that is, ds2- ds2. The result, of
course, is always 0, whatever the values of x, y, and z. In this way we have that the
transition equation between the special and general theory of relativity and the ultimate
base of the Einstein field equation and, therefore, of the big bang theory, is as follows
2 2 2
d s =d s −d s =0,
which shows us once again the need for Einsteinian mathematics to always end at zero,
at nothing.
Einstein has bent space and time; for him, then, it is child's play to twist algebra and
geometry to serve his wild theories.
In this context, gives value to his equation (null of origin) providing it the character of a
mathematization of a four-dimensional continuum.
To do this, it converts the result c2t2 [ds2] into its own parent, into one more coordinate, in
this case virtual, into the time coordinate t, so that the four-dimensional continuum can
be represented in an x, y, z, t [ct]coordinate system. ct is endowed by Einstein with a
double nature, it is a distance measured in a three-dimensional coordinate system and it
is a coordinate that represents time and measures itself in a presumed four-dimensional
continuum. Space becomes time at the spell of the relativistic sorcerer.
It is evident that there is no four-dimensional continuum; that is why, in order to
represent what does not exist, Einstein had to resort to that cheap trick of the
transubstantiation of space into time.
If we set the equation d s 2=d x 2+ d y 2 +d z 2−d c 2 t 2 [ d s2 ] equal to 0, and since by (Einstein's)
definition d x 2+ d y 2 +d z 2=d c 2 t 2=d s 2, so we have
d x 2+ d y 2 +d z 2 [ d s 2 ] −d c 2 t 2 [ d s 2 ]=0
[ d s 2 ]−[ d s 2 ]=0
result that can be expressed in this tautology: [ d s 2 ] =[ d s 2 ] and that is in order with the
reiterated fruit of the Einsteinian theory, that is, with nothingness, pure nothingness.
At this point, Einstein makes a formal change in his equation, which does not alter its
essence, so that it looks like this
−d x 2−d y 2−d z2 + d c 2 t 2 [ d s 2 ]=0.
The equation with which Einstein inaugurates his general theory of relativity and which is
the "solid" foundation of his famous field equation, is a counterfeit riddled with physical
absurdities (impossibilities), traps and mathematical-geometrical machinations seasoned
with errors of beginner, etc. In short, from the physical, mathematical and geometric
point of view and from the perspective of simple common sense, that formula has no
scientific value, it is nothing, plainly and simply nothing.
Einstein provided the world the foundation, the pure intuition, of the theory of the four-
dimensional space-time continuum, but it was Minkowski, the teacher of such an
advanced student, who gave its definitive form and content.
Minkowski founds the so-called "hypergeometry", a discipline that according to his
apologists makes Euclidean geometry look like an exercise for schoolchildren.
We have already emphasized with sufficient force the unscientific character of this new
geometry.

124
Both Einstein's formulation and Minkowski's prescription lead to the same result: the
establishment of the impossible four-dimensional equation of motion, which is expressed
in the following wild way
d s 2=−d x 2−d y 2−d z 2+ d c 2 t 2 [ d s 2 ]
and whose complete irrationality we have demonstrated in detail in all of the above.
This equation is the starting point, the foundation and the main element of the so-called
Einstein equation, which we have called "the second" here to differentiate it from E = mc2.
The Einstein field equation, which will be our next object of study, is made up of several
tensors (the energy tensor of matter, the metric tensor, the Ricci tensor), which, in turn,
are sets of vectors.
The Einstein field equation is
G μν=8 π T μν
where T μν is the energy tensor and G μν= R μν−¿ 1 g R ¿ is the Einstein tensor formed by the
μν
2
Ricci curvature tensor, R μν, the metric tensor, g μν, and the scalar of curvature R.
Vectors are characterizations in mathematical terms of various movements, states,
qualities, etc. of matter.
The mathematical-geometric representation of the vectors is carried out by means of
equations of the type d s 2=d x 2+ d y 2 +d z 2 . Tensors are therefore sets of equations that
have this same pattern.
The sum of three vectors in three-dimensional space gives as a result the length of the
diagonal of the tetrahedron that they form. If we represent this in an orthogonal three-
dimensional coordinate system and assign the values of each of the vectors to the axes,
√
then the diagonal has, by the Pythagorean theorem, the length d x2 +d y 2 +d z2 , or put
another way, d s 2=d x 2+ d y 2 +d z 2.
In vector algebra we also proceed in another way when vector units are included in the
equation. Here we are dealing with a multiplication of vectors. If each vector is multiplied
by its respective unit, we obtain ix+jy+kz, and if this sum is squared by multiplying term
by term, and since the vector units, in an orthogonal system, when multiplied by
themselves are = 1 and when done for any of the other units they are = 0, so the result is
2 2 2
d x + d y +d z , the same as in vector addition.
This procedure can be divided into parts. In one of them the coefficients of the vectors are
multiplied, in the other, the vectors themselves, and finally, they are multiplied mutually.
That is, (i, j, k) (i, j, k) x (dx+dy+dz) (dx+dy+dz). The first part is called the metric and the
second the physical invariant of vectors.
The metric determines the coordinate system and the type of vector units that are used.
The physical invariant is the value of the multiplication of vectors independently of any
coordinate system and its result is
2 2 2
dx +d y + d z +2 dxdy +2 dydz +2 dzdx .
To express these relationships, two matrices are used.
The matrix of the metric is
ii ij ik 1 0 0
ji jj jk =0 1 0
ki kj kk 0 0 1
The invariant matrix is
dxdx dxdy dxdz
dydx dydy dydz
dzdx dzdy dzdz
The multiplication of both is

125
 2
1 0 0 dxdx dxdy dxdz d x 0 0
0 1 0 x dydx dydy dydz = 0 dy 2
0 ,
0 0 1 dzdx dzdy dzdz 0 0 dz
2

that is, d s =d x + d y 2 +d z 2.
2 2

Mathematicians developed an index notation to express this vector multiplication in

shorthand:
2
d s =g μν d x μ d x ν ,
where g μνis the indexical form of the vector multiplication metric and d x μ d x ν is the
reduced form of the physical invariant.
μν is the contraction of (i, j, k) (i, j, k) andd x μ d x ν that of
( dx +dy + d z ) ( dx+ dy +dz ) [ ( d x1 + d x 2+ d x 3 ) ( d x 1+ d x 2 +d x3 ) ] .
As we have already seen, tensors are sets of vectors that represent qualities, states and
movements of matter that are in a complex relationship and define them in a full and
profound way.
Tensors are also characterized in indexical language, which allows reducing their inherent
complexity and working algebraically and geometrically with their contracted forms.
The algebra of vectors and tensors has also developed the laws of coordinate
transformation as an instrument to arrive, from various fronts, at the true physical
nature of phenomena.
Physics and mathematics in the 19th century took a huge leap forward with the invention
and refinement of the algebra of vectors and tensors. His progress was the basis of the
works of Gauss, Riemann and Ricci, who established the tensor methods for the
determination of various curvatures, and of Maxwell, who reduced the laws of
electromagnetism discovered by him to tensor form.
Einstein's first approach to the new mathematics was through the works of Maxwell. This
true sage legitimately uses the transformation of coordinates, that is, he uses it in order
to determine the nature of the electromagnetic phenomenon as accurately as possible.
Einstein "the astute" sees here the possibility of prospering with this and, completely
denaturing Maxwell's concepts regarding the speed of light and his method of coordinate
transformation, invents a transformation by means of which, with only the thought,
reduces space and dilates time, an action that constitutes the soul of his creation of the
theory of relativity.
Already in full intellectual maturity, faced with the challenge of new and wonderful
theoretical tasks, in need of the indispensable instruments to establish the all-
encompassing equation, by means of which he could determine the universal relationship
between matter, space, time and energy, he returns his sight to vector and tensor
mathematics, which had had a great advance.
It then uses the algebra of vectors and tensors to give the appropriate configuration to the
basic equation of the general theory of relativity, d s 2=−d x 2−d y 2−d z 2+ d c 2 t 2 [ d s 2 ],
which in its current form only expresses the invariant part of the formula and does so in
traditional mathematical language. Einstein adds the term of the metric and gives the
whole the indexical form, with which that formula is as follows:
2
d s =g μν d x μ d x ν (μ: 1, 2, 3, 4, ν: 1, 2, 3 4).
This mathematical structure is what serves as the basis for the constitution of all the
tensors that make up the so-called Einstein field equation.
In his nights from clear to clear and his days from turbid to turbid, Einstein thought that
matter produced a field through which it exerted an action, not on other parts of itself,
but on time and space, and that these, in turn, acted in a certain way on matter.
In his general theory of relativity, Einstein had come to the conclusion that gravity was
the cause of the deflection of a light ray towards the center of force of a massive body
when passing through its vicinity, which was not the case nothing new, since it logically

126
followed from Newtonian mechanics and Newton himself had taken note of it, as we
demonstrate in a quote from his Principia... that we have made earlier in this same work.
The logical consequence that can be drawn from the phenomenon of the deflection of light
is that a material object has exerted on another of the same nature, through space and in
a specific time, a physical force of attraction.
But for relativistic obfuscation it is that a material object acts physically, producing
physical changes (its curvature), on what is only the container of matter and the duration
of its movements, space and time, and only through of them eventually affects the other
object, guiding its path along the curved space-time path.
The deflection of light by gravity gave Einstein the reason to formulate a novel theory of
the gravitational field.
According to this, massive bodies exert an action on the surrounding space-time that
consists in the formation of a field in which that continuum is curved (space is curved and
clocks are altered (time runs more slowly)). Gravity is, then, the force that produces the
curvature of space and the slowing down of time.
Once this premise is established, Einstein is presented with the urgent need to raise this
conclusion to the level of a general physical property of matter and establish the equation
that fully expresses it.
For that he has to find a formula that, on the one hand, determines the properties of
matter that produce gravity or the general active force and, on the other hand, establishes
the degree of curvature of space-time that corresponds to a given level of accumulation of
matter.
Previous scientific progress had meticulously prepared the raw material that the wise
man would require for his grand swindle: absolute calculus (the algebra of vectors and
tensors), the Riemann and Ricci tensors, the Maxwell tensor of the electromagnetic field,
and the tensor of Newton's gravity.
Absolute calculus is taken up in its entirety by Einstein, who receives it through
Grossman, his advisor in mathematical science, and in collaboration with him completely
denatures it. Both the metric tensor and the physical tensor now include the illusory time
dimension t(ct); they represent a four-dimensional continuum, which, as we have
exhaustively demonstrated, is sheer nonsense.
Incidentally, we will say that the only thing that Einstein contributed to the absolute
calculus was the brainy mathematical trick called "the Einstein convention", by which the
existence of repeated indices in an equation is considered to mean that the elements that
have them must be added; then it is possible to eliminate the symbol of the summation Σ.
In this work all the mathematical capacity of the sage was exhausted.
The metric tensor indicates, in rational mechanics, the type of coordinate system in which
the invariant tensor is represented and it the values that the vector units have in. When
the new spurious dimension is introduced, to which a sign different from the one that the
other three have is placed, the representation of the invariant tensor is completely
distorted, which is then inoperative to perform its functions of scientifically exact
reflection of the nature of the physical phenomenon; on the contrary, it becomes a
distorted and laughable caricature of reality.
The Ricci tensor, by means of which it is intended to determine the curvature of space-
time, is subjected to this deforming maneuver from two fronts: when the metric tensor is
used to fix the coordinate system to which the invariant tensor is going to be
incorporated, and at the time of specifying the vectors of the latter, then the non-existent
vector of time t (ct) is added to the three vectors of the classic three dimensions; the
result, obviously, is a mathematical-geometric aberration that completely adulterates the
nature of the Ricci tensor, in such a way that with this tool it is impossible not only to
establish the curvature of space-time, but also any characteristic of anything.
Showing Einstein his mathematical power, in addition to the deformity with which he
originally endows his version of the Ricci tensor, he also subjects it to manipulations by
which he reduces it to its minimum expression (contracts it) to leave it at manageable
levels for his algebraic ineptitude.

127
Neither the original Ricci tensor nor Einstein's grotesque parody have the power to measure
something non-existent like the curvature of space-time. Space has no material entity, and
therefore also lacks a defined surface to which the Ricci tensor (original or adulterated) can
be applied, which by definition measures the curvature of a physical, material surface. But
the audacity of our sage has no limits. Instead of demonstrating how it is possible to
measure the curvature or whatever of an entity without materiality, dispossessed of
corporeity and therefore of surface or interiority, he refers the verification of his statement to
"thoughts experiments" with test particles (that is, exclusively mental experiments) and to
the same planetary orbits, whose trajectory had already been defined by Kepler and
Newton.
Einstein considers that Newton's theory of gravitation, in addition to being wrong, is
insufficient. He alone takes into account the mass of the bodies and a dubious attractive
force that exists between them. It is then proposed to establish a more general equation,
in which firstly his remarkable discovery of the space-time continuum is included,
secondly, the new relationship between matter and that continuum is incorporated, in
which it is given a secondary place to the nexus between the various material portions,
always mediated and determined by space-time and, thirdly, to take as the source of this
new relationship not only the mass and gravitational energy of matter, but all forms of
energy that matter contain and emanate from it.
To this end, he resorts to the scientific productions of mechanics and physics related to
various fields of reality and expressed in the form of tensors. These are the tensors of the
electromagnetic field, other tensors of different types related to different physical
phenomena and Newton's tensor of gravity.
He includes all of them under the name of "energy and momentum stress tensor".
As in the case of the left part of his equation, in the right sector he subjects the various
tensors to the same double adulterative activity: the use of the illegitimate metric tensor
and the distortion of the invariant tensor that comes from the inclusion in it of the fourth
vector which irrationally represents time with a distance, t(ct).
The energy tensor, under the pretext of applying the false equivalence of mass and energy
of the equation e = mc2, is thus converted into a jumble of the most diverse adulterated
vectors, into a haphazard heap of densities, pressures, flows, moments, stresses, etc.,
which have a four-dimensional metaphysical nature and from which absolutely nothing
can be obtained, no common, measurable factor that be the one that exerts an action,
also quantifiable, on the unreal space-time.
At this point, relativism faces the problem of relating the two extremes of its field
equation.
On one side, the right, there is a caricature of a tensor, a jumble of ill-made vectors with
which it is intended to express a chaotic set of properties, characteristics, states, etc. of
matter in a single completely unreal variable, energy and unified moment, quintessential
product of the energy and moment of the individual components, something non-existent
and, therefore, impossible to express mathematically and geometrically and, of course,
without the power to produce any physical effect. This means that the unified energy and
momentum on the right side of the equation do not represent any actually existing entity
that can act on physical reality.
On the left side is the so-called metric tensor, which represents a non-existent entity, the
so-called space-time, supposed recipient of the activity of the unreal tensor of energy and
momentum; in the same place of the equation is located a version of the Ricci tensor, a
powerful mathematical instrument whose scientific validity is nullified when Einstein and
his henchmen subject it to the distortion that the fiction of four-dimensional space-time
demands; this completely deformed variety of the original tensor, which in this condition
cannot express anything physically real, is reputed to be the tool used to measure the
effect of the energy and momentum tensor on space-time, which reduces to its curvature.
According to Einstein's equation, the field created by each material object is nothing other
than the space-time curved by the stress tensor of energy and momentum, which
determines the movement of the objects that pass through it. The energized field gives the

128
object a trajectory in accordance with the curvature of space-time. The direct relationship
between object and object is ruled out in the field equation, so we are dealing here with
the relationship between the field of one object and the motion in that extension of
another object. The field is, then, a medium that opposes an attractive force to the
tendency of the object to move in a straight line; it literally pulls it toward her curve. The
trajectory of the object is determined, accordingly, by the resultant of two forces, the
attraction of the medium and the tendency of the object to move in a straight line.
The absolute irrationality of Einstein's field equation lies in the fact that something that
has no physical entity, the abstract energy and momentum of matter, measured by a
tensor that is a hodgepodge of several denatured physical tensors, is presented as
exerting an action by means of the which curves the space-time -metaphysical continuum
invented by Einstein and Minkowski- that is non-existent, without any materiality. This
imaginary extension, completely unreal, is considered as a factor that produces effects on
matter, determining its movement.
We have reached the pinnacle of Einsteinian irrationality: an equation, elaborated using a
crude adulteration of absolute calculus through which valuable mathematical, physical
and mechanical tensors (from Ricci, Maxwell, Newton, etc.) have been mystified, with
which it is intended quantify, through the use of a distorted instrument, a non-existent
effect that comes from an unreal agent and acts on an imaginary four-dimensional
continuum.
It contrasts sharply the utter emptiness, the total unscientific character of Einstein's field
equation with the fullness of Newton's theory of universal gravitation. In the latter, it is
about real physical objects, which exert an authentic, defined force, which forms
delimited gravitational fields, by means of which they are related to each other according
to a law that is expressed in precise mathematical terms.
There is also a chasm between Einstein and Newton in the way each of them values his
own theory. Einstein, with the arrogance that is sustained by supreme ignorance and
utter stupidity, considers that the stew he is cooking is a new physical theory,
scientifically exact, a thousand times superior to classical Galilean-Newtonian mechanics,
and that it is the basis for, in due time, determine the nature of the universe, which, of
course, must be expressed in a tensor equation and be in everything in accordance with
the foolish, absurd and far-fetched "principles" of the theory of relativity. For his part,
Newton, despite the grandeur of his discovery, invested with the modesty of the sage,
expresses the limits of his theory (the “world system”, celestial mechanics) and hopes that
his theory of gravitation, extended to other sectors of reality, or another different
conception, constitute the basis on which the wise men of the future can rise the building
of knowledge of all the laws of the universe.
Like everything that comes out of the mind of our illustrious physicist, his field equation
is mathematical, geometric nothingness and, due to its absurd totalizing pretensions,
cosmological nothingness. It has no physical meaning, nor any scientific value. It is
nothing, nothing other than nothing.
Einstein and his colleague Grossman are hard at work bringing shine and splendor to the
useless casing they have created. They seek, then, by means of blatant manipulations,
that the field equation that they have misunderstood is symmetric, that is to say, equally
futile in all senses, also invariant (or covariant, as they say in tensorial language),
although the Einsteinian formulas all, fatally, they distort and alter the perception of
physical reality, consistent with the laws of conservation of matter and energy, etc. Every
resource that Einstein and Grossman use to make up the field equation contributes to
making it more abstruse, more unintelligible and, with it, to reinforce its mystical
character, so that only the elect, the officiants of the relativistic church, and not the
simple Mortals can understand it.
Once, after hard mental work and the occasional inspired and illuminating idea of the
sage, the huge tome has been duly assembled, and since Einstein's "field equation" is an
abstract expression, the most general, of relations between matter, space and time, then
the need to make it descend from heaven to earth and accommodate it to the most diverse

129
concrete conditions of those elements is imposed, that is, to find "solutions" to the
"Einstein equation”. The illustrious doctors of the relativist curia put all their efforts into
giving life to the mathematical absurdity that the Supreme Pontiff has invented and apply
it to the most heterogeneous states of matter, and even, in a stroke of audacity, to a space
without matter. Thus, solutions for space without matter, matter in the form of powder,
incoherent, in a fluid, gaseous state, such as plasma, etc. are forged. And at the apex of
this work, those results are generalized to determine the nature of matter in the universe
and its relationship to universal time and space.
In this way the most irrational cosmologies arise, of which the most preposterous and
absurd of them, the "big bang" theory, remains enthroned in relativistic "science".

130
 The expansion of the universe

The background of the big bang theory

Hubble's contribution

One of the first formulations of the big bang theory, still very schematic, was made by
Hubble in his work The problem of the expanding universe86, dated 1942.
On this interpretation the present distribution of nebulae could be accounted for by the
assumption that all the nebulae were once jammed together in a very small volume of space.
Then, at a certain instant, some 1800 million years ago, the jam exploded, the nebulae rushed
outward in all directions with all possible velocities, and they have maintained these velocities to
the present day. Thus the nebulae have now receded to various distances, depending upon their
initial velocities, and our observations necessarily uncover the law of red shifts. 87
From then on it became an activity intensely practiced by physicists, mainly relativists, to
provide, by whichever more grotesque means, full form and content to the monstrous
nonsense of the "Big Bang" theory.
It was necessary to determine carefully and precisely the nature and physical
circumstances of the starting point of the universe, that is, from the moment of its birth,
and those of the different phases of its evolution, until arriving at the present point of its
existence.
At the same time, atomic physics, aided by modern chemistry, had made great progress in
determining the nature and structure of atoms and subatomic particles.
Physical-chemical, theoretical and experimental science, based on practical industrial
activity (which includes, in a very special way, the military industry) managed to
disintegrate material compounds into substances, these into their elements, these, in
turn, in the particles that constitute them, and these in the sub-sub-atomic fractions that
integrate them. Similarly, in the laboratory and in industrial practice, the synthesis of
particles, elements, substances and compounds was obtained. This led to knowledge of
the conditions and the ways in which these decomposition and condensation processes
take place (temperature, density, pressure, etc.).
Relativistic physicists found in this the occasion to give robust substance to their theory
of the expansion of the universe.
The big bang could be presented as the beginning of the process of creation of the
elements, and the subsequent evolution of the universe as the phase of the formation of
substances and compounds, until reaching the current state of matter, which in its
superior manifestation understands the thinking matter.
Relativistic physics then embarks on a task as extraordinary as it is idle: determining the
time elapsed from the original cataclysm to the current state of the universe, the nature of
the initial stage in which the "big bang" occurs, the conditions existing in the phase
immediately after the initial commotion and in those that follow it, with regard to the
state of the fractioned matter that has resulted from it and of the formations that are later
consolidated, in relation to the laws of atomic physics and chemistry, in order to establish
the physical processes, their characteristic extension and time that occur in each of these
stages.

86
Ibídem, pp. 150-151
87
Hubble, Edwin, The problem of the expanding universe American Scientist, a quarterly
publication of the society of the sigma XI, devoted to the promotion of research in science, Vol.
30, april, 1943 No. 2.

131
Our relativistic physicists carry out a monstrous extrapolation, making use of the most
absurd assumptions and the most stupid "thought experiments" that it is possible to
imagine, from the laws established in the theory and practice of atomic physical-chemical
science to the supposed explosion original and evolutionary phases that succeed it.
They then establish a periodization that has as its starting point a universe populated
with sub-sub-atomic particles (quasars), coming from the "big bang", which are in a state
of extreme agitation, at an extremely high temperature; the attraction caused by the
cooling of the original nebula favors the formation of sub-atomic particles, such as
protons and electrons; a greater cooling gives rise to the integration, with the subatomic
particles, of atomic nuclei; one more step in the evolution of the universe is the formation
of atoms of light elements such as helium, lithium and hydrogen; a greater drop in
temperature corresponds to a greater attraction between the particles, until reaching the
constitution of stars, groups of stars and planetary systems, which are the places where
heavy elements are produced, such as carbon, oxygen, etc., and the various substances
and compounds are formed.
In the characterization of each phase, relativistic physicists use a grotesque procedure:
they first take the determinations of atomic physical-chemical science, without paying
attention to the fact that some of them (many, in fact) are mere hypotheses without
support; then, they are transferred raw to the stage which is the object of his interest,
which has been delimited through the use of the parameters set by the theories of the
expansion of the universe and of Einsteinian relativity, those of the latter being
concentrated in the so-called "Einstein field equation", all parameters that are determined
by absolutely false concepts, formulas and equations, and full of gargantuan theoretical,
arithmetic, algebraic and geometric errors, as we have meticulously demonstrated; within
those limits, besides being erroneously established completely fanciful, the terrestrial
phenomenon is elevated to the quality of a cosmic event.
In this way, they give life to the stages of the evolution of their mythical universe, in each
of which the world, which has a certain volume, is filled with matter that has a special
quality and quantity (sub-sub particles atomic, neutrons, protons, electrons, etc., or a
mixture of some of them) and specific density, pressure and temperature; the volume of
the universe and the density, quantity, pressure and temperature of the matter in the
initial phases of the supposed evolution are determined by the quantity and qualities of
the matter necessary to produce the later formations (galaxies, etc.); for this, it was forced
to establish the volume of the current universe and the density of the matter included in
it, a task that is carried out using the most execrable sophistries, theoretical
mystifications and mathematical artifices (Einstein's "equation", the "solutions" to the
equation of Einstein, Hawking's and Penrose's theorems, etc.)-.
So we have two extremes. On the one hand, a non-existent starting point, to which
relativistic ignorance gives life in the middle of nowhere and gives it the ability to hatch in
a world of material particles, pre-existing in a state of infinite condensation or created by
the very fact of an initial explosion. On the other hand, a current universe that is also the
product of relativistic fantasy, to which a specific nature is attributed (volume and
density, quantity, pressure and temperature of matter). It is postulated that the current
state is the result of the evolution of the initial state. Through the application of Einstein's
equation, each phase of this evolution is endowed with a certain material state that
produces a specific time and space, which in turn react on matter, determining its
fundamental characteristics. This is how certain physical processes and the states that
derive from them are confined at will to infinitesimally small or extremely large spaces
and times. This opens an infinite field for speculation on the nature of the invented
universe, its material evolution, etc., which translates into a great variety of "solutions" to
Einstein's equation that give us various universes (open, closed, flat, spherical, finite but
without limits, etc.), different periods, different times and spaces, etc. What is
characteristic of this is that the immeasurably intelligent sages, the pro-men of relativism,
the revolutionary "inventors" of time and space, seize upon the modest Newtonian units of
time and space, nanoseconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days, years, etc., and tenths,

132
hundredths and millionths of a millimeter, millimeters, centimeters, kilometers and light
years to measure the great cosmic processes: with current time and space, geocentric and
homocentric, they measure events in which according to their budgets, the current time
and space did not exist and could not exist!

