Time is Absolute

Two Variants of Space—Physical and Fabricated

As an aside, before going further, space may be mentioned in view of its being talked about in the text, in the failed attempts to create new physical ideas. The term space, in that botched sense from a physical point of view, means a manifold of mathematical objects such as vectors, which share some common definitions. For example, for reasons we need not discuss here, there is the Euclidean space, characterized by three spatial dimensions, whereby the Pythagorean theorem \(s^2 = x^2 + y^2\) is valid and determines the distance between spatial coordinates. This, as a matter of fact, is the true physical meaning of space. Alternatively, and that is the physically botched construct, in the Minkowski space, where Pythagorean theorem does not apply, the distance between two points is defined by \(s^2 = c^2t^2 - x^2\). The last expression contains, for simplicity, only two coordinates, one spatial and one time, but, in its full representation it comprises a manifold of vectors with four coordinates, whereby the time is adopted as the fourth equivalent coordinate to the three spatial coordinates already recognized as determining the Euclidean space. Because the equation \(s^2 = c^2t^2 - x^2\), defining distance on Minkowski space, is the equation of a hyperbola, all the relations in that space are slightly more complex than the relations in the Euclidean space. This more involved math, and especially the \(3\)D graphical representations is something which impresses not too few people as a mark of high, sometimes impenetrable science. This prejudice most often stands in the way of the sober assessment of the real merits, rather, lack of merits, which has goaded many a lover of science, or a true enthusiast, into the muddy waters of the vapid pursuits and wasted energy. However, we should keep our passions aside and should look the truth straight in the eye.

A Short Exercise Demonstrating the Flawedness of Minkowski Space

Here, we will first observe the already constructed physically wrong geometric objects called Minkowski diagrams and will see, taking these diagrams as a given, where the problems in them are. Then, we will go step by step to see how these diagrams are constructed and pinpoint precisely the moments when non-physical notions are inserted, messing up the whole picture of time and space, leading to the crazy, as much “fascinating” as mindless, conclusions, actually outright erroneous and absurd, which the propaganda overwhelms us with.

Now, how exactly Minkowski space relates to the Lorentz transformations is a matter of formal exercise which is a waste of time to do. Nevertheless, in order to get it out of the way, we will also present a short exercise to that effect.

Firstly, notice, Minkowski diagrams are only an illustration of this catastrophe, which can only be discerned by comparing the results from these diagrams with physical reality. Thus, once adopting their false premises as the truth, zealously forbidding physical reality to be considered, neither the Lorentz transformations nor their illustration, known as the Minkowski diagrams, can be debunked based on their own devices. Their collapse can be observed only by juxtaposing the outcome from these flawed constructs with indelible truths that cannot be disputed. Such analysis, however, is vigorously banned in contemporary academic mainstream.

This, against all odds, however, has not stopped this author from uncovering the absurdities, and there will be no force which can stop him from uncovering the truth. Thus, we have already seen the catastrophe, including in this book, in addition to the four previous books of this author, containing his original discoveries, and therefore we are already done with the so-called “theory” of relativity, whose only role, as noted more than once, is to provide the possibly most prompt demonstration known, of the catastrophic nature of the Lorentz transformations, the pivotal driver behind its demise.

As for Minkowski diagrams, as redundant as their discussion may be, it was felt that it would be more instructive to present the flaw in the Minkowski diagram already constructed, consisting of the K and k axes, by deferring consideration of the manner in which this diagram was constructed, as an additional follow-up explanation for those who are curious to understand how such a non-physical object could arise. Here goes:

The deception known as Minkowski diagrams, illustrating the non-physical so-called spacetime, which wastes the time and effort, in vain occupying their imagination, of whole armies of scientists and writers around the world, as well as their unsuspecting gullible readers and adherents, efficiently preventing them from doing really creative work for the advancement of science, is shown in FIGURE 1. That figure gives the final result of the effort to construct the axes \(ct'\) vs. \(x'\) of the moving system k, overlaid on the axes \(ct\) vs. \(x\) of the stationary system K.

FIGURE 1 Minkowski diagram yielding the incorrect Lorentz transformations.

Minkowski diagrams, illustrating the epitome of physical wrongness, the Lorentz transformations, giving rise to further gobbledygook, appearing fantastically eerie and otherworldly, mistakenly suggest that the clock at \(x\) coordinate J showing on its face the time F of the event E in K—that very same clock at that very same place J in K purportedly could, at the same instant, show a different time; namely, time G, which is allegedly determined by its being positioned in a different system, system k. No, it can’t. The clock at E (positioned in J) showing time F cannot at the same instant also show time G. Such suggestion is absolutely untenable because one and the same clock, inevitably coinciding in space with one of the myriads of clocks showing the same time, cannot at the very same instant show a different time. In other words, Minkowski diagrams violate what we call here the synchronicity lifeline. This can also be expressed in the following way: time at a given place at a given moment can only have a single value.

This catastrophic violation of the synchronicity lifeline absolute truth invalidates the physical meaning of the Minkowski diagrams, as well as the notion of spacetime, which mandates their full exclusion from any scientific discourse whatsoever.

We already knew that anything having to do with the Lorentz transformations is a catastrophe, but it was useful to see that catastrophe graphically depicted.

Position of a Clock in K Also Cannot be Dubious

Considering FIGURE 1, it should also be clear that, physically, once the clock is at position J in K, that same clock cannot also be in a position L on the \(x\)-axis corresponding to H at the instant F in the same coordinate system K—one clock at a given moment in a given system cannot be at two places at the same time. The excuse that H belongs to a different coordinate system; namely, coordinate system k, and we should perceive k in abstract sense as detached from K, is unsustained, because H is visibly in K. To say nothing of the fact that when constructing the diagram, as will be seen, the positions and times of the axes \(t'\) and \(x'\) of k were construed very literally corresponding to K. As a heads-up, consider for example, how the \(t'\) axis is constructed in FIGURE 3—the \(t'\) axis in FIGURE 3 is the locus of nothing other than the \(t\) and \(x\) couples of coordinates of the stationary coordinate system K. These coordinates cannot suddenly change their meaning and become coordinates of k. Therefore, we cannot suddenly change the standard and start claiming that, now, we must not take the parameters in K literally and must loosen their meaning, allowing them to be perceived as detached from the inherent parameters of K.

The substitution of meaning for concepts, conclusions based on deception, outright lies about things that the reader can see with one’s own eyes to be the opposite, are the typical techniques used by the “theory” of relativity to draw its “conclusions”, and these iniquitous techniques manifest themselves in everything related to this absurd “theory”. Recall §6 in 1905 paper, in which one reads that

“Evidently the two systems of equations found for system k must express exactly the same thing, since both systems of equations are equivalent to the Maxwell-Hertz equations for system K”,

while the readers see clearly that the equations show exactly the opposite. This kind of deception, comprising the essence of the “theory” of relativity was already illustrated also in this book, planting the idea that the state of motion of an inertial system differs from rest and therefore one should expect a physical law to be affected, while the very first postulate of the “theory” mandates that the physical law must remain unaffected when referred to either one of the two inertial systems moving at a constant velocity relative to each other. These catastrophic flaws and deception make it so that the “theory” of relativity invalidates itself on the very pages of its own 1905 paper.

Unique Standard of Time

Therefore, there is a unique standard of time for anyone, for any observer in the universe. Observers always see the same time on the watches they carry with them, no matter where in the cosmos and no matter how far and how fast they travel—the synchronous stationary clocks always lock into synchronicity any clock, moving or still, through its inevitable spatial coincidence with synchronous clocks. The standard is set up by the way we have decided to measure time. The Cesium clock "ticks" take place at the same interval for anyone, independent of their relative velocity. That is disappointing to those who've been told that the “theory” of relativity brings in miracles, but nature has no psychological categories such as happiness, joy or sadness. It has not provided us with means to overcome the impossibility to ever reach the center of the universe. No such thing as, say, a twin paradox, is tenable to imagine as a possible way out of this prison. This sounds boring, to say the least, but nature is also not an entertainer.

From the above, it also follows that the sequence of events can never be reordered and the cause always precedes the effect, not that we don’t know that, as a matter of fundamental principle, the baby cannot be born before its mother. Should a “theory” make the opposite conclusion, such an absurd “theory” must be abandoned for this sole reason. Nature works in such a way that everyone will agree on that. Disagreement with this indelible property of nature can be expressed in only mildly entertaining fantasies in the writings of those who like science fiction, better called scienceless fiction.

As shown, we cannot find solace from this cause and effect stiffness in the “theory” of relativity, because it is not a scientific theory. Therefore, the only thing that we may expect to happen as a way of advancement in physics, is not a more advanced theory than the “theory” of relativity, but, on the contrary, the removal of the “theory” of relativity from physics. This apparent regress will mark the real progress of physics, freeing it from more than 100 years of stalling, suppression and decay. Therefore, never give the “theory” of relativity as an argument for anything, neither quote its proposer as a sage on any matter. Proposers of absurdities, such as the one who proposed the absurd “theory” of relativity, are the opposite of sages.

Because the “theory” of relativity has no role other than to demonstrate the physical and mathematical absurdity of the Lorentz transformations, abandoning these transformations as a result of the catastrophe they cause, mauling the “theory” which adopted them, will liberate us from being terrorized by the aggressive imposition of further sick fantasies based on non-physical notions such as the notion of curved space. An example of such ridiculousness are the so-called wormholes, which take advantage of the physically flawed geometry of spacetime, fantasize about finding of shortcuts through space. Alas, there are no shortcuts. The “theory” that purportedly suggested them is not a scientific theory. Curved space does not exist in nature, it is non-physical, and is the unimaginative figment of adopting hallucinations fed by unrelated connections between quantities related by flaws. Sane people shudder at the thought that such a poverty of imagination and low quality thinking, relying on notions that have no connections, harnessed to draw conclusions, has accomplished such a societal impact, forcing people to take seriously such grave insanity. This kind of shattered thinking doesn’t qualify as freedom of academic thought. On the contrary, academic thought presupposes a certain level of cognitive abilities, part of which is mental, intellectual discipline, that is a consequential condition, that fends off random gibberish by disallowing illogical banter and imposition of non sequiturs. Weirdly mixing metaphors and non sequiturs doesn’t usually make good literature either.

Step by Step Construction of the Minkowski diagrams

Because the illustration of the absurd “theory” of relativity, known as Minkowski diagrams, is such a convoluted mess of truth and lies, the illustration in question is not possible to be debunked in one stroke, by one single clear-cut argument, the way the “theory” of relativity itself is crushed by one single crucial catastrophic argument, incurring a final blow, obliterating that so-called “theory” of relativity into a non-issue, turning it into something never to be mentioned or heard about again. Therefore, the debunking of the Minkowski diagrams needs a step by step sifting of wheat from the chaff, which this section is dedicated to. Of course, again, having the “theory” of relativity already blown up into smithereens, occupying oneself with the analysis of an outgrowth of that unequivocally confirmed absurdity, as with any of its progenies, is a waste of time. Some, however, having heard the term Minkowski diagrams, may be curious as to what this might be. Here goes.

Begin by observing the two-dimensional \(ct\) vs. \(x\) creation known as the coordinates of the so-called Minkowski diagram (or diagrams; we will refer to these diagrams mostly in plural), as it is used widely nowadays (we plot it as \(t\) vs. \(x\), considering \(c = 1\)). The problem is seen readily, after giving it some thought, although the beginning of this deception appears quite benign, plausible and innocuous. Isn’t that typical for a deception?

What is suggested is that we now should not limit ourselves to three spatial coordinates, on the one hand, and, on the other, time, but we should begin perceiving time as another, fourth coordinate, completely indistinguishable as a coordinate from the three space coordinates. To make it even more acceptable, the time coordinate is multiplied by the velocity of light, \(c\), thus becoming a coordinate depicting values of \(ct\), which turns that time coordinate into a fourth space coordinate because the units of \(c\) are meters per second or [\(m \ s^{-1}\)], while the units of time are seconds or [s]. In this way, lo and behold, the units of the fourth coordinate, becoming meters, get in cahoots with the units of the other three spatial coordinates. In our next observation, however, we will mostly keep using the good old time \(t\) as the time coordinate, rather than the newly introduced coordinate \(ct\), because that will not only not affect our conclusions, but the introduction of \(ct\) may bring additional unnecessary confusion to the already confused topic. We would note also that, understandably, we will skip the \(y\) and \(z\) space coordinates, as is the tradition, and will only observe the \(ct\) vs. \(x\), or rather \(t\) vs. \(x\) graphs.

Thus, as was said, superficially, the beginning is quite easy to get, never mind that it doesn’t really make much sense. What doesn’t really quite make sense is to see why we should abandon the good old presentation of the traveled space \(x\) as a function of time \(t\), but instead should have time \(t\) as an ordinate and \(x\) as an abscissa. What we hope at this point is that the reasons for that presentation will become clear as we go deeper into this new outlook on nature, promised to be fascinating. No, it won’t become fascinating. As we go along, it will become even worse—a plain non-scientific claptrap. We should make that clear, at the outset, as a heads-up, to be honest with the readers, assuring them that they will not be led down a garden path. We see in FIGURE 2 the promised \(t\) vs. \(x \) coordinate system.

FIGURE 2 Preparation for Minkowski diagram.

After drawing the \(t\) vs. \(x\) coordinates of the so-called stationary coordinate system, which we will denote also by capital K, whereby all the quantities and parameters that pertain to K will be un-primed (that is, having no apostrophe, \('\)) and where, by tradition, the time is called proper, iniquitously implying that there might be some other sort of time which will be improper. We are told that there is also another coordinate system, which moves with respect to system uppercase K at a velocity \(v\), which in this discussion we take to be half the velocity of light. We will denote that moving system by lowercase k and will add to all of its quantities and parameters a prime (an apostrophe, \('\)).

Before getting into the problem itself, we will note that in the figures that follow, we will not present, as a rule, values of the abscissa and the ordinate, but will note that their scales (in K, of course; henceforth we will mostly only use the abbreviations K and k instead of supplementing them by calling them coordinate system or system, K and k) are made so that a unit length of the ordinate, which represents \(1s\), will equal the same unit length on the abscissa corresponding to 3x10\(^8\) meters (the distance light travels in \(1s\)). This explains why the broken line in FIGURE 2, expressing the path of light, has a slope of 45\(^{^{\circ}}\) with respect to the abscissa—for every second that has passed, the light would have traveled 3x10\(^8\) meters, which makes the section-length on the abscissa exactly equal to the section-length on the ordinate.

The question now arises—what will be the depiction of the path of k in this diagram showing \(t\) vs. \(x\) coordinates in K. At first, the answer to that question seems simple, and it is indeed simple if we only stay with the straight answer. While the stationary observer in K, staying put at the origin of K, peculiarly, nevertheless, experiencing increase of the \(t\) coordinate value, with the passage of time along the time \(t\) coordinate, the position of k on the \(x\) space coordinate will also grow linearly. Because the velocity of k is half the velocity of light, the path of k in the \(t\) vs. \(x\) diagram will have a slope one half of 45\(^{\circ}\) with respect to the ordinate, as shown in FIGURE 3, whereby we have to make an important remark. In FIGURE 3 the arrow indicating the mentioned path of k in in the \(t\) vs. \(x\) coordinate system is denoted by \(t'\) and the reader may wonder why. The flipping the script from this arrow being the path of k in the \(t\) vs. \(x\) coordinate system, which it actually is, into \(t'\) axis of the system k is the crux of the matter of the deception invalidating Minkowski diagrams. This deception will be the subject of discussion in the following paragraphs.

By the way, the unavoidable change of time at unchanging position is a peculiarity the novice finds amazing in these \(ct\) vs. \(x \) diagrams, a property lacking in the usual presentation of space and time coordinates separately; although even in the usual \(x\) vs. \(t\) diagram, one may think, should one want to, of rest having the \(t\) increasing. Rest doesn’t mean frozen time.

It may be interjected here that the very fact that time goes on, despite the observer staying put, demonstrates the fundamental difference between space and time. Unlike space, time can never be made still.

Imagining the above, however, is not the problem. The problem, which actually is a singularly huge problem, to the extent of being the cause of abandoning this entire exercise, is that the slanted line, depicting in FIGURE 3 the path of the moving system k, is incorrectly taken to be the coordinate axis \(t'\) of k, having its own life, unassociated with the \(ct\) vs. \(x\) (\(t\) vs. \(x\) for \(c = 1\) in our case) coordinates of K. Notice, the \(t'\) from now on is not considered a graph of the path of k in K, but is elevated to signify k’s own \(t'\) coordinate, with all the absurd consequences that follow from that false assignment. This is a very important observation. It is the first demonstration of deception, which will deepen even further as we go along, if that going along is at all the sensible thing to do (it is not; we may justifiably abandon this laying out of wrong foundations right now), considering the following crushing problem, which might have saved us the trouble of wasting time to read even the part that we read so far.

In order to understand the problem in question, consider the crucial fact, with which any lecturers dealing with constructing Minkowski diagrams should begin their lectures on the matter, should these lecturers have the integrity and the morals not to waste the time of the students with absurdities and non sequiturs. To say nothing of the fact that, if they do have these qualities, they would not agree to deliver lectures on this topic to begin with. Instead, what lecturers do today is propose to the students to imagine that they are at the origin of the \(t\) vs. \(x\) coordinate system K, realizing that they may be remaining still but the time value will constantly and never-ceasingly increase up the \(t\) axis. However, what the lecturers fail to draw attention to is the fact that there are myriads of imaginary stationary clocks throughout the whole universe, immovably secured to their positions, whose time increases in exactly the same manner, at the same rate, all of these clocks showing the same position of their hands at every single moment of time. Thus, if the students are to imagine anything at all when beginning to construct Minkowski diagrams, the myriads of stationary clocks is the first thing to imagine. The stationary observers at the origin of the \(t\) vs. \(x\) coordinates, together with the diagram itself, as well as anything else, are immersed in a sea, in an ocean, of such stationary synchronous clocks, ticking uniformly in step. Why is this important? This is important because any clock, for example, the clock resting in the moving system k, will, at any moment, show on its face the same time which these myriads of stationary clocks show on their faces at that moment. Even the moving clocks will inevitably coincide at any moment with one of the synchronous stationary clocks and that will ensure that both the stationary clocks and the moving clocks show on their faces the same time. They are synchronous. Spatially coincident clocks are synchronous by the ineluctable law of nature. This absolute fact, this absolute truth, is elevated herewith as the main principle when discussing time, said principle comprising a synchronicity lifeline when in doubt about the absoluteness of time. The two absolute facts—the absolute fact that all stationary clocks are synchronous and the absolute fact that all spatially coincident clocks are also synchronous—clinch any clock whatsoever, moving or still, to be synchronous with any other clock at any instant. Time is absolute. The title of this book is not for no reason.