The expansion of the Universe

The theory of relativity necessarily produces the elements for the formation of a specific
cosmological theory that fully agrees with its postulates and is its logical-historical
continuation.
In a natural way, the prodigious evolution of physical science from the mid-nineteenth
century, which brought notable advances in scientific knowledge but also fostered the
greatest theoretical errors, such as the so-called theory of relativity, endowed its agents of
an enormously high regard for themselves: since their very remarkable intelligence had
allowed them to unravel the most recondite physical processes of the microcosm, it was
then possible, using that prodigious capacity and the mathematical and physical
formulas and models developed by them, to know the nature and structure of the
universe.
We thus find ourselves before an abundant production of cosmologies, one for each
physicist; these, asserting their particular "equation", give the world and the universe the
most absurd, fanciful and, to say the least, stupid forms and structures.
As there is a healthy competition between all the wise men of physics, then, each one of
them eagerly searches for a new procedure or a physical element that, when discovered, is
the fulcrum for a new cosmology that comes to destroy the previously constructed ones
(recently there was that comical spectacle, meticulously covered by the international
media, when the Higgins boson was discovered, which was proclaimed by official physical
science as the fact that came to found a new vision of the nature and structure of the
universe).
But, without a doubt, the cosmological fantasy that has become the official truth of
physical science in use is what is called the "big bang theory", which is the "solution" to
Einstein's "equation" most widely accepted by the scientific community.
The big bang theory has as its nuclear postulate the hypothesis of the expansion of the
universe.
This assumption was first put forward by William Huggins in his 1864 work, published in
collaboration with W. A. Miller, On the Spectra of some of the Fixed Stars 88 and later in his
1868 pamphlet Further Observations of The Spectra of Some of the Stars and Nebulae,
with an attempt to determine Therefrom whether These Bodies are Moving towards or from
the Earth, Also Observations on the Spectra of the Sun and of Comet II 89, in which is
inserted a paper by Maxwell called On the Influence of Motions of celestial bodies in the
refractive indices of light, in which this topic is theoretically discussed. Seventy years
later, well into the next century, this hypothesis is taken up again by the next generation
of astronomers, already strongly infected by the Einsteinian theory of relativity. In 1935,
Edwin Hubble and Richard C. Thomas published a paper on the redshift of light from
nebulae Two Methods of Investigating the Nature of Redshift from Nebulae 90and in 1943
Hubble released his research The problem of the expanding universe91.
88
Ibídem, pp. 2-3
89
Huggins, William and W. A. Miller, On the Spectra of some of the Fixed Stars. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 154 (1864), pp. 413-435 Published by: The
Royal Society
90
Huggins, William, Further Observations of The Spectra of Some of the Stars and Nebulae, with un
attempt to determine Therform whether These Bodies are Moving towards or from the Earth, Also
Observations on the Spectra of the Sun and of Comet IIPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London, Vol. 158 (1868), pp. 529-564 Published by: The Royal Society
91
Hubble, Edwin and Richard C. Tolman, Two methods of investigating the nature of the nebular
red-shift Carnegie Institution of Washington. Mount Wilson Observatory, California Institute of

133
The necessary, logical and historical antecedent of the hypothesis of the expansion of the
universe that Huggins and Miller openly express for the first time, is the "theoretical"
foundation of the possibility of determining, through the spectrum of starlight, if and to
what extent self-luminous stellar objects approach or recede from the planet. In his work
presented in 1842, On the colored light of the double stars and certain other stars of the
Heavens92, Christian Andreas Doppler addresses this task and establishes the formulas
that, in his opinion, allow the measurement of the approach or distance of stellar bodies
to or from the ground observer. Doppler accepts the current theory of spectrography and
maintains that light rays are composed of waves of different magnitudes, both in length
and frequency, and that these waves and their changes can be recorded by the
spectrograph. When a luminous body moves away from the earth, the waves that arrive
have lower frequencies and greater lengths at successive moments and the opposite
happens when the source moves away from the earth; such changes are recorded by the
light spectrum of stellar objects and express, through appropriate transformations, their
speed. The speed of recession or approach of a star with respect to the terrestrial globe is
directly related to the change in the frequency of its waves recorded when it reaches the
observer.
The formula that Doppler proposes to determine the speed of approach of the observer to
n ( a+ α 0 ) (in modern notation, f ( c+ v 0 ) ),
'
the stationary light source is the following: = =
x a f c
where n is the frequency of the wave upon reaching the observer, x the frequency of the
wave upon leaving the source, a the speed of the wave and αo the speed of approach of the
observer. From this formula we obtain the source velocity equation, αo = a(n-x) (in the
current form, vo = c(f’-f)).
In the case of the source approaching a stationary observer, Doppler proposes the
'
n a f c
following formula: = , whose update is: = . From here we obtain the
x ( a−α s ) f ( c−v s )

speed of the source, that isα s=a−

x
n () f
a, or v s=c− ' c .
f ()
Although Doppler does not consider the case, from its formula it is also possible to obtain
the equation of the speed of the source when it moves away from a stationary observer,

which would be as follows: α s=a ( nx )−a c ( ff )−c

or ' .

Doppler makes no practical application of his formulas and presents only a few imaginary
cases of large and small changes in the frequency of starlight and the corresponding
speeds of light sources.
This last equation that we have derived is the one that Maxwell and Huggins take as a
basis, without giving Doppler the corresponding credit, for the theoretical developments
and practical applications of the redshift principle. In fact, the equations used by Maxwell
and Huggins are identical, except for minor formal sizes, to which we have obtained from
the Doppler formulas.
The Doppler equations suffer from one major flaw. In the equation of the motion of the
observer towards the fixed light source, αo = a(n-x), the enormous mistake is made of
considering the difference between n and x, which does not have a material existence, as
the value of a frequency of a wave actually existing; multiplying that difference by the
actual speed of the light ray wave doesn't give you the speed of anything, it's a completely

Technology, July 1935, pp. 302-337. American Astronomical Society. Provided by the NASA
Astrophysics Data System.
92
Hubble, Edwin, The problem of the expanding universe American Scientist, a quarterly
publication of the society of the sigma XI, devoted to the promotion of research in science, Vol.
30, april, 1943 No. 2.

134
irrational result. Later we will analyze in detail this mathematical absurdity that is the
basis of the fanciful hypothesis of the expansion of the universe.
Huggins and Miller welcome, in the first work mentioned, the advent of the new scientific
research method based on the spectral analysis of light, which they consider extremely
useful for understanding the general plan and structure of the observable universe.
Spectral analysis, then recently developed by Kirchhoff, allowed the astronomers Huggins
and Miller, by applying it to the study of starlight, to support several hypotheses: the
similar material constitution of the stars and the sun, the origin of those sidereal bodies
in an undifferentiated nebula, in the same way that the birth of the sun would have taken
place, the possibility of the existence of planetary systems that would have their center in
the different stars, endowed with matter and the conditions to produce life and, in short,
the existence of a universal system of organization and structure of stellar objects that
would be made up of the same materials and governed by the same mechanical and
physical laws.
With that powerful instrument in his hands, Huggins decides to venture into some pretty
rugged terrain. Going far beyond the original purpose of spectral analysis, that is, to
compare the spectrum of solar and stellar light with those of the lights produced on earth
by the different chemical elements to determine which of these are also found in the
heavenly bodies, our astronomer decides to use it to determine other characteristics of the
stars, mainly their displacement in outer space.
In the process of analyzing the spectra of the various stars and their comparison with that
of the sun and those of the terrestrial elements, Huggins observed that the black lines of
the stellar spectra (absorption lines of stellar radiation by the atmospheric matter of the
astro), corresponding to the bright lines of the spectra of the terrestrial elements
(radiation emission lines produced in the laboratory), registered, in relation to these, a
shift towards the red part of the spectrum.
In a paper "On the Spectra of Some of the Fixed Stars," [composed] by myself and Dr. W. A.
MILLER, we gave an account of the method by which we had succeeded during the years 1862
and 1863 in making trustworthy simultaneous comparisons of the bright lines of terrestrial
substances with the dark lines in the spectrum of some of the fixed stars. We were at the time
fully aware that these direct comparisons were not only of value for the more immediate purpose
for which they had been undertaken, namely, to obtain information on the chemical constitution
of the investing atmospheres of the stars, but that they might also possibly serve to tell us
something of the motions of the stars relatively to our system. If the stars were moving towards or
from the earth, their motion, compounded with the earth´s, motion would alter, to an observer on
the earth, the refrangibility of the light emitted by them, and consequently the lines of terrestrial
substances would no longer coincide in position in the spectrum with the dark lines produced by
the absorption of the vapors of the same substances existing in the stars.
According to the undulatory theory, light is propagated with equal velocity in all directions,
whether the luminous body is at rest or in motion. The change of refrangibility is therefore to be
looked for from the diminished or increased distance the light would have to traverse if the
luminous object and the observer had a rapid motion towards or from each other. The great
relative velocity of light to the known planetary velocities, and to the probable motions of the few
stars of which the parallax is known, showed that any alterations of position which might be
expected from this cause in the lines of the stellar spectra would not exceed a fraction of the
interval between the double line D, for that part of the spectrum.
…
In 1841, DOPPLER showed that since the impression which is received by the eye or the ear does
not depend upon the intrinsic strength and period of the waves of light and of sound, but is
determined by the interval of time in which they fall upon the organ of the observer, it follows
that the colour and intensity of an impression of light, and the pitch and strength of a sound will
be altered by a motion of the source of the light or of the sound, or by a motion of the observer,
towards or from each other
DOPPLER endeavoured by this consideration to account for the remarkable differences of colour
which some of the binary stars present, and for some other phenomena of the heavenly bodies.
That DOPPLER was not correct in making this application of his theory is obvious from the
consideration that even if a star could be conceived to be moving with a velocity sufficient to alter
its colour sensibly to the eye, still no change of colour would be perceived, for the reason that

135
 beyond the visible spectrum, at both extremities, there exists a store of invisible waves which
would be at the same time exalted or degraded into visibility, to take the place of the waves which
had been raised or lowered in refrangibility by the star's motion. No change of colour, therefore,
could take place until the whole of those invisible waves of force had been expended, which
would only be the case when the relative motion of the source of light and the observer was
several times greater than that of light. In 1845, Ballot published a series of acoustic experiments
that supported the Doppler theory in the case of sound. In the same work, Ballot advances some
objections to the Doppler application of his theory to the colors of stars.
This paper was followed by several papers by DOPPLER in reply to the objections which were
brought against his conclusions.93
Huggins supports the thesis that the separation between the black lines of the stellar
spectrum and the corresponding bright lines of the terrestrial element are the
manifestation of a reduction in the frequency and an increase in the length of the waves
that reach the terrestrial observer.
The hypothesis that Huggins advances based on his observations of the separation of the
black lines of the stellar spectrum from the corresponding bright lines of the terrestrial
element, is that "if the stars were moving towards or from the earth, this movement,
combined with that of the earth, should alter, for an observer on earth, the refrangibility
of the light emitted by those, and consequently, the lines of the terrestrial substances
would no longer coincide in the spectrum with the black lines produced by the absorption
of the Vapors of the same substances existing in stars. That is, the movement of the star
from or towards the earth is what causes the decrease or increase in the frequency and
the increase or decrease in the length of the electromagnetic waves that travel from the
star to the terrestrial observer”.
In a paper sent by Maxwell to Huggins, the latter finds the theoretical and mathematical
foundation for his speculations.
On the influence of the movements of the celestial bodies on the refractive indices of light.
Mr. Maxwell's statement of his opinions and experiments, which was received by me June 12,
1867.
Let a source of light be such that it produces n disturbances or vibrations per second, and let it
be at such a distance from the earth that the light requires a time T to reach the earth. Let the
distance of the source of light from the earth be altered, either by the motion of the source of
light, or by that of the earth, so that the light which emanates from the source t seconds
afterwards reaches the earth in a time T'.
During the t seconds nt vibrations of the source of light took place, and these reached the earth
between the time T and the time t+T', that is, during t+T'-T seconds. The number of vibrations
t
which reached the earth per second was therefore no longer n, but ' .
t+T −T
If v is the velocity of separation of the source of light from the earth, and V the velocity of light
between the bodies relative to the earth, then vt=V(T'-T), and the number of vibrations per second
V
at the earth will be n. .
V +v
If V0 is the velocity of propagation of light in the luminiferous medium, and if v0 is the velocity of
the earth,
V = Vo-vo
and the wave-length will be increased by a fraction of itself equal to
v
.
V −v 0
Since vo only introduces a correction which is small compared even with the alteration of wave-
length, it cannot be determined by spectroscopic observations with our present instruments, and
it need not be considered in the discussion of our observations.
If, therefore, the light of the star is due to the combustion of sodium, or any other element which
gives rise to vibrations of definite period, or if the light of the star is absorbed by sodium vapour,

93
Doppler, Christian Andreas. On the colored light of the double stars and certain others stars of the
Heavens, Über das farbige Licht der Doppelsterne und einiger anderer Gestirne des Himmels, 1842.

136
 so as to be deficient in vibrations of a definite period, then the light, when it reaches the earth,
will have an excess or defect of rays whose period of vibration is to that of the sodium period as
V v is to V.
As an example, let us suppose the star to be fixed and the earth to be moving directly away from
the star with the velocity due to its motion round the sun. The coefficient of aberration indicates
that the velocity of light is about 10,000 times that of the earth in its orbit, and it appears from
the observations of ANGSTROM and DITSCHEINER that the wave-length of the less refrangible of
the lines forming D exceeds that of the other by about one-thousandth part of itself. Hence, if the
lines corresponding to D in the light of the star are due to sodium in the star, these lines in the
starlight will be less refrangible than the corresponding lines in a terrestrial sodium-flame by
about a tenth part of the difference between D1 and D2.
When the earth is moving towards the star, the lines will be more refrangible than the
corresponding terrestrial lines by about the same quantity.
The effect of the proper motion of stars would of course have to be compounded with the effect of
the earth's own motion, in order to determine the velocity of approach or separation. To observe
these differences of the light from stars, a spectroscope is necessary, that is, an instrument for
separating the rays of different periods; and it is immaterial in what direction the refraction of the
light through the prisms takes place, because the period of the light is the thing to be observed
by comparison with that of a terrestrial flame.
There are therefore two different and independent subjects of experiment. The one is the
alteration in the period of vibration of light due to the relative motion of the stars and the earth.
The fact of such an alteration is independent of the form under which we accept the theory of
undulations, and the possibility of establishing its existence depends on the discovery of lines in
the stellar spectra, indicating by their arrangement that their origin is due to the existence of
substances in the star having the same properties as substances found on the earth.... 94
At the beginning of his argument, Maxwell compares two situations: one, in which there is
no movement of the star towards or from the terrestrial observer, and another, in which
the star moves away at speed v from the earth; in both cases, a ray of light travels from
the star to the planet; in the first, the distance between the two bodies is covered in time
T and in the second, Maxwell maintains, in time T'. In the first scenario, the frequency and
wavelength of the light are the same when leaving the photosphere of the star as when it
reaches the Earth's surface, regardless of the distance it has had to travel, which may have
been several light-years, and are also equal to the light produced by the flame of the
earthly substance. In the second, the output wave frequency of the light ray is n1, the
same as that of the ray emitted by the terrestrial substance, but the arrival on earth, n2,
will be lower to a certain extent, determined by the speed at which the star recedes from
the earth.
The assumptions from which Maxwell starts as demonstrated truths are the following:
1) As far as the fixed star is concerned, the light that emanates from it has the same
frequency, the same wavelength and similar speed (300,000 km per second) at the
moment in which it begins its journey from the star and at the of its arrival to the
terrestrial observer; As far as the receding star is concerned, the light leaves the star with
a certain frequency and in the first second of its receding, the change in refrangibility
occurs, which precisely represents the speed of its recession. That is, in the case of the
stationary celestial object, the light ray retains the frequency, wavelength and speed with
which it left the photosphere of the star, say, for example, 4.3 light years earlier if it were
Alpha Centauri A , until the moment of its arrival on earth, and in that of the moving
object, those it acquires in the first second of its trajectory remain unchanged throughout
the rest of its journey, that is, 4.3 light-years plus one second, that is when it is recorded
on the spectrograph.
2) The energy of the particles (photons) and the wave motion by which their magnetic and
electric fields are successively generated, which is precisely the manifestation of that
energy, are exactly the same at the time of their departure from the star and when they
arrive at the earth in one case (immobile emitter), and in the second (emitter in motion)
the energy of the light rays is reduced in the first second of its existence as a result of the
distance from the sidereal body and then, thus attenuated, it remains without changes
94
Huggins, William, op. cit. pp. 529-531

137
throughout its journey to earth (4.3 light years plus one second, if we are talking about
Alpha Centauri A),
3) The energy of the particle, the frequency and the wavelength associated with it, are
simultaneously reduced in the first second of its trajectory, and this is due to something
completely external to it (because once the light is emitted it has no relation to the
movement of the emitter). In the first second of its 4.3 light-year trajectory, the light beam
undergoes a drastic transformation that alters its energy, frequency, and wavelength.
4) Regarding the moving star, each discrete set of photons behaves like this: it leaves the
emitter with a certain energy, frequency and wavelength and in the first second of its
existence, without any physical explanation, they suddenly occur the transformations
recorded by the stellar spectrum and then remain unchanged for 4.3 light years plus one
second.
Maxwell's reasoning runs as follows:
1) The smaller measurement of the vibrations (frequency) of the stellar light with respect
to the terrestrial light is due to the go apart movement of the star.
2) The speed at which the star recedes determines the extent of the reduction in the
vibrations of its light.
3) The difference between the normal vibrations of the terrestrial light and the reduced
ones of the rays coming from the mobile star, is determined by the speed of departure.
4) If we call n1 the frequency of the star's light, which is equal to that of the terrestrial
element, and n2 the vibrations that the terrestrial observer captures from a receding star;
and if we assume the existence of another fixed star (without moving away from the earth)
that is at the same distance from the earth as the moving star before its displacement,
then we will have that the time of the journey of light towards the earth from the fixed
star is T, and from the moving star, T', where T' is equal to T+t, where t is the time away
from the star (the t seconds after the light emanates from the source).
Maxwell, however, makes a true mishmash of the concepts that he himself has
determined: T is the time in the fixed system and T' in the mobile system; the latter
includes t, which is the time that the light source travels after the point from which its
displacement is considered, which is the same from which the light pulse begins its
transit in the fixed system; then, by definition T’ = T+t. But in the development of his
argument, he postulates that the nt vibrations of the light source that take place during
the t seconds “reach the earth between time T and time t+T', that is, during t+T'‒T
seconds”; according to Maxwell's own definitions, between T and t+T+t, or during t+t, that
is at 2t, which is an absolute nonsense.
Based on these developments, Maxwell concludes that the frequency of the vibrations of
t
the light emitted by the moving body in the t seconds is not n but n. ' , that is,
t+T −T
t n
¿n = ; the decrease in the frequency of vibrations is always 50 percent.
2t 2
5) What Maxwell tries with these elements is to establish the formula for the change of the
frequency of n1, that is, the equation of n2.
6) The emission frequency of light vibrations during the movement of the star is n1t; by
Maxwell's hypothesis, the frequency of the starlight reaching the earth is no longer n1, but
a smaller quantity, n2; In the first second of its journey, the frequency of light suffers a
reduction determined by the speed of the apart movement of the star with respect to the
earth and only until now has it manifested itself in this untimely way.
7) According to Maxwell, the vibrations reach the earth between T and t+T', in the period
t+T'-T; by Maxwell's definition, T'-T = t, so, according to this, the arrival of the vibrations
emitted in the star to the planet would be in the space of time immediately prior to their
arrival at the receiver, equal to t+t.

138
 t
8) The qualitative relationship between T, T’ and t is determined by Maxwell as ' ,
t+T −T
that is, t/2t which is equal to ½. It is the relation between the movement time of the star
and twice that same time, a relation from which no value of t can be obtained. Maxwell
t
tries to give a qualitative form to his formula and puts it like this: n2 = n1. ' ;
t+T −T
n1
clearing t, we have: t= .
n2
9) Maxwell uses another way to determine the change in the frequency of the vibrations of
light in the t seconds of the distance from the star.
Another form of the equation is presented by Maxwell as follows:
The recession speed of the star is v and the speed of light between the star (fixed or
moving) and the earth is V.
The formula that is the basis of his mathematical discussion is expressed as follows:
vt=V(T'-T) which, according to Maxwell's definitions, =Vt, from which v=V is obtained, that
is, the recession velocity of the star is equal to the speed of light. Without any transition, in
n1 V
a mathematically untimely way, Maxwell gives birth to the equation of n2: n2 = ,
V +v
where V is the speed of light and V+v the sum of the speed of light and the speed of
n1
recession of the star. Solving for v, we obtain v= V −V .
n2
10) Maxwell thus offers Huggins the formulas to determine the time and speed of
recession of the star based on the change in the refrangibility of the vibrations of its light
n1 n1
recorded in the respective spectrum: t= and v= V −V .
n2 n2
These “equations” are used by Huggins to make his calculations, as we will see later.
Maxwell's assumptions and reasoning are absolutely false, without any support in science
or in physical reality, and their mathematical formulations are riddled with errors and
algebraic, geometrical nonsense, etc.
According to Maxwell, the radiations emitted by the stars have an unalterable energy,
frequency, wavelength and speed: with them they leave the sidereal body and move
through space, without undergoing any change, even if their journey extends for many
light years. But they also have sudden and inexplicable changes according to physical
laws in the fraction of time following their emission.
Radiation is the emission of subatomic particles, in this case photons, released from
inside the atom when it is subjected to a special state of excitation.
The enormous energy of attraction that keeps the photons inside the atom turns into their
other, in a great energy of repulsion that drives them out of that energy field.
In the atomic reactions that take place in stars, gigantic amounts of photons of the most
different elements are released; Through a special process that takes place in the
photosphere of these stars, the photons join in beams within which they are organized
according to their frequencies and wavelengths; thus multiplied their individual energy,
they leave the stellar atmosphere and begin their journey through outer space.
The energy possessed by photons determines their peculiar movement. The subatomic
particle generates a magnetic field that turns into an electric field; this, in turn, creates a
magnetic field that will also become electric, and so on; this mutual generation of the
fields of the particle, product of the action of its repulsive energy, is what makes it go
forward in a wave motion.
The photon beam moves as a whole in the same way that its individual components do.
Its energy is the sum of the energies of the individual particles that form it.

139
The ray has a process of existence that begins in the photosphere of the star. Its being is
to transform the energy (a certain finite quantity) that it contains into the impulse that
carries it forward in a wave movement through the alternating production of magnetic
and electric fields. Its displacement implies a constant expenditure of energy, until
reaching its total exhaustion and, therefore, the termination of this specific form of its
movement.
The energy possessed by photons is manifested in the frequency and amplitude of their
undulations and in the speed of their displacement; therefore, to the extent that it is
reduced by its own exercise, the frequency also decreases proportionally, the amplitude of
the undulations increases and their speed becomes less, all this in infinitesimal
quantities.
Such decreases and increases are infinitesimally small relative to the enormous distances
the rays travel; that is why they are only significant to the human eye, through the
spectrum, when they have moved several light years.
Maxwell's assumption of a ray of light which, in the case of a fixed star, has the same
frequency, amplitude, and speed when it leaves the star's photosphere as it does when it
arrives at earth or, in the case of a moving star, those characteristics of its are untimely
reduced, due to displacement, in the immediate instant at the beginning of their
separation and conserves them throughout its journey of several light years is a true
theoretical aberration, something that goes against the most elementary principles of
physical science and, ultimately, of sound common sense. It constitutes a flagrant
theoretical error to consider, in accordance with Maxwell's arguments, that the
characteristics of the light ray change in the first fraction of time of its existence (one
second, for example), and then that these new characteristics remain unchanged. on its
long journey to the earth's surface.
It implies, of course, that the movement of the ray does not obey the specific
circumstances of its origin or the characteristics of its physical nature (release of photons
from inside the atom by the transmutation of attractive into repulsive energy, wave
motion through of the mutual engendering of its fields as an expenditure of the energy it
contains, constant degradation, albeit to an infinitesimally small extent, of its energy level
until it reaches the point of its total exhaustion, etc.), but to the action of a metaphysical
power that produces it and endows it with specific characteristics, which it causes to
change in the second immediately after its emission and then maintains that new nature
unchanged throughout its long journey towards eternity.
The nonsense of the Maxwellian position is obvious. It postulates the existence of a
metaphysical energy that has the ability to change unexpectedly and in a short time (that
is, to suffer wear due to its operation) and at the same time to regenerate itself and not
suffer any decrease in long periods of its exercise.
The ray of light that is expelled from the stellar photosphere starts at the same instant
that the star begins its recessive movement. From then on they are independent of each
other: the ray makes its sidereal journey and the star its recessive path. In the first
second after their separation, the light will have traveled 185,000 miles and, according to
Huggins in the example that we will see later, the star Sirius 41.4 miles. In this time span
of one second, the ray of light already has all the physical characteristics with which it
has been endowed by the atomic activity of the star and does not have any physical
relationship with the star that could alter it; from then on, the avatars of the luminous
pulse will be determined by its own nature and that of the medium through which it
moves, but they will be completely independent of the star and its recessive movement;
there is no way that the displacement of the star alters or modifies the physical nature of
the lightning that it has produced. In other words, it is absolutely impossible for the
recession of the star to produce the changes in the refrangibility of light that the spectrum
records.
That is why the example that Maxwell uses to make his mathematical speculations is
completely idle, without any theoretical or practical use. The ray ejected by the moving
star has the same extension and the same characteristics than that emitted by the fixed

140
star; the time that in both cases the light takes to go from the star to the terrestrial
observer is T and not, as Maxwell wants, T and T' respectively, where T' is equal to T+t (t is
the time that the star recedes). That is, it can be considered that the star in recession was
immobile at the instant in which it expelled the ray.
The true behavior of the luminous rays of the stars can be easily determined, with simple
reasoning based on physical laws and basic common sense.
The light rays emitted by stars have certain characteristics that have been endowed by
the process of their formation in the star.
Those peculiarities are its energy level, the frequency and amplitude of its undulations
and its speed of movement.
The peculiar movement of the photons that form the ray of light is their wave translation
through the alternate generation of magnetic and electric fields.
This movement is the result of the action of the energy contained in the sub-atomic
corpuscle.
To a given energy level correspond a specific frequency, amplitude and velocity of the
particle.
But, equally, the movement of the particle, which has its cause in the exercise of the
energy contained in it, implies a constant expenditure of the same.
Throughout the particle's journey, its energy level decreases by infinitesimally small
descents.
This constant reduction in the energy of the particle manifests itself as a decrease in the
frequency, an increase in the amplitude of its wave and a decrease in the speed at which
it moves.
At the end of its journey (of 8.6 light years in the case of the light coming from the star
Sirius), when it reaches the earth it will have accumulated a total change that is recorded
in the spectrum as a displacement of the black line of hydrogen towards the red. This
shift is, according to Huggins' calculations, of the order of 0.190 millionths of a millimeter
(actually Huggins should have said a billionths of a millimeter), which occurred in a trip
of 81.36 million million kilometers; this means that for every kilometer of light's journey
the hydrogen line was redshifted 2.335e-21 (0.000 000 000 000 000 000 002 335)
millionths of a millionth of a millionth of a millionth of a millimeter.
If we take this last value as a constant and know the refrangibility of a star (by its light
spectrum), then we can easily calculate how far away it is; or, if we have the data of the
distance, it is possible to determine the refrangibility that the light of that star must have.
It is also theoretically possible to calculate the radial movement of the star, if it exists. It
would be necessary to have two successive spectral measurements of their light
emissions, separated, for example, by a second; If we take the data from the Huggins
exercise, after one second of displacement the star would have advanced 66.62
kilometers, which would manifest itself in a shift towards the red of the hydrogen line of
its spectrum with respect to the position it had a second before of
1.555577e-19 (0.000000000000000000155557) millionths of a millionth of a millionth of a
millionth of a millimeter.
The total redshift would be the result of adding the value of the initially recorded shift,
0.000,000,190 thousandths of a millionth of a millimeter, to the one measured when one
second has elapsed, 0.000000000000000000155557 millionths of a millionth of a
millionth of a millionth of a millimeter, whose result is
0.000,000,190,000,000,000,155,557, where the second quantity is absolutely
indistinguishable from the total.
From all the above it follows that the shift of the black lines of the stellar spectra towards
the red is the result of the reduction of the frequency, increase of the wave amplitude and
decrease of the speed of the luminous ray that have their origin in the constant decrease
in the energy of the particles that form it, decreases and increases that are directly
proportional to the distance traveled by them. The redshift expresses, then, the distance
at which the stars (or other sidereal light sources) are from the terrestrial observer,

141
measured by the expenditure of the energy of the subatomic particles that make up the
light beam.
It is absurd and preposterous, as we have already sufficiently underlined, to maintain
that the red shift of the black lines in the spectrum of starlight is due to a recession
movement of the star (or of the galaxy, as the case may be) and that the measure of this
change is that of the separation speed of the light source.
What is characteristic here is the way in which physical science can make these
incredible blunders. And this is more astonishing because at that time the mechanical
scientific knowledge and physicist was not yet contaminated by the Einsteinian theory of
relativity. Huggins and Maxwell do not even consider the rational possibility that is
implicit in the physical science of their time and that healthy common sense supports,
that is, that the refrangibility detected by the spectrum of starlight (sidereal, in general) is
the result of the diminution of the energy of the subatomic particles that form the light
ray caused by their expenditure (work) in the production of the peculiar movement of the
light ray, nor that, therefore, that refrangibility is directly proportional to the distance of
the light emitter with respect to the earth. On the contrary, without adhering at all to the
demands of scientific research, nor of course to the prescriptions of healthy common
sense, they postulate the irrational assumption that the refrangibility of sidereal rays is
caused by a recessive movement of the stars. All these theoretical physicists have to make
their claims is the observed refrangibility and nothing else; Only their unbridled
imagination leads them to endow all the stars with a recessive radial movement.
Maxwell's mathematical formulations, no matter how neat they may be, which they are
not, have a vice of origin: they try to give algebraic and geometric form to something that
is completely absurd and irrational. To this main flaw, Maxwell adds elemental errors to
his equations, as a child.
Let a source of light be such that it produces n disturbances or vibrations per second, and let it
be at such a distance from the earth that the light requires a time T to reach the earth. Let the
distance of the source of light from the earth be altered, either by the motion of the source of
light, or by that of the earth, so that the light which emanates from the source t seconds
afterwards reaches the earth in a time T'.95
The very approach of the thought experiment is absurd. The light source is at a certain
distance from the earth and the light ray takes a time T to reach the terrestrial observer.
This distance is altered by the movement of the light source or the earth and then the
light reaches the observer in a time T'= T+t. Such is Maxwell's approach. The light source
is at a certain, fixed distance, and at the same time one that is constantly altered by the
movement of the star or the planet. This is the indispensable condition, in the Maxwellian
scheme, to be able to compare the travel time of light in both situations. At a given
moment, the moving star is at a defined spatial point, at a precise distance from the
earth, so the time that a ray of light emitted by it takes is T. At the next instant, one
second later, we can say, it is 41.4 miles farther away, according to Huggins' example, so
the total time it takes for lightning to cover it is T+t, where t = 1 second.
Either the light source and the earth are fixed at a certain point in space or they are in
motion. If it is the first case, there is no problem: the time of translation of the radiation is
always T. In the second case, it is a question of a distance that is first fixed and then is
altered by movement, since this is the condition for to be able to compare the time that
light takes in one situation and another.
t
The formula ' as a factor to determine the difference n2-n1 is completely futile. It is
t+T −T
not a question of a qualitative relationship with another through which the value of both
can be expressed. It is the relation of T to itself, since, by Maxwell's definition, T'-T is = t;
the formula would ultimately be like this: t/t+t. It is the value of t itself in relation to its
double value: t/2t. This gives us the result that n2 is always equal to n1 multiplied by ½,
that is, the ratio of t to its double value, whatever the value of t. According to Maxwell's

95
Ibid., pp. 532-533

142
formula, the reduction in frequency will always be equal to 50%, whatever the speed of
receding from the star. Maxwell is undeterred by this obstacle he has raised for himself
and, without any algebraic transition, he pulls out the equation for n2:
n1 t
n2 = '
, from which follows: t=n1/n2.
t +T −T
To forge a second formulation of the equation for n2, Maxwell starts from the following
equality which states: vt=V(T'-T). By Maxwell's definition, T'-T = t, so vt=Vt, that is, v=V.
The speed of the star is always equal to 300,000 km/s.
Using another algebraic somersault, Maxwell extracts from this absurd formula the
n1 V n1
equation of n2: n2 = where v= V −V . V+v is completely meaningless. Nothing, in
V +v n2
the relationship we are studying, moves at this speed; the light moves, either from the
moving star or the fixed one, at a certain speed V (300,000 km per second) and the star
does so at a different speed v. But between V and v there is no relationship that allows
them to be linked in any way; they are mutually opposed, one moves in one direction and
the other in the opposite, one corresponds to light and the other to a stellar body.
Let us now analyze the equation that necessarily arises from the previous formula:
n1
v= V −V and which is the one that Huggins uses in his practical example.
n2
Maxwell postulates the existence of a reduction in the frequency and an increase in the
wavelength of the light produced when leaving the emitting star and recorded upon arrival
at the terrestrial observer, which are manifested in a red shift of the line black of the
element used. This displacement in the spectrum is measured and then transformed into
its equivalent in the wavelength of the terrestrial element, which is expressed in
millionths of a millimeter. This quantity is the difference between the wavelength on the
ground and the spectrum of starlight. Subtracting this difference from the wavelength of
the terrestrial element gives the wavelength of starlight when it reaches Earth. There are
then two values: the wavelength of the element on the ground and the shortest
wavelength of the stellar element; divided each by the speed of light, they give us the
frequency of its vibrations per second, which, in the Maxwellian notation, corrected a little
by us to make it clearer, are called n1 and n2.
With these data it is possible to obtain:
1) From n1-n2, the amount of vibrations that there is difference between both wavelengths.
This residue does not have any entity, it does not represent the vibrations or the
wavelength of any object (particle); it does not express any speed or any distance; it is,
plain and simple, a formal comparison between two quantities. If that difference is
multiplied by any of the two wavelengths, a quantity is obtained that is expressed in
millimeters; but this amount does not correspond to any real physical space, traversed by
a real object (particle).
2) From n1/n2, which is the ratio to which Maxwell makes the kernel of his equation, we
obtain what each vibration reduced in the second after its emission; This result is not the
measurement of a certain vibration of a certain radiation, but only the expression of the
reduction factor of each vibration in the first second of existence of the light ray; but in an
absurd way, against all mathematical principles, Maxwell considers it the expression of a
movement of a radiation and, therefore, multiplies it by the speed of light to obtain the
speed, in millimeters per second, at which that unreal entity supposedly moves; later, he
simply attributes that speed to the radial movement of the star.
The equation with which Maxwell wants to give mathematical form to his false conception
of the redshift of the black lines of the spectra of sidereal light is completely and
absolutely incorrect, full of gargantuan errors: conceptual -those at the center of his
argument-, mathematical and geometric, which deny much of the great heights that this
physicist reached with his remarkable contributions to the discovery of the dialectic of the

143
movement of the magnetic and electric fields, which are the essential foundation of
modern physics.
Huggins makes a long exposition of his experiments, which had, in the first place, the
purpose of showing that the black lines of the stellar substances corresponded to the
bright lines of the terrestrial elements. He compares the spectrum of the star Sirius and
that of terrestrial Hydrogen and finds that in the star there is a black line that
corresponds to the bright line of the element analyzed on earth.
Once that coincidence is determined, he continues with the investigation of the distance
between the two lines in order to establish if the waves of light from the star would have
undergone a change in their refrangibility, which would manifest as a shift of the black
line towards blue or towards red, that is, towards one or the other side of the spectrum,
whether the stellar rays had decreased or increased their wavelength.
Of course, the hypothesis that Huggins tries to demonstrate is that the stellar bodies are
moving in a movement away from the observer, that is, from the earth, and that the speed
of this movement must be registered in the spectrum of the star as a shift towards the red
of the black line of hydrogen.96
In investigating it, Huggins studies the black line of hydrogen in the spectrum of Sirius
and finds that it has a red shift of 0.40 of the micrometer screw; the wavelength of 0.01
micrometer division at the F position is 0.02725 millionths of a millimeter, so the total
line shift is 0.109 millionths of a millimeter; the wavelength of the hydrogen ray in the
Earth's surface is 486.5 millionths of a millimeter. Huggins uses a slightly different
formula than Maxwell's but essentially the same: v = (n2-n1/n1)V; v = 486.609-
486.5/486.5x185,000 miles per second = 0.109/486.5 x 185,000 = 41.44 miles per
second.
0.109/486.5 tells us what each wave of the element would have increased upon reaching
the earth for each millionth of a millimeter of the wavelength on the earth's surface, an
extension that Huggins assumes is the same as that of the ray at the moment of leaving
the star. It is not about the wavelength of some particle or radiation, but about a ratio,
which has no physical existence, between the increase of a variable and its original value.
This value is considered by Huggins, like Maxwell, the length of a wave belonging to a
radiation and then multiplies it by the speed of light; he pretends with this to obtain
another speed, which he attributes without any physical reason to the recessive
movement of the star; but multiplying a distance (the spurious wavelength that he has
obtained) by a speed (that of light) does not produce any kind of intelligible result. Let us
briefly recall the elementary formulas of motion: d=vt, v=d/t and t=d/v; what Huggins and
Maxwell should have done is apply the velocity formula, v=d/t, that is, divide the distance
the star travels by the time it spends in that translation, but instead they make v =
increase in wavelength × speed of light, absolutely irrational formula; Obviously, the
increase in wavelength for each millionth of the original wavelength does not express in
any way the distance d required by the canonical equation, nor the speed of light and the
time t also required by it.
The 41.44 miles per second that, according to these speculations, Huggins obtains, do not
express any type of speed.
Huggins deduces from this gross result the speed he attributes to the motion of the earth
and concludes that the net speed of the recessive displacement of Sirius is 29.4 miles per
second.
As we can see, the practical application by Huggins of Maxwell's theoretical nonsense
leads to absurd results, completely at odds with the elementary principles of physics and
the simplest rules of mathematics and geometry.
In conclusion, the red shift of the black lines of the sidereal light rays is not caused by a
recession movement of the stars and, therefore, does not constitute any proof of that
alleged distance.

96
Ibíd., p. 533

144
We have carefully considered the analysis of the approaches of Maxwell and Huggins
because they constitute the essential part of the arguments that relativistic astronomy
and cosmology, totally based on Einstein's theory of general relativity, have developed to
support the big bang theory, which It purports to be the scientific view of the nature,
structure, origin, evolution, and ultimate fate of the universe. The core of that worldview
is the proposition, presumably scientifically proven, of the expansion of the universe.
Without this theoretical prejudice, all that building built with a veritable colluvium of
sophisms, fallacies, childish fantasies, twisted fictions, hallucinations, delusions, stupid
imaginations, etc., would inevitably collapse.
The erroneous consideration of Maxwell and Huggins of the red shift of the black lines of
the stellar spectra as a result of the recession of the stars with respect to the earth, is the
foundation of the Hubble postulate of the expansion of the universe at a certain rate, and
this, in turn, is the foundation of the big bang theory.
Next we will study the way in which Hubble, sixty-seven years after Maxwell and Huggins,
dealt with the subject of the redshift of starlight in the spectrum; of course, he
fundamentally preserves the argumentation of those physicists, but also enriches it with
the nonsense of the Einsteinian theory of relativity.
As the theoretical prejudice remained firm that the red shift of the black lines in the
spectrum of stellar bodies necessarily expresses a radial movement of the same,
astronomers in the first decades of the 20th century put all their efforts into the task of
determining the distance at which these entities are found and the exact nature of their
spectrum, the latter with the purpose of establishing the supposed speed at which they
move radially through the use of the absurd and irrational formula, which has since
taken the letter of nature in physical science, v = c.dλ/λ (where v is the radial speed of the
stellar light source, c the speed of light and λ the frequency of a certain wave of the
spectrum of the luminous radiation of the sidereal body), an equation that can also be
stated in the following terms: the recession speed of sidereal bodies with their own light is
obtained by multiplying the shift towards the red of the light wave, denoted by the ratio
between the difference of the frequency when leaving the source with respect to the
frequency when reaching the terrestrial observer (dλ) and the original frequency (λ) times
the speed of light.
In order to achieve their goals, they designed extremely complicated and abstruse
formulas, based on highly questionable assumptions, which they used in estimating the
magnitude and intensity of the brightness and luminosity of the emissions as a means to
fix the distance of celestial bodies when it was not possible to do it by other methods
(parallax, etc.). In the same way, they perfected photographic techniques, improved
spectrographs, etc., and relied on the ever-increasing capacity of telescopes, working first
with a 100-inch telescope and later with the 200-inch telescope on Mount Wilson.
The result was the formation of a database about the distance and the intended speed of
a good number of nebulae, clusters and groups of nebulae.
In his work A relationship between distance and radial velocity of extragalactic nebulae 97,
Hubble, based on a universe of 24 observed nebulae, concludes that there is a linear
correlation between distances and velocities, or in other words, between the distances and
the redshift of the black lines of their spectra. He firmly maintains the prejudice of the
radial movement of sidereal sources of light, whose speed is manifested in the measure of
the red shift of their spectra; but, in addition, by relating the (presumed) distance of the
emitting bodies with respect to the terrestrial observer, he establishes that the greater the
distance, the greater the shift towards red, so he cunningly infers that the speed of
recession is greater when the distance is greater. Hubble in no way questions the validity
of the theoretical prejudice that expresses the causal relationship between the speed of
recession of the objects and the redshift of the respective spectra. Not even a remote
97
Huggins, William, Further Observations of The Spectra of Some of the Stars and Nebulae, with un
attempt to determine Therform whether These Bodies are Moving towards or from the Earth, Also
Observations on the Spectra of the Sun and of Comet IIPhilosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London, Vol. 158 (1868), pp. 529-564 Published by: The Royal Society pp. 546-550

145
possibility does he consider the redshift an effect of the distance traveled by the light from
the source to the terrestrial observer, which in some cases can be millions and even
billions of light years, periods in which they would necessarily have been reduced,
because of the expenditure of energy that produces them, the frequency of the light waves
and their speed, and, for the same reason, there have been extended its length. 98
In a later work, published in 1931, Hubble and Humason, based entirely on all the
theoretical prejudices that we have already pointed out, analyze the data of a larger set of
stellar objects than the universe studied in 1929. They are 24 nebulae in 7 clusters, 4 in
a group in Pisces, and 18 isolated objects. Their “apparent” radial velocities are recorded
for all these objects, obtained, of course, as the dogma requires, by measuring the red
shifts of their spectra.
Supported by these data, Hubble and Humason determine the average recession velocity
of the nebulae studied, which they endow with the character of the average increase in the
radial displacement velocity of all nebulae in the observable universe. This value is,
according to these authors, 558 km/s per million parsecs. In other words, they speculate
that the recession speed of stellar objects increases by 558 km/s for every million parsecs
away from the observer. Hubble emphasizes that the speed-distance relationship appears
as a general feature of the observable region of space.99
Hubble and Humason's booklet is based on Humason's observational work published as
Apparent Velocity-Shifts in the Spectra of Faint Nebulae.100
Faced with the emergence of other theories that explain the nature of the red shift of the
nebular light spectra in a different way than the official one, Hubble, in his work Two
methods of investigating the nature of the nebular red-shift 101, shows off a coarse trickery.
He acknowledges that there are other theories than the one that explains the redshift as
the result of the recession of star objects and states that he is open-minded to consider
them. However, while he attributes the character of "the most obvious explanation" to the
latter, he disfavors the others by stating that the researchers who support the possibility
that the displacement may be due to "some other cause, connected with the long time or
great distance involved in the passage of light from the nebula to the observer”, they do
not give a detailed account of its mechanism; however, he makes a graceful concession to
them and asks the scientific community that his arguments not be rejected prematurely.
The theory that defines the redshift as the result of the radial motion of sidereal objects is
validated by Hubble when he states that it has been "commonly adopted in the extensive
treatments of nebular motion that have been made with the help of the relativistic theory
of gravitation and also in the purest kinematic treatment proposed by Milne”, that is, by
the most important theories in the field of physical science.
On the other hand, he discredits alternative theories that hold that the redshift is not due
to recession by considering that his explanation would perhaps require new physical
principles.
The first method of investigating the nature of the red shift of nebulae is based on a
relativistic cosmological model of expansion of the universe, which is the most widely
accepted in modern physical science.
The second is run by Hubble in a static universe, like the one Einstein conceived, which
has been definitively discarded by mainstream physical science.
In this same adherence of the redshift theory to one or another cosmology, it is implicit
that the official theory has all the support of the preponderant worldview, the one that

98
Hubble, Edwin, Una relación entre la distancia y la velocidad radial entre las nebulosas extra
galácticas Mount Wilson Observatory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Communicated
January 17, 1929
99
Idem.
100
Hubble, Edwin and Milton L. Humason The velocity-distance relation among extra-galactic
nebulae. Astrophysical Journal, vol. 74, 1931, p. 43.
101
Humason, M. L., Apparent Velocity-Shifts in the Spectra of Faint Nebulae, Astrophysical Journal,
vol. 74, p.35, 1931

146
postulates the expansion of the universe, and the other theories carry the dead weight of
the Einsteinian vision of the static universe and be carried away by it.
In reality, what Hubble has done in this work is to endorse the validity of the redshift
principle as a result of the radial movement of sidereal objects and, surreptitiously, when
he apparently recognizes them and gives them a place in the scientific debate, disqualify
the theoretical explanations of the red shift that do not attribute to it the product of the
radial movement of stellar objects.102
In a work published in 1942103, Hubble addresses in a more complete way the problem of
red shift and its relation to the expansion of the universe.
First of all, he delimits the observable region of the universe. The faintest nebulae
detectable with the Mount Wilson 100-inch telescope are 500 million light-years from
Earth. A sphere of that radius is the observable region of space. About 100 million
nebulae are scattered in this sphere, which are solitary, in groups and in clusters and are
homogeneously distributed in space. The separation of the nebulae from each other is on
average two million light years; the space between them is transparent. 104
Hubble includes as a characteristic of the observable region the redshift of the light from
nebulae, which is also called the speed-distance relationship.
At this point he makes a brief summary of the theory of spectrography, which is generally
correct. However, in the exhibition he slides the theoretical prejudices that are the basis
of the theory of the expansion of the universe.105
He considers that the small displacements of the black lines of the spectra of the stars
(which he qualifies as Doppler changes), are produced by rapid radial movements of the
stars and indicate the speeds of the stars in the line of observation, which are a fraction
of the speed of light.106
Through spectral analysis of the light from astral bodies and based on the flatly erroneous
interpretation of the nature of the redshift, Hubble concludes that the stars are receding
from the terrestrial observer at a speed between 10 and 15 miles per second and nebulae
at 150 miles per second; With these same instruments, he determines that our galaxy
rotates around its center at the rate of one rotation every 200 million years and that
nebulae that are 250 million light years from us move away at average speeds of 25,000
miles per second, 1/7 of the speed of light.107
This is a notorious reversal of terms, in which the rational explanation, in complete
agreement with the fundamental principles of physics, that the red shift is caused by the
decrease in the energy level of the luminous particles caused by its journey over
enormous distances and over long periods of time, it is replaced by the absurd theory
("the most obvious explanation", according to Hubble) that this phenomenon is due to a
non-existent radial velocity of the sidereal objects, which do not it is captured by no
instrument or by any observer, and that without reason only be deduced from the
displacement of the black lines towards the red region of the spectrum. Science always
advances from the appearance to the essence of things. Such was what happened with
the passage from the geocentric to the heliocentric theory. But here it is not about an

102
Hubble, Edwin and Richard C. Tolman, Two methods of investigating the nature of the nebular
red-shift Carnegie Institution of Washington. Mount Wilson Observatory, California Institute of
Technology, July 1935, pp. 302-337. American Astronomical Society. Provided by the NASA
Astrophysics Data System.
103
Hubble, Edwin and Richard C. Tolman, Two methods of investigating the nature of the nebular
red-shift Carnegie Institution of Washington. Mount Wilson Observatory, California Institute of
Technology, July 1935, pp. 302-337. American Astronomical Society. Provided by the NASA
Astrophysics Data System.
104
Hubble, Edwin, The problem of the expanding universe, Mt. Wilson Observatory, American
Scientist, A quarterly publication of the society of the sigma XI devoted to the promotion of
research in science. Vol. 30, april, 1942, No. 2
105
Idem
106
Idem
107
Idem

147
appearance that has hidden the reality of a phenomenon and then it has been revealed by
scientific research; it is the clumsy blindness of the arrogant sage (most modern
physicists are) that does not allow him to see what reality stubbornly puts before his eyes.
The increasing dimension of the shifts towards the red as the celestial objects are further
away, does not indicate anything other than the increase in their distance from the
terrestrial observer.
This theoretical reversal of the redshift phenomenon leads Hubble and all his followers to
attribute to the movement of stars and nebulae absurd speeds, absolutely physically
impossible, of up to 25,000 miles per second, which, it is prophesied, as progress is made
in the study of nebulae even further away than the 500 million light-years that Hubble
gives to the observable universe, they will reach speeds much closer to the speed of light.
To put things in perspective, let us remember that the speed of displacement of our planet
in its orbit around the sun is only 30 km/s. Attributing a speed close to the speed of light
to a sidereal object in the observable universe is a real nonsense, a monstrous barbarity.
The inference that Hubble necessarily makes from this supposed distance from the
sidereal objects is that in the past they must have been all together in a very small space
and that at that point there was an enormous explosion that started the expansion
movement of the nebulae.108
With this Hubble lays the basis for the development of the most grotesque of the
conceptions of the universe, the "big bang" theory.
Hubble then goes on to discuss the place of the redshift theory in cosmological theory.
The current cosmological theory at that time, predecessor of the big bang theory, rested,
according to Hubble, on two fundamental principles.
One, established by the general theory of relativity, which states that the geometry of
space is determined by the matter it contains; in its crudest form it is stated by saying
that space is curved in the vicinity of matter. The general curvature of space allows us to
know the shape and extent of the universe. The general curvature of the universe,
whether it is positive or negative, and its numerical value, can be determined by
observation.
Another, the cosmological principle, which declares that the universe is homogeneous and
isotropic.
These two principles give rise to models of the universe that are not conclusive; according
to them the universe can be in equilibrium or unbalance due to small disturbances,
contracting or expanding, without being able to specify the direction in which it does so or
the rate of that movement.
In order to establish which of these possible models is the one that corresponds to our
universe, it is necessary to resort to empirical observation.
The redshift law is the empirical proof that the universe is expanding at a certain rate.
This fact demonstrates the validity of the cosmological models that postulate an
expanding universe, which are in accordance with the principle of the general theory of
relativity and the cosmological principle of the homogeneity and isotropy of the
universe.109
In models of the expanding universe the curvature decreases as the universe expands; the
stars or groups of nebulae do not expand, they only move away from each other.
The universe we inhabit, which is an expanding universe, can be fully determined if three
measurements are known: the rate of expansion, the average density of matter in space,
and the current curvature.
Empirical research has been directed towards this point. Hubble then makes an
assessment of the progress made.110
Two results of the observation are in agreement with the theory: data have been collected
that show that the universe is homogeneous and that the stars and the groups of celestial

108
Idem
109
Idem
110
Idem

148
bodies maintain their dimensions while the universe expands (the redshift law does not is
valid within the local group).111
One of the questions that observation must resolve is whether or not the redshift
represents a moving away from the light source.
The main problem is that it is the same procedure that allows establishing both the
distance of the celestial bodies and their radial displacement.
The distance is determined by the apparent brightness of the body; the farther away it is,
the dimmer it will shine. This is explained because the stream of luminous particles
becomes thinner as the distance increases and therefore reaches the observer's eye with
less intensity (lower frequency and longer wavelength). The distance from the sidereal
body is also manifested in the dimness of the light that comes from it, that is, in the
thinning of the stream of luminous particles and, therefore, in the reduction of the
frequency and the increase of the wavelength. In both cases, in the measurement of
distance and displacement, the same means is used, the red shift of the spectrum of the
sidereal light source.
The complication arises when it comes to discriminating whether the red shift indicates a
distance or a recession.
The very approach to this dilemma should have opened Hubble's eyes, thus putting an
end to the theoretical blindness that affected him. Absolutely and totally
incommensurable are the "thinning" of the particles that has its cause in the distance
that the current must travel to reach the terrestrial observer from its distant source and
the decrease of those due to the supposed displacement of the celestial body. One is the
decrease in the intensity of the light beam due to a trip of billions of kilometers, and the
other is a reduction caused by a displacement of a few hundred kilometers, the latter
being infinitesimally small in relation to the length of the total journey of particle stream.
The redshift measurement is made on a snapshot of the spectrum; therefore, it does not
include anything other than the reduction of intensity due to distance. The redshift is
therefore only correlated with the distance traveled by the light beam. If one wanted to find
the reduction due to a supposed displacement of the luminous body, two different
measurements would have to be made at successive times (separated, for example, by a
time of one second). The redshift originating from this supposed radial displacement
would be so small that it could not be detected in any way, with both measurements
appearing to be identical.
Assuming, which is not the case, that in a single measurement of the redshift both
phenomena were integrated, the reduction caused by the distance and that produced by
the radial displacement, it would be impossible, due to the infinitesimal smallness of the
latter, to separate it from that. In previous pages we have done an exercise, based on
Huggins' example, to determine how small the redshift produced by the radial shift would
be; to him we refer the reader.
In his conclusions, Hubble makes a jumble between the theoretical propositions regarding
the redshift and the empirical observations made for the purpose of confirming the
theory. At one point he grants full validity to the theory but considers that the
observations are insufficient and contradictory; in the following, he estimates that the
empirical observations discredit the theory and open the door to new principles of
nature112.
Eleven years later, in 1953, in his writing The law of red-shifts113, all Hubble's doubts and
hesitations have been overcome and the redshift law is more forcefully exposed.
The results that Hubble arrives at after almost thirty years of observations are, mainly,
the following:
-Redshifts are considered radial velocities and these are measured according to the
formula c.dλ/λ, where c is the speed of light and λ the frequency of the light ray.