The importance of that fact begins to become clear as early as the first steps on this matter. Even the clock in FIGURE 2, which travels at the speed of light along the broken line, will show the same time at any moment, as any stationary clock in the whole universe, including the clock showing the time at every moment along the \(t\) axis. In our two-dimensional case of FIGURE 2 and all the rest of the figures of this study, every moment of time is not depicted by just a point on the \(t\)-axis, but any moment of time is represented by a line parallel to the \(x\) axis.

This fact is of great significance for our study, actually rendering any attempt at questioning the absoluteness of time trivially wrong, because doubting the absoluteness of time would mean doubting that any moving system will always have an instantaneous value of time, at any moment of time, exactly equal to a particular time value on the \(t\)-axis, corresponding to that moment. In other words, doubting such a thing comes down to doubting the absolute fact that, at any moment of time, any system, moving or not, has a time value which lies on a line parallel to the \(x\)-axis. The significance of this fact; namely, the fact that any system’s time lies on a line parallel to the abscissa, crossing the \(t\)-axis at the value of time corresponding to the given moment, cannot be overstated. This means that no matter how fast the system k moves relative to K, the ticking of its clocks will take place exactly coincident with the ticks of the clocks in the stationary system. Put another way, the rate of ticking of the clocks in any moving system will be exactly the same as the rate of ticking of the clocks in the stationary system. This means that, contrary to what the “theory” of relativity is claimed to absurdly pontificate, any observer in any system, at any moment of time, will always agree on the simultaneity of two events happening at that moment of time. This also directly abolishes even a trace of thought about time-dilation—time passing at a different rate, clocks ticking at different intervals, depending on the velocity of these clocks—which is considered and widely celebrated as one of the main earth-shaking outcomes from the “theory” of relativity. Sorry, this celebration must be called off; at that, not only because of that reason; namely, because of the absolute impossibility of time-dilation, attempted to be ascribed as an outcome of the “theory” of relativity. Indeed, recall that the “theory” of relativity itself is an absurdity—allowing for a catastrophic clash between the absolute truth of the principle of relativity and the non-physical outcome of the Lorentz transformations—and therefore no outcome from it at all can ever be expected anyway. Time-dilation, in particular, is absolutely impossible, not only because of the absurdity of the “theory” of relativity, but by the real laws of nature, by the absolute truths such as the mentioned synchronicity of stationary as well as spatially coincident clocks, independent of any theory. This is the truth. However, propaganda is never the best friend of truth, and it has outdone itself in this case by convincing the world that something absolutely impossible is not only possible, but is a great discovery.

This image of the ocean of countless synchronous stationary clocks with their strict togetherness of increasing time, should always be on the windshield, as it were, of all of those who have decided that it is worth wasting time on the “theory” of relativity and the attempted illustration of its non-physical element, the Lorentz transformations, in the form of manipulative Minkowski diagrams. Curiously, even if Minkowski diagrams were impeccable, which they are not, they would not be able to save the “theory” of relativity because of the chronic catastrophic clash of the part of the “theory” of relativity which these Minkowski diagrams are manipulatively constructed to illustrate, with the other element of the “theory” of relativity; namely, the principle of relativity.

Consequently, the following lines are dedicated to those enthusiastic people who do not mind wasting their time on cock-and-bull stories. The rest, those who prefer to follow reason, will spare themselves any further discussion of issues related to the “theory” of relativity and its illustrations of the Minkowski diagrams variety. All that follows is the uncovering in a concrete expression, of the hopeless attempts to circumvent the immanent laws of nature.

FIGURE \(3\) Preparation for Minkowski diagram.

Thus, what is in all seriousness proposed, believe it or not, is to begin with a detuned design, in the concrete expression of Minkowski diagrams, endowed with unnatural properties, containing just the right shifts and assumptions in order to end up with time-dilation and length-contraction following from it, and lo and behold, the results that come up are also unnatural in the form of Lorentz transformations, which the constructor of Minkowski diagrams presumptuously pronounces as quite natural and coming right from the horse’s mouth. Thus, what the constructors of the flawed Minkowski diagrams do is assign to the \(x\) coordinates of K, purely arbitrarily, time-defining properties, as if \(x\) can influence time somewhere else, in some other system, system k, not in system K, as if the \(x\)-values determine the \(t'\) values of k’s \(t'\)axis coordinate—cf. FIGURE 3.

Notice the difference between the truth and untruth when it comes to time. The truth about time is established first in K and then that truth is spread out to any thinkable coordinate system. In K, at a given moment, time \(t\) is uniformly the same at all \(x\)’s ; that is, at any moment, the different \(x\) are not passing their difference to time \(t\), the varying values of \(x\) are not passing their variation onto \(t\). In K time does not depend on space. Time is not a function of space. This uniform universal behavior of time at any instant; at that, not only in K, but also in any other system k, moving or still, is mandated by the absolute truth that all clocks which are stationary relative to K are synchronous, a truth, combined with the absolute truth that spatially coincident clocks, moving or not, are also inevitably synchronous. Space has absolutely no role in this synchronicity and any claim to the contrary, as is implicitly adopted in constructing the Minkowski diagrams, inferring that there are coordinate systems, such as k, whereby time can be dependent on space, is a violation of probably the most fundamental absolute truth of our existence in the natural reality.

Time is not a function of space or of anything else, but this absolute fact is not to the liking of the manipulators who need to bow before a great “discovery”, no matter at what cost, and they finagle and try to defy that absolute fact through consummate deception.

Thus, in order to elude the absolute truth that time cannot be dependent, cannot be the function of anything, we are being forced, through immense propaganda, to think that in k it is not so, that time in k behaves differently, that time in k can be dependent on \(x\). According to the manipulators, at odds with truth, let alone absolute truth, it is possible that in k, the time \(t'\) can have a different value, according to the changing \(x\), if only a tricky sleight of hand is committed, as long as the gullible consumers of that trick don’t notice it. This is how any hocus-pocus works, doesn’t it? The only difference is that the magicians don’t pronounce their stage performance as a great, earth-shattering discovery. They don’t do that because they know that what the audience sees is not real, that it is only done to entertain people and earn a living in the process.

For the manipulators, unduly calling themselves scientists, that is not enough. They also need the academic prestige and recognition, along with tricking the taxpayer to pay for the building of humungous laboratories and infrastructure. Therefore, if these manipulators are frank and admit that they are doing a trick just for fun, that will not work. Accordingly, they fully consciously commit fraud and deception. They pronounce the trick as something existing in reality and that fraud they commit from a position of academic prestige, which the commoners cannot object to, even if they see the fraud. Who are they, the insignificant pedestrians, who always like to express opinions when no one asks them?

Thus, these intellectual saboteurs and tricksters don’t bat an eye accepting that every \(t'\) value in k could be pronounced to correspond to a different \(x\) in K. And they have the tools to commit that fraud, in their usual manner (which they always get away with), flip the script, substituting the meaning of quantities. Now, according to this new regime of the institutionalized falsity of absurdity dictate, the positions \(x\) at the different moments \(t\) in K, of k moving in K, shed this usual and truthful meaning and completely unjustifiedly put on the new falsified garment of signifying the locus of time values belonging to a coordinate system different from K; namely, the coordinate system k. Thus, never mind that all coordinates in K are coordinates exclusively belonging to K, now a new coordinate system is born, enjoying all the coordinates in K, and yet, declaring, like a veritable parasite, these alien coordinates as its own, different from the coordinates of K that generated them, coordinates which, inevitably, exclusively belong only to K.

The coordinate \(x\), now under this new reality of the truth-defying, deceptive regime praising absurdities as science, is thought of as passing its change onto the coordinate \(t'\). It is in this sense when we said above that the manipulators are forcing us to reconsider \(x\) as acquiring time-determining properties.

Each value of \(t'\) in k is deliberately cheated into being thought of as different at every \(x\). It is right here, in planting such false dependence, in a petitio principii manner, is what later they will “discover” and pronounce as something bewildering; namely, that time is something malleable, allowing itself to be affected by factors such as velocity. It is seen from FIGURE 3 that if the points of \(x\) where k happens to be during its changing position in K, as the time \(t\) goes by, are not only different at the different \(x\)-values but that dependence of \(t'\) on \(x\) changes when the velocity \(v\) of k changes. In other words, the wrong idea is forced upon the reader that something which simply comprises the position \(x\) of the moving body, as the time \(t\) progresses in K, is assumed to pass its value to a false locus of all points wrongfully considered to comprise the values of time \(t'\) in k, thus forming the \(t'\)-ordinate in k; i.e., implying, setting up rather, that \(t'\) is a function of \(x\); that is, that there could be time \(t'\), at any moment \(t'\), that is not uniformly, globally the same for all \(x\), in brazen violation of the already spelled out absolute truth that time under any conditions, anywhere, cannot depend on anything, including space. This is briefly the underlying disaster in Minkowski diagrams, making these diagrams completely useless as a tool of understanding and describing reality.

If you, as a reasonable person, disagree, saying that this is not how things work in nature—assignment of time values does not create a coordinate system, the constructor will object that this is what really happens when a body with constant \(v\) changes its position and that is what creates those diagrams.

Really? How about then, if a body moves in a zig-zag manner or has any other funny way of going back and forth along the \(x\)-axis, which also corresponds to real \(x\) numbers and this is what really happens when a body moves. Would you consider that twisted sequence of \(x\)’s, forming a zig-zaggy or even more scroggy run as the abscissa of a graph? I know that it will not be the motion of an inertial system, but where does it say that straight plots, depicting the motion of inertial systems, can qualify as \(t'\)-axes, while scroggy ones can’t?

One may further object that according to our so much fanfared absolute truth regarding the synchronicity of the spatially coincident clocks, such an assignment of time to \(t'\) is perfectly fine. However, if such an assignment of the time values \(t\) in K to the time values of \(t'\), to the point of their coincidence, then the time-dilation falsity goes out the window right at this point—recall that all clocks, even the clocks which belong to the alleged \(t'\) axis, lying on the line parallel to the \(x\) axis and crossing the \(t\) axis, are all synchronous. There is no way that there would be at any moment any discrepancy to that rule. To say nothing of the fact that, as explained, the allegation that our so much fanfared absolute truth regarding the synchronicity of the spatially coincident clocks allows the assignment of time \(t'\) to the position of k in K, seen in FIGURE 3, is not true. But wait till you see what is done next.

To add insult to injury, where this construction gets really bad, is when the constructors of the Minkowski diagrams struggle to position the \(x'\)-axis in the \(t\) vs. \(x\) coordinate system of K, claiming that what they have constructed after applying ridiculous deceptive adjustment, comprises the genuine \(x'\)-axis in k itself (never mind that it is depicted in K).

For this purpose, the constructors of the Minkowski diagrams place the source of light at rest with the moving system k (the primed system), as is presented in FIGURE 4 by the coordinate system on the left. That left-side depiction of coordinate system k is done to show what has happened in k in the course of the release of the photon. Firstly, what must be noted is that the release of the photon in k takes place at point A, one second (by the purported alternative time-scale of k) earlier than the time \(t' = 0\), which is the “now” moment in k. The photon then travels in the course of \(1s\) (by the supposedly alternative time-scale of k) until it hits a mirror, placed at point R, moving at the same velocity \(v\) as the velocity of k relative to K and outstanding from the origin of k by 3x10\(^8\) meters (by the supposedly alternative scale of k). Most notably, that reflection takes place at time \(t' = 0\). Remember that fact. After the reflection, the photon returns to point B, because time is flowing unabated. The path of the photon is at 45\(^{\circ}\) angle with respect to the ordinate because the same measures (as in K) are taken in k so that the scales of the abscissa and the ordinate be the same.

Adopting of such a scenario is pretty weird—having the light released from a moving source; at that, not when the origins of K and k coincide, as well as not having the source be at rest with the origin of K, from where the photon is to be released at time \(t = 0\). However, as will be seen, even these twists are unable to save the intended Lorentz-transformations-accommodating construction from a catastrophic failure (a failure which, actually, already took place by illegally assuming that \(t'\) can depend on \(x\)).

Now, let’s see what happens in K, depicted on the right side of FIGURE 4. The picture we just discussed of what happens in k is translated into K. Because we pretend we don’t know (we know from the synchronicity lifeline that the scales of time and space are retained everywhere, but we play along with the Minkowski diagram constructor) how the scales of time and space characterizing k are represented in K, we do, following constructors’ logic, the only thing we know happened with certainty; namely, that the photon was released in k in the past. This is why we place that starting point A, of the photon release in k, on the past part of the purported \(t'\) axis of k, shown on the coordinate system of K. By the way, jumping ahead for a moment, we will see that \(t'\) cannot be the time axis of k for even further reasons than the one’s discussed above, but we will play along for the sake of argument, as if \(t'\) is positioned as the constructors think it is; i.e., slanted, because where the constructors of this rigmarole hang themselves is further down the line.

Thus, once we have decided that A is the point of release of the photon, it goes along the path AR, whereby R is the point of reflection. The position of this point R is very important in our pretend-constructing of the \(x'\)-axis, so pay attention here. The Minkowski diagram constructor says, because it suits him to say it, implying uncertainty as to the position of R, that the point of reflection R in question is situated somewhere in the first quadrant of the \(t\) vs. \(x\) coordinate system—the position of the point of reflection R will, however, not be on the \(x\)-axis of K, says the constructor, because nothing guarantees that the release of the photon in k has taken place simultaneously in K (never mind that also the position of release of the photon in k doesn’t coincide with the origin of K either.)

However, the just-described hesitancy as to the position of the point of reflection R, crucial for the construction of the \(x'\)-axis, is unjustified. It is only in the mind of the constructor of these diagrams, instilling this confusion deliberately.

The inescapable truth, however, is that, when it is stated that the light ray is reflected at \(t' = 0\) on the \(t'\)-axis, this is a universally shared time. That time of reflection in k cannot be other than the time of reflection in K as well. To disjoint these times and claim the \(t' = 0 \ne t\), as shown on the right side of FIGURE 4, where the point of reflection R, which must belong to the \(x\)-axis, is wrongly shown off the \(x\)-axis, the axis crossing the \(t\)-axis at time \(t = 0\), means to presume untruth adopting it as truth and continuing to ride on that conviction until reaching further untruths which are presented as truths due to the initial flawed presumption.

Seeing the above, we don’t even need to add that the photon is reflected at R in k and ends its travel at point B in k. Indeed, what was just said is enough to see the flaw in constructing the \(x'\)-axis. As already said, contrary to constructor’s deliberate fabrication, the point R must lie on the \(x\)-axis of K, and therefore the \(x'\)-axis must overlay the \(x\)-axis in K.

FIGURE 4 Preparation for Minkowski diagram.

Constructor’s fabrication is undertaken to allow the constructor the following manipulative conclusion:

Now, having obfuscated the issue, incorrectly placing the point of reflection R off the \(x\)-axis where is actually belongs, the constructor triumphantly announces that we now know where in K the time \(t' = 0\) of the \(x'\)-axis is—as seen in the left coordinate system, constructor says, the zero of the \(x'\) axis is where the light is reflected. Therefore, the point R where the light is reflected must sit on the \(x'\) axis.

The point R where the light is reflected must sit on the \(x'\) axis, all right. We have no disagreement on that with the constructor. The disagreement is that the point R cannot be somewhere random in the \(t\) vs. \(x\) plane of K, but by the laws of nature must also sit on the abscissa \(x\), because the abscissa \(x\) crosses the time coordinate exactly at time \(t = 0\), which by the laws of nature exactly coincides with the time \(t' = 0\), which is exactly the time when the reflection at R occurs in k.

Now, because we have no disagreements with the constructor that there will be a moment when k will pass up K at the time \(t = 0\), so, there will be a \(t = 0\), sitting on \(x'\), exactly when k coincides with K. Therefore, indeed, we can connect the origin of K with the point R and pronounce it to be the abscissa \(x'\) in k. However, because by the laws of nature, R must lie on the \(x\)-axis, as seen above, the position of that \(x'\) axis will by no means be as is shown in FIGURE 5.

To the chagrin of the constructor, the \(x'\)-axis will occupy its rightful place—coinciding with the \(x\)-axis. This indelible truth brings all the efforts of the constructor to nill, and mandates that everyone abandon the Minkowski diagrams, reverting back to what is scientifically viable—both K and k comprise Euclidean spaces in their Cartesian expression, overlaid on one another as in FIGURE 8. No new vision of time, no flabbergasting discoveries, expectations of time travel, least of all travel back in time, no twins growing older while their siblings are staying young. Most importantly, there is no such thing as spacetime, which obliterates most of the current efforts in physics. Do we need to repeat it for the umptieth time—time is absolute?

FIGURE 5 Minkowski diagram with the purported coordinate axes of K and k. The catastrophe is seen at once—one single position on the abscissa \(x\) corresponds to two different values of time, respectively, \(t_1\) and \(t_2\), which is impossible—two coincident clocks, as in this case, measuring on their faces the time at that single position on the \(x\)-axis, must coincide. Due to the discrepant way of constructing the diagram, we see two different values of the time, providing in this way a poor illustration of the flawed Lorentz transformations.

This is how the ridiculous Minkowski diagram, shown in FIGURE 5 (respectively, FIGURE 1), is produced. And, why is it ridiculous? It is ridiculous because, as immediately seen, according to the Minkowski diagram, FIGURE 5, at a given position of the abscissa \(x\), time has two different values; namely, \(t_{1}\) and \(t_{2}\), which is impossible. It contradicts the absolute truth that time at a given place in a given system, can only have one single value at every position \(x\)—cf. also the discussion of FIGURE 1.

More Thoughts on FIGURES 2 Through 5

Once again—the very initial flaw of the spacetime diagram presupposing all further incorrect outcomes from that diagram, is the iniquitous planting in the mind of the reader that time can be a function of space. See FIGURE 2.

The further deception used in constructing the spacetime diagram is the obviously purposely careless using the coordinates of K to represent the coordinates of k. Thus, while actually using the very coordinates of K, when needed, it is pretended that these coordinates are coordinates of k.

Consequently, when sketching in K the position of system k in K, the result, the sloping line relative to \(ct\), is silently assumed to represent the \(ct'\) axis of k. As just explained, right here, at this very moment, the idea of spacetime, illustrated by the discussed Minkowski diagram, falters and must be abandoned because of cheating.

Thus, along with generating misleading sense that time can be affected by space through adopting \(ct\) as the ordinate, the overlaying of the coordinate \(ct'\) onto the \(ct\) vs. \(x\) coordinate system adds another layer of confusion.

Of course, the position of the moving system k can fully legitimately be indicated on the \(ct\) vs. \(x\) coordinate system, representing coordinate system K (if we at all agree that a \(ct\) vs. \(x\) diagram indeed represents system K, which it doesn’t, as already remarked)—cf. FIGURE 3 and on. However, that representation of the position of k in K does not at all comprise genuinely the locus of the points forming the actual \(ct'\) coordinate of k.