111
Idem
112
Idem
113
Idem

149
-The red shift is linear (proportional to distance) up to a distance of about 250 light years.
-Redshifts increase at a rate of about 530 km/s every million parsecs.
-The red shift law does not apply in the local group (in our galaxy).
-Red shifts cannot be distinguished from Doppler shifts.
-Radial velocities are not merely “apparent” but real.
In his last observations with the 200-inch telescope, Humason obtained spectra of three
clusters beyond the limit he had reached with the 100-inch telescope, which gave
velocities of 50,000, 54,000, and 61,000 km/s.114

114
The law of red-shifts, George Darwin Lecture, delivered by Dr. Edwin Hubble on 1953 May 8,
No. 6, 1953, pp. 659, 666, Vol. 113. American Astronomical Society. Provided by the NASA
Astrophysics Data System.

150
 The Big Bang Theory
Once firmly established the prejudice of the expansion of the universe and the necessity
that it had its origin in an agglomeration of matter in a very small space that explodes to
produce the expansion of matter, it becomes quite a stupid sport of the physicists to
calculate with greater accuracy the following: the time (terrestrial, of course, because they
measure it in years) elapsed between the concentration of matter and the current state of
the universe, the dimension of the point of concentration of matter and its density, the
nature of the explosion, the avatars, from the first nanosecond after the explosion to the
present moment, of the matter thus expelled and the time that must elapse for its
recondensation at a new starting point. Fortunately for the physicists of the big bang,
astronomy itself, in one of its aspects, had produced, based on the discoveries of atomic
physics, a very complete panorama of the processes, which occur according to well-
defined laws, of birth, development and extinction of stars, which includes their origin,
from nebulae of highly rarefied and undifferentiated matter (interstellar nebulae), their
evolution and eventual constitution in planetary systems and their decay (until ending in
the famous "black holes") and the fatal return to its condition of disaggregated matter,
from where the whole movement begins again. This scheme was obtained as a residual
result of the investigations of the astronomers, since these, contaminated by the big bang
theory, what they were looking for in the stellar systems was the confirmation of their
theoretical prejudices, for which each observed state of the stars it was transmuted in a
phase of the evolution of the relativistic universe; atomic physics carried out the task of
discovering a new particle and a new sub-atomic process and relativistic astronomy was
in charge of attributing them to a whole period of the life of the expansive universe and
providing it with the due concatenation with the other stages. The probable phases of the
life process of a star or group of stars are extrapolated and applied by the supporters of
the "big bang" to what they consider the entire universe. According to this, the primitive
explosion produces an enormous quantity of elementary particles, from which the process
of formation of stars and stellar systems (galaxies, nebulae, etc.) begins, in which all the
phases are given to the that we have alluded to, that due to the initial impulse they are
expanding at a certain speed through space. What is characteristic is that the same life
stages of the stars are attributed to the universe as a whole.
Although astronomy has managed to establish a rational sequence of the life process of
stars, in the study of their groups (galaxies) it has had a long stagnation due to the
harmful influence of the big bang theory. The most distant galaxies are considered to be
the closest to the moment of the birth of the universe; for this reason, its characteristics
are considered to be those of the universe in its primitive stages. On the other hand, the
galaxies closest to ours would be the ultimate result of the evolution of the universe.
Thus, a progressive scheme is established with its origin in the most distant galaxies,
which would be the primitive forms of formation and organization, and progresses by
degrees until reaching the closest ones, which would represent the superior form of
existence of these stellar groups.
It is evident that this representation of astronomy relativistic is completely wrong:
between the unalike galaxies located at different distances from ours there is no causal
relationship, but one of coexistence in infinite space. In an astronomical place at a certain
distance from our galaxy there are hundreds of thousands of galaxies that simultaneously
present all the evolutionary degrees of these sidereal groups.
Big bang physicists find a new field to shine their unquestioned brainpower. Atomic
physics continues its overwhelming development and discovers new particles, new sub-
atomic processes, etc., which of course shed more light on stellar transformations and the
various periods of existence of stars; then, the physicists attached to the mythological
branch of this science take that discovery, declare it a milestone in physical science that
will radically change the conception of the universe and put all their efforts into

151
readjusting their scheme to accommodate this scientific novelty. Of course, they present
this new formulation of the nature, origin and evolution of the universe as a product of
their remarkable intelligence that has been embodied in a new and powerful equation that
fully describes the physical world.
The fusion of this theoretical monstrosity with the theory of relativity is an absolutely
necessary phenomenon. Einsteinian relativity posits a time and space fully determined by
matter. The big bang physicists take this pack of lies to its ultimate consequences.
Stephen Hawking, the most conspicuous representative of the physicists who advocate
the "big bang" theory, admits without reserves that it has its strongest basis in Hubble's
discoveries concerning the nature of the redshift of the black lines of the spectra of the
sidereal bodies, especially, the principle that these displacements have their cause in the
radial movement of the stellar objects, which leads by the hand to the conclusion of the
necessary expansion of the universe.
The most obvious thing about space is that it goes on and on and on… As far as we can tell, the
universe goes on in space forever.
Although the universe seems to be much the same at each position in space, it is definitely
changing in time. This was not realized until the early years of the twentieth century. Up to then,
it was thought the universe was essentially constant in time. It might have existed for an infinite
time, but that seemed to lead to absurd conclusions. If stars had been radiating for an infinite
time, they would have heated up the universe to their temperature. Even at night, the whole sky
would be as bright as the sun, because every line of sight would end either on a star or on a
cloud of dust that had been heated up until it was as hot as the stars
The observation that we have all made, that the sky at night is dark, is very important. It implies
that the universe cannot have existed forever in the state we see today. Something must have
happened in the past to make the stars light up a finite time ago, which means that the light
from very distant stars has not had time to reach us yet. This would explain why the sky at night
isn't glowing in every direction.
If the stars had just been sitting there forever, why did they suddenly light up a few billion years
ago? What was the clock that told them it was time to shine? As we've seen, this puzzled those
philosophers, much like Immanuel Kant, who believed that the universe had existed forever. But
for most people, it was consistent with the idea that the universe had been created, much as it is
now, only a few thousand years ago.
However, discrepancies with this idea began to appear with the observations of Vesto Slipher and
Edwin Hubble in the second decade of the twentieth century. In 1923, Hubble discovered that
many patches of light, called nebulae, were in fact other galaxies, vast collections of stars like our
sun but at a great distance. In order for them to appear so small and faint, the distances had to
be so great that light from them would have taken millions or even billions of years to reach us.
This indicated that the beginning of the universe couldn't have been just a few thousand years
ago.
But the second thing Hubble discovered was even more remarkable. Astronomers had learned
that by analyzing the light from other galaxies, it was possible to measure whether they are
moving toward us or away from us (Fig. 3.5). To their great surprise, they had found that nearly
all galaxies are moving away. Moreover, the farther they are from us, the faster they are moving
away. It was Hubble who recognized the dramatic implications of this discovery: on the large
scale, every galaxy is moving away from every other galaxy. The universe is expanding.
The discovery of the expansion of the universe was one of the great intellectual revolutions of the
twentieth century. It came as a total surprise, and it completely changed the discussion of the
origin of the universe. If the galaxies are moving apart, they must have been closer together in
the past. From the present rate of expansion, we can estimate that they must have been very
close together indeed ten to fifteen billion years ago. As described in the last chapter, Roger
Penrose and I were able to show that Einstein's general theory of relativity implied that the
universe and time itself must have had a beginning in a tremendous explosion. Here was the
explanation of why the sky at night is dark: no star could have been shining longer than ten to
fifteen billion years, the time since the big bang.115
Stephen Hawking credits himself and his colleague Roger Penrose for being the founders
of the "big bang" theory.

115
The law of red-shift George Darwin Lecture, delivered by Dr. Edwin Hubble

152
 Roger Penrose and I showed that Einstein’s general theory of relativity implied that the universe
must have a beginning and, possibly, an end.
…If the classical theory of general relativity was correct, the singularity theorems that Roger
Penrose and I proved show that the beginning of time would have been a point of infinite density
and infinite curvature of space-time.116
The work of this pair of physicists consisted of uniting Hubble's "discoveries" with
Einstein's general relativity theory, that is, the amalgamation of two theoretical
monstrosities in a single and monstrous scientific aberration, the theory of " big Bang".
In the scrutiny of stellar phenomena, astronomers had managed to discover what
constitutes the terminal phase of the evolution of stars, that is, their transformation into
the so-called "black holes"; in these, the stellar matter reaches the maximum of its
condensation and, therefore, acquires an enormous gravitational force that prevents the
exit of radiations to the outside, reason why its existence cannot be observed by
traditional means; hence their name "black holes". In an unconscious way, without
intending it, astronomers added one more phase to the stellar evolution scheme, which
begins with the existence of an undifferentiated nebula of elementary particles that,
through successive condensations, continues with the formation of stellar bodies. and
eventually from planetary systems and ends up as a body of incandescent matter with an
enormous density and a colossal force of gravitational attraction. The next phase of the
process was inherent in the dialectic of the phenomenon, that is, the transformation of
that enormous energy of condensing attraction into an equal force of repulsion that,
through a more or less violent separation, would lead matter to a state of disintegration of
its elementary particles, from which all stellar evolution would start again in this part of
the universe. The attraction would be and would carry in itself the repulsion, in which,
under certain conditions, it would be transformed. This means that at the same time, in
other places in the universe, matter would be found simultaneously in each of the phases
of stellar evolution, coexisting with this specific stage of violent formation of the
undifferentiated nebula from highly condensed stellar matter in a given black hole.
Hawking and Penrose, provided with that powerful instrument that is clumsy
mathematics that they used: Lorentz to obtain his famous factor, Einstein to clothe his
theory of relativity with apparent rationality or give life to his erroneous cosmological
equation, Huggins, Maxwell and Hubble to giving existence to the imaginary radial
movement of stellar objects, etc., take the nature of black holes to the extreme and
fabricate an equation by which they reduce the universe, at its origin, to a point of
infinitely dense matter that contains in itself an infinitely compressed space-time, that is,
they make the universe a monstrous black hole. Stripped of its presumptuous trappings,
the Hawking-Penrose equation boils down to a simple regression with no lower bound, to
a simple computer run to the supposed past.
Without any justification, without any physical principle to explain it, that infinitely
dense material point that contains in its interior an infinitely compressed space-time and
is found in the middle of nowhere, where there is neither time nor space, explodes at the
spell of the sages. Physical objects and their components disintegrate and create their
own space and time. Space and time have their origin -they did not exist before- precisely
in that big explosion. Matter, space and time produce themselves and develop in an
environment that is nothing, the absence of matter, space and time. This is where the
point of union between Hubble's postulates and Einstein's principles of relativity is found.
The founders of the big bang theory preserve and overcome the Einsteinian theoretical
trickery of a relative time and space for each observer, a time that dilates and a space that
contracts and curves, a specific, different time and space, for each point of material
reality and sustain the nonsense of creation, starting from nothing, from time and space.
It is Einsteinian stupidity raised to the nth power.
Hawking boasts that his spurious equation ("theorems", he calls the elements of it)
constitutes the foundation of a scientific view of the origin of the universe that debunks
116
Hawking, Stephen, The Universe in a nutshell, Bantam Dell, Random House, Inc., New York,
2007, pp. 69-79

153
the materialist principle of an infinite universe in time and space, which he rejects with
an Olympian contempt. In the same way, he makes the object of his biting sarcasm the
religious doctrine that supports the dogma of the creation of the world (universe) by a
superior being out of nothing.
It is not difficult to find the exact identity between the big bang, caused solely and
exclusively by the powerful imagination of relativistic physicists, which from nothing gives
rise to the universe (matter, space and time) and makes it evolve immersed in a
nothingness that is occupied in successive advances, with the will of a superior entity
that, also from nothing, creates and governs the world.
The big bang theory is an open and blatantly theistic view of the universe.
It is absolutely necessary to keep in mind the following: the big bang theory is the
preservation and overcoming of two great blunders (theoretical, mathematical, geometric):
Hubble's principles about the nature of redshifts of spectra stellar, those that necessarily
imply the expansion of the universe, and Einstein's theory of relativity.
In previous pages we have painstakingly demonstrated the falsity of Hubble's hypotheses,
uncritically endorsed by the big bang physicists. The redshifts of the black lines of the
sidereal spectra do not have their origin in the recessive radial movement of the stars and
do not express any expansion of the universe.
On the other hand, the absolute falsity of the Einsteinian postulates about the nature of
time and space has already been sufficiently demonstrated, against which we have argued
that time and space are homocentric and geocentric: the three-dimensional universal
continent measured by the terrestrial meridian and the course of the universe computed
by the daily rotation of the earth around its own axis. There are no different times or
spaces, but a single space and a single time that, from the perspective of the human
being, with his feet firmly planted on the ground, govern the entire observable universe.
Equally false, but also extremely grotesque and ridiculous, is the proposition of the big
bang physicists that time and space can be contracted until they are practically reduced
to nothing and also that from this their non-being can be generate and expand along with
the matter of the universe.
The only prop of the big bang theory is the Hubble redshift theory. Without this support,
he necessarily collapses. Hubble's hypotheses are wrong, so the big bang theory has no
foundation, neither in science nor in scientific observation. The big bang theory is
scientific nothingness.
If the foundations of the big bang theory are wrong, if there has been no expansion of the
universe, then the task of determining the origin of something that has had no beginning
and will have no end is completely vain, futile.
The only result of this fruitless exercise is to have taken to its ultimate consequences, to
the highest levels of ridiculousness, the nonsense and absurdities of the theory of
relativity on time and space.
To what extremes of stupidity this theory has reached we can verify when reading what
Hawking expresses about time and space and that it is something in which he firmly
believes: the existence of "time worms", through which the human being can be
transferred to the past or to the future, the reality of spaces of more than 3 dimensions,
which, if we express the relativistic formulas well, can be 12 or more, and so on.
Placed on this base erected by Hawking and Penrose, a legion of relativistic physicists
adhering to the theoretical monstrosity of the big bang dedicate themselves neatly to
filling in the general scheme that has been established: the starting point -the big black
hole, the big bang, the production of the stellar objects, the expansion of this universe
and its possible extinction. With the help of atomic physics, which constantly discovers
new sub-atomic particles and provides new knowledge about their nature, their
movements and interactions, and the rational part of astronomy, which, supported by
these same advances, orders and systematizes the phases of existence of the stars, the
physicists of the big bang carry out an exercise in fanciful speculation to determine in
detail what happened in the same big bang and in the following nanoseconds, seconds,
minutes, hours, days, years, hundreds, thousands and millions of years, etc., and

154
accurately and exactly establish the stages and phases of the evolution of the universe to
its present state.
An entire branch of physical science has been formed, attended by a large number of
relativistic physicists, whose purpose is to diligently develop all the absurdities, nonsense,
extravagances and barbarities of the big bang theory. There is in this branch a
remarkable production of extremely convoluted mathematical, geometric, etc., models, all
of them based, however, entirely on the old and modest differential and integral calculus,
which are used to give the laughable postulates of the big bang theory an appearance of
rationality. However, all this cumbersome mathematical and geometric structure is
erroneous in its entirety because it is based on the erroneous mathematical and
geometric developments of Michelson, Morley, Lorentz, Doppler, Huggins, Maxwell,
Minkowski, Einstein and Hubble, errors that we have already sufficiently pointed out in
the course of our argument. In addition to its original vice, this contraption is plagued by
elementary mathematical-geometric blunders committed by its own authors.
The true scientific vision of the universe is splendid for its simplicity in contrast to the
twisted, false and stupid theory of the big bang.
The universe is an infinite totality of matter immersed in infinite space and time.
The universe is made up of an infinity of groups of matter called galaxies, which are
simultaneously in some phase of their evolution.
Galaxies have a life process that goes through the following stages: the matter that forms
it is originally in a state of great disaggregation of its elementary particles; that mutual
repulsion of the particles turns into attraction, for which reason, through a long process
of condensation, stellar bodies are formed that evolve according to a defined pattern of
growth and maturation that can eventually lead to the formation of planetary systems;
the stars of the galaxies decline and become extremely massive bodies that have a great
force of attraction; all or most of the stars that make up a galaxy fall into decline and
their mutual attraction leads them to form a single massive body that has a hundredfold
attractive force; that enormous attraction is at the same time a gigantic repulsion, and it
is changed in it; the great body in which the galaxy has been transformed, of enormous
mass and powerful attractive force, becomes a nebula of elementary particles separated
by a powerful repulsive force; from this point the entire outlined movement begins again.
The galaxies that populate the universe in an infinite number are, simultaneously and
successively, in one of the phases of evolution that we have just outlined.
The transformations of each of the galaxies occur in a specific space, neighboring the
spaces occupied by the other galaxies, and in a certain time, which is the continuation of
past sidereal time and the antecedent of future sidereal time, measured geocentrically, as
physics and astronomy have done so far (in nanoseconds, seconds, minutes, hours, days,
years, etc.), or with some regular astronomical movement (for example the life cycle of a
particular galaxy), which in the end would have to be translated into geocentric time.
The space occupied by the galaxies is the container of the matter of which they are formed
and of the processes that occur in it. The being of galactic matter and its metamorphoses
exist and unfold in that environment, whose only physical characteristic is that of being
their receptacle. That galactic space is not created, it does not expand, it does not
contract, it does not curve, nor, of course, it is not destroyed. It is a localized part of
infinite space that contains the infinite universe.
The time in which the galaxies exist is the same as that in which all the phenomena of the
universe take place; objectively it is the constant turning of the globe on its own axis that
determines today, yesterday and tomorrow, or the cycle of a special galaxy that fixes the
present, the past and the future. Galactic time is the same universal time. And time is not
created, nor dilates, nor contracts, much less is it destroyed. It is a local manifestation of
universal time.

The birth of the big bang theory

155
In the immediately preceding, it was established that the fundamental principle of the big
bang theory is completely false: there is no indication that the so-called observable
universe is expanding and, therefore, the thesis, also constitutive of that conception from
its origin at an infinitesimally small remote point in space-time and its subsequent
development to its current state, remains unsupported.
The big bang cosmological theory is completely unscientific, wrong from start to finish,
and an outrageous intellectual swindle.
In fact, only with our previous argumentation has the resoundingly unscientific nature of
the big bang theory been convincingly proven.
However, the physicists who promoted this nonsense have dressed their theses in new
finery: the consideration of this cosmology as a solution to the so-called "Einstein
equation" and the hypothesis of cosmic radiation from the "big bang", with which they
have tried to give their nonsense a greater scientific strength.
This forces us to treat these two issues carefully.
It is evident, from the outset, that if there is no expansion, the origin and evolution of the
universe could not be represented by any equation, even that of Einstein, the
quintessential sage, nor could there have been an initial state that produced radiation of
any kind currently perceivable.

Relativistic cosmology
By the decade of the forties of the last century, the hypothesis of the expansion of the
universe, established fundamentally by Hubble, as we saw in the corresponding part of
this work, had acquired the nature of an irrefutable truth.
From then on, the "brilliant" idea began to take shape in the minds of the most
conspicuous physicists that what was currently in a state of expansion should have had
its beginning in a distant epoch, in which all the celestial bodies had been together in a
very small space, and that this condensation of matter would have split, by means of a
cataclysmic event -a "big explosion"-, into infinitesimally small particles, forming with
them an enormous nebula from which all the movement of constitution of the present
galactic system.
The establishment of the foundations of the "scientific" theory of the "big bang", that is, of
metaphysical cosmology, was in charge, as could not be less, of a metaphysician par
excellence, of a Catholic priest, of Abbé George Lemaitre. His task was simply to translate
religious dogmas into relativistic metaphysics. Where religion says: "god created", the
dogmatic Lemaitrana paraphrases: "the big explosion", etc.
Lemaitre begins his work with the adaptation of the relativistic cosmological models, both
those that constitute a "solution" to the "Einstein equation" and the one that Einstein
himself derived from his mathematical-geometric spawn, to the "irrefutable scientific
truth" of the “expansion of the universe”, a concept that he specifies by stating that it is
not an expansion of matter, but of the space that contains it.

1. Introduction
According to the theory of relativity, a homogeneous universe may exist such that all positions in
space are completely equivalent; there is no centre of gravity. The radius of space R is constant;
space is elliptical, i.e., of uniform positive curvature I/R2; straight lines starting from a point
come back to their origin after having traveled a path of length πR; the volume of space has a
finite value π2R3; straight lines are closed lines going through the whole space without
encountering any boundary.
Two solutions have been proposed. That of de Sitter ignores the existence of matter and supposes
its density equal to zero. It leads to special difficulties of interpretation which will be referred to
later, but it is of extreme interest as explaining quite naturally the observed receding velocities of
extra-galactic nebulae, as a simple consequence of the properties of the gravitational field without
having to suppose that we are at a point of the universe distinguished by special properties.
The other solution is that of Einstein. It pays attention to the evident fact that the density of
matter is not zero, and it leads to a relation between this density and the radius of the universe.