The latter comprises the follow-up argument mandating that we must abandon the Minkowski diagrams if we have at all put up with the erroneous initial implication that space can have anything to do with time and can determine time’s value.

However, if we should decide to continue, we should remember that we arrive at the next step of deception—cf. FIGURE 4. Indeed, as a brief rehash of what was said in the previous section, the left diagram in FIGURE 4 correctly (if one agrees with the \(ct'\) vs. \(x\) representation, containing the hidden bomb of implying, when the time comes, the wrong idea that time can be affected at all by anything, in particular, by space) depicts the traces of light flashed at \(1s\) in the past, hitting the \(x'\) abscissa of k, outstanding from the origin of k at 3x10\(^8\)meters, where a mirror is placed moving at the same velocity \(v\) as the system k. The light ray is reflected by the mirror and in another \(1s\) goes back to the axis \(ct'\).

As was seen, the trouble begins when the left picture in FIGURE 4 is to be translated to the \(ct\) vs. \(x\) diagram on the right.

The values of \(ct\) and \(x\) coordinates in the coordinate system K refer only to this system, namely, to system K. However, instead of accommodating this inescapable fact, the Minkowski diagrams constructor distorts this obvious truth forcing us to imagine that some unknown coordinate values referring to k can parasitize on the real values inherent in the coordinate system K, thus pretending that the values occupied by k in K are not what they are. On top of it, things are presented as if we know in advance that the scales of the coordinates in \(ct'\) and \(x'\) in k are different from the scales of \(ct\) and \(x\) in K. This in-advance assumption nonchalantly presupposes differences, portrayed as great discoveries, differences that, obviously, must first be proved but they haven’t been proved. Such an assumption without proof (the assumption that said scales are different) is a typical example of petitio principii. The objection by the constructors of Minkowski diagrams that such an assumption (that the scales in question differ) is the correct conservative approach, is unacceptable, because no method is offered by the constructors for determining conclusively whether these scales do indeed differ (they don’t, as is unequivocally proved by the synchronicity of two spatially coincident clocks and all that follows from it).

Likewise, although we already settled that matter, we may also add as an additional exercise, that in FIGURE 5, the purported point of reflection in k is presented to correspond to two different times in k and K. Indeed, in k the point of reflection which belongs to \(ct' = 0\) on \(x' \), has time \(ct > 0\) on \(x\) in K. This is impossible. A given clock placed at a given point at a given moment can only show one single value on its face, independent of the fact that said clock may also be thought of as residing in another coordinate system (which, on top of it, in this case it is not). The only way to remedy this discrepancy is to observe the \(x'\)-axis in K coinciding with the \(x\)-axis in K. This paragraph is very important and, if needed, should be read again, in addition to recalling the earlier argument.

Furthermore, in FIGURE 4, the position A of the origin of the path of light in K does not only lie on what is pronounced to be \(t'\) axis of k (drawn in K), but also has a value on the \(x\)-axis of K, as well as a value on the \(t\) axis of this same K. These two values cannot be ignored, conveniently considering only the values on the purported primed axes of k. It follows from the figure thus drawn (FIGURE 4) that the clock at A should show two different times—one read from the axis \(t'\), the other read from the axis \(t\) where the projection of A is on the \(t\) axis. However, the time at the instant \(t\) is the same for all clocks in the universe, including the clock residing on the \(ct'\)-axis at the instant \(t\). Recall, all clocks on the \(ct\)-axis are synchronous for all positions parallel to the \(x\)-axis at the given time \(t\). Denying this means to accept that one single clock, residing in a given position \(x\), may show two different times on its face—one corresponding to the universal time \(t\), the other corresponding to time \(t'\) where the parallel line intersects with the \(ct'\)-axis—at one and the same instant \(t\), which is impossible. The only way to provide relief to this contradiction, and thus, accomplish truthful state of affairs, whereby one clock always shows just one value of time at very instant, is to lose the proposed slant of \(t'\) relative to \(t\) and have these two time axes coinciding with each other. We have assembled the requirement for \(t'\)-axis to coincide with the \(t\)-axis, with the requirement the \(x'\)-axis to coincide with the \(x\)-axis in a separate section Correct Representation of the Juxtaposed K and k Coordinate Systems, for convenience.

The excuse that, you see, when we consider k overlaid onto K, we do so contingently, without regard to K, doesn’t hold, because, in turn, when the Minkowski diagrams constructor fabricated in K the \(ct'\)-axis (purportedly belonging to k), the true meaning of the values on the \(ct\)-axis and \(x\)-axis had their own real meaning. However, this is forgotten at any moment when it suits the Minkowski diagrams constructor to forget it. Applying this sort of double standard is common in putting together every important aspect of the so-called “theory” of relativity and its flawed purported illustration by the non-physical notion of spacetime and the ill-constructed Minkowski diagrams.

General Notes on Spaces

Minkowski space is usually treated as a hyperbolic space, as opposed to the usual Cartesian space. Physicists have gone on a rampage using hyperbolic space based on Minkowski diagrams. This is almost all they do nowadays—crunching numbers and theories every which way on that bizarre space, in fact, having nothing to do with the true reality, but pushing it as an expression of some incredible new reality. One pivotal object, which they have adopted to distinguish what they call spacetime, defined on the Minkowski diagrams, from the known, rational, three-dimensional space, separate from time, is the so-called distance in spacetime, as opposed to distance in the regular Cartesian \(x\), \(y\) space. Thus, while in the Cartesian space, the distance \(s^2\) (square of the distance, rather) is the usual \(s^2 = x^2 + y^2 \), in the Minkowski \(ct\), \(x\) space, or spacetime, that distance \(s^2\) is defined to be \( s^2 = c^2t^2 - x^2\), an equation of a hyperbola. However, before setting-up the spacetime interval, one needs to know if the spacetime itself is physical. As seen, it is not.

Besides, notice, we built the diagram initially, as if it is a regular two-dimensional plot in a Cartesian space. We gave the abscissa a value and we also gave the ordinate a value, and then plotted the point corresponding to these two coordinates. Only after that we began introducing fantasies obliging us to consider the distance between the origin of the coordinate system and the point, not as the square root of the sum of the squares of the two coordinates, but as the difference of these squares.

Defining that an interval on a Cartesian coordinate system is not \(s^2=x^2+y^2\), but is \(s^2=x^2-y^2\), is easy, but what would be the point if the constructed coordinate system does not make physical sense in the first place—as seen, the coordinate which stands for the \(y\)-coordinate in Minkowski space, the \(t\)-coordinate, is incompatible with the \(x\)-coordinate, and especially, the \(t\)-coordinate cannot be the function of the \(x\)-coordinate. Space does not make time. Nothing makes time. Time is completely on its own, an infinite signifier and a firsthand witness to history, as it were. You may formally force on a graph the \(t\)-coordinate to become a function of the \(x\)-coordinate, but that is not natural. Such forcing is preconditioned, presupposed, premeditated—it is artificially imparted, and therefore it will bring unnatural, outright wrong, consequences. This situation is similar to what takes place in another pillar of the deception, passing as modern science, quantum mechanics. In these shoddy pillars, an impossible thing is endowed with the image of fabulous new reality and that causes the deceptors to become amazed at the incredible new world revealed in front of their eyes. If this were science fiction and entertainment, it may have some reasons for existence, although it would be the worst kind of artistic occupation. To call that science, however, is true travesty.

Therefore, it is not the further development of that initial non-physical definition \(s^2=x^2-y^2\) and the consequences from it, that is of the essence, but firstly, assessing its physical validity. Unfortunately, it is not physically valid. One way to prove directly its physical invalidity is to observe the emergence of unnatural relations such as the Lorentz transformations. That they are unnatural is not judged from the wrongly postulated \(t\) vs. \(x\) diagrams, but by plugging in numbers in the Lorentz transformations themselves, transformations following from those diagrams, and checking out if they contradict the absolute mandate for the synchronicity of spatially coincident clocks and the absolute truth that length between two points can be defined only when the two points exist at the same time, let alone whether the Lorentz transformations keep the physical laws unaffected when it comes to inertial systems. The Lorentz transformations brazenly violate those mandates.

Of course, this check may be avoided by rejecting the unnatural adoption of the \(t\) vs. \(x\) functional dependence to begin with. That would have saved us a lot of trouble in dealing with vapid futility. That substitution for the sake of achieving formal, mathematical symmetries, pretending that such substitution creates a new physical reality, actually neglecting the real physical reality and meaning, indeed mauling that reality, is the current occupation of physics and is the greatest decimation of cognition in history.

Correct Representation of the Juxtaposed K and k Coordinate Systems

In this way, we descended from the high horse of Minkowski-diagrams-fueled pictorial fantasies and found the firm grounds of reality.

Without much ado, it must be said plainly and simply—if the coordinate system of k is to be correctly overlaid over the coordinate system of K, in concordance with the physical reality, then both systems must have the corresponding axes coinciding with each other, not have the \(t'\) and \(x'\) axes slanted with respect to \(t\) and \(x\) axes as in FIGURE 6. Period. End of story.

FIGURE 6 K and k correctly overlaid at \(t = t' = 0\).

The shown physical collapse of the notion of spacetime puts an end to representations of time and space in terms of a geometry that rejects the Pythagorean theorem, the latter expressing distance between two points as \(s^2 = x^2 + y^2\). Replacing Pythagorean geometry, characterizing Euclidean space, by a geometry which employs the interval \(s^2 = c^2t^2 - x^2\) between two events, is non-physical, having no roots in reality, despite its invariance. As a detail, we will again note that what is sought for is compliance with reality, not some dubious “beauty” of formulaic symmetry and invariance.

There can be nothing respectable about a writing which dwells into this botched view of space and time. On the contrary, it should be rejected without mentioning it ever again. Thus, any discussions of curvature of spacetime or warping spacetime this way or another, in order to permit shortcuts to space travel, are out of place. They are plain wrong and are the opposite of fascinating. Violating of classical laws through absurdities is only a waste of time, if not something worse, misguiding the public from the position of high academic prestige. Violation of classical laws of physics is possible, as will be shown by this author elsewhere, but these violations are discovered based on strict principles of science, not by violating logic and reason and relying on absurdities.

Hyperbolic Geometry is not an Expression of Reality

Reality of a claim in physics cannot arrive from a mathematical argument. The mathematical argument in physics becomes acceptable only if it abides by the physical realities of the absolute truths in physics.

Some people are so used to thinking in terms of hyperbolic space that it has obscured all their perception of sense and logic. Hyperbolic representation gives such beautiful pictures, arriving from the symmetry of formulas, that it becomes all that matters.

Thus, the main effort is not to invent new geometries or to dwell into the intricacies of the non-Euclidean space, but to face the truth that spacetime is non-physical. The hyperbolic geometry cannot remedy the violation of the absolute fact that spatially coincident clocks are synchronous. There are beautiful illustrations of hyperbolic objects, some of which are actually quite fascinating. Unfortunately, these pictures cannot serve as an illustration of reality in physics. Reality in physics is quite plain (no pun intended) in geometrical sense. It is determined by the plainness, actually sheer simplicity, of the absolute truth of synchronicity of spatially coincident clocks. It is amazing what repercussions a simple truth, such as the synchronicity of spatially coincident clocks, may have, abolishing such a grandiose creation as the modern theoretical physics. The falsity of the modern theoretical physics is not only dangerous as a wrong guidance, but also spawns enormous propaganda leading humanity along a garden path. It is also very costly to society, tricking it into investing monstrous sums of tax-payer money into humungous but vapid physical infrastructures endowed with illusory expectations of producing world-shaking physical effects—world-shaking physical events that would never come true because of one simple truth that hasn’t been paid attention to.

The concept of spacetime messes up a very simple and clear subject, giving rise to all kinds of completely uncalled for confusion. People get into this confusion, which is further stimulated by the societal pressures to adopt absurdity as something straight and normal. Many a student, who tries to grapple with that actual nonsense, is afraid to admit that it is nonsense in order to avoid being called stupid. The mantra goes that it cannot be that the whole world accepts that obvious stupidity as being something ingenious and who are you to doubt it.

MANUAL—HOW TO dO Bad SCIENCE

Although we don’t need a special manual with instructions on how to do bad science, because what was established as the fundamentals of the twentieth century science, described in its standard texts—a shining example of which are the texts of the author of the “theory” of relativity—is the perfect manual for this purpose. Nevertheless, we are about to entertain ourselves with some random concrete exercises on that ignoble topic.

BAD SCIENCE INSTRUCTION 1: Pathological “Derivation” of Doppler Effect In the Case of Light

This section serves as an illustration of how a little fudging here and there, sometimes fudging one may not even notice, can in the end lead to the desired result.

The goal in this illustration is to use the \(t\) vs. \(x\) coordinate system for the purposes of deriving the expression for the quotient \(n\), which would express the ratio between the wavelength \(\lambda_{received}\) of the received light over the wavelength \(\lambda_{emitted}\) when that light is reflected by a mirror secured on a body moving in K, receding from the stationary observer. The schematic of this experiment is shown in FIGURE 7.

FIGURE 7 “Doppler Effect” arrangement, \(c = 1\).

Notice carefully that in this exercise, although the coordinates are temporal and spatial, the plot is not a Minkowski diagram because there are no \(t'\) and \(x'\) coordinates. We represent the moving body as a dot in the stated coordinate system.

Although everything is still treated inappropriately, considering the time coordinate on par with the spatial coordinate, I was curious to see what such setup would give for the following not less inappropriate rationale. The “back of the envelope” intention is to use values of times of emission and reflection as quotients, forming constant \(n\) \[ n = \frac{t_{received}}{t_{emitted}}, \]

which, because of the time character of these quantities, may also be expressed as the quotient of the periods of the waves \[ n = \frac{T_{received}}{T_{emitted}}, \]

and because of \(cT = \lambda\), finally express the quotient of the wavelengths \[ n = \frac{\lambda_{received}}{\lambda_{emitted}}. \]

Right here is the moment where the fudging occurs. The fudging consists in presupposing that light ray changes its wavelength from the value it had at the emission to the wavelength it has at reception; that is, that \[ \lambda_{received} = n \lambda_{emitted}, \]

where \(n \ne 1\). Of course, this proposal came about due to the true fact that time of reception \(t\) is different (greater) than the time \(t - x\) of emission, to be discussed shortly. That difference of the two times is construed to mean that the periods \(T\) at emission and reception of the ray differ. However, there are no physical grounds to suggest such a thing. Think about it, what would be the physical grounds that light, when propagating in a vacuum, changes its wavelength when it is triggered by a stationary light source, because the time of leaving the stationary source and time of arrival at another stationary location, have different numerical values? None. The feel in contemporary physics is that one should not pay attention to such “insubstantial details” such as physical meaning, as long as in the end the formula obtained is the expected one. Sometimes the excuse is that, well, it has been postulated so or that we take that difference in times to mean difference in lambdas only “virtually”, so that we can get an answer. This is deeply wrong and unscientific and must be nipped in the bud every time such substitution of truth with falsity rears its ugly head.

In the example at hand, there is no way to presume that the velocity \(v\) of the moving system k has anything to do with the wavelength of the traveling light, despite the fact that light’s velocity will be \(c\) for any wavelength. That’s a given, but here, with the source of light being at rest with K, speed of light is not at issue, as was before when the source of light was moving in K. The issue here is that when light starts with a given wavelength (color), it ends with the same wavelength (color) at its final destination, especially when that final destination is stationary. In the example of FIGURE 7 there is no reason for the movement of E to have any effect on the traveling light. The point of impact at \(t\) also has no bearing on the properties of light. Even if we presume that there are effects due to some structural peculiarities of the mirror, these same effects will be there also when the mirror is still. In the example, k is in uniform translatory motion, however, since the times of Galileo, it is known that according to the principle of relativity, uniform translatory motion is akin to rest. Therefore, the encounter of the light with the moving k at time t is akin to the encounter with resting k.

Therefore, there is no reason to suggest that light changes its wavelength. This chain: time of emission over time of reception\(\rightarrow\)period \(T\) of reception over period \(T\) of emission\(\rightarrow\)speed of light \(c\) times the period \(T\) of reception over speed of light \(c\) times period \(T\) of emission\(\rightarrow\)wavelength of reception over wavelength of emission, coming out in the end as \( \lambda_{reception} = \lambda_{emission}\sqrt{\frac{1 + v}{1 - v}} \label{dopplercoefficient} \) is a result of pure fabrication. The result seems right but it was obtained by the intermediate use of wrong premises.

As seen in this author’s book “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today” the result of such fudging is Planck’s 1901 paper, purportedly introducing quantum mechanics to the world. Inspection of that paper, however, shows that the whole derivation there is a result of fudging of the sort just demonstrated. The final coincidence of the blackbody radiation formula with the experimental data is due to curve-fitting, which is not a derivation. Outright fudging is also the 1905 paper on photoelectric effect, also awarded a Nobel prize, whereby, in order to “derive” the electromagnetic formula matching the thermodynamic formula, so as to prove the particle-like character of light, the author has resorted to closing his eyes to obvious wrongness, such as, for instance, accepting that unequal quantities are equal. An example of this kind of fudging was also just given. What should one say about this brazen substitution of meaning, enough in itself to obliterate the entire “theory” of relativity? On top of it, in what I just showed there was not even an inkling of the “theory” of relativity—constancy of the speed of light is an experimental discovery of Michelson and Morley, completely unrelated to the “theory” of relativity, to say nothing of the elementary trigonometry and geometry pupils study in their lower grades.

Let’s see first how FIGURE 7 is constructed. A body E with a mirror attached to it is moving at velocity \(v\) in K at half the speed of light. We know that at time \(t\), when the body receded to distance \(d\) from the \(t\)-ordinate, a ray of light has reached it and was reflected by the mirror attached to the body. Knowing this, we now need to know at what time on the \(t\)-axis was the light photon released? Obviously, that time of photon release has been \(x\) units of time earlier (because we are multiplying the time by the velocity of light \(c = 1\) we may think of this \(x\) as length.) To determine \(x\) we may apply the Pythagorean theorem \(x^2 + d^2 = (hypotenuse)^2\), where \(d = vt\) and \( (hypotenuse)\) is the length of light path from the release of the photon to its arrival at E. Thus, the hypotenuse, from \(\frac{d}{(hypotenuse)} = sin(45^{\circ}) \approx 0.71,\) is \[ (hypotenuse) = \frac{d}{0.71}, \]

from where, applying the Pythagorean theorem, we get \[ \left( \frac{vt}{0.71} \right)^2 = x^2 + (vt)^2,\]

which, after opening the parentheses and reordering gives \[ x \approx vt = d. \]

Thus, the moment of time of the light ray emission is approximately \( t - d \), while the moment of time of return of the light ray at the \(t\)-axis is approximately \(t + d\).