156
 This relation forecasted the existence of masses enormously greater than any known at the time.
These have since been discovered, the distances and dimensions of extra-galactic nebulae having
become known. From Einstein's formulae and recent observational data, the radius of the
universe is found to be some hundred times greater than the most distant objects which can be
photographed by our telescopes.
Each theory has its own advantages. One is in agreement with the observed radial velocities of
nebulae, the other with the existence of matter, giving a satisfactory relation between the radius
and the mass of the universe. It seems desirable to find an intermediate solution which could
combine the advantages of both.
At first sight, such an intermediate solution does not appear to exist. A static gravitational field
for a uniform distribution of matter without internal stress has only two solutions, that of
Einstein and that of Sitter. De Sitter's universe is empty, that of Einstein has been described as
"containing as much matter as it can contain." It is remarkable that the theory can provide no
mean between these two extremes.
The solution of the paradox is that de Sitter´s solution does not really meet all the requirements
of the problem. Space is homogeneous with constant positive curvature; space-time is also
homogeneous, for all events are perfectly equivalent. But the partition of space-time into space
and time disturbs the homogeneity. The co-ordinates used introduce a centre. A particle at rest
at the centre of space describes a geodesic of the universe; a particle at rest other where than at
the center does not describe a geodesic. The co-ordinates chosen destroy the homogeneity and
produce the paradoxical results which appear at the so-called "horizon" of the centre. When we
use co-ordinates and a corresponding partition of space and time of such a kind as to preserves
the homogeneity of the universe, the field is found to be no longer static; the universe becomes of
the same form as that of Einstein, with a radius no longer constant but varying with the time
according to a particular law.
In order to find a solution combining the advantages of those of Einstein's and de Sitter's, we are
led to consider an Einstein universe where the radius of space or the universe is allowed to vary
in an arbitrary way.
….....
“6. conclusion
We have found a solution such that
(1o) The mass of the universe is a constant related to the cosmological constant by Einstein´s
relation
2
2π I
√ λ= =
kM R 0
(2o.) The radius of the universe increases without limit from an asymptotic value of R 0 for t =‒ ∞.
(3o.) The receding velocities of extragalactic nebulae are a cosmical effect of the expansion of the
universe. The initial radius R0 can be computed by formulae (24) and (25) or by the approximate
formula
rc
R0 = .
v √3
This solution combines the advantages of the Einstein and de Sitter solutions.
Note that the largest part of the universe is for ever out of our reach. The range of the 100-inch
Mount Wilson Telescope is estimated by Hubble to be 5 x 10 7 parsecs or about R/200. The
corresponding Doppler effect is 3000 km./sec. For a distance of 0.087R it is equal to unity, and
the whole visible spectrum is displaced into infra-red. It is impossible to see ghost-images of
nebulae or suns, as even if there were no absorption these images would be displaced by several
octaves into the infra-red and would not be observed.
It remains to find the cause of the expansion of the universe. We have seen that the pressure of
radiation does work during expansion. This seems to suggest that the expansion has been set up
by the radiation itself. In a static universe light emitted by matter travels round space, comes
back to its starting-point, and accumulates indefinitely. It seems that this may be the origin of
the velocity of expansion R'/R, which Einstein assumes to be zero and which in our
interpretation is observed as the radial velocity of extra-galactic nebulae.117

117
Hawking, Stephen, The illustrated a brief history of time, Updated and expanded edition,
Random House, Inc., New York, 2007, pp. 44 y 171

157
The prejudice that permeates Father Lemaitre's argument is that the nature of the
universe can be determined by using a mathematical-geometric model, specifically one
that is a solution of the "Einstein equation." The only time that mathematics and
geometry have played a major role in establishing the characteristics, structure and laws
of the solar system and, subsequently, of the "observable universe" was when Newton and
his successors founded and developed classical mechanics and physics. The
mathematical tool used in these works was the infinitesimal calculus, invented by Newton
and later perfected by a legion of mathematicians; with this instrument it was possible to
give a decisive push to Euclidean geometry to take it to higher levels of its development.
Classical mechanics and physics and the infinitesimal calculus and the superseded (but
preserved) Euclidean geometry are the indispensable basis for the ever deeper knowledge
of the “observable universe” and for the practical activity exercised in space exploration
and space travel by the aerospace industry.
Classical mechanics and physics, supported by the corresponding mathematical-
geometrical tools, constitute the core of the scientific conception of the universe. Other
elements of it are the Kant-Laplace theory and modern atomic physics. But what makes it
possible to establish -by endorsing those components that we have enunciated- in a
totalizing way, the true nature of the universe is the dialectical-materialist philosophy.
Materialism (the modern current that passes through Giordano Bruno and ends in
Feuerbach) perfected by speculation (Hegel's idealist philosophy), that is, dialectical
materialism, whose foundations were established by Marx and Engels, has as its essential
content an ontology which is a compendium of the nature, structure and laws of the
universe as a whole.
It is not necessary to subject the universe to any kind of mathematical formula or
equation to fully understand its nature; This can be perfectly expressed with the concepts
provided by dialectical materialism, which we have already advanced in several parts of
this work and which we will detail later.
Relativism, of which Lemaitre is a conspicuous representative, claims that by means of a
mathematical formula or equation, which is precisely a development of the "Einstein field
equation", it is possible to establish the nature of the Universe, which can be one or
another, depending on whether this or that mathematical-geometrical expression is,
according to relativistic prejudice, more exact and complete than another. Thus, the
universe can be flat, spherical, finite, but without limits, static, expanding, etc. But for
this stupid relativistic ignorance, the only thing that the universe cannot be is what it
really is, an infinity of matter immersed in infinite time and space.
For relativism, the nature of the universe must necessarily be determined by a formula
that constitutes a "solution" to the "Einstein equation".
In the previous chapter we have seen in some detail the true character of Einstein's field
equation; there we established its anti-scientific nature, the absolute impossibility of
obtaining through it any knowledge of reality, of course, not even of the universe as a
whole. From there it follows that any mathematical-geometrical argument derived from
that formula, any solution to it, is equally unscientific and ineffective.
Father Lemaitre relies on two such solutions, De Sitter's and Einstein's own, in order to
cosmologically justify the fundamental argument of the big bang theory, that is, the
expansion of the universe.
To do this he has to prove mathematically and geometrically that the model derived from
Einstein's equation allows for the existence of an expanding universe.
He considers that neither De Sitter's solution nor Einstein's solution meets that
expectation, so he develops a new version that integrates the good of those two.
Based on his hybrid solution, Lemaitre reaches the following conclusions:
1. The universe is an elliptical closed space.
2. The universe is homogeneous.
2. The mass of the universe is constant.
3. The radius of the universe increases without limit.

158
4. The recessional velocities of extragalactic nebulae are an effect of the expansion of the
universe.
These conclusions have been obtained by Lemaitre solely and exclusively from his
equations, which, due to his affiliation, that is, by recognizing their origin in Einstein's
field equation, have no validity whatsoever; hence then the consequences drawn from
them are also of necessity absolutely false. But not only that, but they are in
contradiction with the empirical evidence that shows that their fundamental hypothesis of
the expansion of the universe is false, which we have just demonstrated in detail in the
previous chapter.
Likewise, those results express something that is completely impossible to verify, the
shape of the universe as an elliptical body. De Sitter had already come to the conviction
that it was not possible in any way to determine the curvature of the universe, but his
discouragement quickly dissipated when, by means of a mathematical trick - that is what
he called it with unheard-of cheek -, that is, by including the constant arbitrary λ in the
corresponding equations, that elusive curvature could then be established.
Once Lemaitre has established the essential false premise of his argument, he proceeds to
the full structuring of his creationist dogma.
His reasoning is very simple: if the universe is expanding, then that movement must have
started in the more or less remote past.
That origin cannot be other, for this dogmatist, than the primitive atom.
Lemaitre is considered the father of the big bang theory.
After having grafted the Hubble invention of the expansion of the Universe in the body of
Einstein's field equation, he devotes all his mental power to determining when and how
that expansion started.
It postulates that the universe had its beginning in a primordial atom, from which the
particles from which the elements and substances were later formed emerged, through
radioactive disintegration, in a process that passes through the constitution of nebulae,
their grouping in clusters, the clash between them, the production of stars and, finally,
the formation of planetary systems, until the appearance of life.
Later, Penrose and Hawking will give full form to this dogmatic-religious aberration in
their famous theorems, in which, also starting from Einstein's field equation, through
true mathematical-geometric acrobatics, in abstruse, unintelligible and incorrect
equations, they establish that the Einsteinian formula theoretically "allows" the existence
of physical "singularities", one of which would be the condensation of all matter into a
point of infinite smallness and density, from which, through a sudden event (a "big
bang" ), the existence of the universe would begin in an expansionist movement that
would imply the creation of matter, space and time.
It is not possible to avoid the identity of the religious dogma of the creation of the world
with the theory of the birth of the universe from an infinitely small and dense point. The
point of origin is immersed in nothingness; in fact, he himself is nothing. And from this
nonexistent point, from this nothingness, the emergence of the universe begins. In
religion, likewise, an immaterial, non-existent force, a god, creates the world out of
nothing. It is nothing that produces itself. That is why the theologian Lemaitre feels at
ease in the field of relativistic metaphysics.
In his works The primeval Atom118 and L'hypothèse de l'atome primitive119, the father of the
big bang theory exposes his theses.

118
Lemaitre Abbé G., A homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius accounting
for the Radial Velocity of Extra-galactic Nebulae, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical
Society, Vol. 91, pp. 483-490, 03-1931 SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS)
119
Lemaitre Georges, The Primeval Atom, From Georges Lemaitre, The Primeval Atom: an Essay on
Cosmogony, translated by Betty H. and serge a. Korff, D. van Nostrand Co., New York, 1950,
Chapter V. reprinted by kind permission of the publishers, D. van Nostrand Co., Inc. en Theories
of the Universe, The Library of Scientific Thought. General Editor: Paul Edwards,New York
University, Milton K. Munitz, editor, Theories of the Universe, from Babylonian Myth to Modern
Science, The free press, glencoe, Illinois and the Falcon’s wing Press, 1957, pp. 339-353

159
The argument that forms the basis of Lemaitre's discourse is the one related to the
expansion of the universe; As we have conscientiously and reliably demonstrated, this
hypothesis is completely wrong.
With his feet firmly planted in this quicksand, the religious then directs his reasoning to
the determination of the origin of the universe, its subsequent expansion process and its
current state.
The current universe is, the priest tells us, closed, elliptical, finite, but without borders.
The universe is, as its name indicates, unique, the only thing that exists.
Therefore, it is a sphere that exists in nothing.
This finite universe, maintains the prelate, has no borders.
It is evident that if something has an end, this is the border with something else, or, as
your Excellency wishes, with nothing.
Of course, if something exists immersed in nothing, it is also, by definition, nothing. Only
something without entity can hold non-being, nothingness, within it.
The Lemaitrian closed universe collapses in on itself: the existence of a being immersed in
the sea of nothingness is physically impossible.
Something that does not exist cannot be measured, so all relativistic efforts to quantify
the Einsteinian-Lemaitrian universe is an embroidery in a vacuum, regardless of the
already proven fact that Einstein's field equation, which is the mathematical-geometric
instrument used for that task, has no scientific value.
Lemaitre assimilates the shape of his universe to a spherical body, on whose surface the
laws of elliptical geometry rule.
In this branch of geometry, methods are developed to determine, on the surface of a
sphere, the geometric concepts of point, line, triangle and quadrilateral. In this geometry
the points are dual, antipodal points, the lines are great circles, the internal angles of the
triangles do not add up to 180 degrees, etc. With these notions it is impossible to define
the Lemaitrian universe. There is no practical means by which to fix two antipodal points
on the nonexistent surface of an invented universe, that is, two points that are separated
by two radii of the sphere, each of which may be about a trillion times light years, so the
total distance between them would be approximately two billion light years, according to
the feverish imagination of the little father. Even if such a material sphere existed, it
would be physically impossible, no matter how many mathematical and geometrical tricks
were used, to establish a point and its antipode on its edges, much less fix the line of the
great circle that unites them, nor, therefore, its extension; there would be no way to
access its surface and make all the measurements necessary to establish its shape and
dimensions; there would be no phenomenon physical environment on that surface that
would become perceptible, directly or indirectly, to human knowledge, even if we suppose
thousands and thousands of generations dedicated to this task, and that would allow us
to obtain the more or less exact representation of Lemaitre's universe. Such a universe
would be unknowable.
This nonexistent universe is constantly expanding. His being assimilates the nothingness
that surrounds him and turns it into being. Nothing feeds on nothing.
Lemaitre's postulate is physically impossible: no being can absorb nothing, integrate it
into itself and turn it into being.
The relativistic slyness deduces that the expansion of the universe must have had an
origin; carrying back the expansionist movement, a point would be reached where the
radius of the universe would be 0, that is, the world would not exist. From there, from
nothing, the birth of the universe would have taken place, which would first have the
infinitesimally small extension and the constitution of an atom, within which all matter,
time and space would be contained, which would later develop in the expanding universe
to the current universe.
What Lemaitre, the Peter of the big bang church, maintains is an absolute physical
impossibility: the primitive material atom springing from nothing; time and space
emerging from the timeless and ethereal, from nothing. That is, nothing producing
nothing.

160
Lemaitre has made the primordial atom appear from nothing. Now, he will first make the
current universe spring from the atom: once again nothing emerging from nothing.
The first phase of that process consists of converting the content of the original atom into
the raw material for the formation of the universe.
At that time, physical science was heading down the path of atomic theory. Radioactivity
was the phenomenon in vogue. Hence, Lemaitre was assailed by the luminous idea that
primordial matter was made up of particles that came from the disintegration of the
content of the first atom.
Radioactivity and radiation are phenomena that occur in fully constituted matter; one is
the disintegration of the different elements that spontaneously release, at various times,
some of the particles that form them (neutrons, electrons, etc.), and the other is the result
of massive atomic processes (stellar combustion, for example) that they eject huge
amounts of particles, but both have condensed matter as their presupposition.
To apply this physical novelty to his cosmological model, Lemaitre then had to assume
that all the matter in the universe is found in the original atom, but in a condensed,
miniaturized form, in the form of the various species of elements, substances and
compounds that exist in the current world, and then conclude that by radioactive
disintegration and radiation the primordial substance of elementary particles is
constituted, from whose evolution the existing universe will result.
The thaumaturge Lemaitre has achieved the following: to establish nothingness, to make
the primordial atom (which is also nothingness) emerge from it, which contains within it,
in an infinitely reduced proportion, all matter, all space and all time of the present
universe, to transmute this monstrosity into subatomic particles, to increase the radius of
that sphere by making the external nothingness interior, that is, feeding it from
nothingness, etc.
We thus arrive at these obvious conclusions: The Einsteinian-Lemaitrean universe has no
existence, it is physically impossible, it is nothing, simply nothing; if such a universe does
not exist, then it has not had a beginning either and, therefore, the original atom did not
exist either, its being, constitution and development postulated by Lemaitre are physically
impossible, they never had an entity, they are nothing.
The shepherd of souls has established the extremes of his cosmology: the current
universe closed, elliptical, finite, but without borders and the primeval atom; that is, on
one side nonexistence, nothingness, and on the other also nonexistence, nothingness.
Once these two points are fixed, it is then necessary to fill the space between them.
Lemaitre maintains that in his imaginary world three stages have been completed, until
reaching the existing state of the universe. In a first phase of expansion, in which
repulsion predominates, through radioactivity and radiation, the conversion of all the
miniaturized matter contained in the first atom into elementary particles takes place.
Once this has been achieved, a period of equilibrium between repulsion and attraction
follows, whereby the expansion stops and some of the matter that exists in the form of
nebulae that fill all space condenses into stars, which in turn are grouped into galaxies,
while another fraction remains in its state of spray. Thus the Einsteinian-Lemaitrean
universe has been perfectly structured, which preserves the same in the current phase of
existence. In the third stage, which is the one in which the universe is currently
experiencing, its expansionist movement resumes.
All the moments of the evolution of the universe of Einstein and Lemaitre are merely
speculative, they are pure fantasies, they have no real existence, they are, again, nothing,
only nothing.
At each station, Lemaitre has attributed to his universe a certain extension of its radius, a
certain density of matter, a certain temperature of its content, etc., of course, through
absurd and unreal assumptions, giving values to what is absolutely physically impossible
to measure, as we stated above. In this task he makes a mixture of his absurd
hypotheses, his clumsy speculations, some stellar measurements made with the same
limited spectrography that led to the erroneous conclusion of the expansion of the
universe and some restricted advances that cosmological theory had reached relative to

161
real constitution of stars and galaxies in the so-called “observable universe”, what
resulted in the first version of the big bang, an irrational, unscientific, misguided,
preposterous, and in some respects naively stupid theory.
In the second cycle of existence of Lemaitre's fantasy universe, the condensation of the
particle clouds does not cover all of them. At some point this process no longer occurs
and a portion of the matter remains in the state of maximum fragmentation and
dispersion. These clouds release radiation that is perceived on earth as "cosmic rays",
that is, particles that reach the earth's surface with a greatly reduced energy and do not
originate in a specific celestial body. Lemaitre does not say where these clouds are found,
whether randomly distributed in the interstices of the universe or located at the edges of
it, perhaps forming a spherical layer.
According to the modern theory of the formation of galaxies, they come from the
condensation of clouds of elementary particles; These material fractions have an intrinsic
tendency to overcome their mutual repulsion and group together into elements,
substances, compounds, etc., forming stars, planets, galaxies, etc. This provides them
with a movement that tilts them towards the center of attraction. Only residually can
some of them escape the attractive influence and travel through space from the original
cloud with energy greatly reduced by the cohesive force that is in their nature; its speed
and range are then extremely limited.
Relativism sees in the existence of cosmic rays the opportunity to reinforce the argument
of the big bang theory regarding the origin of the universe. He considers them then as a
vestige of the disintegration of the original atom, according to Lemaitre, or of the first
explosion, according to the most refined versions of that conception, for example that of
Penrose-Hawking.
For this, it is necessary that the matter that springs from the primitive atom is divided
into two, one part that enters the condensation process and the other that preserves its
state of dispersion. The particles of the nebulae that are preserved as such have
enormous energy and, therefore, when they are ejected, they travel at great speeds and
cover enormous distances. These are the particles that reach the earth's surface and are
recorded as "cosmic rays"; they constitute the unquestionable evidence of the origin of the
universe in the disintegration of the first atom or in the big bang, according to taste.
The main argument of this reasoning is expressed by saying that the product of the
original disintegration or explosion is a multitude of clouds of sub-atomic particles that
are immediately subject to an attractive force that causes a condensation process; from
there stars, planets, etc. are formed, which are organized in galaxies.
It has already been established that both the existence of the Lemaitrian-Einsteinian
universe, as well as that of its presumed origin, are absolute physical impossibilities, they
do not exist and will never exist; what does not exist cannot leave any mark or vestige.
But not only that, because it would also be impossible, if the universe had that absurd
nature and principle, to verify them factually: nothing could reach the terrestrial
perception, since a universe without defined edges would not have a surface that would
fix its spherical condition, so it would be unknowable, in addition to its distance of
billions of light years, any physical manifestation of the supposed epidermis of the world
would be beyond the reach of the knowledge of the human species, no matter how many
successive generations they came to exist; its beginning, also located in a time billions of
light years away from current times, would also be unknowable in the same previous
terms. Nothing of what existed at the present moment would be identically the same as
what would have existed billions of light-years ago: the dialectic of matter consists in the
constant passage from being to essence; the essence is the negation of being, that is, the
transformation of it into the other that existed germinally within it; each phase of the
evolution of matter is the negation of the previous one and, although it surpasses it and
preserves it, it is evidently not the same. It is not possible for a part of matter to remain
without transformation indefinitely, practically from the foundation of time to the present
day.

162
Coming face to face with a real physical fact, with cosmic radiation, that which comes
from very distant sources that cannot be determined by current methods, mainly
spectrography, Lemaitre sees the bald opportunity to use them to give truth to his obtuse
speculations.
He then enriches his cosmology with a new determination. In the second phase of the
evolution of the universe, the matter fractionated into particles is divided into two parts.
One of them, faithfully following the dictates of its nature, transforms itself into elements,
substances, compounds, etc., that is, into condensed matter, and the other, refusing to
behave according to its quality, stubbornly remains in the form of scattered particles
contained in clouds found at the edge of the universe. This reservoir is the place where
the radiation escapes that billions of light years later will be captured by the Bell
engineers as "static noise".
Using a trite sophistical trick, relativism takes a certain fact, whose nature is fully
determined, and regards it as having a different origin and quality, fixed by its tortuous
imagination. It takes for granted precisely what it should demonstrate, but it is
unprovable, that is, the spherical and finite nature of the universe, its origin in a
disintegration or explosion, its splitting into condensed matter and radiations, the
survival for an indefinite time of those radiations, their ejection as such from the remnant
clouds, their journey to earth, and their perception by the Bell telephone company. He
makes a petitio principii.
Foolish relativism completely inverts the terms. He should first of all have proved the
reality of his universe and all that follows, and then show the necessary link with the
recorded radiations. However, doing things the other way around, he establishes the
existence of radiation and from there derives the objectivity of his cosmological fiction.
On the other hand, what relativism proposes is frankly ridiculous. The radiations come
from the edge of the sphere and travel through its radii. In order for them to reach a place
with the same intensity, it is necessary that it be in the very center of the universe.
Precisely the equality of the magnitude of the radiations that reach the earth is the
fundamental argument for considering them as coming from the shell of the universe.
Hence, then, relativism postulates, to want and not, geocentrism again; relativism is a
reissue of Ptolemy.
If the clouds of surviving particles have been randomly distributed in the interstices of the
universe, then only those radiations that do not find any stellar body that stands in their
way would reach the earth, and these would arrive at the surface of our planet with
different intensities, depending on the distance they are from us. There could not be
radiation of equal intensity coming from any point in the surrounding universe, as the
foolish prejudice of relativism demands.

The formation of the elements

Lemaitre is considered the progenitor of the big bang theory. He established what we
could call the general scheme of this cosmology, whose extremes are the original
explosion and the current expansion.
The task of his successors was to fill in the Lemaitrian outline with the corresponding
details.

163
Alpher, Gamow, Bethe and Herman120 121 122 123 were the ones who started what has been a
fun and lucrative occupation to date: fleshing out Lemaitre's metaphysical universe.
In what follows, we will study the approaches of these renowned physicists contained in
his fundamental works.
The basis of our argument has already been established in the analysis of Lemaitre's role;
the conclusions reached there are fully valid here.
Relativism has before it the task of determining the nature of the matter that emanates
from the primitive atom, or in a more modern expression, of the singularity -material
point of infinite density, pressure, temperature and smallness-, of the transformations
that lead to this matter to the formation of stars, galaxies, planetary systems, etc., up to
determine the current state of its existence, the times that each of the stages of this
process consume and the conditions that occur in each of these phases, such as density,
temperature, pressure, cohesion, fragmentation, etc. of the matter.
It is considered that from the current state of matter in the universe it is possible to
derive its original nature at the time of the big bang. The central idea is that the first
condition of matter upon emerging from its infinite condensation is that of its maximum
fractionation into particles. The subsequent evolution consists of the condensation of
matter into nuclides and atoms (Hydrogen and Helium); later, with these inputs, the stars
are constituted, in whose interior all the heaviest elements, substances, etc. are formed;
stars are grouped into galaxies.
In the present universe there is a certain amount of all those products that were
presumably forged in the distant beginning and in the subsequent atomic and chemical
reactions; abundance is called the amount of each element that exists in the universe at
the time in its relationship with the sum of all of them or with the amount of another
specific element.
From this determination of the abundances it is possible to arrive at the knowledge of the
processes and stages of the formation of the elements, the latter considered as phases of
the evolution of the universe through its expansion; In addition, other factors are brought
into play, such as the genetic relationship between the various elements, the conditions of
density, pressure, temperature, atomic cohesion, etc., established by terrestrial
observation or experimentation.
The processes of formation of the elements and their subsequent combination to produce
substances and compounds must necessarily be contained between the extremes of the
original radiation or explosion and the current universe. This time is totally determined by
the present rate of expansion of the universe. This index is projected backwards and gives
us the extent to which the expansion should have behaved in the past, until reaching the
starting point.
The supposed current expansion of the universe has been quantified in various amounts
by various physicists; each adjustment made gives a different result in terms of the age of
the universe.
In this arbitrary and fluctuating temporal extension, then, the entire succession of
chemical and atomic reactions that have presumably led to the current constitution of
matter is accommodated. From the total time available, and taking into account what

120
Lemaitre Georges, L’hypothèse de l’atome primitive, Extrait de la Revue des Questiones
scientifiques, 20 juillet 1948, Publications du laboratoire d’astronomie de Louvain, John G.
Wolbach Library, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Provided by the NASA
Astrophysics Data System, pp. 325-339
121
Gamow, G., El universo en expansión y el origen de los elementos, The George Washington
University, Washington D. C., September 13, 1946, Physcis Roeview, 70 572
122
Gamow, G. The origin of Elements and the Separation of Galaxies, George Washington
University, Washington DC, June 21, 1948, Nature 162, 680-682 (30 October 1948) |
doi:10.1038/162680a0
123
Alpher, Ralph A. and Robert C. Herman, Remarks on the Evolution of the expanding Universe
Applied Physics Laboratory, The Johns Hopkins University, Silver spring, Maryland (Received
December 27, 1948)

164
each reaction consumes and the temperature and density at which it occurs, through an
absurd extrapolation, specific times are assigned to each of them – geocentric times, that
is, seconds, minutes, years, light years, etc.
And in the end, relativistic speculation will have built its irrational universe and fixed the
phases and times of its evolution.
Of course, this is not a finished job. A herd of relativistic physicists has been diligently
dedicated, in the last seventy years, to correcting, polishing, refuting, restoring,
amplifying, denying, reaffirming, specifying, breaking down, etc. the cosmological mess
that Einstein and Lemaitre forged and Penrose and Hawking perfected.
The starting point of the relativistic argument is the prejudice of the expansion of the
universe. We have already extensively demonstrated the falsity of this argument, which is
based on an absurd and erroneous interpretation of the spectrographic measurement of
the wavelength and frequency of radiation from stellar objects. This misguided use is
added to the fact that spectrography is a technique that does not yet have all the
accuracy that is claimed and its value lies more in the fact that in any case it illustrates
the nature of radiation, but it does not definitively prove anything about them.
The inexistence of the expansion of the universe removes any basis of support for
relativistic cosmology -Einsteinian, Lemaitrian and Hawkian-, for which it is false, unreal
in its entirety. There is no such elliptical universe that had a beginning in an atom or in a
singular material point, nor its elements created through the processes, times and
conditions of density, temperature, etc. that this absurd cosmology postulates.
The abundance of the elements in the real universe -not Einsteinian, not relativistic-, is
impossible to measure; the diversity of elements and the amount of each element that
exists in that infinite extension is infinite.
But supposing that the universe were like the one that obtuse relativism claims, it would
not be possible to specify the number of existing elements at any stage of its existence.
The abundance of elements in the observable universe (galaxies and interstellar particles,
atoms and cosmic dust) can only be measured by means of spectrography. But with this
instrument you only have access to the outer layers of stars and interstellar objects,
leaving the inner layers and the core itself out of sight, which contain most of the matter
that constitutes them. And since stellar matter is the majority of the matter in the
observable universe, spectrography is then unable to reflect its elemental composition.
Add to this the fact that spectrography is still a very poorly developed instrument, so it
necessarily leads to aberrational conclusions, such as that of the expansion of the
universe.
The stubborn relativism is not daunted by these small obstacles and then supposes that
the element that it identifies on the stellar surface is the result of the transformation of
another or other elements, which exist in the interior in a certain proportion in relation to
that one, reason that it meets the demands of atomic chemistry (fixed by laboratory or
theoretical speculation); With these elements in hand and applying specific statistical
formulas, the abundance of the parent elements is obtained, which is added to that of the
product and, there it is, the abundance of the elements in the spurious universe has been
fully established. This abundance would only reflect that which would exist in the
observable universe, so the enormous amount of remaining matter that fills the
relativistic elliptical universe would be left out of that accounting.
Assuming the impossible, the existence of the relativistic universe, obtaining the
abundance of the elements that compose it would be absolutely impossible due to the
intrinsic fallibility of the only means that could be used for it, the underdeveloped
spectrography, since its results would be superficial and incomplete, even if they were
true; it would then be a merely speculative abundance.
That absolutely unreal abundance would not have the capacity to reflect the process of
formation of the elements due to the twisted relationship that is established between
them to accommodate them to the preconceived scheme of times and conditions of the
different generating chemical-atomic reactions.