We are ready now to form our quotient \(n\). For the first leg of the light ray journey—from the \(t\)-axis to E we have \[ n = \frac{t_{reception}}{t_{emission}} = \frac{t}{t - d}, \label{firstleg} \]

while for the second leg of that journey, from the mirror at E, now considering this the time of emission, back to \(t\)-axis, where this will be the time of reception, we get \[ n = \frac{t_{reception_2}}{t_{emission_2}} = \frac{t + d}{t}. \label{secondleg}\]

From eq.\eqref{firstleg} and eq.\eqref{secondleg}, the following approximate formula is obtained for the entire light ray journey. \[ n \approx \sqrt{\frac{1 + v}{1 - v}} \label{dcoeff} \]

Eq.\eqref{dcoeff} is said to be a relativistic formula. However, as seen, for what it’s worth, it was obtained purely classically, considering the experimental discovery of Michelson and Morley for the constancy of the speed of light for a stationary light source.

This derivation is mildly entertaining but the real discrepancy resulting from the specifically disjointed Minkowski diagrams emerges when trying to use them to represent what the coordinates of K look like in the botched slanted \(t'\)-\(x'\) coordinates of the moving system k.

BAD SCIENCE INSTRUCTION 2: Deriving of the Main Flawed Result—the Lorentz Transformations

Let’s now have a point E, which in the lingo of Minkowski diagrams is called an event.

FIGURE 8 Minkowski diagram showing event E and light path (the broken lines) of light reflected at E.

The Minkowski diagram in FIGURE 8 is analogous to that in FIGURE 1 and suffers from the same rejecting facts as FIGURE 1. Nevertheless, for the sake of argument, we will see how it is used to derive the non-physical Lorentz transformations. Thus, while E obviously has coordinates \( (t,x) \) because E is in K, it is claimed in the same breath that E also has in FIGURE 8 the impossible coordinates \( (t',x') \) because it also is claimed to reside in the inaccurately depicted, deformed k.

Further, it is imagined that event E is somewhere along the path of light released from the \(t\)-coordinate of K, reflected by a mirror at E back to the \(t\)-axis of K. This arrangement, which is similar to that in FIGURE 7 we just discussed, is not shown in FIGURE 8

The problem now is—if we know \(t\) and \(x\) what are \(t'\) and \(x'\)? Representing \(t'\) and \(x'\) by the known \(t\) and \(x\) is wrongly claimed to be accomplished by the Lorentz transformations. The latter, purportedly (but wrongly), allow determining what a physical law referred to the inertial frame K looks like when this exact same law is referred to the inertial frame k.

The wrongness of the Lorentz transformations was discussed at length in this book and in the earlier books of this author, and most demonstrably their flawedness was exposed by the so-called “theory” of relativity, this being the only role which that absurd “theory” could ever play.

When asked in a conversation, the reader may very shortly compact the answer by succinctly saying—The Lorentz transformations are wrong because the only way to refer to two inertial frames one and the same physical law, is by applying the principle of relativity, nothing alternative, least of all the Lorentz transformations. The principle of relativity, upon application, does not affect the physical law in question, and that is elevated to the rank of the first postulate of the “theory” of relativity (only to be promptly violated and in this way invalidate itself on the very pages of the paper where that “theory” was published). The Lorentz transformations, on the contrary, affect the physical law. That is contrary to what the first postulate mandates, which causes the catastrophic collapse of the “theory” of relativity, as said, on the 1905 paper’s own pages. There cannot be any other way whatsoever, alternative to the way the principle of relativity refers one law to the two inertial systems K and k. The very thought of applying an alternative way, such as the use of the Lorentz transformations, intended to accomplish this job, is in itself an absurdity, which can only lead to further absurdities.

As is seen, continuing to occupy ourselves with the faulty Lorentz transformations makes no sense at all.

However, we will keep going with this “derivation” because the Lorentz transformations devastatingly dominate physics today and the reader should know where this devastation comes from also when Minkowski diagrams are involved.

The light in FIGURE 8 reaches E, located at K-distance \(x\) at K-time \(t\). Therefore, the beginning of the light travel is at time \( t - x \), while the end, after light is reflected at E, is at time \( t + x \). This is by the very same reasons we discussed in the previous section.

Now, we will slightly change the procedure, compared to what we did in the previous section, and now the unknown coefficient \(n\) will signify the quotient of the primed versus un-primed times, instead of the earlier used coefficient \(n\) comprising the quotient of the time of arrival over the time of emission (cf. the previous section). Indeed, because we, playing along with the constructor of Minkowski diagrams for the same of argument, pretend we don’t know the starting time \(t' - x'\) corresponding to the initial time \(t - x\) when the beam is released in K, we will use their ratio \begin{equation} n = \frac{t' - x'}{t - x}. \end{equation}

As is seen, in this quotient we, contingently, write as the numerator the “receiving” frame k, the “emitting” frame being K. Conversely, after the reflection from the mirror at E, the “receiving” frame is K, while the “emitting” frame is k, so we write \begin{equation} n = \frac{t + x}{t' + x'} \end{equation}

So, now we need to solve for \(t'\) and \(x'\) the system \begin{equation}\label{systemofeq} \displaylines{t' - x' = n(t - x)\\t + x = n(t' + x')} \end{equation}

In order to solve the above system of equations for \(x'\), let us express the first equation as \begin{equation} nx + t' = nt + x' \end{equation}

multiply its both sides by \(n\) \begin{equation} n^2x + nt' = n^2t + nx' \end{equation}

and then substitute in it the \(nt'\) from the second equation expressed in the form \begin{equation} nt' = t + x - nx' \end{equation}

obtaining \begin{equation*} n^2x + t + x \enclose{circle}[mathcolor="red"]{\color{black}{- nx'}} = n^2t \enclose{circle}[mathcolor="red"]{\color{black}{+ nx'}} \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} n^2x + t + x = n^2t + 2nx' \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} 2nx' = n^2x + t + x - n^2t \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} 2nx' = n^2x + x - (n^2t - t) \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} x' = \frac{n^2x + x }{2n} - \frac{n^2t - t}{2n} \end{equation*} \begin{equation}\label{eq:xprime} x' = \frac{n^2 + 1}{2n}x - \frac{n^2 - 1}{2n}t. \end{equation}

Thus, we got the expression of \(x'\) in terms of \(x\) and \(t\).

Now, we need the expression for \(t'\) in terms of \(x\) and \(t\). In order to express \(t'\) from the above system of equations, eq.\eqref{systemofeq}, we open the parentheses in the first of the two equations in that system of equations and multiply both sides by \(n\) \begin{equation*} nt' - nx' = n^2t - n^2x. \end{equation*}

Then we open the parentheses and reorder the second equation in the system of equations, eq.\eqref{systemofeq} \begin{equation*} nt' + nx' = t + x \end{equation*}

or

\begin{equation*} nx' = -nt' + t + x \end{equation*}

substituting it in the reordered form of the first equation; namely, \( nt' - nx' = n^2t - n^2x \) \begin{equation*} nt' + nt' - t - x = n^2t - n^2x \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} 2nt' = t + x + n^2t - n^2x \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} 2nt' = n^2t + t - n^2x +x \end{equation*} \begin{equation} t' = \frac{n^2 + 1}{2n}t - \frac{n^2 - 1}{2n}x\label{tprime}. \end{equation}

The equations for \(t'\) and \(x'\) will do us no good until we prove that the coefficient \(n\) is \(n = \sqrt{\frac{1 + v}{1 - v}}\) also in this case. Thus, while we here again have \( v = xt\), the problem is how \(t'\) and \(x'\) are related to \(v\). In the previous section \(n\) expressed the quotient of a time on \(t'\)-axis with a time on the \(t\) axis. It is logical to assume that this same \(n\) will be the quotient between any primed and corresponding unprimed quantity of the frames k and K, not forgetting also the constancy of the velocity of light \(c\). In the previous section we derived \(n\) to be \( n = \sqrt{\frac{1 + v}{1 - v}}\), therefore, we may safely assume that \(n\) has the same value in the case at hand.

Thus, substituting the expression for \(n\) in the above expressions for \(t'\) and \(x'\), eq.\eqref{eq:xprime} and eq.\eqref{tprime}, we get for the coefficient \( \frac{n^2 + 1}{2n} \) \begin{equation*} \frac{\frac{1+v}{1-v} + 1}{2\sqrt{\frac{1 + v}{1 - v}}} \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \frac{\frac{1+v + 1 - v}{1-v}}{2\sqrt{\frac{1 + v}{1 - v}}} \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \frac{\frac{\require{cancel} \bcancel{2}}{1-v}}{\require{cancel} \bcancel{2}\sqrt{\frac{1 + v}{1 - v}}} \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \frac{1}{(1-v)\sqrt{\frac{1 + v}{1 - v}}} \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \frac{1}{\sqrt{(1-v)^2\frac{1 + v}{1 - v}}} \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \frac{1}{\sqrt{(1-v)(1 + v)}} \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-v^2}}, \end{equation*}

and now, recalling that we adopted that the velocity of light is \(c = 1\), we may write the general form of the expression of \(\beta\) in the Lorentz transformations as \begin{equation} \beta = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} }. \end{equation}

In a similar way we get for the coefficient \( \frac{n^2 - 1}{2n} \)

\begin{equation*} \frac{\frac{1+v}{1-v} - 1}{2\sqrt{\frac{1 + v}{1 - v}}} \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \frac{\frac{1+v - 1 + v}{1-v}}{2\sqrt{\frac{1 + v}{1 - v}}} \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \frac{\frac{\require{cancel} \bcancel{2v}}{1-v}}{\require{cancel} \bcancel{2}\sqrt{\frac{1 + v}{1 - v}}} \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \frac{v}{(1-v)\sqrt{\frac{1 + v}{1 - v}}} \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \frac{v}{\sqrt{(1-v)^2\frac{1 + v}{1 - v}}} \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \frac{v}{\sqrt{(1-v)(1 + v)}} \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} \frac{v}{\sqrt{1-v^2}} \end{equation*} \begin{equation*} v\beta . \end{equation*}

Once we have the above, substituting it in the expressions for \(t'\) and \(x'\), eq.(\ref{eq:xprime}) and eq.(\ref{tprime}), is straightforward, and we get finally the Lorentz transformations \begin{equation} \displaylines{x' = \beta \left( x - vt \right)\\t' = \beta \left( t - \frac{vx}{c^2} \right). } \end{equation}

whose non-scientificity we discuss elsewhere in this book.

Presenting these non-scientific equations here is only done for the purposes of demonstrating what flawed consequences follow from deforming Euclidean space in the form of the widely adopted Minkowski space.

BAD SCIENCE INSTRUCTION 3: An Example of a Classical Triviality, Attempted to Illustrate a Claimed “Shocking” New Phenomenon: Deriving of the Main Flawed Result—the Lorentz Transformations

We also need not do this exercise because the absurdity of the “theory” of relativity is already unequivocally established (cf. the catastrophic argument found in the very pages of the original 1905 paper, an argument discussed in detail on page 26 of this author’s book “Relativity is the Mother of All Fake News”), but we will talk about it a bit here nevertheless, just for enjoyment, as well as to see how manipulative the proponents of the “theory” of relativity are about something which has absolutely no non-trivial content. Once the readers understand this example, they may apply this knowledge to any of the numerous so-called thought experiments aimed, in vain, at illustrating the “theory” of relativity.

It must be realized that debunking of a gedanken experiment (a thought experiment) is a deficient way of debunking of the “theory” of relativity because in the back of reader’s mind, there is always the suspicion that the debunker hasn’t clearly understood what the author of the “theory” of relativity really means and the debunker is making things up. Therefore, the really efficient way to deal away with a nasty “theory”, such as the “theory” of relativity, deeply implemented, almost indelibly ingrained into the body of science, is to show the catastrophic absurdity directly on the very pages of the paper (the 1905 paper in this case), as is done herewith and in the other books of this author.

Nevertheless, we will present such a gedanken experiment, which has been funded by the US Government, illustrating for what absurdities our government spends our hard-earned tax dollar. Of course this is a drop in the ocean of waste governments spend for funding this deception.

A youtube video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wteiuxyqtoM), has attracted almost a million views but incorrectly advocates for the wrong idea, foisted by the author of the “theory” of relativity, that simultaneity is relative. Below, a discussion of the flaws in that video's arguments is presented (the transcript from the video is given in bold):

“Imagine two observers, one seated in the center of a speeding train car [she], and another [he] standing on the platform as the train races by. As the center of the car passes the observer on the platform, he sees two bolts of lightning strike the car—one on the front, and one on the rear. The flashes of light from each strike reach him at the same time, so he concludes that the bolts were simultaneous, since he knows that the light from both strikes traveled the same distance at the same speed, the speed of light.”

The author of the “theory” of relativity tells us about the conclusion of the observer on the platform in anticipation that the observer on the train, using his “theory” and light ray method, will conclude otherwise about the simultaneity of the two lightning bolts. This anticipated discrepancy between his and her perception of simultaneity the author of the “theory” of relativity would present as a fundamental discovery—the discovery of the relativity of simultaneity.

We will see shortly, however, that there is no discovery at all, but just a plain and simple fudging and deception.

For this reason, let us first see what the truth itself is, in its real sense, about the simultaneity of the two events in the two systems. Then, after we find out what that unquestionable truth is, we will see whether her (one of the two protagonists in this made-up story—the passenger sitting in the middle of the train) perception about that simultaneity, when applying the “theory” of relativity’s light ray method, indeed differs from his (the perception of the other protagonist standing on the platform in the middle of the two events).

For this purpose, we will denote by (lower case) \(t\) the moment of time when the two lightning strokes fall simultaneously on the platform. This is also the train's moment of time (lower case) \(t'\), when the midpoint of the train coincides with the observer on the platform. At time \(t' = t\) (recall that two spatially coincident clocks are synchronous, a principle called here synchronicity lifeline) the frame of the train does undoubtedly have two points, equidistant from its midpoint, which coincide with the points where the two lightning bolts fell on the platform. Therefore, the two lightning bolts which fell simultaneously on the platform (at time \(t\)) also fell simultaneously in the frame of the train (at time \(t'\)). This is the undeniable truth about the simultaneity of the two discussed events—the two lightning bolts have fallen simultaneously, both on the platform and in the reference frame of the train.

Thus, any method which the observers will apply, should these observers need to obtain correct results by that method, must have as a result that the lightning bolts have fallen simultaneously in both frames.

Now, let us see what the perception of the observers is when applying the author of the “theory” of relativity’s own method to judge the simultaneity by the arrival of light rays with an observer, also considering as valid his second postulate (the postulate for the constancy of the speed of light), which is no postulate at all but the experimental discovery made by Michelson and Morley.

By the way, the funny font with which we write the second postulate is to indicate that the postulate in question is used with the wrong meaning, as the entire current physics mainstream happens to perceive it; namely, that the speed of light is \(c = const\) under any circumstances of the moving source, including when we are the observers, sitting at rest with K, and we see the source of light moving relative to us. As clearly shown, Michelson-Morley experiment, respectively the second postulate which cannot be at odds with that experiment, although deliberately confusedly worded with the aim to deceive whoever decides to apply it, as is the deceptive overall tenor of the entire “theory” of relativity (cf. here and here), can only mean that speed of light referred to a given coordinate system, as well as released from a source stationary with respect to that system, is \(c = const\), independent of whether said system is moving with respect to external coordinate systems or is at rest with the external coordinate systems. Consequently, as shown, for an outside observer, the speed of light emitted by a source moving at velocity \(v = const\) with respect to that outside observer, is a function of \(v\).

Because of the above-mentioned undeniable truth that both flashes leave at the same time \(t'\), the points where the lightning bolts fell in the frame of the train, and because the observer on the train is equidistant from these points, considering also that the second postulate is valid, these flashes will arrive simultaneously with her as they did with him. Thus, if she needs to apply the “theory” of relativity’s method of light rays arriving with an observer, to judge simultaneity, considering also the “theory” of relativity’s second postulate as valid, she will reach the same conclusion as the conclusion the observer on the platform reaches, namely, that the two lightning bolts have fallen simultaneously in her frame, as they did in his frame. By the way, don’t blame me, blame the second postulate, as incorrectly understood by the current mainstream, for the ridiculousness of such a conclusion, stemming from the adoption of the wrong view that, according to the so-construed, defectively understood second postulate, the velocity of light is always \(c = const\), independent of whether or not the source, the point were the lightning bolt hits the platform, moves at velocity \(v\).

Thus the above-established undeniable truth that the two events are simultaneous in the moving frame is also confirmed by the perception of the moving observer herself, who chooses to use “theory” of relativity’s method and theory for that determination.

Now that we know the truth about the two discussed events, namely, that they are simultaneous in both systems and also that both observers do perceive these events as simultaneous when applying “theory” of relativity’s own theory and light ray method, let us see what trick the proponents of the “theory” of relativity use in trying to convince us in something completely at odds with the truth.

The trick is simple but appears to work with the gullible or those with short attention span.

As already clear, the proponent of the “theory” of relativity proposes that the observers should judge as to whether the events have been simultaneous by whether the flashes of light emitted earlier by these events have reached each observer simultaneously. Thus, the comparison is between the perception of observers at rest with the light sources, that is, between what the observers perceive in their own systems—“every system minds its own business”, as it were. In addition, the “theory” of relativity claims that “light is always propagated in empty space with a definite velocity c which is independent of the state of motion of the emitting body”; that is wrongly construed because of the deliberately deceptive way it’s written, that is wrongly taken by the mainstream to mean that the velocity of light with respect to an observer should not depend on the velocity of the light source with respect to that observer.

Obviously, being unable to know what the perception of the moving observer is, the author of the “theory” of relativity tries to use an indirect way to conclude what that moving observer will see. In doing so, the author of the “theory” of relativity slyly fudges a result from classical physics (physics without the “theory” of relativity), valid in the system of the embankment, falsely presenting it as if it is a result from his new so-called “theory” of relativity in the system of the embankment, while in addition, pretending that this, in fact classical result, is also valid for the system of the train. Thus, instead of facing what his purported “theory” really brings about when carrying out that comparison, the author of the “theory” of relativity, in order to appear that he is making a discovery, flips the script and substitutes the fact following from his own theory (as wrongly understood by the current mainstream) with a conveniently different fact following from the standard, classical theory (physics without the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics). Here goes:

“He also predicts that his friend on the train will notice the front strike before the rear strike,”

That conclusion is wrong. The stated prediction is based on classical physics, that is, physics without the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics. The stated prediction is based also on the correctly understood second postulate, whereby the velocity of light does depend on the velocity \(v\) at which the source moves with the respect of the observer, as the outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment mandates. Therefore, it is a trivial prediction and is no discovery of the “theory” of relativity at all.

The adherents to the “theory” of relativity foist on us this classical prediction, pretending to conveniently "forget" that it is just the opposite of what the “theory” of relativity will predict, according to their own understanding of that “theory”.

Indeed, if the observer on the platform believes that the “theory” of relativity and its second postulate in the rendition of the mainstream, are valid, he should have predicted that the flashes should reach her simultaneously because the flashes have started from points equidistant from her and velocity of light with respect to her is constant, independent of the velocity \(v\) of the train.

Compare this with the classical outcome, as well as with the outcome from the correctly understood second postulate, whereby the velocity of light emitted by a source moving relative to an observer depends on the velocity \(v\) of the source. Classically (and according to the correctly understood second postulate), despite the fact that the flashes have started from points equidistant from her, the velocity of light will not be constant. It will matter whether the train is moving to meet the flash at the front, or the train is moving away from the flash at the rear. Thus, as is obvious, the author of the “theory” of relativity and his advocates try to trick us into accepting this classical result as if it is an outcome from his “theory” of relativity.

“because from her perspective on the platform the train is moving to meet the flash from the front, and moving away from the flash from the rear”.

On the contrary, as already emphasized, according to the “theory” of relativity’s own second postulate, as understood by the current mainstream, it should not matter that the train is moving to meet the flash at the front, neither should it matter that the train is moving away from the flash at the rear.

“But what does the passenger see? As her friend on the platform predicted, the passenger does notice the flash from the front before the flash from the rear.”

Here we go again. Outright fudging. The proponents of the “theory” of relativity again foist on us this classical prediction, pretending to conveniently "forget" that it is just the opposite of what the prediction from the “theory” of relativity, in its rendition by the mainstream, is.

Indeed, if the observer on the platform believes that the “theory” of relativity and its second postulate is valid, he should have predicted that the flashes should reach her simultaneously, because the flashes have started from points equidistant from her and velocity of light with respect to her is constant, since her velocity with respect to the source will not be added to or subtracted from the velocity of light emitted from that source. To preserve the requirement of the second postulate, as the mainstream understands that postulate today, that the velocity of light should always be constant, her velocity with respect to the light sources, which are at rest with the stationary system, must be zero under any circumstances. It is a fatal error to consider the second postulate as valid only in the moving system while “forgetting” that it is also valid in the system of the platform as well. Also, since the observer on the train is only one, then it is not possible to have two mutually exclusive statements be valid for her—it is not possible for her to have the velocity of light with respect to her both depend and not depend on the velocity \(v\) of the light source with respect to her. If we believe the second postulate, as the mainstream understands it today, is valid, no matter from what system it is considered, the velocity of light must be constant with respect to her. Thus, it follows from the second postulate of the “theory” of relativity that she will see the two flashes simultaneously.

“But her conclusion is very different.”

Not at all. As noted, exactly because of the “theory” of relativity, as that “theory” is understood by the current mainstream, she will see the flashes simultaneously as does he.

“As [the author of the “theory” of relativity] showed, the speed of the flashes as measured in the reference frame of the train must also be the speed of light.”

The author of the “theory” of relativity does not show this but wrongly postulates it. Alas, as seen, the observer on the platform chose to forget it when making his prediction.

“So, because each light pulse travels the same distance from each end of the train to the passenger, and because both pulses must move at the same speed, he can only conclude one thing: if he sees the front strike first, it actually happened first.”

She, however, will not see the front strike first but will see both flashes simultaneously, which, as we saw, actually follows from the “theory” of relativity in its today’s comprehension by the mainstream, when judging from the platform.

“Whose interpretation is correct—the observer on the platform, who claims that the strikes happened simultaneously, or the observer on the train, who claims that the front strike happened before the rear strike?”

That implication of discrepancy between his and her interpretation concerning the simultaneity of the lightning strokes is incorrect and manipulative. As seen, both observers claim, when applying the “theory” of relativity, as understood by the current mainstream, and the method of light ray arrival with observers to judge about simultaneity, that the strikes happened simultaneously.

“[The author of the “theory” of relativity] tells us that both are correct, within their own frame of reference.”

Again, as we saw (but the author of the “theory” of relativity incorrectly foists that it is otherwise), both observers claim, when applying the “theory” of relativity, the way current physics mainstream understands it, within their own frames of reference, that the strikes happened simultaneously.

This is contrary to what the author of the “theory” of relativity foists on us.

To summarize:

Is there a discrepancy in the frame of the platform between what he sees and what she sees:

According to the “theory” of relativity (if applied the way the current physics mainstream wrongly understands it): NO

Classically (and according to the correct understanding of the absurd “theory” of relativity and its second postulate): YES

Does this discrepancy classically (and according to the correctly understood second postulate) mean that simultaneity is relative in classical physics (and when the second postulate; i.e., the Michelson-Morley experiment, is correctly understood)? NO, IT DOES NOT.

Why?

Because the method to study simultaneity in a given frame with rays arriving with observers does work only when the observers and the sources of light are at rest with each other. Classically (and when the second postulate; i.e., the Michelson-Morley experiment is correctly understood), even if the two equidistant sources have flashed simultaneously in a given frame, the rays emitted from these two flashes will not arrive simultaneously with the observer if that observer moves with respect to them. Classically (and when the second postulate; i.e., the Michelson-Morley experiment is correctly understood), observer's velocity \(v\) is added to and subtracted from the velocity of light. Therefore, a non-simultaneous arrival of these rays with the observer in this case does not prove that the events themselves are not simultaneous.

As a matter of fact, the author of the “theory” of relativity would keep the requirement that his method (in any of its renditions) does work only when the observers and the sources of light are at rest with each other. He errs in something else. His error is that when applying his method and postulating it in the moving system, he incorrectly presumes that the classical result (or the result from the correctly understood second postulate; i.e., the correctly understood Michelson-Morley experiment) of unequal time of arrival in the frame of the platform, is a result from his “theory” applicable in the moving system. Thus, the author of the “theory” of relativity mixes up this classical result from the frame of the platform with the (imagined due to the incorrect understanding of the second postulate—the second postulate, the way he, as the representative of the mainstream, understands it, gives equal times) non-classical equal times of arrival in the frame of the train. Such mix-up, in addition to the inapplicability, in general, of the arrival of light ray method to study simultaneity, is also a gross violation of logic.

It should also be mentioned that the method will always give correct results only if the signals are of infinite velocity.

More importantly, is there a discrepancy between the arrival of flashes with the moving observer as seen from the stationary versus as seen from the moving system?

According to the author of the “theory” of relativity (as understood by the current mainstream): NO. As seen, the purported difference by the “theory” of relativity, allowing to claim relativity of simultaneity (in any of its renditions), is faked. Even according to the very premises of the “theory” of relativity (as today’s mainstream understands it), the flashes will arrive with her simultaneously, both as seen from the platform and as seen from the train.

Classically: also NO. Both from the stationary and from the moving system the flashes will arrive non-simultaneously with her, fully trivially expected. Says the video:

“This is a fundamental result of special relativity: From different reference frames, there can never be agreement on the simultaneity of events.”

On the contrary. This is a fundamental error of the author of the “theory” of relativity. As seen, exactly because of its own second postulate, combined with its own method to judge the simultaneity of two events from different reference frames, there is always an agreement on the simultaneity of events. This fact additionally invalidates the so-called “theory” of relativity in its entirety, along with the catastrophic flaws discovered by this author and presented in his previous books, especially in his latest book on the subjects, entitled “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”. As this section began, we didn’t even need to get into any explanations at all, involving the speed of light or the second postulate, let alone the second postulate, or anything else having to do with the “theory” of relativity, for that matter. As said, this exercise was carried out just for fun.

Explanation with Formulae

This discussion will help the understanding of the train example, concerning the absoluteness of simultaneity and regarding the understanding the second postulate.

Let us observe the clock at rest with the light source, residing at point A' in k to be also at point A in K where there is also a clock. Because the two clocks—the clock at A' and the clock at A—are spatially coincident, they are synchronous; that is, the hands on their faces have the same position. Therefore, we may write for the time \(t'_{A'}\) at \(A'\) and the time \(t_A\) at \(A\) the following equality: \(t'_{A'} = t_A\).

Now, if the frame k, the frame of the light source, is at rest with the laboratory frame K, then light emitted at point \(A\) (coinciding with \(A'\)) will travel through distance \(l\) both in k and in K until reaching the end of \(l\), where there is also a clock which shows time \(t'_{B'} = t_B\). We denote the end of \(l\) by \(B\) (coinciding with \(B'\) in k). So far, so good. The velocity of light is \(l\) divided by \(t_B - t_A\), respectively, \(l\) divided by \(t'_{B'} - t_{A'}\).

Imagine now that the light source residing at \(A'\) in k is in motion at velocity \(v\), and exactly when \(A'\) happens to coincide with \(A\) in K a flash of light is triggered. The time of triggering is again \(t'_{A'} = t_A\). In k that light traverses the distance \(l\) and reaches the other end of \(l\) at time \(t'_{B'}\). Now, since “spatially coincident clocks are synchronous”, the clock in K coinciding with the clocks in k upon arrival of the light at the end of \(l\) must show time \(t'_{B'} = t_B\). Therefore, the time of flight both in k and in K is \(t'_{B'} - t'_{A'} = t_{B} - t_A \).

How about the distance traveled by the same ray in each frame of reference? In k the distance traveled will be \(l\), while the distance traveled by the light ray in K will be \(l + v(t_{B} - t_A)\). Therefore, the speed of light in the first case; that is, the case concerning k, will be, again, as in the stationary case; i.e. when \(v = 0\), \(l\) divided by either \(t'_{B'} - t'_{A'} \) or \(t_{B} - t_A \), because \(t'_{B'} - t'_{A'} = t_{B} - t_A \). In the second case; that is, the case concerning K, however, the velocity will be the distance \(l + v(t_{B} - t_A)\) divided by the time of flight, either \(t'_{B'} - t'_{A'} \) or \(t_{B} - t_A \), because \(t'_{B'} - t'_{A'} = t_{B} - t_A \). If we denote \(l\) divided by \( t_{B} - t_A \) by the letter \(c\), then, in the second case the speed of light will be \(c + v\).

What we accomplished here is showing in an alternative way what we already know from the example with formulae; namely, that the speed of light differs for an observer in K compared to the speed of light for an observer in k, when the source moves at velocity \(v\) relative to K. As a direct result of this finding, made purely classically, without any involvement of the “theory” of relativity, it follows that the observer on the platform will conclude differently than the observer on the train about the arrival of the rays of light. However, that difference in the conclusion about the arrival of the light at each one of the observers has no bearing on whether or not the two flashes were simultaneous. They are simultaneous, however, the observer on the train used an inappropriate method for determining simultaneity. That method does not work when the source of light is moving with respect to the observer.

BAD SCIENCE INSTRUCTION 4—Arrow of Time as the Victim of Bad Science

Here is another example of bad science where, in addition to the bad science utilizing spacetime illustrations, the conclusions are based on deliberate misunderstanding of thermodynamics for the purposes of deriving outlandish ideas.

We will observe, among the other faultiness, two basic deliberate mistakes

• Erroneous considering of time as dependent on other factors

• Erroneous considering of the universe as a closed system

We saw in the previous sections that contemporary physics is based on a badly deformed idea about science. We used the synchronicity lifeline to establish that the views of the nature of time portrayed as some new otherworldly new views on time, are in fact, wrong views about time, imposed through aggressive global, planetary propaganda. Actually, as the synchronicity lifeline, introduced by this author, proves—time is absolute.

Furthermore, any event is permanently characterized by a true parameter called time, which is a natural characteristic, not just some label attached to the event, a label that may be thought of as something that could be removed from it or changed in some way, should one want to and knows how to do that. It was seen that, significantly, all good clocks, anywhere, will unequivocally agree on what the interval is between any events.

A short review of the main points so far—this may assist us in the follow-up discussion

My observation has been that some readers easily lose focus and stray from the main point, perceiving a writing such as this as some kind of a random compilation of thoughts, equal in their weight of importance regarding the ideas expressed. In reality, all the discussion is to make clear the ramifications of the main point. Therefore, although it may appear repetitious and in the middle of things, it is necessary for a periodic reminder to bring back the focus to the real dramatic issue of our time, at the basis of all cognitive problems of humanity—the “theory” of relativity.

Therefore, let us now briefly review some of the main points we talked about so far, in view of their crucial importance in understanding time. Sadly, an unfortunate view, comprising exemplary bad science, known as the “theory” of relativity, was falsely presented as something which changes the view of time. The “theory” of relativity, however, is absurdity, and, as is characteristic for an absurdity, nothing can follow from it, to begin with.

The collapse of the so-called “theory” of relativity occurs due to the violation of its first postulate, as the example given here shows. More examples of the catastrophe of the same sort may be seen in the other books of this author. Notably, the constancy of the speed of light; that is, the second postulate is not only irrelevant to the “theory” of relativity, which collapses due to the violation of the first postulate as a result of the application of the Lorentz transformations, but, on top of it, the second postulate is massively misunderstood, as seen here, if that at all matters, provided that the “theory” of relativity is already a non-issue prior to even getting to discuss the constancy of the speed of light.

Although unrelated to the failed “theory” of relativity, as a side note, for those who are curious where this constancy of the speed of light came from, it may be mentioned that it was Michelson and Morley’s experimental discovery. That discovery not only does not at all lead to the “theory” of relativity, but is the first experimental proof against the mentioned wrong understanding of its second postulate. We need not discuss here either the Michelson-Morley experiment or how it defeats the wrong perception of the second postulate in the wrong sense that the speed of light will remain \(c\) even if the source of light is moving relative to the stationary observer. The curious, however, may take a look at the section Extraneous Questions—Michelson and Morley Experiment, where the outcome of that experiment is comprehensively explained. The Michelson-Morley discovery proved that the speed of light is \(c\) only for stationary observers who are at rest not only with their own systems of reference, but also with the source of light, independent of whether or not their reference frame is moving relative to another reference frame. As already emphasized, the “theory” of relativity does not consider such situation, in a sense “what happens from my point of view in the system moving relative to me”, but instead, all its derivations concern physical laws or states referred to a concrete system, not to another system, independent of whether or not there is such other external system, as well as, independent of whether or not such external system, if there is such, is moving with respect to the system under observation. This remark was just a detail which has no bearing on the rest of our discussion in this section.

We may end the short review here and after mentioning some consequences from all the above, already known, but reworded, we will get into the “meat” of the main ridiculousness concerning, now, not time itself but the arrow of time, as much as you, as a reader, must have thought that the uniqueness of the past\(\rightarrow\)future direction of time should go without saying. Bad science takes nothing usual as usual. If you think there are things that cannot be challenged; that is, that there are absolute truths such as that the sun rises in the east or that one and two can never equal each other, think twice when having a rendezvous with bad science.

The collapse, discovered by this author, of the “theory” of relativity, the only possible role of which is to demonstrate in an immediate, straightforward way the collapse of the Lorentz transformations, proves that the idea of unique absolute time not only must not be abandoned, but this is exactly the correct idea about the nature of time. Thus, the idea of personalized time, only relative to the observer who measured it by the clock he carried, turned out to be a fundamentally wrong idea. The clocks that the different observers carry will agree without a shadow of a doubt.

The fundamental discovery made by this author, described in a number of earlier publications and texts, made it completely unnecessary to even imagine playing with time, let alone introducing phony quantities such as “imaginary” time, said to aid in unifying gravity with something no less absurd than the “theory” of relativity, known as quantum mechanics. Why quantum mechanics is absurd may be read in earlier publications of this author, especially in his book entitled “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”.

As a result of the mentioned discoveries, time restored its initial standing in physics, untouchable as ever, occupying its unique place among the other fundamental quantities in physics, the leader in fundamentality and shining like the gold standard of conceptual permanency. The liquidity in understanding time is history.

By the way, even if there were no unequivocal arguments about the absoluteness of time, the very fact that, instead, an “imaginary” time had to be introduced, proves the entire poverty of everything the so-called contemporary theoretical physicists do. We will keep going through this morass, led by our curiosity to see what may possibly be offered, to justify devoting time to an issue—the absolute time—which is so clearly understood.

“Imaginary” time is a vicious outgrowth of the main flaw of the spacetime concept—illegal mixing of spatial coordinates and time, incorrectly turning time, by multiplying it by \(c\), into another spatial coordinate, illegally forcing it to be treated as equivalent in its role as a coordinate, to the other 3 spatial coordinates. The minute this substitution of the real meaning of time with the imposed, non-physical meaning occurs, that travesty finding itself accepted as a legitimate substitution, the sky is the limit when it comes to manipulations and falsity. Now, time can be treated as any other spatial coordinate, endowing it, completely ridiculously, with qualities which the real time has not. That caricature of time, now endowed with spatial qualities, may behave the way the spatial coordinates do—they may change in every direction, so does the new formulation of time. Well, now, with this new attire, should we adopt it as legitimate, we don’t need derivations to know that travel back in time is possible—an absurdity turned into a household item for entertainment. What the sideways travel of time amounts to isn’t quite clear, but we don’t intend to dwell into this because the very initial idea to treat time on par with the 3 spatial coordinates as their equivalent, indistinguishable partner, doesn’t stand scrutiny. We have already had ample chance to prove that, especially by employing the synchronicity lifeline—back and forth motion of time is impossible and need not be imagined as possible. Time only goes one way: past\(\rightarrow\)present\(\rightarrow\)future. If there is ranking of the bizarre in physics, the view that time can be imagined to run in any direction as a prerequisite of further ruminations, is the bizarrest.

Not less bizarre is the puzzlement which some authors, owning imagination not quite there, express, observing that there is no difference between back and forth movement of the “imaginary” time, while the back and forth in “real” time are substantially different. When one has nothing else to do, one begins imagining things to get amazed at.

Forget about the bizarre puzzlement. That suddenly becomes old news. This becomes usual, in need of explanation. Thus, now, the authors brace themselves to explain why there exists such a discrepancy between the “imaginary” time, insensitive to directions, and “real” time, very much apprehending that difference.

However, forget even about this. We are now into the next step of insanity. The author ponders over why we remember the past but do not remember the future.

Do we really remember the past, remembering the future notwithstanding? Remembering the future is such a nonsense that it should not be mentioned even for fun. The very word remember implies the past. It is another way of saying the past. But, now, why should we even bring up the act of “remembering” when trying to explain time? We may not remember one thing, and yet, the past has certainly been. There will also be future, timewise, even if a nuclear war explodes the earth as we know it.

Furthermore, some authors’ inference that the laws of science do not distinguish between the past and the future are untenable as generalization. Irreversible chemical reactions will be mentioned in a bit as a counterinstance, but now, let’s refer the reader to this contemplation here, when thinking about a well-established physical law expressing the time-dependence of a physical quantity.