165
After these small and innocuous stumbles, the imaginary abundance of the elements in
the fictional universe of relativistic cosmology has been pinned down. Of course, its
validity is based on 1% proven facts and 99% hypotheses, most of them not formulated
rationally.
Relativism now proceeds to establish the relationship between the current abundance of
the elements, so defectively determined, and the origin of the universe. He maintains that,
in some way, the existing abundance will allow us to reveal the process of formation of the
elements in the first phases of the evolution of the universe that the relativistic
imagination has conceived.
The fundamental assumption is the passage from fragmentation to condensation of
matter. The starting point is a nebula made up of elementary particles. The "quarks" are
integrated into larger units, neutrons, protons and electrons, these, in turn, in the
Hydrogen nuclide, which condenses in star formations, where its "burning" gives rise to
the Helium nuclide. In stars, the process of condensation of matter and formation of the
remaining elements continues.
At the end, in the current universe all the elements formed in the previous evolution will
be found, either in a free state or constituting substances and compounds. The
relationships between the abundance of each element and that of all of them or that of
one in particular refer to the process of their creation.
Atomic chemistry has established, with more or less precision, partly experimentally,
partly theoretically, the inputs and reactions that give rise to the different elements; this
includes amounts, temperatures, times, and so on.
Modern astrophysics, in what is rational when it manages to overcome the obstacles of
relativistic cosmology -which is an inseparable part of it-, has developed a model of the
process of the formation of elements in relation to stellar evolution, primarily in the Milky
Way. They have found that at present the various stars are each in a certain stage of the
process of producing elements from Hydrogen and Helium and has theoretically
established the concatenation between these formative phases, with which he outlines a
scheme of the probable stellar evolution in the Milky Way and, by extension, of galaxies in
general.
Relativistic cosmology, always attentive to all scientific knowledge that is produced with
the aim of brazenly appropriating it, distorting it and, once it has brutally distorted it,
using it to formulate its theoretical nonsense, takes the contributions of atomic chemistry
and the rational part of astrophysics and subjects them to the absurd demands of
relativistic cosmology.
The first that they establish is the framework within which they will do their work. That
is, they postulate the expanding elliptical universe that has its origin in a small, hot,
infinitely dense atom. Determine, projecting the rate of expansion backwards, the time
that has been consumed and the space that has been formed from the beginning to the
present moment. Within this temporal and spatial extension, it must literally
accommodate the processes and concatenations provided by atomic chemistry and
astrophysics.
In a real game, he manipulates chemical reactions, quantities, temperatures, densities,
etc., distorting them to fit the predetermined time span and the imported aftermath of
astrophysics, now regarded as occurring in the entire universe; This metaphysical
acrobatic results, by necessity, in a monstrous, counterfeit monstrosity, made up of
adulterated, fanciful chemical reactions, absurd times for sidereal movements
(hundredths of a second, seconds, minutes, hours, of a geocentric time that are
inconsequentially used to measure supposed absolutely incommensurable cosmic
processes), invented densities, capricious expansions of space, arbitrary balances,
inconceivable atomic cohesion and fragmentation, etc.
Clumsy relativism cannot even give its own spawn a fairly coherent nature and structure!
All this physical-circus show has been presided over by Einstein's field equation, whose
highest scientific value lies in the fact that any desired conclusion can be drawn from it.

166
 Cosmic background radiation
Foresightedly, Gamow, in the works that we have already examined, had separated matter
into matter proper and radiations and conferred on the latter super-natural, metaphysical
characteristics, such as always remaining the same regardless of the general
transformations of matter, concentrating on a place of impossible existence, on a
spherical layer at the indeterminate and indeterminable edge of the universe, eternally
traveling in radial movements towards the center of the world or in translations through
the great circles, always returning to the starting point, etc. The Gamowian prevention
was intended to justify the truth of the relativistic cosmological theory with yet another
argument. It was possible to find fossil particles and elements that had been preserved
unchanged from the moment of the great radiation or explosion, which would constitute
the irrefutable proof of that event.
We have already advanced something about the irrational and unscientific nature of this
claim. In what follows we will transcribe the works in which this argument takes its
modern form; they are the papers of Penzias and Wilson and Dicke, Peebles and Wilkison;
After that, we will expand on the considerations that we have already expressed on this
subject in the analysis of Gamow's concepts.
It was Penzias and Wilson who stirred up the relativistic stupidity with the discovery of an
isometric blackbody radiation (which registered the same intensity from any point of the
celestial vault), without seasonal variations, with a value close to 3.5 o K and with an
origin far beyond the known heavenly bodies.

Measurements of the effective zenith noise temperature of the 20-foot horn-reflector antenna
(Crawford, Hogg, and Hunt 1961) at the Crawford Hill Laboratory, Holmdel, New Jersey, at 4080
Mc/s have yielding a value about 3.5o K higher than expected. This excess temperature is, within
the limits of our observations, isotropic, unpolarized, and free from seasonal variations (July,
1964-April, 1965). A possible explanation for the observed excess noise temperature is the one
given by Dicke, Peebles, Roll, and Wilkinson (1965) in a companion letter in this issue.
The total antenna temperature measured at the zenith is 6.7 o K, of which 2.3o K is due to
atmospheric absorption. The calculated contribution due to ohmic losses in the antenna and
back-lobe response is 0.9o K.124
This radiation was not attributable to any body in the "observable" universe, so it was
attributed to a very distant source, actually located in the confines of the universe, at its
very edge, which, surprisingly, constituted a remnant of the original explosion that
miraculously remained in its original state.
In the same Astrophysical Journal in which this portentous discovery was reported,
Dicke, Peebles and Wikinson make the first relativistic interpretation of it.
One of the basic problems of cosmology is the singularity characteristic of the familiar
cosmological solutions of Einstein´s field equation. Also puzzling is the presence of matter in
excess over antimatter in the universe, for baryons and leptons are thought to be conserved.
Thus, in the framework of conventional theory we cannot understand the origin of matter or of
the universe. We can distinguish three main attempts to deal with these problems.
1. The assumption of continuous creation (Bondi and Gold 1948; Hoyle 1948), which avoids the
singularity by postulating a universe expanding for all time and a continuous but slow creation of
new matter in the universe.
2. The assumption (Wheeler 1964) that the creation of new matter is intimately related to the
existence of the singularity, and that the solution of both paradoxes may be found in a proper
quantum mechanical treatment of Einstein's field equations.
3. The assumption that the singularity results from a mathematical over-idealization, the
requirement of strict isotropy or uniformity, and that it would not occur in the real world
(Wheeler 1958; Lifchitz and Khalatnikov 1963).

124
Aller, Lawrence H., The abundance of the elements, the observatory of the University of
Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York Interscience Publishers
Ltd., London, 1961

167
If this third premise is accepted tentatively as a working hypothesis, it carries with it a possible
resolution of the second paradox, for the matter we see about us now may represent the same
baryon content of the previous expansion of a closed universe, oscillating for all time. This
relieves us of the necessity of understanding the origin of matter at any finite time in the past. In
this picture it is essential to suppose that at the time of maximum collapse the temperature of
the universe would exceed1010 oK, in order that the ashes of the previous cycle would have been
reprocessed back to the hydrogen required for the stars in the next cycle.
Even without this hypothesis it is of interest to inquire about the temperature of the universe in
these earlier times. From this broader viewpoint we need not limit the discussion to closed
oscillating models. Even if the universe had a singular origin it might have been extremely hot in
its early stages.
Could the universe have been filled with black-body radiation from this possible high-
temperature state? If so, it is important to notice that as the universe expands the cosmological
redshift would serve to adiabatically cool the radiation, while preserving the thermal character.
The radiation temperature would vary inversely as the expansion parameter (radius) of the
universe.
The presence of thermal radiation remaining from the fireball is to be expect if we can trace the
expansion of the universe back to a time when the temperature was of the order of 10 10 oK (~mec2).
In this state, we would expect to find that the electron abundance has increased substantially,
due to thermal electron-pair production, to a density characteristic of the temperature only. One
tardily verifies that, whatever the previous history of the universe, the photon absorption length
would have been short with this high electron density, and the radiation content of the universe
would have promptly adjusted to a thermal equilibrium distribution due to pair-creation and
annihilation processes. This adjustment requires a time interval short compared with the
characteristic expansion time of the universe, whether the cosmology time is general relativity or
the more rapidly evolving Brans-Dicke theory (Brans and Dicke 1961).
The above equilibrium argument may be applied also to the neutrino abundance. In the epoch
were T>1010 oK, the very high thermal electron and proton abundance would be sufficient to
assure an equilibrium thermal abundance of electron-type neutrinos, assuming the presence of
neutrino-antineutrino pair- production processes. This means that a strictly thermal neutrino
and antineutrinos distribution, in thermal equilibrium with the radiation, would have issued
from the highly contracted phase. Conceivably, even gravitational radiation could be in thermal
equilibrium.
Without some knowledge of the density of matter in the primordial fireball we cannot predict the
present radiation temperature. However, a rough upper limit is provided by the observation that
black-body radiation at a temperature of 40 oK provides an energy density of 2x10 ‒29 gm cm3, very
roughly the maximum total energy density compatible with the observed Hubble constant and
acceleration parameter. Evidently, it would be of considerable interest to attempt to detect this
primeval thermal radiation directly.
Two of us (P.G.R. and D.T.W.) have constructed a radiometer and receiving horn capable of an
absolute measure of thermal radiation at a wavelength of 3 cm. The choice of wavelength was
dictated by two considerations, that at much shorter wavelengths atmospheric absorption would
be troublesome, while at longer wavelengths galactic and extragalactic emissions would be
appreciable. Extrapolating from the observed back-ground radiation at longer wavelengths (~100
cms.) according to the power-law spectra characteristic of synchrotron radiation or
bremsstrahlung, we can conclude that the total background radiation at 3 cms. due to Galaxy
and extragalactic sources should not exceed 5x10 ‒3 oK when averaged over all directions.
Radiation from stars at 3 cm is <10 -9 oK. The contribution to the background due to the
atmosphere is expected to be approximately 3.5 oK, and this can be accurately measured by
tipping the antenna (Dicke, Beringer, Kyhl, Vane 1946).
While we have not yet obtain results with our instrument, we recently learned that Penzias and
Wilson (1965) of Bell Telephone Laboratories have observed background radiation at 7.3 cm.
wavelength. In attempting to eliminate (or account for) every contribution to the noise seen at the
output of their receiver, they ended with a residual of 3.5 o ± 1oK. Apparently this could only be
due to radiation of unknown origin entering the antenna.
It is evident that more measurements are needed to determine a spectrum, and we hope to
continue our work at 3 cm. We also expect to go to a wavelength of 1 cm. We understand that
measurements at wavelengths greater than 7 cm may be filled in by Penzias and Wilson.
A temperature in excess of 1010oK during the highly contracted phase of the universe is strongly
implied by a present temperature of 3.5 o K for blackbody radiation. There are two reasonable
cases to consider. Assuming a singularity-free oscillating cosmology, we believe that the

168
temperature must have been high enough to decompose the heavy elements from the previous
cycle, for there is no observational evidence for significant amounts of heavy elements in outer
parts of the oldest stars in our Galaxy. If the cosmological solution has a singularity, the
temperature would rise much higher than 1010 oK in approaching the singularity (see, e.g., Fig. 1).
It has been pointed out by one of us (P. J. E. P.) that the observation of a temperature as low as
3.5 oK, together with the estimated abundance of helium in the protogalaxy, provides some
important evidence on possible cosmologies (Peebles, 1965). This comes about in the following
way. Considering again the epoch T>> 10 10 oK, we see that the presence of the thermal electrons
and neutrinos would have assured nearly equal abundance of neutrons and protons. Once the
temperature has fallen so low that photodissociation of deuterium is not to great, the neutrons
and protons can combine to form deuterium, which in turn readily burns to helium. This was the
type of process envisioned by Gomow, Alpher, Herman, and others (Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow
1948; Alpher, Follin, and Herman 1953, Hoyle and Tayler 1964). Evidently the amount of helium
produced depends on the density of matter at the time helium formation became possible. If at
this time the nucleon density were greater enough, an appreciable amount of helium would have
been produced before the density fell too low for reactions to occur. Thus, from an upper limit on
the possible helium abundance in the protogalaxy, we can place an upper limit on the matter
density at the time of helium formation (which occurs at a fairly definite temperature, almost
independent of density) and hence, given the density of matter in the present universe, we have a
lower limit on the present radiation temperature. This limit varies as the cube root of the
assumed present mean density of matter.
While little is reliably known about the possible helium content of the protogalaxy, a reasonable
upper bound consistent with present abundance of observations is 25 percent helium by mass.
With this limit, and assuming that general relativity is valid, then if the present radiation
temperature were 3.5oK, we conclude that the matter density in the universe could not exceed
3x10‒32 gm cm3 (See Peebles 1965, for a detailed development of the factors determining this
value). This is a factor of 20 below the estimated average density from matter in galaxies (Oort
1958), but the estimate probably is not reliable enough to rule out this low density.
Conclusions
While all the data are not yet in hand, we propose to present here the possible conclusions to be
drawn if we tentatively assume that the measurements of Penzias and Wilson (1965) do indicate
black-body radiation of 3.5oK. We also assume that the universe can be considered to be isotropic
and uniform, and that

Fig. 1. Possible thermal history of the universe. The figure shows the previous thermal history of the Universe
assuming a homogeneous isotropic general-relativity cosmological model (no scalar field) with present matter

169
density 2x10‒29 gms. cm3 and present thermal radiation temperature of 3.5 oK. The bottom horizontal scale
may be considered simply the proper distance between two chosen fiducial co-moving galaxies ( points). The
top horizontal scale is the proper world time. The line marked "temperature" refers to the temperature of the
thermal radiation. Matter remains in thermal equilibrium with the radiation until the plasma recombines at
the time indicated. Thereafter further expansion then cools matter not gravitationally bound faster than the
radiation. The mass density in radiation is p r. At present pr is substantially below the mass density of matter,
pm, but, in the early universe, pr exceeds pm. We have indicated the time when the Universe exhibited a
transition from the characteristics of a radiation-filled model to those of a matter filled model.
Looking back in time, as the temperature approaches 1010 oK the electrons become relativistic, and thermal
electron-pair creation sharply increases the matter density. At temperatures somewhat greater than 10 10 oK
these electrons should be so abundant as to assure a thermal neutrino abundance and a thermal neutron-
proton abundance ratio. A temperature of this order would be required also to decompose the nuclei from the
previous cycle in an oscillating Universe. Notice that the nucleons are non-relativistic here.
The thermal neutrons decay as the right-hand limit of the indicated region of helium formation. There is a left
hand limit on of this region because at higher temperatures photodissociation removes the deuterium
necessary to form helium. The difficulty with this model is that most of the matter would end up in helium.
the present energy density in gravitational radiation is a small part of the whole. Wheeler (1958)
has remarked that gravitational radiation could be important.
For the purpose of obtaining definitive numerical results we take the present Hubble redshift age
to be 1010 years.
Assuming the validity of the Einstein’s field equations, the above discussion and numerical
values impose severe restrictions on the cosmological problem. The possible conclusions are
conveniently discussed under two headings, the assumption of a universe with either an open or
closed space.
Open universe. From the present observations we cannot exclude the possibility that the total
density of matter in the universe is substantially below the minimum value of 2x10‒29 gm cm3
required for a closed universe. Assuming general relativity is valid, we have concluded from the
discussion of the connection between helium production and the present radiation temperature
that the present density of material in the universe must be ≤ 3x10‒32 gm cm3, a factor of 600
smaller than the limit for a closed universe. The thermal-radiation energy density is even smaller,
and from the above argument we expect the same to be true of neutrinos.
Apparently, with the assumption of general relativity and a primordial temperature consistent
with the present 3.5o K, we are forced to adopt an open space, with very low density. This rules
out the possibility of an oscillating universe. Furthermore, as Einstein (1950) remarked, this
result is distinctly non-Machian, in the sense that, with such a low mass density we cannot
reasonably assume that the local inertial properties of space are determined by the presence of
matter, rather than by some absolute property of space.
Closed universe. This could be the type of oscillating universe visualized in the introductory
remarks, or it could be a universe expanding from a singular state. In the framework of the
present discussion the required mass density in excess of 2x10‒29 gm cm3 could not be due to
thermal radiation, or to neutrinos, and it must be presumed that it is due to ordinary matter,
perhaps intergalactic gas uniformly distributed or else in large clouds (small protogalaxies) that
have not yet generated stars (see Fig. 1).
With this large content, the limit placed on the radiation temperature by the low helium content
of the solar system is very severe. The present black-body temperature would be expected to
exceed 30oK (Peebles 1965). One way that we have found reasonably capable of decreasing this
lower bound to 3.5oK is to introduce a zero-mass scalar field into the cosmology. It is convenient
to do this without invalidating the Einstein field equation, and the form of the theory for which
the scalar interaction appears as an ordinary matter interaction (Dicke 1962) has been employed.
The cosmological equation (Brans and Dicke 1961) was originally integrated only for a cold
universe only, but a recent investigation of the solutions for a hot universe indicates that with the
scalar field the universe would have expanded through the temperature range T~ 109 0K so fast
that essentially no helium would have been formed. The reason for this is that the static part of
the scalar field contributes a pressure just equal to the scalar field energy density. By contrast,
the pressure due to incoherent electromagnetic radiation or to relativistic particles is one third of
the energy density. Thus, if we traced back to a highly contracted universe, we would find that
the scalar-field energy density exceeded all other contributions, and that this fast increasing
scalar-field energy caused the universe to expand through the highly contracted phase much
more rapidly than would be the case if the scalar field vanished. The essential element is that the
pressure approaches the energy density, rather than one third of the energy density. Any other
interaction which would cause this, such as the model given by Zel'dovich (1962), would also
prevent appreciable helium production in the highly contracted universe.

170
 Returning to the problem stated in the first paragraph, we conclude that it is possible to save
baryon conservation in a reasonable way if the universe is closed and oscillating. To avoid a
catastrophic helium production, either the present matter density should be <3x10‒32 gm/cm3, or
there should exist some form of energy content with very high pressure, such as the zero-mass
scalar, capable of speeding the universe through the period of helium formation. To have a closed
space, an energy density of 2x10 -29 gm cm3 is needed. Without a zero-mass scalar, or some other
"hard" interaction, the energy could not be in the form of ordinary matter and may be presumed
to be gravitational radiation (Wheeler 1958).
One other possibility for closing the universe, with matter providing the energy content of the
universe, is the assumption that the universe contains a net electron-type neutrino abundance
(in excess of antineutrinos) greatly greater than the nucleon abundance. In this case, if the
neutrino abundance were so great that these neutrinos are degenerate, the degeneracy would
have forced a negligible equilibrium neutron abundance in the early, highly contracted universe,
thus removing the possibility of nuclear reactions leading to helium formation. However, the
required ratio of lepton to baryon number must be >109. 125

Relativistic cosmology works with a series of models, one of which, if it fits the
requirements of Einstein's equation and if, through fanciful extrapolations of chemical-
atomic processes and the conditions in which they occur, obtained experimentally, by
terrestrial observation or through theoretical speculation, adheres to the invented phases
of an expansion of the nonexistent universe, it will be the one that reaches full recognition
of this infused science and is declared the truth of the universe.
Dicke, Peebles and Wilkinson leave open the possibility that the universe fits into one or
another of these models, which depends on whether or not the assumptions on which
each of them is based are verified.
Whether this is a closed or open universe, whether it originated in a singularity or has
always existed, whether matter is now the same quantity as at the origin or whether it
has been created slowly but continuously, etc., what these models have in common as its
base of support is the prejudice of the sidereal expansion.
In any of these models, in an initial phase of the expansion, the matter in formation must
have had a temperature of around 1010 oK.
At this point there is a separation between baryonic matter and radiation.
The radiation stops interacting with matter and remains as such indefinitely. It becomes
"transparent" and can pass between atoms without altering or being modified by them.
The conservation of the original nature of radiation is a vital assumption for relativistic
cosmology. It is the opportunity to have a reliable testimony of the beginning of the world,
and of course she does not hesitate to provide it to herself.
Dicke, Peebles and Wilkinson were already searching on their own, in the infinite
firmament, for the radiations that, due to their origin and time of existence, would have
been emitted at that distant time when matter in general would have a temperature close
to 1010 oK and the time of existence and radius of the universe were infinitely small. In one
or another model that our physicists contemplated, the presumed existence of these
radiations constituted the indisputable proof that in the universe, as in the geological
layers, there were fossils that showed the state and conditions in which at least part of
the matter was found in the primeval epochs.
This was of particular importance for the theories that had as their foundation the
existence of a singularity as a starting point (among them, the big bang theory was finally
the owner of the field) because that fossil matter (radiation) provided the evidence of the
characteristics of matter in the stage immediately after the initial explosion and,
therefore, gave truth to the singularity itself, to the phases and times of cosmological
evolution, to the chemical and atomic transformations postulated, in short, It gave a very
powerful support to the obtuse relativistic cosmology.