Speaking of physical laws, another adventure into which our tireless authors launch themselves, is the role of symmetry regarding the physical laws. I sense the distant whiff of the failed attempt to achieve an imaginary symmetry in Maxwell’s equations that was thought to be absent in their previous rendition, so that a “theory” of relativity had to be created. The problem in question, and the subsequent intention, can be read on the very first page of the 1905 paper. It is an unfulfilled intention. The “theory” of relativity is a disaster. Our cosmologist authors, however, do not think so. They deeply bow, as if it’s some sacred spell, to anything that their 1905 guru happened to have said. Did I not mention that today’s scientific mainstream swears by that “theory”? Therefore, we shouldn’t be the least surprised by the diligence to carefully follow every jargon outlined back in 1905, including musings on symmetry and its imaginary relationship to the physical laws envisioned by genius. This is a genius. He cannot be wrong in his predictions. Defining physical laws through obeying or expressing symmetries, however, is not anything more than a cute observation, applicable in some cases. Such formal observations do not contribute much to the real understanding of nature.

Mathematics and its constructs, such as symmetries, in particular, cannot determine what science is. Science decides if it needs an illustration in the form of this or that symmetry, if at all. One may notice that there is symmetry on occasion in science. Consider stereochemistry, for example, especially emphasized in organic chemistry. However, that is just a peculiarity of the scientific phenomena. It is not the other way round; namely, because we know the concept of symmetry, we should expect it in a scientific phenomenon in order to know or to pronounce it as scientific. What determines whether or not a physical law has been discovered is decided solely by the scientific method, irrespective of what symmetries are observed or are not observed. Take, for instance the expression, defined to comprise distance \(s^2 = c^2t^2 - x^2\) in the hyperbolic space of the Minkowski diagrams—what mathematically beautiful symmetries and invariance are revealed, indeed. Alas, the constructs based on this definition of distance lack physical meaning, they are not rooted in reality. So, drop the symmetries and look for the real criteria for scientificity. The first criterion for a proposal to be considered scientific is for that proposal to lack internal contradictions, to not be absurd. This is exactly the criterion by which quantum mechanics, and especially the “theory” of relativity, fail badly at their very doorstep—quantum mechanics, in its very first 1901 paper, supposedly introducing it, as well as in its very eigenvector postulates, having no solutions belonging to the Hilbert space, while the “theory” of relativity collapsing on the very pages of its 1905 paper introducing it.

Thus, finding the unchangeability of a law under the combined action of symmetries may be a cute observation, if it proves to be true in certain phenomena, but it by no means can serve as a condition for whether a phenomenon is scientific, and if it doesn’t show such combination of symmetries, it would be non-scientific. Symmetries have nothing to do with the essence of phenomena. They can only be observed in some phenomena, while lacking in others. As said, the scientific character of a phenomenon is established by different criteria, other than whether or not what is observed possesses this or that symmetry or a combination of symmetries.

Cute sounding are also the suggestions that it wouldn’t make a difference as to whether or not inhabitants are made of anti-matter, rather than matter, both species, the mirror images of each other, obeying the same laws. This, however, as a question of physics, cannot be resolved mathematically. Mathematics only helps physics. It cannot reveal physical nature which hasn’t yet been revealed purely physically, the way language does not generate the thoughts. It only helps the thoughts to be expressed.

As we go on further, we observe something peculiar, which we already witnessed on several occasions—saying something right for a change. Remember the trick of the manipulator—mixing of right and wrong. In this case of saying something right, for a change, we see these authors-manipulators demonstrating that they well understand that for the second law of thermodynamics to be in effect, especially the spontaneousness of entropy increase, the system observed must be closed. This admission is to give us reassurance that the author-manipulator knows what he’s talking about, in this way bringing our guard down when confronted with what follows in his musings. In a closed system, heat goes spontaneously from the hot body to the cold body, not the other way around; order goes spontaneously into disorder, not the other way around. Spilled milk doesn’t go on its own back into the cup.

We will soon see, however, that the requirement the various renditions of thermodynamics’ second law, such as the ones mentioned above, applies only to a closed system. That’s on the one hand.

On the other hand, and that’s a more subtle violation, which we also encountered already, comprising just about the main inadequacy of the Minkowski diagrams, making them unfit for scientific conclusions representing reality, is the subtle intimation that there are factors, such as space, that may affect the time. This possibility is not openly declared but is implied, first of all by suggesting that time \(t\), even if in the form of \(ct\), can be the ordinate.

Likewise, when it suits the proposer of faux groundbreaking ideas, it is subtly insinuated that the inevitable forward motion of time, is due to, is a function of, is caused by, the increase of entropy. This is daft because entropy increases not because entropy has anything to do with time, but because, while time passes, immanently going from past to the future, one happens to observe different things. For example, one observes entropy increase as the time goes by. This is a property of entropy, which is not due to the increasing time, neither is the increase of entropy causing or having anything to do with the inevitable forward running, or passing, or going, of time. Entropy is observed on its own and when such observation is carried out, it is noticed as its property that entropy increases with time. We age in time, but time cannot take the blame for that. Let alone that people are at a different stage of their aging at every single moment of the time, whose essence is to be common to everyone.

Therefore, the increase of entropy cannot be labeled the entropy or thermodynamic arrow of time.

Entropy increases along the immanent advancement of time. It just happened so. The friction slows down in time the motion of a body pushed on a track. It just happens so due to the way nature works. The increase of entropy is not an illustration of that forward going time. Some people age differently from others but that doesn’t mean that time runs slower for them.

Distinguishing the past from the future is intrinsic to time, and that passage cannot always be illustrated. Sometimes an object can stay unchanged for a long time, but that doesn’t mean that time has stopped for it. Incidentally, if one is to present something changing as an illustration of the fact that time goes forward, one may use a timepiece, even more visibly, an hourglass.

By the way, if we should call “arrow of time” the forward going of time from the past to the future, then we must recognize that there is only one such arrow. However, when it comes to illustrating time, that forward run allows it to be illustrated in various ways, more than the three ways adopted by some. Three ways of illustrating time? What three ways? Be patient, explanation is coming and it isn’t something you’d want to miss, as the model to follow if you want to do bad science.

At this juncture, we will express our expected warning once again—if one should speak about illustrations of time, one should be careful with these illustrations, not to give the impression that whatever illustrates time, gives the impression that it rules time, affects time, has time as its function.

For instance, one may encounter in cosmologic literature the use of the thermodynamic principle that order goes spontaneously into disorder, not vice versa, as an example of the forward going of time. As discussed, this only illustrates time but does not condition time itself. The order\(\rightarrow\)disorder direction of the spontaneous development of entropy, is only a property of entropy, not of time. It is not that because in a closed system entropy goes from order to disorder that time follows suit. On the contrary—it is observed on the inevitable background of time as a natural parameter going forward that something known as entropy, comprising the state of disorder, happens to exhibit spontaneously more disorder, as the inevitable parameter time unfolds. Therefore, in order to avoid this confusion, calling that illustration “thermodynamic time”, is not recommendable. For the sake of argument, however, we will go along with the cosmologists, calling the property of entropy to spontaneously demonstrate only the order\(\rightarrow\)disorder direction by the label “thermodynamic time”, to see where all this will end.

Of course, in this tentative adoption of the term “thermodynamic time”, we will not forget that it confuses the issue. As inferred, when put this way, it may be wrongly construed that entropy determines time. The physical situation, however, focuses on the entropy, amounting to what happens to entropy in a closed system, provided someone needs to know that. Thus, there is an inevitably running parameter anyway—time—while it turns out, peculiarly, that entropy increases with time. Coining the term “thermodynamic time” is one more instance when an attempt is made to leave the impression that time is somehow intimately connected with something, that time can be shaped by something, that time is dependent on some other parameter or procedure. Such dependence of time on something, let alone affecting its run, is always deceptively implied in what is considered as modern physics and is deeply ingrained in the most physically inadequate term known as spacetime. Thus, if you need instructions on how to do bad science, here it goes, you are welcome to adopt such wrong view.

For those who are not into bad science, trying to retain their good state of mind, there will always be the red light blinking with the warning that because the arrow of time is a unique illustration of time in the true meaning of the word, unassociated either with psychologically perceived, thermodynamic or cosmological proceeding of events, time cannot be divided into these categories. They are untenable as any kind of substitutions for real time.

Thus, those to whom bad science isn’t the thing, understand that the so-called “psychological arrow of time”; namely, that separate term for time some use, is non-physical, non-scientific, and should be excluded from this conversation, the way we exclude here talk about poetry, music or visual arts. It is even worse to include in a conversation on scientific matters terms such as “psychological arrow of time”, compared to including poetry, music or visual arts, because the latter have their legitimate place in their own areas of aesthetics. The “psychological arrow of time” has no legitimate place in the area of science, where it claims to belong.

All in all, endowing purported facts such as the claimed expansion of the universe with time-properties, rather than calling it what it is; namely, a claimed behavior of the universe, as something purportedly happening as a function of time, as a claimed natural phenomenon, deliberately mixes the notions, presenting that expansion as the syllogistic predicate, with time as the consequence. As discussed, the same applies to entropy in its new role of a device illustrating time, wrongly presenting it as the cause, while time as the consequence. As said, this confusing of what causes what, as a prerequisite for the discussion of the cause and effect, is predisposing the conversation to follow-up absurdities. This mix-up is the root cause of all evil in this wrong portrayal of nature, in all these caricatures of cosmology.

When discussing time in its own sense, it is inadequate to assign to the natural direction which time itself follows, facts of physical nature and psychological sensations. Again, it is inadequate to talk about time arrow when having in mind a thermodynamic fact such as the increase of entropy, because it is not the physical fact of entropy-increase that determines the natural direction of time-advancement. Even if it is not explicitly stated, assigning time arrow to entropy, instead of just discussing entropy and noting that it increases with time, leaves the impression that entropy has something to do with time, not that the entropy itself has this property of increasing with time. As far as how we perceive the advancement of time, that perception, of course, has a thermodynamic underpinning, but even not realizing that, the fact that we go from youth towards old age and never in reverse, is a fact of life, but it also is its own fact, mapped on the inevitability of time in its own sense of going from past through present into the future. Even if it had happened that we get younger as time goes by, time itself will still preserve its past\(\rightarrow\)present\(\rightarrow\)future run. Time itself is oblivious of what thermodynamics mandates or if we have signed a contract with Mephisto to take our soul if we order the time to stop at the height of our happiness.

The ambitions of the authors juggling with the hallucination that time is prone to being influenced by external factors, run high. Nothing less than ultimate matters such as explaining the birth of the universe or the conditions for the appearance of intelligent life is claimed in the process; at that, as the final word of high science. However, the jeopardizing crooked foundations are lurking unnoticed at every step of the way in the course of these explanations.

The authors of such hallucinations place the mentioned three sorts of make-believe time—thermodynamic, psychological, and cosmological—at the center of their explanation of the origin of the world, of whether time has a beginning, and of what gives rise to the conditions for the emergence of intelligent beings. With this, these authors start on the wrong foot right from the beginning. It was discussed already that there are no three kinds of times, as far as science goes. There is only one, irresistible, absolutely insurmountable time, having a single direction of flow—forward.

Here is, in some detail, the garbled line of reasoning of such hallucinators. To recall, what the authors of such quasi-theories mean by thermodynamic time, is the direction in which, according to statistical thermodynamics, a system ordered at the beginning evolves spontaneously into; namely, into the direction of disorder, as the second principle of thermodynamics, in its statistical form, supposedly (supposedly, because it is not defined on the infinite cosmos) requires. Most unfortunately, however, the authors in question happen to apply this triviality where that transition from order to disorder is not defined by thermodynamics. To be valid, this spontaneity of conversion from an ordered state to a disordered state must be explicitly referred to a closed system. However, our authors do not care to comply with this critical requirement because it will not lead them where they want to go. Instead, they drive through the millet, applying the order\(\rightarrow\)disorder direction to the whole universe, in fact, violating thermodynamics right there, even if we don’t pay attention to the incorrect implication that time can have anything to do with entropy as entropy’s subordinate. The universe is infinite, and therefore it cannot comprise a closed system.

The main characteristic of a system (open, closed, and isolated) in a thermodynamic sense is its finiteness. Therefore, we cannot discuss the infinite universe in terms of thermodynamics. Moreover, in order for something to be considered a system treatable thermodynamically, it must have surroundings and a boundary isolating the system from its surroundings. The isolated system disallows the exchange of both energy and matter through that boundary, the closed system allowing only exchange of energy through it, while the open system allowing the exchange of both energy as well as matter through the boundary. None of this is applicable to the infinite universe. Therefore, all attempts to involve thermodynamic reasoning to the infinite universe are out of place.

We will, however, pretend that everything is all right and we may use thermodynamics for these ruminations. Thus, armed with a misattribution of temporal characteristics to quantities such as entropy or the expansion of the universe—a phenomenon suspect to begin with but presented as fact—our ambitious fantasizers proceed with their musings.

Here is how cosmologists reason as to how the intelligent life must have come about. The conditions, according to cosmologists, have to do with the coincidence of the three so-called arrows of time.

Firstly, the psychological arrow of time must be in accord with the cosmological arrow of time; that is, what is arranged in the universe must find its reflection on a personal level—whatever the direction of the cosmological arrow of time is, that must also be the perceptive personal direction of the psychological arrow of time. After all, people are also part of this universe, and therefore are subordinate to its laws and directions of whatever arrows they comprise and whatnot.

In order to prove that all goes well and is as expected—the psychological arrow of time being in cahoots with the thermodynamic arrow of time—the cosmologists begin with exploring the viability of the opposite direction of the thermodynamic arrow of time.

However, they soon conclude that the universe could not have been arranged contrary to what is perceived by them as the natural; i.e., \(order{\rightarrow}disorder\), development of the universe. That is, the universe could not have developed counter-thermodynamically; i.e., in the spontaneous \(disorder{\rightarrow}order\) direction, because, then, people living in such universe would remember the future, which is impossible. In other words, in such counter-thermodynamic world, if people happen to be in the state of disorder, then they will not remember order because order is not their past, order is their future, while disorder is their past. This is contrary to the spontaneous \(order{\rightarrow}disorder\) direction in a world ruled by thermodynamics, whereby, if people happen to be in disorder, then they will remember the past, the order, because disorder is the future in the thermodynamics-ruled world, while what can be remembered is the past, the order. Thus, the reason to reject the spontaneity of the counter-thermodynamics \(disorder{\rightarrow}order\) direction is, that it does not conform to what is observed—people don’t see the events in reverse, the broken car after a car accident (if we erroneously think of it as the past) does not turn spontaneously into a shining brand new car (thinking of it as the future).

Once the cosmologists are settled with that, purportedly establishing that the laws of thermodynamics run the universe; that is, that based on the above reasoning, they have satisfied themselves with the conclusion that all is well in the universe and its spontaneous development is according to what seems to them to be according to thermodynamics—in the \(order{\rightarrow}disorder\) direction—coinciding with the actually observed psychological time of people, the cosmologists move on to the next step. That step is taken, provided that what they wrongly perceive to be the cosmological direction of time is in the same \(order{\rightarrow}disorder\) direction; that is, in the direction of expansion of the universe. Having taken these steps, they now approach the final destination of their rumination, wondering what direction would, what they call the psychological arrow of time, have for intelligent creatures to materialize, to appear in the world. Now, prepare yourselves for a really innovative approach in pseudo-science, just as invalid as the discussed basics of theoretical physics with its outright absurd “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics, but more evasive because of the snippets of terminology which belong to real science.

The reasoning begins like this—intelligent creatures are characterized by memory, capable of retaining information; i.e., intelligent creatures are capable of learning. In order to find the answer to this question; namely, what must the direction of the psychological arrow of time be if the human being is to be intelligent, the hallucinating authors model the human brain after a computer, imagining that the computer “lives” in the human world; that is, being prone only to the irreversible, unidirectional flow of time. Computers, as their true selves, can go back and forth in time in their, computer, world. The way the human brain functions—only remembering the past and waiting for the future—is not the way computers work. Computers can reverse the outcome with the input—the input can become the output. Human brain cannot do that. Past, present, and future are reversible for computers. Think of video games. The reversal of events, which is possible for a video game but is not possible in life, has damaged many a teenager, perceiving war as a video game, whereby death can be undone. Albeit, by the way, you can more likely make a killing on the stock exchange using computers, even if you use them in the normal sense—from past to future—than just rely on your bare hands, but that’s another story.

Anyway, the computer model used to find the arrow of the psychological time is adopted to mimic the human brain, perceiving time only from past to future. Why is a computer used for that, and not explore what a human brain does? Well, it’s easier to simplify matters with computers and do calculations. That’s the only reason. Thus, it is imagined that the initial state of the computer memory is in a completely random state, the state of full disorder. The miniature electronic two-way latches are switched every which way. In order for this memory to retain information, these latches have to be switched in certain positions and for that to occur, energy needs to be spent. That is to say, in order to decrease the entropy of the memory, which means to increase the order, exemplifying learning; i.e., intelligence, we need to spend energy. What, however, the main point is of this exercise, is that, while spending energy to do useful work in switching the latches, thus decreasing the disorder, decreasing the entropy, symbolizing in this way learning, intelligence, the part of the imparted energy turns into heat, into destroyed energy, which increases the entropy of the universe.

Voila! The psychological arrow of time of a learning person, exemplifying intelligence, must point in the same direction, the direction of increase of entropy of the universe, as the direction of the cosmological time, the direction of the expansion of the universe. This is the condition, according to this phantasmagoric author, for the intelligent life to abound.

These fundamental questions of existence arouse great interest in readers, and books describing whatever passes as reasoning on this subject enjoy a circulation of millions. If only they were not based on reasoning whose foundation rests on less than nothing. Those who have a hunger for cock-and-bull stories, here’s the chance—read the accounts of the theoretical physicists and their poster children, the astrophysicists turned cosmologists.

If you think that this way of reasoning is nutty, you’re not alone. However, this kind of reasoning makes today’s best-sellers. Take it or leave it.

Incidentally, the earlier pages of this book give ample evidence where this kind of loose all-permitting thinking comes from.

What may be added is that, now, in these bad science exercises, Minkowski diagrams have only a side involvement, although the basic approach of substituting unlikely dependencies between quantities remains the same—time is again subtly assumed to be a parameter that can be influenced, in this instance by the direction of entropy change as well as dreamed up cosmological fantasies. The authors rake in handfuls of the nonsense that flows like a torrent from the open riser of lunacy, from misinterpreting other no less unthinkable but imagination-capturing quantities such as entropy.

The above gave us a glimpse as to what the authors of these overwhelming reveries have in mind about the nature of the universe and that cannot even qualify as a free rein of fantasy. It is just putting together bits and pieces of selected picks of scientifically sounding elements, correct in their own areas in which they apply, mechanically chosen to fit a desired mosaic, pronounced to be the portrait of the universe. This shows that once you have an absurdity training, inlaying a special assortment of absurdities, such as the two badly failed doctrines mentioned only too often, the instinct of the joyful ride on the waves of nonsense is already built, it is available there, ready to be used for the creation of insanities so crazy that would put to shame even someone who is like one sandwich short of a picnic.

In order to weave their theories, the authors of these flabbergastingly sounding, but actually quite a smidgen, if not brazenly wrong, creations, these authors have to rely on an arsenal of misplaced notions, which the most they can pass them for is half-science. One thing which cannot be denied, is the incredible creativity those lovers of idle speculation in putting together the collage, assembling pieces of nothing made to sound like something.

The tool for that grandiose in its vapidness task is already shaped and all that remains is for those lovers of idle speculation to study and assimilate it. The intention for accomplishing the task is by utilizing this inadequate spreading of the idea of time over notions that cannot be representative of time, being, conversely, themselves dependent on time. To say nothing of the additional accompanying physical inadequacies. The inherently wrong idea of attributing temporal qualities to physical phenomena, dubious in themselves, spells trouble already at this initial stage.

Thus, juggling with whether or not the direction from order to disorder (characteristic for a spontaneous process in a closed system, which the infinite universe is not) coincides with the questionable, to begin with, idea that the universe tends toward expansion, even if all this is physically viable, cannot serve as any kind of criterion for the essence of time, to say the least. Also, whatever conclusions one reaches about the coincidence of these two directions, it cannot be conjectured with certainty that the conclusion regarding the coincidence of these directions will not hold for the entire infinite history of the universe. Simply put, one cannot draw any conclusions concerning physical phenomena about to display themselves in infinity, least of all doubting that what is regular today will become irregular in the infinite future. All this is further aggravated by casting doubt on the infiniteness of the universe, by presenting that the discussion is carried out under the condition that the universe is presumed infinite, as if there could at all be an alternative to the universe being infinite.

Furthermore, having no reasons to doubt the infinity of the universe, even if we assume the same direction of the thermodynamic processes as the direction towards purported expansion of the universe, assumed on the basis of limited observations anyway, there are no arguments that this unity of direction will not persist in the infinite future. This is on the one hand and it only has some limited speculative significance of physical character. That direction, in harmony or not, has nothing to do with time in the true sense of the word. Time will keep going the way it always has, independent of the conclusions about the purported parallelism of the mentioned direction of the mentioned physical occurrences. In other words, even if one gives all the arguments in the world that in the infinite future, it is not at all certain that thermodynamic processes will not proceed in the same direction as the purported expanding of the universe, this will have zero effect on true time, notwithstanding the wrongness of the idea that one may consider the infinite universe as a closed system, in order to apply the rule for the spontaneous increase of entropy.

It turns out that it is quite substantial for the author to explore the coincidences of the above directions; namely, from order to disorder coinciding with the direction toward expansion of the universe, as the crucial conclusion for the appearance of intelligent life. Mind you, even at this point, the premises for such an analysis are less than flimsy. We will carry on reading, however, to see what more twists there could be in this kind of thinking and where this all will end up.

Before that, we will once again posit, just to make sure it is not forgotten, that the concept of time is untouchable and immune to influences, notwithstanding also if one decides to resort to speculation as to whether the thermodynamic direction of processes and the purported expansion of the universe are the conditions for the appearance of intelligent life. Time must be left out of such speculations, baseless or not, as they may be.

Having made the above very clear distinction between the inevitable time, on the one hand, and on the other, the processes that take place as a function of time, we saw, from the perspective of this mandatory distinction, what the speculators maintain.

One wonders, couldn’t this pass for a creative approach to doing science on such complex issues? What else is science but a search for answers about how the world works? This would be acceptable as science if it were credible. How would you like to be in an unknown town and when asking the passers-by for directions to your hotel, have them creatively point you in the opposite direction?

In art, such mosaics and collages made of colored glass or ceramic chunks, picked to fit what you intend to portray, need not be credible because the criterion there is aesthetic. Aesthetics does not forbid any flights of thought, as long as they do not exceed a certain measure, the sense of which is acquired through experience and training, but also is a result of talent. Whatever freedom there may be in music, one cannot expect people without hearing to sing in a Verdi opera, but in today’s augmented understanding of aesthetics, even that may not be a requirement. In literature, novels are written composed of randomly jumbled words and that is not rejected as unaesthetic, so as to not qualify as literature.

In science, however, truth is sought unconditionally, and this makes it boring to some. For others, it is the challenges of finding that singular truth that is interesting. Science, however, poses a barrier to mixing of what might seem interesting in art, with the rigors of scientific knowledge. Sadly, it is just such forbidden mixing, to entertain the millions and earn profit and fame as a result, or for a variety of other reasons, that is being indulged in by those who have been engaged for more than a century in theoretical physics, the source of the oxymoron known as the philosophy of science, no less unseemly for an intelligent person to engage in, than with its parent, the theoretical physics of today.

As said, when the gates of insanity playing the role of science are open, the sky is the limit. The above petrifying anarchy of thought presented as science has uncountable meanders, which we need not get into. What was said was enough to give the taste of the complete degradation of science. These meanders are growing more and more by the day, contaminating all learning centers of the world, seeping into all bookstores and printed and internet science archival centers, stimulated by overwhelming public financing. Cut the financing and all this lunacy will go away. It has no other substance.

The Pebble that Upset the Applecart

Because the ridiculousness of the foundations violating the synchronicity lifeline confronts you like a wall, preventing you from moving forward in reading the mainstream theoretical physics texts, the sick skill of manipulators is to be able to quickly slip out of this barrier, finding themselves in the white field of madness. There they juggle with fictional, implausible notions, that they have already accepted as reality, and start patting themselves on the back for, you see, proving shenanigans that make up said barrier with even more, bigger shenanigans.

Then, the so-called experimentalists come to assist in this grandiose deception, outright fudging data, fabricating and falsifying numbers to fit the madness passed as predictions of theoretical physics. Who can prove that? Is there anyone else but those who control or has access to the humongous multi-billion dollar infrastructures, built through lyingly and deceitfully stealing tax-payer money from the public through their corrupt politicians? The hope we have for righting this tragic situation is that the small pebble overturns the cart. The synchronicity lifeline is enough of a pebble, to say nothing of the most immediate, explicit and rigorous collapse of the “theory” of relativity by the argument discovered by this author.

One can often hear that someone stole the idea for the “theory” of relativity from someone else. The problem, however, is not who has the priority for that absurdity and who stole it from whom (not that plagiarism should be something tolerable). It is the absurdity itself of the “theory” of relativity that is the pivotal problem, which, if not addressed by the mainstream, leads to incredible expanse of pathological science, which has stopped the development of the world for over a century now.

The worst part of admitting and tolerating the madness which has ambushed physics, which some people, cynically and offensively to the decent scientists of integrity, tend to excuse, even if it is obviously faulty, is that it has caused an irreparable damage to thinking, to cognition. Cognition is linked to behavior and when cognition, thinking, is damaged by crooked physics, its repercussions can be felt in unpredictable devastating directions. One has the nagging suspicion that destruction of physics is deliberately incurred with such evil intentions of stupefying and conditioning the scientific, the intellectual elites to goad them in a desired way of control. Some people opine that there is nothing to worry about when one is wrong, as long as one honestly pursues his scientific and academic duties. No one is flawless. There is a place for everyone under the sun and, who knows, even those that are wrong may turn out right because the freedom to be wrong when honestly pursuing the truth, is the premise for progress.

However, when the ultimate catastrophic argument and the synchronicity lifeline is presented to you and you arrogantly ignore it, holding on to the madness, because that pays and sustains your academic career, there is no place for calling that honesty. Such behavior is blatant arrogance and lack of integrity. This is dishonesty in its purest form, which must be most decisively condemned.

BAD SCIENCE INSTRUCTION 5—The Black Holes of the Amazing Nothingness

This is another section, providing an example of the aggressive occupation of all facets of science with absurdity, deliberately shaping wrong worldview from the position of ultimate authority. The ubiquitous infestation with the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics of all the basic wells of cognition in physics and chemistry, has overflown the narrow confines of their own springs and is not even seeping, but is flowing as a river at high tide into the social sciences and humanities, which supply the governance of societies, thus forcefully deforming the worldview of the peoples of the world. That deformed view has dire global consequences, which become ever more evident by the day.

Therefore, this is not some benign matter of confined high academic narrative for academics to sort out among themselves, that has no repercussions on the rest of society, as is deliberately made to be perceived. On the contrary, its effects are serious, both financially and intellectually. They have aggressively begun spawning incredible destructive ideologies held by those who become politicians, having gone through the scorched intellectual land of the social sciences and humanities in universities, devastated by the various progeny of the absurd milieu, pronounced as hard sciences. This is a crime against humanity.

One object which fascinates, if not bewilders the public, bombarded with absurdity, alongside dark matter, many universes and the string theories, are the so-called black holes. The ghastly sounding combination of these two words itself tells the average citizen that something very spooky must be going on in the retorts of the scientists, known to never leave their labs for centuries. If only those pedestrians knew that it means less than if they decide to cross the town all day hollering blah-blah-blah.

This book has already abundantly presented more than one example of such blabber, and now, here, we have the opportunity to add another one. How can we not talk about that since it has been also promoted to be so significant that it is flowing from everywhere, except the from the kitchen sink? The black holes, which are the next example, were mentioned once in a while also in this book, as an illustration of something that should not enjoy presence either in a scientific exchange or as propaganda of science, but we will talk about it here in slightly more detail.

Because there is nothing serious and scientific in black holes, despite the vigorous promotion of that “theory” as the epitome of science, we will skip historic remarks, which real subjects deserve, and will go straight to the genesis of the idea, which is claimed to be the Pauli exclusion principle, adopted in a form to fit the explanation dedicated to black holes.

Pauli exclusion principle, as any trained chemist knows, concerns a ban on two electrons from occupying the same state in an atom. The realm of this principle was extended to astrophysics. In other words, the laws that were supposed to govern the tiniest of particles, now are said to govern the grandest. There is no end to the miracles of pseudoscience. What is of importance to us, however, is that said principle belongs to quantum mechanics. Right here the red light beams and we may discard the whole idea of black holes, knowing already that quantum mechanics is non-science, as shown in my book “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”. We are curious, however, willing to see what possible conjectures there may be that would make use of and generate science out of such a non-scientific subject, suspecting also, that use will be attempted also of the “theory” of relativity, so as to make that kneaded mess full and unmitigated.

The idea is simple if you are willing to agree that when a star has used its fuel and is on its way out, its gravitational pull causing the remaining particles to fall on it, a countereffect is created which opposes the contraction because the particles becoming close to each other cannot any longer have the same velocities, due to the Pauli exclusion principle in its astrophysical rendition, and as a result move away from each other, causing the opposite tendency—swelling of the star, as a result of that kind of anti-gravity. Therefore, it is not heat any longer (the fuel, the hydrogen gas, keeping up temperature, is already spent, right?) that maintains the balance, countering the force of gravity. So far, so good. There are things that can be said about this simplistic model but that is not the point. A model can be good or bad, it can be corrected if it’s bad or it can be overthrown if it is that bad. What it’s all about is the outright absurdity that is allowed to march through the fields of science unopposed.

On this account, even at this point a question arises—is it scientific to use notions and definitions arriving from a theory shown to be absurd, as is the current case? Wouldn’t it be more decent, if not scientifically proper, to just say—you know what, I know that because the dying star loses fuel, which disallows it to maintain the appropriate temperature of the particles, which would prevent its gravitational force from pulling them to its surface, consequently, I invoke a deus ex machina force which will oppose that collapse? I know that I may speculate on the basis of the purported Pauli exclusion principle, where I could somehow imagine such force might come from, but I will not do that because that principle arrives from a non-scientific theory, which I don’t want to use as a cover, so that my proposal acquire a more scientific glaze.

However, wait till you see what happens next. No sooner than we issued a warning that a follow-up absurdity attack will occur, we are bombarded with another travesty—the absurd “theory” of relativity is called to aid in resolving the next problem. It is claimed that the Pauli exclusion principle cannot provide sufficient retort to the gravitation force because, see, the “theory” of relativity bans difference in velocities greater than the speed of light, and that dooms the support to be bound by that limitation.

This is a double strike.

In the old tradition, seen in the previous books of this author, however, we will carry on—curiosity is a great stimulant, too bad, in vain here. There is old tradition among the proposers of such doltishness also—do whatever it takes, but get the desired results. Lying, cheating don’t matter. Every possible weapon is in the arsenal of the winner. Use it.

Now, as in every instance of explicit doltishness of the sort we just saw, big activity begins to boil around the idea. Calculations are made, more and more theories abound and soon new cosmic entities are named, of the sort of white dwarfs and neutron stars—white dwarfs being stable cold stars because they have a mass less than one and a half times the mass of the sun. A greater mass would exert such gravitational force that cannot be compensated by the Pauli exclusion principle repulsion. If someone is curious, the Pauli exclusion principle repulsion in the smaller neutron stars, unlike among electrons in white dwarfs, is said to be ensured by the protons and the neutrons. Whether or not such stars are observed is not important. The important thing is that they have a theory behind them, and thus they may be included in the standard model.

You can only imagine what other heights of vapidity are further reached during the discussions, much resembling the medieval scholastic discussions about how many devils may stand on the tip of a pin needle.

Everything is taken very seriously and debates about whether or not a star can be reduced to a point are commonplace among these enthusiasts of idleness, the spacetime-enthusiasts having a real field day.

Despite the bombastic statements that black holes are a rare occasion in science, whereby a theory is first presented as a mathematical model prior to being confirmed experimentally (quite a bold claim for something not even mathematically consistent), one may quite confidently object by saying the following. Even if for some miraculous happenstance, intuition had hinted at such holes and they were indeed found experimentally, this fact would have absolutely no connection with “theoretical” claims. Claims having at their basis absurdities, as is the case, cannot be pronounced as “theoretical” claims.

Furthermore, the claimed experimental evidence itself is made up. It is specially fabricated to fit what is expected, so that the stream of the massively funded absurdity will not end. Claiming that there is experimental evidence that an absurdity is a reasonable thing is like claiming that there is experimental evidence that one equals two.

Therefore, there is no need at all to even bother checking the validity of this observation, the same way, again, there is no need to check the claim that there is evidence proving that the sun rises from the west. However, if people are so adamant and refuse to give up on the idea, they should first see if this is not an experimental error or some artefact. If, however, the effect is confirmed, an alternative explanation, based on classical physics, must be sought.

All this occupation led to flabbergasting daydreaming of astronauts stretched out like spaghetti or impossible gravitational waves and whatnot. This, some members of the public find very entertaining, which has turned the idea of the black holes into a commercial product whose commercial success can hardly be matched by any other fictional scientific idea, nuclear fission and fusion with their deadly real effects notwithstanding.

Having had a peek into that intellectual waste, we will leave our modern scholastics to enjoy their idleness as long as society stays asleep and has no objection to paying them for their self-serving ridiculousness. Those who like wasting time on nothingness packed as science do not need further explanation here because entering any bookstore will welcome them with plentiful literature on this colorfully presented scientific detritus.

BAD SCIENCE INSTRUCTION 6—Bad Astrophysics Turning Into Even Worse Cosmology

Let us be clear from the outset—astrophysics deals with the physics (and chemistry) of the stars and planets in the galaxies. It can be a legitimate scientific discipline, as long as in its speculations, hypotheses and theories it obeys the strict laws of science. Cosmology, in contrast, deals with absurdities such as the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics, and tries to ascribe them to the universe. Cosmology pushes so hard that it has already contaminated most of astrophysics, even taking it over, as will be seen. This is one of the greatest tragedies, if not the greatest, which humanity has experienced in its entire existence because it damages its very essence, its cognition.

This section presents another brief illustration of what astrophysics studies and how it has hopelessly slipped and deteriorated into cosmology. We will see that astrophysics is not spared the ordeal of being occupied by the contemporary insanity and outright lunacy in physics, all efforts being applied to turn all astrophysics into the absurd insanity of cosmology, in order to give cosmology legitimacy. However, being concerned with more tangible realities, the chapter deals with matters, also being speculative, which may resemble an attempt at drawing a picture closer to a physical picture. It is felt from the speculations that although the universe is mentioned, what is had in mind is the development of the visible part of the universe around us—the planets, the stars and the galaxies. Clearly, that part of the universe can quite conceivably have a beginning and end, all of it existing within the infinite space and infinite time of the infinite universe, the same way every living or inanimate object has a beginning and end. Presented that way, the otherwise twisted and unlikely discussions of the confused cosmology acquire a more realistic silhouette and sometimes even approach real science, free from absurdities.

Nonetheless, those who value their time and have basic self-respect and integrity, already know the drill and are quite alert. The simple general principle of economy emerging from this book, applies as well to the hallucinations and deliriums presented as an exercise in speculating on matters regarding our universe. It is already clearly spelled out—immediately abandon further reading as soon as two things are detected either individually or in combination—the mere mentioning of the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics. Reading further, any follow-up speculation is rendered senseless with these non sequitur absurdities, adopted as the initial run-down train-station of the journey into nothingness, along a railroad with no rails.

As mentioned continuously in this book, clearly seen from what was discussed, the “theory” of relativity can predict nothing because it is an absurdity, least of all can it predict spacetime and its beginning and end, big bang and properties thereof, black holes and what will happen with matter if it falls therein.

All we already know about what the matter at hand is, tells us that we are dealing with a certain group of sick minds, not even very imaginative and creative with their figments, who have found each other well, and, together, have set themselves to outrageous bullying of the world, mainly to steal its resources, and in the process, enjoy, as a bonus, an enormous ego-trip of falsely glittering science stars.

As expected, the speculations about the universe, implicitly considering its visible part, begin in the middle of things. As the current scientific dictatorship demands, the correctness of the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics is taken for granted and the discussion about their viability is considered closed. Their scientificity is considered beyond reproach and they are even considered the standard of highest science. These two absurd theories are considered the indubitable measure of truth. One really wonders how this can be, since catastrophic arguments put forth by this author, overthrowing these “theories” by unequivocally proving that they are nothing other than intellectual menace, have been around publicly for more than a decade. What keeps students, or any audience, for that matter, listening to that absurdity, reading it and trying to learn it? Obviously, a social gravity, the attraction toward authority, as mangled intellectually as it can ever be, is the societal black hole attracting really strongly, compared to the attraction of the weak innocence of truth and reason. Besides, how many are those who wouldn’t enjoy fairy tales, even if the setting of their telling is not the most likely one, smelling of school—a gathering ostensibly devoted to science, usually considered boring, making not too few run away as soon as they hear about it. The grapevine has spread the word that it would be different. The preacher would pontificate contagious amazingness, which induces catatonic stupor of dreams, not less entertaining and addictive than what is causing the opioid crisis. Kudos for the lecturer. Good for him, to be able to attract an audience on something so repellent to the public mind such as science. Or, is it really good for him? Judge for yourself.