125
Penzias A. A., R. W. Wilson, A measurement of excess antenna temperature at 4080 Mc/s,
Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 142, pp. 419-420, May 13, 1965, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc.
Crawford Hill, Holmdel, New Jersey

171
This is how things were when the engineers at Bell, Penzias and Wilson, in the course of
their work, came across this mysterious 3.5 oK radiation that traced its origin exactly to
the invented previous phase of the 1010 oK temperature.
Since then, relativistic cosmology issued the certificate of irrefutable scientific truth to the
cosmological fossil nature of the 3.5 oK blackbody radiation and, by extension, to the
singularity of origin, to the age and size of the universe, to the phases of his evolution, to
the processes of formation of elements and substances, etc., and his later work consisted
only in refining the unfounded speculations to make everything fit together in a more
perfect way.
The WMAP was a program aimed at capturing cosmic radiation from a satellite, thus
avoiding alterations in its perception due to the Earth's atmosphere. Of course, by this
means all the relativistic prejudices were confirmed and polished, from that of the fossil
nature of radiations with a value around 3.5 oK, to those of the existence of a specific
abundance of the elements and the nature of the Chemical-atomic reactions in the origin
and evolution of the false relativistic universe.
In Figure 1 of the paper by Dicke, Peebles and Wilkinson all the fallacies of relativistic
cosmology are concentrated.
The lower horizontal scale represents the size of the radius of the fictional universe, from
0 to the one it has today, that is, from its birth to the present day. This doesn't make any
sense because its fulcrum is the false fact of the expansion of the universe. The division
into parts of the current radius to determine the phases of the expansion of the universe
is therefore, like this, completely devoid of any reality.
On the upper horizontal scale, the time of existence of the engineered universe is
recorded, from its birth, t0, to the days that run. This time is obtained by taking the
current (non-existent) expansion rate and projecting it back in time until the expansion is
0. Since the expansion of the universe does not exist, then neither the total lifetime of the
universe nor any division of that extension have any reality.
The intended temperatures of the imaginary universe are placed on the left vertical scale,
from the one it has at the moment of the original explosion to the one it registers at the
present time. These temperatures are spurious, non-existent, because their source, the
elliptical universe, does not exist either.
The right vertical scale expresses the density of matter over the lifetime of the universe.
This too is an invention of relativism, a conclusion it reaches by extrapolating a density of
the observable universe obtained by mere speculation about the masses of celestial bodies
and interstellar and applied matter, based on the principle of stellar evolution of the
passage from rarefied matter to condensed matter, in a way that suits its needs to flesh
out the cosmological fallacy.
In the same lower horizontal scale, the process of creation of the elements is reflected in
relation to the scale of the radius of the universe, an evolution that can also be connected
with the scales of time, density and temperature.
The radius of the universe increases, with the passage of time, since the original
explosion, while the temperature and density decrease, or, in other words, the shorter the
time that has passed since the original explosion, the smaller, dense and hot is the
universe.
According to the irrational relativistic cosmology, when the radius of the universe has a
value close to 10‒10th of the current radius, matter is in a state of disintegration, formed by
relativistic electrons, protons, neutrons, neutrinos and other sub-atomic particles that
have reached that nature from a previous state of greater fragmentation into quarks,
leptons, etc., which is how matter appears at the time of the original explosion, which
occurs when the radius is infinitely close to 0.
At an extent from about 10‒9 to 10‒8th of the current radius those particles combine to
form helium nuclides. In the period between a radius length of 10 ‒8 to 10‒4th of the radius,
from the helium formed in the previous stage, more complex nuclides are formed, which
are diverse elements with more protons and higher atomic weight; when the particles are
transformed into nuclides they emit radiation of a certain type; likewise, the transition

172
from the most elementary to the most complex nuclides implies the emission of radiation;
these, in turn, act on elementary particles and nuclides to transform them into others;
there is a mutual implication between the so-called baryonic matter and the radiations:
their being is to transform one into the other. In the relativistic scheme that we are
studying, this process of mutual implication ceases when the radius of the universe
reaches 10-3th of its current extension; From then on, matter and radiation enter into
equilibrium, they are confined in different spaces and only exist side by side, without
mutual relations. From this time, and from some indeterminate place (from the shell or
from the interstices of the universe), come the radiations that reach the astonished ears of
the naive relativists.
The partitions that are made have no reality at all because they refer to something that
does not exist, the radius of the elliptical universe invented by relativistic cosmology; that
division obeys the need to accommodate an imagined evolution to a fictitious space and
time; the nature of the chemical-atomic processes that are placed in those plots,
determined by experimentation or theory, has been grossly altered to adjust it to the
needs of relativistic argumentation; the temperatures and densities of matter at the
various evolutionary stages depicted are also arbitrary specifications. Neither the elliptical
universe, nor the chemical-atomic processes, the density and temperature of matter in
that universe, nor its origin and actuality have any entity, they are completely unreal,
non-existent in their entirety.
The crudest adulteration is that which relativistic cosmology makes of the relationship
between what is called baryonic matter and radiation; we have already analyzed this
mystification above.
Foolishly, relativistic cosmology pretends that radiation ceases to interact with the rest of
matter at some point and remains in that state indefinitely, in an imprecise place, from
where it moves capriciously, throughout the universe, until reach the antennas of the
Bell. This claim is, in reality, a monstrous violation of the most elementary laws of atomic
physics and reveals the classic modus operandi of relativism: the denaturation and
twisting of all the laws of physics and chemistry to adjust them to their absurdities.
propositions.
The diligent followers of Dr. Einstein necessarily suffer from the same syndrome as his
teacher: everything they argue in order to demonstrate their nonsense necessarily turns
into its opposite, in an argument that totally discredits them.
In this case, it is argued that the fossilized radiations come from the times when the
radius of the universe was around 10 ‒10th of the current radius and matter had a
temperature close to 1010 oK, and that since then these relics exist in that form, the
closest to the state that matter had immediately after the original explosion; but the point
at which the radiation is frozen, that is, when it stops converting into matter and this, in
turn, into radiation, is, according to the graph of Dicke, Peebles and Wilkinson, when it
reaches the radius of the universe the extension of the 10 ‒3th part of the current universe
and the temperature of matter 104 oK. As can be seen, not even with its own assumptions
and reasoning can relativistic cosmology obtain the precious residues of the original
explosion, since those radiations that would supposedly spread throughout the universe
and reach the earth would, under this hypothesis, belong to a very advanced stage of
sidereal evolution.
What, then, is the cosmic background radiation?
Assuming without conceding, as the jurists say, that the noise captured by the Bell
engineers was actually a manifestation of radiation from outer matter (the doubt is
pertinent in view of the enormous mistakes that spectrography and radio astronomy have
made, not the least of which is the confusion, when the stellar redshift is measured,
between what it essentially expresses, that is, the distance from the astronomical object,
with a radial movement of the same), then we can consider that, given the isotropy of
those and the homogeneity of the matter of infinite extension that surrounds our planet,
delimited in a spherical space whose radius would be the one that corresponds to the
time of cooling of the radiation from an original temperature of 10 10 oK to 3 oK, in the

173
limits of that sphere multiple stellar phenomena were taking place that implied the
formation of elements at that high temperature (of course, coexisting with all the other
phases of evolution stellar, even with black holes), where the subtle radiations captured
on the earth's surface would come from.
In short, the cosmic background radiation, assuming the veracity of its existence, does
not constitute, under any circumstances, a fossil trace of a primeval stage of a non-
existent universe. Its consideration as such is the last element of the greatest scientific
fraud that has ever been perpetrated, constituted by the theory of relativity and the theory
of the big bang.

174
 Hawking and Penrose theorems
Once the fundamental elements of relativistic cosmology have been established, that is,
the theory of relativity with its culmination in the Einstein field equation, the Hubble
hypothesis of the expansion of the universe and the consideration of cosmic radiation as a
fossil remnant of the original explosion, it was necessary to provide this monstrosity,
called the big bang theory, with a cumbersome, complicated, truly inextricable
mathematical-geometric support that, starting from the prejudice according to which
mathematics is the science of sciences, in whose formulas and equations the truth of the
universe is found, without appeal the character of an absolutely unobjectionable scientific
truth. Two “brilliant minds” took over this task: Penrose and Hawking.
The latter, unworthy successor to Newton's chair, is the one who, with more media stage,
has popularized the follies of the big bang theory, turning them into the new common
sense of the masses.
The mathematical-geometric framework of the big bang theory is exhaustively exposed in
Hawking's main work, The large scale structure of space-time 126, written in collaboration
with Ellis.
The purpose of the work of Hawking and Ellis is the determination of the great structure of
space-time, that is, of the space-time of the universe.
In the introduction to their paper they state that their arguments are based on Einstein's
general theory of relativity, which has led to two remarkable predictions: the ultimate fate
of stars is to form a "black hole" containing a singularity and the universe has its origin in
a singularity.
Their intention is to develop these two results, for which, they warn, they will apply the
theoretical knowledge on the curves "as-time" (of particles) and null (of light radiation)
and the causal relationships that are established in space-time.
Likewise, they announce that for the same purpose they will use the concept of gravity
established by the theory of general relativity. Gravity affects each particle in the same
way, as established by Galileo, who discovered that bodies fall with the same speed; the
gravitational particles unite and generate a field that is greater as the body formed is
larger; gravity has a property that plays a fundamental role in the structure of the
universe: it bends light rays. For all this, it is gravity that configures the causal structure
of the universe and, therefore, the events of space-time that can be causally related to
each other.
The authors will describe various exact solutions of Einstein's equation; this formula is an
abstract expression of the relationship between matter and energy on the one hand and
space-time on the other; Through it, the structure of the universe could be established,
that is, the relationship between all matter and the totality of space-time. The solutions to
Einstein's equation are different, depending on the presuppositions from which one
starts, mainly on the physical nature of the universe. Thus, the solutions can be for an
empty space, an electromagnetic field, a perfect fluid, a mixture of electromagnetism and
fluid matter, mainly.
Its purpose is also to establish theorems about the occurrence of singularities in space-
time in the universe.
A singularity is a point in space-time at which the values of the equations that specify the
continuum are undefined or infinite, that is, a place where normal physical laws no longer
apply.

126
Dicke, R. H., P. J. E. Peebles, D. T. Wilkinson, Cosmic Black-body Radiation, Astrophysical
Journal, Vol. 142, pp. 414-419, 1965, may 7, 1965, Palmer Physical Laboratory, Princenton,
New Jersey.

175
What the authors ultimately want to do is determine mathematically and geometrically
whether the Einstein field equation accepts singularities, the existence of which has been
postulated, and what is the nature of them.
They establish from the start what they consider two indubitable facts: the existence of
black holes in the universe, that is, regions of the universe in which the known physical
laws no longer apply, a singularity, and an infinitely small, dense material point, hot and
curved, also a singularity, which is the origin of the universe.
Black holes are sidereal places where stars in their extinction phase are found. By
indirect means, since no radiation emanating from the star is detected, its approximate
volume and mass are determined. They are stars whose mass is equal, on average, to
about 2 times that of the sun. At that stage of their decline they have consumed almost
all their atomic fuel and therefore produce very little radiation and these have
substantially reduced energy; The radiations start their way towards the outer space of
the star, but when the force of gravity overcomes the energy of the photon, then they stop
and eventually fall on the stellar surface; nothing leaves the heavenly body anymore.
At a certain moment, nuclear activity will cease in the star and, consequently, so will
radioactivity. Its character as a dead body will be definitively affirmed.
These are two outstanding events in this process.
First, the arrival of the radiations from the star at the average distance after which they
do not continue on their journey. With it a virtual spherical shell is formed, which
Penrose, absurdly considering that it has a real existence, calls "trap or retaining
surface".
Second, the definitive cessation of the production of radiation and therefore its emission.
Neither of these two events constitutes a singularity. Both have definite, finite values,
within the range of validity of physical laws.
The retention of radiation within the virtual shell and its eventual fall to the surface of the
star correspond to a finite, measurable physical phenomenon that develops between the
gravitational force of the star and the energy of the photon. Only to foolish relativism can
this simple and understandable physical phenomenon seem supernatural, singular, and
embroider conceptual and mathematical gibberish around it, a true metaphysical
entanglement. The first fact on which Hawking and Ellis rest their arguments, namely the
existence of black holes as a singularity, has no objectivity whatsoever, it is completely
unreal.
The original point is null twice.
The singular point, of infinite smallness, density, temperature and curvature, that is to
say, without determined values, is, precisely because of this indeterminacy, nothingness,
it completely lacks physical reality.
On the other hand, relativism derives the necessity of the existence of the original point of
the radial expansion of the universe, whose obvious unreality we have already thoroughly
demonstrated; the original place, null in itself, also has no substantivity due to its causal
link with what does not exist. If the expansion of the universe is not, neither does it have
its origin in an immaterial point.
The second fact that Hawking and Ellis propose as the basis for their speculations, like
the first, has no reality at all, it is simply nothing.
The authors have set themselves a very ambitious task: to determine the great structure
of the universe, and in the end, these mountain mice have spent all their mousy faculties
in an idle gnaw, in a trifle: to establish whether a tiny part of the universe, a star in
decay, or if a non-existent point are physical singularities that the erroneous Einstein
field equation admits.
To carry out their purpose, they first declare the absolute, unobjectionable validity of
Einstein's field equation, and then consider, in order to find the one in which the
singularities are fully explained, the various solutions that have been found to that
abstruse formula.
We have already studied extensively the Einstein field equation. There we established its
true nature as an absolutely useless instrument to reflect physical reality.

176
Its left hand side is a denaturation, by including the fourth dimension t, of tensors
originally intended to determine the curvature of a surface; They are applied, thus
distorted, to something without materiality, non-existent, space-time, so their function is
to fix the curvature of nothing.
The right side constitutes a deformation, through its submission to the "Lorentz factor", of
various tensors, such as Maxwell's electromagnetic ones, those of Newtonian mechanics,
the physical ones of density, momentum, stress, etc.; with these thus deformed tensors, a
mixture is made, a true lump, from which it is intended to extract a physical effluvium,
measurable with the formula, also Einsteinian and equally inoperative, e = mc2; that
emanation exerts a metaphysical action on the non-existent space-time, causing an
imaginary curvature.
The impossibility of determining the energy-momentum tensor is fully recognized by
Hawking and Ellis, although, in typical Einsteinian fashion, physicists offer a way out of
this situation by a sophist's trick.
In the actual universe the energy-momentum tensor will be made up of contributions from a
large number of different matter fields. It would therefore be impossibly complicated to describe
the exact energy-momentum tensor even if one knew the precise form of the contribution of each
field and the equations of motion governing it. In fact, one has little idea of the behaviour of matter
under extreme conditions of density and pressure (underlined by GRE). Thus it might seem that
one has little hope of predicting the occurrence of singularities in the universe from the Einstein
equations as one does not know the right-hand side of the equations. However there are certain
inequalities which it is physically reasonable to assume for the energy-momentum tensor 127.
It is physically impossible to establish the curvature of space-time, that is, a
characteristic of something that has no entity, that has no surface, no edges, and so on.
But daring relativism does not stop at such a small obstacle, and with admirable aplomb
proposes that this particularity be recognized and measured by its effects, that is, by the
trajectories of particles and photons in gravitational fields. The path that these material
fractions follow will indicate the curvature of space-time caused by gravity.
As reality does not provide many opportunities to analyze the behavior that gravity causes
in the various radiations -Einstein only records the deflection of the light of the fixed stars
as they graze over the solar surface-, then relativism takes the broad path of shameless
speculation. Theoretically, they submit the radiations to the most extravagant physical
contortions to make them travel along the path that suits their interests.
Let us remember that space-time is an entelechy, it does not exist, and that energy-
momentum is also nothing and therefore cannot have any effect on matter. That is why
the radiations only obey Newton's ancient laws of universal gravitation and move
according to their inertial movement and the gravitational action of the masses.
Hawking and Hills claim that by knowing the relativistic trajectories of particles and
photons, it is possible to establish the possibility of the existence of singularities in space-
time, specifically, of black holes and the original atom.
The rays of the dying star find, according to the authors, a trap that surrounds it;
radiation from the star is retained and returned to the surface. This phenomenon is the
one that is trying to be explained as a singularity (that is to say, that in it the equations
that express it do not have defined results or that these are infinite) and for this it is
necessary to visualize the movements of these radiations in the light of hypergeometry,
eyesore that Minkowski built for his pupil Einstein.
The origin of the universe in a singularity, that is, in a point of infinite smallness, density,
temperature and curvature, in something that cannot have a physical existence (every
place in the universe, from the subatomic particle to the galaxy, has a dimension, a
determined, finite density, temperature, and curvature), can also only be understood

127
Hawking, S. W., F. R. S., Lucasian Professor of Mathematics in the University of Cambridge and
Fellow of Conville and Caius College and G. F. R. Ellis, Professor of applied Mathematics,
University of Cape Town, The large scale structure of space-time Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, New York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney, 1973

177
through the principles of hypergeometry, through the behavior of time-like and null
curves in the Minkowskian world.
In various parts of the previous chapters we have dealt at sufficient length with
Minkowskian hypergeometry. There we come to the conclusion that its world-lines, that
is, the representation of material movements in an imaginary four-dimensional world, the
time-like and null curves (movements with speeds less than and equal to that of light,
respectively), do not have any mathematical or geometric value, they cannot characterize
the real translations of the objects. The Minkowskian coordinate system is a poor,
misshapen structure of only two coordinates, both of which are spurious (the vertical
axis, on which time is represented as one space, ct, and the horizontal axis, on which
three dimensions are represented in one alone). Minkowskian curves must be expressible
in other coordinate systems. The other structure is considered to be entirely a world-line;
then it is stripped of that duality and left only as the time axis, and its conjugate is
attributed to be the x-axis. The new system is displaced in relation to the previous one,
which is considered fixed, and then the corresponding transpositions are made, from t to
t’ and from x to x’, using the Lorentz factor formula; space and time have been contracted
and dilated respectively in the new coordinate system. As we can see, from a false system
another equally erroneous one is obtained, and through both one falls back on the main
error of relativism: the contraction of space and the dilation of time.
This Minkowski fiction of the existence and nature of time-like and null curves—for
relativistic metaphysics, what his wild imagination concocts as a mathematical and
geometrical formula begets a forceful reality—is taken up and developed by a cohort of
relativistic physicists, who, through crude dialectical acrobatics, obtain a tangled
gibberish that they present as the last cry of science.
With all these elements woven around the nonsense called time-like and null curves,
relativism has fabricated a chaotic jumble of times, spaces, time-like, null, and space-like
curves, in such a way that by energetically applying the brain, curves can be found that,
turning around, arrive at the starting point and find that they have not yet started their
journey; science fiction to use is seen as an infant in front of the portents that relativism
reaches in this matter: time travel, parallel worlds, multidimensional worlds, etc.
Hawking and Hills study the effect of space-time curvature on the families of time-like
and null curves, which would represent fluid flows or photon histories. They establish the
formulas to determine the rates of change of vorticity, shear stress, and expansion of
geodesics. They postulate that inequalities in the energy-momentum tensor give rise to
matter tending to cause convergence of the time-like and null curves.
Obtuse relativism relates several non-existences: space-time (the four-dimensional
continuum), geodesic curves (Minkowskian world lines that are an unrealistic
representation of the true trajectories of fluxes and photons), and the action that the
energy-momentum tensor (this caricature of the real constitution of matter) exerts. He
attributes to the energy-momentum tensor the generation of a specific curvature in space-
time, through which the characteristics of the geodesics that represent the displacements
of flows and particles are determined.
All this is, as we have already established, completely unreal. Neither the continuum, nor
the curves, nor the tensor have any materiality. The wide field of the most exacerbated
speculation is opened, in which all the phantasmagorical elements that relativism has
contributed to this matter are manipulated.
From the behavior of the geodesic curves in the field of pure reason, Hawking and Ellis,
through a completely circus act, draw the conclusions they need to justify their
theoretical prejudices. The world lines (geodesic curves) that represent the radiations of a
dying star or those that correspond to the evolution of the universe, like particles and
photons, converge at a point, the point of extinction and the point of origin, respectively.
[The star follows a world-line from its formation to its extinction. In order for its
completion to constitute a singularity, it would be necessary, according to the relativistic
imagination, that in the end it would have reached the nature of an infinitely dense, hot
and curved point, without any radioactive activity; however, the star of Hawking and Hills

178
is a mass with a finite volume and density, which still produces radiation, although these
cannot be projected into outer space. That such a star emits radiation completely
excludes it from the definition of singularity that physicists have given; much less the
behavior of the radiations -their convergence- provides the sidereal object with the
character of singularity]
Gravity acts fully in both cases: in black holes, the enormous density, which is equal to a
gigantic gravity, keeps the radiation in the star, that is, after trying to release it into outer
space they are retained and converge on the sidereal object in declination; at the original
point, an infinite density, which is at the same time an infinite gravity, makes the future
world lines of the evolution of the universe converge on it before they occur!
In both situations, relativism discredits itself. If the star emits radiation, although without
enough energy to go out into outer space, then it has a defined, finite density,
temperature and gravity, it is not a singularity; the demonstration denies the
presupposition from which it starts. If the star is a point of convergence from which
photons are released that are later retained and returned to the place of origin, then that
concurrence cannot be an indication of the singularity of the black hole, because this is
an object with finite characteristics, fully measurable. On the other hand, the primordial
point - non-existent, as we know - is considered as a conjunction of world lines that do
not yet exist.
There is a terrible confusion here. The concept of singularity is essentially mathematical.
When the value of a relation of variables tends towards an amount without ever reaching
it, this is expressed by saying that it is infinite -infinitely large or infinitely small-; but to
each finite value of the variables there corresponds a finite value of the relation. What
mathematicians mean by this is that there are an infinite number of finite values of the
relation, but not that the value of the relation is infinite, which makes no sense. Hawking
and Ellis, inveterate relativists and therefore mathematical neophytes like their teacher
Einstein, unable to understand the metaphorical transposition in this, consider that
physical entities that are represented mathematically can have, under certain
circumstances, properties of infinite value (infinite density, infinite temperature, infinite
curvature, etc.), being infinite entities in an environment in which the rest of the objects
have finite values (density, temperature, curvature, etc., determined, measurable); infinite
relativistic ignorance then qualifies them as singularities.
The primordial point, from which the until then converging geodesic world-curves of the
evolution of the universe spring, is, according to relativistic metaphysics, a singularity,
that is, something that has no materiality whatsoever.
Einstein's field equation was conceived as a physical-mathematical formula that
represented the most general form of the relationship between matter, space and time.
But, as we already know, it is matter, time and space denatured by the tensors invented
by Einstein based on the deformation of various valid tensors produced by physical and
mechanical science.
The generality of the formula implies that different solutions can be found for it,
depending on the content given to the energy-momentum tensor.
Precisely searching for various solutions to this irrational equation became, immediately
after Einstein gave birth to it, an entertaining intellectual amusement for a series of deep
thinkers. Work was then done to determine the relationship between the so-called space-
time and empty space, an electromagnetic field, a perfect fluid, a mixture of an
electromagnetic field and a perfect fluid, etc., in order to establish which of these results
was better appropriate to express the relation between the totality of the matter of the
universe and the universal space-time.
The scope of these efforts was determined by the antecedents that we have recorded:
Einstein's field equation and Minkowskian hypergeometry, unscientific to the core. With
his work they only obtained formulas of grotesque spaces, times and universes, crossed
by capricious geodesic curves.
After taking a trip through all the solutions that had been developed so far, Hawking and
Ellis give the highest value to the Robertson-Walker solution.

179
In it, the energy-momentum tensor has the form of a perfect fluid, which can be
considered as an approximation to the matter of the universe; it can be contracted or
expanded. The density of matter decreases as the universe expands and was greater in
the past, increasing without limits as the original point tends to 0. All world lines of
particles intersect at one point, density and space- time become infinite at the point S = 0.
This is a classical singularity. Our authors argue that this uniqueness is the most notable
feature of Robertson-Walker solutions. The most attractive thing about this solution for
our friends is that the features of this model could imply that the physical universe had a
beginning at a finite earlier time; in fact, they anticipate that in the end they will conclude
that there is good evidence that the physical universe was singular in the past.
This singular point is excluded, by definition, from space-time.
In their purpose of finding the theoretical foundations of singularities, Hawking and Ellis
undertake the task of determining the existing causal relationships between the different
events in space-time. To do this, they analyze the interactions between the geodesic
curves that develop in it.
The starting point for establishing causality is the postulate that a signal can only be sent
between two points on a manifold if they can be joined by a curve that is not space-like,
that is, time-like or null.
Space-time is orientable in time and space since it is possible to continuously define a
division in it of non-space-like vectors into two classes, future-directed and past-directed.
For the sets S and U, the chronological future of S relative to U is the set of all points in U
that can be reached from S by a future-directed time-like curve on U; this curve is a
causal curve.
For the sets S and U, the chronological past of S relative to U is the set of all points in U
that can be reached from S by a past-directed time-like curve on U, which is thus a
causal curve.
For causality to hold, it is necessary that the causal curves be exclusively time-like and
null.
With great solemnity, relativists declare that there is a causal relationship between two
events when they are joined by a time-like or null curve. That is, the profound thought
that there is a causal relationship between two events when one “catches up” with a time-
like or null curve to the other. And this vacuity is clucked as a new concept of causality,
which forever buries the notions of causality, necessity, etc., forged by the most renowned
philosophers and who found their most complete formulation in Hegel's Logic.
Of course, it goes without saying that there is no discursive connection between these
unclear concepts and the main theme of the explanation and justification of singularities.
Armed with all this rich and abstruse baggage, Hawking and Hills reach the end point of
their theoretical journey, that is, the insight into the nature of singularities.
They define a singularity of space-time as a point where the metric tensor is undefined or
not properly differentiable.
This definition implies that the singular points are eliminated from the space-time and it
is free of singularities, that is, that in all its extension the metric tensor is defined and
suitably differentiable.
In this way, the singularity remains hidden behind the totality of space-time and this is
then non-singular.
It is not possible under these circumstances to identify a singularity in space-time.
It is necessary to establish a way of recognizing singularities without resorting to the
criteria of their definition and differentiability.
To do this, Hawking and Ellis make use of the usual geodesic curves such as time and
null. Each point of space-time is located on a geodesic curve –its world line- that extends
from the past to the future; throughout its length, the curve is defined and fully
differentiable; the totality of space-time is the sum of all the world-lines, so it is also
totally defined and differentiable.
A singularity can then be identified by the break in the continuity of the geodesic curve at
a given point.

180
 …We shall therefore adopt the view that timelike and null geodesics completeness are minimum
conditions for space-time to be considered singularity-free. Therefore, if a space-time is time-like or
null geodesically incomplete, we shall say that it has a singularity. 128
In the black holes, the radiations are trapped in the spherical Penrose trap and
consequently their displacement towards the outside -future- ceases, the continuity of
their world-lines is broken. The dying star is, for that reason, a singularity.
At the originating point, the world-lines of the universe have no continuity into the past;
here too we find ourselves before a singularity.
What then defines a singularity is the lack of integrity of its world-lines – time-like and
null geodesic curves.
As has become customary in relativism, their arguments directly deny the preposterous
conceptions they claim to prove. The expiring star continues to move on its world-line,
whatever the fate of the radiations that emanate from it, which will have their own world-
lines; that is, the integrity of the star's world-line is not interrupted when it generates a
black hole, so it does not constitute a singularity in the terms in which it is defined by
Hawking and Ellis.
Relativism also suffers from another serious flaw. When there is congruence between the
assertions he makes and the evidence he provides to prove them, objectivity angrily rises
up against him and rubs the unreality of the assumptions on which he bases his
arguments.
The Lemaitrian primordial atom does not have a physical existence, as has already been
sufficiently evidenced in this work, so it cannot constitute a singularity in any way. There
are no world-lines that can converge on or flow from something nonexistent, be
incomplete, and so on.
Of course, Hawking and Hills retain their basic conception of the singularity as a point
without definition and not differentiable.
…then one can regard a singularity as a point where the Einstein equation (and presumably the
other presently known laws of physics) break down.129
The ultimate conclusion reached by these relativistic physicists is that the universe had
its origin in a singularity.
In any case, the singularity theorems indicate that the General Theory of Relativity predicts that
gravitational fields should become extremely large. That this happened in the past is supported
by the existence and black body character of the microwave background radiation, since this
suggests that the universe had a very hot dense early phase.130
…The results we have obtained support the idea that the universe began a finite time ago.
However, the actual point of creation, the singularity, is outside the scope of presently known
laws of physics.131
The work of Hawking and Hills constitutes an enormous nonsense.
They announced that they would determine "the large-scale structure of the universe" and
in reality the object of their treatment was only a tiny part of that totality, the sidereal
black holes and a non-existent original point.
They based their work on an unscientific theory, the Einsteinian theory of relativity, and
its complement, Minkowskian hypergeometry, equally short of scientificity.
They used an instrument, the Einstein field equation, a mathematical-geometric
monstrosity that is the result of the denaturation of rational physical and mechanical
formulas and has the purpose of determining the relationship between two non-
existences, space-time and energy-momentum of the matter.
They used the "exact solutions" to Einstein's field equation, developed by several
conspicuous physicists, which are, as expected, a conservation and improvement of that
formula. When Einstein's field equation materialized in specific models of reality,
including in them the entire universe, a monstrous body of absurd mathematical and
geometric developments was forged, structured through a true chaotic game, merely
128
Ibídem pp.88-89.
129
Ibídem., p. 258.
130
Ibídem., p. 287.
131
Ibídem., p. 363.

181
speculative, with all the elements considered: distorted tensors, nonexistent continuums,
distorted times, illusory geodesic curves with capricious movements, etc.
With all these components at their disposal, Hawking and Ellis make their own
contribution to relativistic metaphysics. Through twisted "theorems", they conclude that
the "black holes" and the original point of the universe - Lemaitre's primeval atom - are
singularities in universal space-time.
The importance of the work of these renowned physicists lies in the fact that it provides
the big bang theory with an allegedly unobjectionable justification through complicated
and overwhelming mathematical-geometrical developments, which claim their validity
solely on the basis of their intricate and labyrinthine complexity.
In fact, the work of Hawking and Hills has been to do a rehash of everything that previous
relativists had done on the subject, and their only novel contribution was the clumsy
introduction of the mathematical concept of singularity to characterize the origin of the
relativistic universe.
This work is the basis for giving the big bang theory the ultimate sanction. Henceforth
this is considered by the scientific community, almost without exception, as the truth of
the nature of the universe.

182
 The scientific conception of the universe

The great milestones in the course of shaping the scientific conception of the universe
have been, up to this point in our analysis, the hypotheses of Copernicus, Kepler, Newton
and Kant-Laplace; in the end we have come to have a comprehensive vision of the birth,
evolution and consolidation of the solar system, of the objects that form it, of their mutual
relationships, their distances and movements and of the forces and laws that determine
the entire process. The fundamental result of this theoretical work is the establishment of
the primordial characteristics and properties of matter, at least for that which constitutes
the solar system: it was determined that originally matter was in a state of disaggregation
into its elementary particles, and in its current situation, at the highest point of its
condensation and organization; that its nature is precisely to have its other in itself as its
essence and necessarily transform itself into it (undifferentiated nebula-planetary
system); and that the forces inherent in matter, which define its movement, are those of
attraction and repulsion.
This is a first approximation to a scientific worldview and is formed by a hypothesis -the
original nebula of elementary matter and its transformation into a structured system of
bodies, the solar system- that is based on the discoveries of Herschell in his systematic
scrutiny of the "observable universe” and for a rigorously scientific and exact description
of the solar system, according to Newtonian mechanics.
This conception is limited to the knowledge of the solar system and to a few hypotheses
about our cosmic island -the "Milky Way"- and its neighboring stellar groups.
In order to forge a complete scientific view of the universe, the following questions have
remained pending, up to this point: (1) the hypothesis of the reversion of the solar system
to its starting point, that is, the rarefied matter nebula, (2) the properties of infinite
matter, of which the solar system is only a part, and the universal laws of its motion.

The scientific conception of the universe

Philosophy is the highest instance of human knowledge; it is a mental image that
includes the totality of being and knowing and is formed with the partial images provided
by all the sciences; its historical function is the structuring of the scientific conception of
the universe, considered as an infinite totality.
The highest stage of this evolution of knowledge is Hegel's philosophy, in which human
knowledge reaches the highest point of its development, albeit in the alienated form of
"absolute spirit."
In the previous sections only some parts of this whole had been addressed: the solar
system, the “Milky Way”, the galaxies contained in the “visible universe”, etc.; now it is
philosophy that takes all those parts and integrates them into a unity to forge the
scientific view of the universe.
The most complete, exhaustive formulation of the scientific conception of the universe has
been elaborated, to the disgrace of physicists, by a philosopher; partially covered with an
idealistic shell that peels off by itself in large pieces, Guillermo Federico Hegel has
masterfully exposed it in The Science of Logic132, his masterpiece. In the Second Section,
The Appearance (i.e., the Phenomenon), and in the Third Section, The Reality, of Book II,
The Doctrine of Essence, and in Book III, The Doctrine of the Concept, Hegel enunciates
the objective view of the world that is the core of his philosophy and that in summary
terms is expressed as follows:
The existing being is an absolute substance, a totality infinite of matter in constant
motion.
The substance is, successively and simultaneously:
132
Ibídem., p. 364.

183
-the existing being, that is the being determinated finite.
-the being determinated finite that has its other outside of itself and that integrates it into
its being through its filling,
-the being determinated finite that has its other in itself as the ought to be,
-the other being determinated finite in which the being determinated finite is regularly
transformed, according to its ought to be,
-the infinite substance, which has the most general properties of matter and exists both
in the form of beings determinated finite, which have specific qualities, and in that of an
undifferentiated substance, made up of elementary units,
-the one, which is the element of infinite substance (the atom in Hegel's time, the sub-
atomic particle for modern quantum physics),
-the one (the particle) that has its being in the void (the field) and the void that has its
being in the one,
-the multiple ones that have as their moments the being and the void,
-the infinite multiplicity of mutually repelling and attracting ones, each being the unity of
repulsion and attraction, in which repulsion and attraction are each the other of itself and
constantly become their other,
-the multitude of ones that have a determination, are subatomic particles, and with such
a character form a multiplicity,
-the multiplicity of elemental somethings that are united in atoms (e.g. hydrogen atoms),
-the multitude of elements that are combined in substances and compounds (vgr H 2O,
etc.),
-the bodies that are formed with particles, elements, substances, compounds, etc. (stars
(grouped in galaxies), planets, living beings, etc.),
-the being determinated finite that internalizes itself and produces its essence,
-the essence, which is the polar contradiction and constitutes the foundation of the being
determinated finite,
-the dialectic between the positive and negative poles, by which they engender and negate
each other,
-the germinal elements of a new being determinated that are gestated through the
dialectic of opposites,
-the inflaming of the negative pole, which produces the annihilation of the positive pole,
-the negation of the current being and the emergence of the new being -the essence of the
previous being- into existence,
-the new being determinated finite that is essential existing being, the unity of existence
and essence –a multiplicity, a world of things in themselves, of somethings that are
essence arising into existence-,
-the dual nature of the world of things in themselves, the phenomenal world, subject to
finitude and accidentality, and the world in and of itself, governed by laws,
-the essential relationship between the phenomenal world and the world in and of itself,
which is first the relationship of unity between the whole and the parts, in which the
whole is part and the part is whole,
-the second relationship, which is the existing unity between the parts and the whole as
forces, in which each of them is requested and requesting, acting and recipient, itself and
hers other (for example, attraction and repulsion),
-the third essential relationship, by which the phenomenal world and the world in and of
itself, the whole and the parts and the requested and requesting force are interior and
exterior at the same time,
-reality, which is the unity of the phenomenal world and the world in and of itself –of the
whole and its parts, of the acting force and recipient, of the interior and the exterior-,
-the absolute reality, which is the identity of the essence and the being in the absolute
being,
-absolute necessity: accidentality (formal reality, possibility and necessity) and real
necessity (real reality, possibility and necessity),

184
-absolute accidentality, in which the absolute being is a multiplicity of finite immediate
beings,
-absolute reality as absolute accidentality and necessity in absolute being,
-the absolute substance that is the absolute reality,
-the relationship of the substance with itself, which is the relationship of the substance
with its accidents
-the accidents that are the appearance,
-the appearance, the accidents that arise and perish, the somethings in which the
determinations of being (quality, quantity, etc.) and those of essence (diversity, opposition,
contradiction, foundation, etc.) appear,
-the absolute power that produces accidents from being itself and from the possibility of
other accidents,
-the cause and effect of the accidents,
-the infinite substance that is the cause of accidents that are also finite substances,
-the finite substance that is at the same time active and passive,
-the reciprocal action between finite substances,
-the infinite, active substance, which is the formal cause, and the passive finite
substances, which are the effect of the former, and between which there is a real causal
relationship by which they are active and passive at the same time and there is a
relationship reciprocal action,
-the existing immediate being that is the absolute being,
-the immediate existing being that is inorganic matter,
-the immediate existing being that is the organic matter,
-the immediate existing being that is the concept, the thinking organic matter.
Hegelian philosophy thus provides us with the elements for the preparation of the
complete scientific conception of the universe:
-the extension of the Laplacean hypothesis of the two fundamental states of matter,
rarefaction and condensation, and the passage from one to the other, hitherto confined to
the solar system and the “observable universe”, to the infinite totality that is the universe;
In his "Logic", Hegel establishes that the being determinated finite is a specific form of
existence of the infinite substance -constituted by the elementary particles of matter- and
also that the infinite substance is simultaneously and successively being and essence and
each one of the phases of movement from one to the other; In this way, the universe is
made up of an infinite substance -an infinite totality- that in its infinite parts exists
simultaneously as matter dissolved in its elementary particles, condensed matter and
matter in some of -and therefore in all- the degrees of diffusion and concentration, and
successively as matter that is in some of -and therefore in all- the phases of its
transformation from one to the other;
-the Hegelian thesis according to which matter is a universal substance that exists
simultaneously and successively as being, essence and concept (thinking matter) and in
each and every one of the stages of the passage from one to the other; accordingly, the
infinite totality of the universe is matter that exists simultaneously and successively as
inorganic matter and organic matter (which finally attains the quality of thinking matter)
and as matter in all phases of the conversion of one nature into the other.

185
 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aller, Lawrence H., The abundance of the elements, the observatory of the University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor, Michigan. Interscience Publishers, Inc., New York Interscience Publishers Ltd., London, 1961

Alpher, R. A., Applied Physics Laboratory, The John Hopkings University, Silver Spring, Maryland, and
H. Bethe, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York and G. Gamow, The George Washington University,
Washington, D. C., The origin of Chemical Elements, February 18, 1948, Physical Review, Vol. 73,
Number 7, April 1948

Alpher, Ralph A. and Robert C. Herman, Remarks on the Evolution of the expanding Universe Applied
Physics Laboratory, The Johns Hopkins University, Silver spring, Maryland (Received December 27,
1948)

Aristóteles, Acerca del Cielo. Meteorológicos., Introducción, Traducción y Notas de Miguel Candel,
Editorial Gredos, Madrid, 1996,

Dicke, R. H., P. J. E. Peebles, D. T. Wilkinson, Cosmic Black-body Radiation, Astrophysical Journal,

Vol. 142, pp. 414-419 07, 1965, may 7, 1965, Palmer Physical Laboratory, Princenton, New Jersey.

Doppler, Christian Andreas. On the colored light of the double stars and certain others stars of the
Heavens,

Einstein, A., Does the inertia of a body depend upon its energy content? The collected papers of Albert
Einstein, Volume 2: The Swiss Years Writtings, 1900-1909, pp.172-174. {Annalen der Phisik 18
(1905): 639-641]

Einstein, Albert, Four Lectures on the Theory of Relativity. Held at Princenton University in May 1921
The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. Volume 7. The Berlin Years: Writtings. 1918-1921. Doc.71.
English Translation. Alfred Engel, Translator. Engelbert Schucking, Consultant. Edited by Michael
Janssen, Robert Schulmann, József Illy, Christoph Lehner, and Diana Kormos Buchwald, Received
6 March 1918, Published 24 May 1918, In: Annalen der Physik 55 (1918): 241-244

Einstein, Albert, Fundamental Ideas and Methods of the Theory of relativity, Presented in Their
development, The Collected Papers of Albert Einstein. Volume 7. The Berlin Years: Writtings. 1918-
1921. Doc.31, English Translation. Alfred Engel, Translator. Engelbert Schucking. Consultant.

Einstein, Albert, La estructura del espacio en conexión con la teoría de la relatividad general, Sobre la
teoría de la relatividad, diciembre de 1916. www.informatica.com.ar.

Einstein, Albert, On the development of our views concerning the nature and constitution of radiation,
The collected Papers of Albert Einstein, Volume 2: The Swiss Years: Writings 1900-1909 (English
translation supplement) Doc. 60. English Translation. Anna Beck Translator. Peter Havas,
Consultant. Edited by John Stachel, David C. Cassidy, Jürgen Renn, and Robert Schulman. In:
Physikalische Zeitschrift 10 (1909): 817-825

Einstein, Albert, On the electrodynamics of moving bodies, Doc. 23, Volume 2: The Swiss Years:
Writings, 1900-1909 (English Translation supplement), The collected Papers of Alberto Einstein,
English Translation, Anna Beck translator. Pp. 140-171

Einstein, Albert, On the foundations of the general theory, The collected papers of Albert Einstein,
Volume 7, The Berlin Years: Writings, 1918-1921, English Translation, Alfred Engel, Translator,
Engelbert Schuking, Consultant, Edited by Michael Janssen, Robert Schulmann, József Illy,
Christoph Lehner, and Diana Kormos Buchwald, Doc. 4, Received 6 March 1918, Published 24 May

186
 1918, In: Annalen der Physik 55 (1918): 241-244

Einstein, Albert, On the influence of Gravitation on the Propagation of Light, The collected Papers of
Albert Einstein, Volume 3: The Swiss Years: Writings 1909-1911 (English translation supplement)
Doc. 23. English Translation. Anna Beck Translator. Don Howard, Consultant. Edited by Martin J.
Klein, A. J. Kox, Jürgen Renn, and Robert Schulman [Annalen der Physik 35 (1911): 898-908]

Einstein, Albert, On the relativity principle and the conclusion drawn from it, The collected Papers of
Albert Einstein, Volume 2. Doc. 47. The Swiss Years: Writings 1900-1909 (English translation
supplement). English Translation. Anna Beck Traslator. Peter Hanas Consultant. John Stachel
Editor. [Jahrbuch der Radioactivitat und Elektronik 4 (1907): pp. 411-462

Einstein, Albert, Outline of a generalized Theory of Relativity and of a Theory of Gravitation, The
Collected Papers of Albert Einstein, volume 4, The Swiss Years, Writings, 1912-1914, Edited by
Martin J. Klein, A. J. Kox, Jürgen Renn, and Robert Schulman, English Translation, Anna Beck,
Translator, Don Howard, Consultant, doc. 13, Teubner, Leipzig, 1913)

Einstein, Albert, Physical Foundation of a Theory of Gravitation, The collected papers of Albert Einstein,
Volume 4, The Swiss Years: Wrigtings, 1912-1914, Edited by Martin J. Klein, A. J. Kox, Jürgen
Renn and Robert Schulmann, English Translation, Anna Beck, Translator, Don Howard,
Consultant, Doc. 16, pp. 192-197, Princenton University Press, 1997. [Naturforschende
Gesellschaft in Zürich. Vierteljahrsschrift 58 (1914): 284-290]

Einstein, Albert, Relativity: The especial and General Theory, New York: Henry Holt, 1920; Bartleby.
Com, 2000.

Einstein, Albert, The foundation of the General Theory of Relativity, The collected papers of Albert
Einstein, Volume 6, The Berlin Years, 1914-1917, Doc. 30, pp. 151-198, A. J. Kox, Martin J. Klein,
and Robert Schulmann, Editors, Jósef Illy and Jean Eisenstaedt, Contributing editors, Rita
Fountain and Anette Pringle, Editorial Assistants, English Translation of Selected Texts, Alfred
Engel, traslator, Engelbert Schucking, Consultant, Princenton University Press, 1997.

Einstein, Albert. The speed of light and the Statics of the gravitational Field,. The collected papers of A.
Einstein. Volume 4. Doc. 3. The Swiss years: Writings 1912-1914 Edited by Martin J. Klein, A. J.
Kox, Jürgen Renn, and Robert Schulman (English translation supplement). Translated by Ana
Beck. [Annalen der Physik 38 (1912): 355-69

Engels, Federico, Dialéctica de la Naturaleza, Editorial Grijalbo, S. A., traducción directa del alemán de
Wenceslao Roces, México, 1982,

Fizeau, M. H., On the effect of the motion of a body upon the velocity with which it is traversed by light,
The London, Edinburgh and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of science (Fourth Series),
April 1860, XXXII. Translated from the Annales de Chimie et de Physique for December 1859. The
original memoir was presented to the Parisian Academy os Sciences, Sept. 29, 1851; and a
translation of the brief abstract published in the comptes Rendus was given in the Phil Mg. For
December 1851, p. 568. Phil Mag. S. 4. Vol. 19. No. 127. April 1860. Pp.246-257

Galileo Galilei, Dialogue Concerning Two New Sciences, Translated by Henry and Alfonso Salvio,
Macmillan, 1914.

Galileo Galilei Linceo, Filosofo e Matematico primari del Serenissimo Gran Duca di Toscana. Discorsi e
Dimostrazioni Matematice, intorno à due nuoue scienze Attenenti alla Mecanica & i Movimenti Locali.
Con una Appendice del centro di grauità d’alcuni Solidi. IN LEIDA, Apprestfo gli Elfevirii. M. D. C.
XXXVIII

Gamow, G., El universo en expansión y el origen de los elementos, The George Washington University,
Washington D. C., September 13, 1946, Physcis Review, 70 572

Gamow, G., The origin of Elements and the Separation of Galaxies, George Washington University,
Washington DC, June 21, 1948, Nature 162, 680-682 (30 October 1948) | doi:10.1038/162680a0

187
Hawking, Stephen, The illustrated a brief history of time, Updated and expanded edition, Random
House, Inc., New York, 2007.

Hawking, S. W., F. R. S., Lucasian Professor of Mathematics in the University of Cambridge and Fellow
of Conville and Caius College and G. F. R. Ellis, Professor of applied Mathematics, University of
Cape Town, The large scale structure of space-time Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, New
York, Port Chester, Melbourne, Sydney, 1973

Hawking, Stephen, The Universe in a nutshell, Bantam Dell, Random House, Inc., New York, 2007

Hegel, George Wilhelm Friederich, Enciclopedia de las ciencias filosóficas en compendio, Para uso de
sus clases, Edición, introducción y notas de Ramón Valls Plana, Alianza Editorial, S. A., Madrid,
2005

Hegel, G.W.F., Ciencia de la Lógica, traducción directa del alemán de Augusta y Rodolfo Mondolfo.
Solar, S.A., Hachette, S.A., Buenos Aires, Argentina, 2a. Edición castellana, 1968.

Hubble, Edwin, The problem of the expanding universe Mt. Wilson Observatory. American Scientist, a
quarterly publication of the society of the sigma XI, devoted to the promotion of research in science,
Vol. 30, April, 1943 No. 2.

Hubble, Edwin, Una relación entre la distancia y la velocidad radial entre las nebulosas extra galácticas
Mount Wilson Observatory, Carnegie Institution of Washington, Communicated January 17, 1929

Hubble, Edwin and Milton L. Humason The velocity-distance relation among extra-galactic nebulae.
Astrophysical Journal, vol. 74, 1931, p. 43.

Hubble, Edwin and Richard C. Tolman, Two methods of investigating the nature of the nebular red-shift
Carnegie Institution of Washington. Mount Wilson Observatory, California Institute of Technology,
July 1935, pp. 302-337. American Astronomical Society. Provided by the NASA Astrophysics Data
System.

Huggins, William, Further Observations of The Spectra of Some of the Stars and Nebulae, with un
attempt to determine Therform whether These Bodies are Moving towards or from the Earth, Also
Observations on the Spectra of the Sun and of Comet II. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of London, Vol. 158 (1868), pp. 529-564 Published by: The Royal Society

Huggins, William and W. A. Miller, On the Spectra of some of the Fixed Stars. Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society of London, Vol. 154 (1864), pp. 413-435 Published by: The Royal
Society

Humason, M. L., Apparent Velocity-Shifts in the Spectra of Faint Nebulae, Astrophysical Journal, vol.
74, p.35 1931

Josué 10:13, Antiguo Testamento.

Kant, Emanuel, Historia Natural y Teoría General del Cielo, Ensayo sobre la constitución y el origen
mecánico del universo, tratado de acuerdo a los principios de Newton, Con el estudio de Pedro S.
Laplace, Origen del sistema solar, Traducción de Pedro Merton, Lautaro, Buenos Aires, 1946.

Laplace M. Le Comte, Chancelier du Sénat-Conservateur, Grand-Officer de la Légion d’Honneur;

Grand’Croix de l’ordre de la Réunion; Membre de l’Institut impérial et du Bureau des Longitudes de
France; des Sociétés royales de Londres et de Gottingue; des Academiés des Sciences de Russie, de
Danemarck, de Suède, de Prusse, d’Italie, etc., Exposition du Système du Monde, quatrième édition,
revue et augmenté par l’Auteur, Paris, M me Ve Courcier, Imprimur-Libraire pour les Mathématiques,
quai des Augustins, no. 57, 1813,

Lemaitre Abbé G., A homogeneous Universe of Constant Mass and Increasing Radius accounting for the
Radial Velocity of Extra-galactic Nebulae, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Vol. 91,
p. 483-490, 03-1931 SAO/NASA Astrophysics Data System (ADS

188
Lemaitre Georges, L’hypothèse de l’atome primitive, Extrait de la Revue des Questiones scientifiques,
20 juillet 1948, Publications du laboratoire d’astronomie de Louvain, John G. Wolbach Library,
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Provided by the NASA Astrophysics Data System, pp.
325-339

Lemaitre Georges, The Primeval Atom, From Georges Lemaitre, The Primeval Atom: an Essay on
Cosmogony, translated by Betty H. and serge a. Korff, D. van Nostrand Co., New York, 1950,
Chapter V. reprinted by kind permission of the publishers, D. van Nostrand Co., Inc. en Theories of
the Universe, The Library of Scientific Thought. General Editor: Paul Edwards, New York University,
Milton K. Munitz, editor, Theories of the Universe, from Babylonian Myth to Modern Science, The
free press, Glencoe, Illinois and the Falcon’s wing Press, 1957

Lorentz, H. A., Aether Theories and Aether Models, (1901-1902), Lectures on Teoretical Physics, Volume
I, Authorized Translation by I. Silverstein, PH. D. and A. PH. Trivelli, Macmillan and Co. Limited,
London, 1927.

Lorentz, Hendrik, Electromagnetic Phenomena in a System moving with any velocity smaller than that of
light (1904), Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences, 1904, 6: 809-831

Lorentz, Hendrik, Simplified Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Systems (1899),
Proceedings of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Art and Sciences, 1899 1: 427-442

Lorentz, H. A., The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Aether (1892) translated from Dutch by
Wikisource. In Dutch De relatieve beweging van de aarde en den aether, Amsterdam, Zittingsverlag
Akad v. Wet., 1,

Michelson, Abraham Albert and Morley, Eduard, On the relative Motion of the Earth and the
Luminiferous Ether, American Journal of Science, 1887, 34 (203): 333-345

Michelson, Albert A., Master, U. S. Navy, The Relative Motion of the Earth and the Luminiferous Ether,
American Journal of Science, 1881, 22: 120-129

Minkowski, Hermann, Space and Time, Minkowski's Papers on Relativity, Translated by Fritz Levertoff
and Vesselin Petkov, Edited by Veselin Petkov, Free version, Minkowski Institute Press.

Newtono Isaaco, Auctore, Equite Aurato, Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, Editio Ultima,
Cui accedit Analysis per Quantitatum Series, Fluxiones ac Differentias cum enumeratione
Linearum Tertii Ordinis, Amstælodami, Sumptibus Societatis, M.

Newton, Sir Isaac, The Mathematical principles of Natural Philosophy, translated into English by
Andrew Motte, to which is added Newton’s System of the world, First American Edition, Carefully
revised and corrected, with a life of the author, by N W Chittenden, M. A., New York, Published by
Daniel Adee 45 Liberty Street, 184

Penzias, A. A., R. W. Wilson, A measurement of excess antenna temperature at 4080 Mc/s,

Astrophysical Journal, Vol. 142, pp. 419-421, May 13, 1965, Bell Telephone Laboratories, Inc.
Crawford Hill, Holmdel, New Jersey

Robledo Esparza Gabriel, La Lógica de Hegel y el Marxismo, Centro de Estudios del Socialismo
Científico, Biblioteca Marxista, Sísifo Ediciones, Primera Edición, México, D. F., 2009

The law of red-shifts, George Darwin Lecture, delivered by Dr. Edwin Hubble on 1953 May 8, No. 6,
1953, pp. 659, 666, Vol. 113. American Astronomical Society. Provided by the NASA Astrophysics
Data System.

189
190