So, let’s see what golden grains fall from the mouth of our good speaker. Having turned his back to reason, considering discussing such an annoying thing as reason as a closed topic, the speaker takes it for granted, as a firmly established fact, that the universe expands and observes it as if it is a vessel, containing gas, which cools upon such expansion. Well, why wouldn’t he? You have come to listen to him, not him listening to you. However, if he really means the universe, not just our galaxy, the universe is infinite and one cannot speculate one thing about infinity. Well, like I said, he is not to report to you. Your questions are closed, so be good and listen up?

Fine, let the journey begin—that beginning appearing as resembling real science, not even suspecting what is ahead of us. First things first, while, not being able to help ourselves, we will always think of the galaxies as what the lecturer calls the universe, not anything beyond it—if we do agree with the swelling universe, getting cooler in the process, we cannot deny that its declining energy is registered by falling temperature. However, together with this, we cannot deny also that once the expansion of the universe is taken as the true premise, then the actual premise implied is that the universe had begun somewhere, and that beginning cannot take place at just any “volume”, because, then one would rightfully ask—hasn’t that same universe expanded prior to that moment or it has just popped up in a stationary state, and then the expansion began? What I want to say is that the idea that the universe must have a beginning is already present in what is being speculated about, in advance of even the commencement of the speculations. That should be remembered, if the lecturer’s intention is to convince us that he has proved that the universe has a beginning. No, he hasn’t proved such a thing. He is offering that the universe has a beginning as a premise, begging the question (committing petitio principii).

At these high temperatures, the attracting nuclear or electromagnetic forces will not manage to prevent the particles from escaping their pull. That said, now the lecturer asks us to imagine that at the beginning of that swelling of the universe, the temperature is so high that whatever particles there are in it, these particles overcome any electromagnetic or gravitational attraction and are roaming freely—a close to mind picture, which doesn’t take much to imagine.

It is also not reeking of imagination that when the temperature goes down (remember, we accepted that the universe is like an expanding cylinder with gas, whose temperature decreases due to the adiabatic expansion) the particles won’t be able to resist the attractive forces and will start clinging to each other more and more. This is a pretty non-innovative picture, its questionable application to model the universe notwithstanding. However, let us carry on. We are talking about the particles that are already there, remember.

Here comes the next bump—we are asked to imagine that, now, when the temperatures moves to lower values, although still high, the particles have become conducive to interaction, and we must imagine that antiparticles are also being produced, but in lesser quantity than the particles themselves, so the particles overwhelm, they survive. Now why should we imagine such a thing and where is the evidence for it, that is not to be asked. Just take it at the lecturer’s word.

So, at these higher temperatures, particles are the winner. Particles (not antiparticles) are the winner because the temperature is so high that the antiparticles’ causing annihilation cannot catch up with the production of new particle-antiparticle pairs—well, is it not true that in order to get annihilated, the particle must be produced first, never mind that also an anti-particle is produced but its causing annihilation follows up in time, while in the meantime a new pair is produced? So, in the overall account, at these high temperatures, the antiparticles do not succeed in annihilating the particles and, as a result, the particles overwhelm.

This picture presupposes that the temperatures are so high that the particle-antiparticle pairs have certain lifetime, during which more particle-antiparticle pairs are produced. It is like having a production of entities which have a certain lifetime before they die, but in the meantime, while they are alive, more entities are produced. There will be, of course, a temperature, as temperature goes down, when the produced will become equal to those that disappear, and then, upon further lowering the temperature, the production will become so slow that the disappearance will overwhelm production, and the number of the living entities will begin declining. The lecturer has chosen to model that dying off of particles by introducing antiparticles.

Thus, at lower temperatures, we are told that the colliding particles, having less energy, will, respectively, produce fewer particle-antiparticle pairs, which will increase the number of annihilations and the particles will decline in number.

Now, one might ask, where is the “theory” of relativity and the quantum mechanics in this picture and why shouldn’t we accept it as told, especially if there is evidence for these predictions? However, no sooner did we utter this question than the lecturer did not fail to rumble, waving the ragged banner of the “theory” of relativity. Read on.

Thus, at one point, the lecturer spits out the pebble about which we were wondering—yeah, there is a presupposed beginning, the big bang, the universe having zero size and infinite temperature. The “theory” of relativity says so. If this is what his calculations show, these calculations are to be dismissed solely based on this ridiculous conclusion for such a beginning, the absurdity of the “theory” of relativity, claimed to have borne out such gibberish notwithstanding.

Now, as the universe expands, causing the dropping of its temperature, although remaining extremely high, he becomes specific, naming what the particles are. They must be of low mass and the current knowledge supplies him with participants. The least controversial are the electrons, then, because, as said, he conjectures antiparticles, there are antielectrons, which, as a result of annihilation, produce photons (coinciding with antiphotons). Those who work in this area know that, in fact, two coincident photons are emitted at 180 degree direction to each other—this illustrates what was already implied; namely, that these speculations involve known effects, mixed with conjectures, some taken from the legitimate science, transferred completely illegitimately onto the universe, as well as outright outlandishness of the “theory” of relativity variety. The controversial particles are the massless neutrinos. Protons and neutrons are also admitted but very few.

With the further decrease of the temperature, the above-described particle-antiparticle picture will kick in, applied to the electrons. Electrons will begin disappearing because the annihilation by the antielectrons will prevail. So, the electrons are done with, all but a few of them.

Not so with the hypothetical inert neutrinos (respectively, antineutrinos), which, because they don’t interact even with the antineutrinos, must have survived to this day. Detecting the relics of particles producing the microwave background radiation would be a confirmation of the validity of the model.

However, there is always something—the relic-neutrinos would be of undetectably low energy levels, but if dreams come true, and it suddenly turns out that said neutrinos are not massless, despite their inability to allow us to register them because of their low energy, those relic particles would exert gravitational effects, which can be felt. Nothing like this has been detected but dreams are free—dark-matter-like effects by these relic neutrinos would be a blessing for this model—that dark matter which, because of its abundance, may cause reversing of the universe expansion by opposing it gravitationally, causing its swiveling or collapsing back. The latter is another conjecture unsupported by direct evidence, but don’t worry, we are swimming freely in the straights of these suppositions, an exercise, which for some people is like fish swimming in tropical waters.

Thus, now we are at temperatures where protons and neutrons begin to feel the so-called strong nuclear force, binding them into the simplest nuclei, consisting of one proton and one neutron (deuterium). Obviously, the lecturer takes into account the neutrons that are around for some reason, that is why he doesn’t leave the protons alone to form hydrogen.

However, he provides also for the further formation of two-proton-two-neutron nuclei of helium, as well as lithium (three proton and four neutron nucleus) and beryllium (four proton and three neutron nucleus). There are some more details but this is the gist. The point here is to give a sense of the speculations which are made far and wide in cosmology.

This flimsy picture was further promoted, especially the expectation that there may be relic photons from those early days of the universe, surviving today, albeit at temperatures close to the absolute zero, and experimental evidence began to be proposed for such. This is one of the experiments that have to be revisited, considering the atmosphere of manipulations that characterizes physics today.

The claims of agreement with what is predicted must be heeded with utmost caution, especially if there is “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics contamination, which must be very carefully sifted and removed.

Don’t forget that the adherents to the big bang model are scraping the barrel to find evidence for a model which should not be paid attention to, to begin with, in view of its absurdity—well, the major theory, such as the “theory” of relativity, is a brazen absurdity, why not allow a little additional absurdity here and there. This is how slowly but surely admitting a major inappropriateness such as the “theory” of relativity undermines thinking and things which would otherwise be unthinkable, are now as common as “Guten tag!”

What was said so far has elements of a somewhat trivially plausible picture of the beginning of life on earth, because it involves chemistry, but it does not mitigate the feeling of flimsiness which we get from the purely physical speculations.

That the picture painted is in agreement with what is observed today is such a blanket statement that it must be checked, if not ignored outright. One has a sense that the agreement part is said for the personal reassurance of someone who is not exactly certain of what he is talking about.

As in any model, there are questions arising, which sometimes defeat the model. Here, the right question is not why the early universe was so hot but, was there an early universe the way it was described, and the answer is unequivocal—whatever the universe might have been, neither “theory” of relativity, nor quantum mechanics can give us even an inkling of an answer.

Neither “theory” of relativity, nor quantum mechanics can give an answer to any other question about the universe and its isotropy, the latter being entirely expected, provided the universe’s infinity.

The idea of the cosmologist is that there would not have been time for the different regions to communicate among themselves in order to reach homogeneity and isotropy because the highest speed possible, according to the “theory” of relativity, is the speed of light, no higher. Therefore, no faster information can take place. Here, we have again reversal of the cause and effect. Thus, when that cause-effect sequence is straightened out, then if the communication between regions is of the essence—the factor equalizing their properties—then the fact that nothing can travel above the speed of light is an argument against the big bang. The argument goes like this—we consider that the background microwave radiation is a relic from the early moments of the big bang. It is isotropic. However, that cannot be, because even the speed of light, with its highest possible velocity, could not reach from one region to another, let alone any other communication, having intrinsically lower velocity.

One thing that may help the big bang argument, is recalling that the “theory” of relativity is absurdity and we shouldn’t base any ruminations on it. However, then, we would ruin the very big bang party since the idea of a big bang is a figment of the adherents to the “theory” of relativity.

The cosmologist wonders why, for example, the universe started at the same temperature, since the temperature of one region could not be communicated fast enough to another region. Thus, there must be some reason for each one of these parts to start out at the same temperature. What is that reason?

Ditto. Why did the universe start with just the right rate of expansion. The cosmologist claims that all models show that if it were a little bit less it would have recollapsed, while if it has been a little bit more, it would have expanded forever, but, according to him, even today, the universe is expanding at just the right rate,

Yet, despite it being homogeneous, as the relic microwave background radiation indicates, there are stars and galaxies which are thought to be local fluctuations of the density, which is not seen in the relic radiation. Well, this is another argument against the big bang. So much hope was delegated to the relic radiation to be a mark from the distant past that there was a big bang, and now these nasty planets and galaxies, irregularities not seen in the relic, mess up the beautiful picture about the big bang, which we hoped so much to be supported by the relic.

The mistake the cosmologist makes is that he is looking for help in the absurd “theory” of relativity. Being absurd, the “theory” of relativity can predict nothing at all, let alone assist in conjectures about the big bang, and the so-much hopeful eyes turned to the relic to serve as supportive evidence. Therefore, revisit the evidence and see, first, if that evidence comprises a real effect and, second, even if it is real, whether or not it can serve as evidence of something like the big bang, that is unlikely to begin with. Remember, it was mentioned at one point in this book that the fantasy-mongers, taking themselves as theoreticians of physics, scrape the barrel for even crumbs of supportive evidence from the working bees, from those who they label as the experimentalists.

Aha! A singularity is said to be predicted by a theory which is itself non-sequitur, but that is not enough of a reason not to talk at all about it, but, instead, proceed to discuss what will happen at the singularity and even add that the absurd theory would collapse there, to say nothing that even all the laws of physics would as well. Is this travesty or what?

Now, on the verge of cutting big bang out of the theory, as the cosmologist did before, with the question about what happened before the big bang, he doesn’t give up that easily. The cosmologist takes the “Columbus’s egg” route—if you don’t like a part of the model, even if it is the crucial part that sustains its very integrity, just cut it out. Fudging or cheating, it’s your choice how to call that kind of manipulation.

Now, instead of admitting the error, the cosmologist struggles for justification of his cheating. According to him, science has provided for such an approach. You just start in the middle of things and go on studying what you see from that moment on. That’s fine. However, what happened with the big bang? Are you still a fan of it? Do you still subscribe to the view that the universe started with a big bang? Because if you do, you add to your cheating another cheating, since you just told us that, because of insurmountable arguments, we have to cut out the initial moment of the big bang. How did the next moment come about, then? That question arises naturally because you did unleash your imagination and resorted to extrapolating the effect back to a big bang, riding on the Hubble’s purported red shift, but then you casually cut the big bang out of your model, while still maintaining that the big bang did really happen because there was a next moment after it. Go figure!

On top of it, now, instead of being ashamed of your cheating, you have the gall to imagine that, see, someone decreed laws, which somehow do not fit the non-existing initial moment, but then they went into effect. Have you no shame to make the reader read such rambling? Choosing initial conditions that do not exist? That’s quite a stretch.

Oh, wait, to get out of this situation you suggest something new; i.e., that, now, we will never understand the chooser, is that right?

On top of it, see, the chooser of the initial conditions chose also to play with us, not that we, those who chose to adhere to an absurd theory or make inappropriate inferences from a red-shift, ourselves are out of our senses to fall for such a discourse.

Once in a while, at different turns of the story, ruminations about science as such are offered, noting the trivial fact that humanity realized that there are certain regularities that govern nature. Even opinions are uttered to find out who set these regularities up, countering arbitrariness. In other words, instead of addressing the fact that the model isn’t working, we now should occupy ourselves with pondering what science itself is, and how the veiled natural codification of scientific studies, came about.

Also trivially, boundary conditions are part of the law of nature but you chose to ignore them. You chose to cut them out of the theory. To say nothing that spacetime does not belong to the laws of nature. Inadequacies such as spacetime do not belong to the laws of nature. When something is absurd, there cannot be even one single principle that would undo the absurdity. Therefore, it makes no sense to suggest, as some sort of a solution, what you call chaotic boundary conditions. This will not get you out of the dead-end street you got stuck in with the beginning moment of the big bang problem.

Thus, from now on, it is ridiculous to continue and be made to listen to outlandishness such as whether universe is spatially infinite or it is a gathering of infinitely many universes, and even the thought of how universe started out, something that you, the cosmologist, already cut out of the model. Besides, wasn’t it that the relic was quite homogeneous and isotropic? What happened to that?

Furthermore, the observed homogeneity on a large scale of the universe breaks down the whole stipulation about big bang. This became clear long ago. Why are you continuing?

Besides—not again. Speculations about order\(\rightarrow\)disorder are inapplicable to the infinite universe.

On top of it, adding non-entities such as black holes really makes the whole thing doubly ridiculous. Nothing can save the big bang model, least of all invoking absurd entities such as black holes.

The naked supposition that there may be occasionally homogeneous regions among the chaotic universe is just wishful thinking. Find them and demonstrate them and then talk about such regions. Just suggesting them makes no sense. No analogies will help in this case but direct research to find such species. Good luck.

So, the main concern for the cosmologist is why the universe which we know, is uniform judging from the relic. It just happened, is your straw to catch at. However, anyone can say that it just happened so. Anyone can say anything. Prove it. There isn’t even a sliver of evidence. All evidence, even your favorite relic, proves the opposite—smooth universe, contrary to the existing universe with planets, stars and galaxies.

Going further—to reassure ourselves that we exist because we see the universe the way it is, is not enough of an argument, if that can at all be an argument to begin with, that there was a big bang. That is a very lame line of thinking.

Well, don’t sway from the main problem. The suggestion that there are peculiar regions conducive to existence of life is not an argument in any way connected to the big bang.

On top of it, never forget that above all this manipulation, there is an absurdity hovering—the “theory” of relativity.

Meeting with these obstacles in explaining the origin of the universe, the cosmologist reverts to discussing the appearance of intelligent life. But, wait a minute, what we want to know, and we spent some time on it, is not the appearance of intelligent life but why we keep talking about the big bang, provided the relic attests to homogeneous initial conditions, let alone temperature incapable of being communicated between regions. Intelligent life has nothing to do with the resolution of these problems.

So, now, in addition to the red-shift and the relic, we invoke our own existence to trace it back to the big bang. What happened to all the other arguments that defeated the very idea of big bang? Why should we trace our existence back to something which did not exist at all. It might have taken us a long time to evolve but that doesn’t prove at all any connection with the beginning of the universe. We see here again a total breakdown of the logical connections, on top of violating causality. There is nothing anthropomorphic about such an argumentation aimed at proving that big bang really took place.

Ooops, now the cosmologist gets us into the generation of stars. Wait a minute, you couldn’t explain how the stars arrived into the picture in the first place, but now you forgot that and began talking about generation of stars, as if that is taken for granted.

The explanation that the elements, especially carbon and oxygen, appeared after conversion of the initial hydrogen and helium by the stars, which then exploded as supernovas, further forming other stars and planets, giving even time-frames up to reaching the stage of biological evolution, has nothing to do with the big bang. It could have happened without the big bang.

The above conjecture gave us no new knowledge regarding the claimed beginning of the universe, the big bang. We could have uttered that blabber under any circumstances, having not even heard of something called the big bang.

There is also absolutely no grounds to propose such a thing as what is labeled as many different universes, or a concept labeled many different regions governed by different laws of science in one universe. This is lunacy not better than the flat-earth theory.

Furthermore, how does the fact you mention; namely, that we cannot derive the fundamental constants from theory, have any connection with whether or not the big bang is real?

Hopes in vain that a theory may come up one day that would predict all fundamental constants or that these fundamental constants are different in some imagined parallel universes or in regions within the same universe, is an example of the factors that cause distrust in science. There are absolutely no grounds for imagining such a sick thing and suggesting it is only pandering, for your book to sell, to groups of society uneducated enough to hold such expectations.

Speaking about the fundamental constants, you say they must be finely adjusted, but by whom? The laws of science, then, are finely adjusted. However, they are not. There is no one to adjust the laws of nature. The laws of nature are to be studied, not pondered where they come from. Such a study is an idle pursuit.

To ponder what would have happened if the values of the fundamental constants were different is just like pondering what would have happened if my grandmother was a man.

To say nothing of unsupported fantasies of intelligent life, existing somewhere, different from what we are, are liked by the public, which makes money for the author. Entertainment for the feeble minded. This kind of banter puts the question where the limit in science is (not in theater, literature and art as a whole where it is almost limitless) for unleashing imagination and fantasy. Imagination and fantasy in science stop at the absolute truths science espouses and strives to learn about. Science is essentially the continuous desire to reach new and new absolute truths.

Further, what does the suggestion that there are only limited values of fundamental constants that support life, prove? Least of all does it prove that there was a big bang, if we are to return to the topic.

It doesn’t matter how the cosmologist dodges, twists and turns, no rabbit will pop up from the intelligent-life-bush to sustain that the universe had a beginning and that beginning was the big bang.

One need not get into these speculations because they go without saying—change the conditions on which the law is defined, and the law won’t hold any more. The egg is not going to stay raw if it is left in boiling water for ten minutes. To even think that the latter can be taken as an expression of a divine principle, is laughable, if one is concerned with science, not with theology.

Need it be said that we will cut out of the theory the existence of parallel universes because they would not be observable from our universe. But they cut themselves out already, because they are idle banter with no support whatsoever.

Also, as if this needs to be said, you cannot have different regions with different physical laws in our universe because that contradicts the findings of science. Science doesn’t exist for no reason. There are so many ambitious scientists striving to make a discovery that, any such discrepancy would make anyone finding it a hero.

Remember, this is not a discussion about the origin of life but concerns the claimed origin of the universe—a claim doomed from the get go. To say nothing of the fact that to claim different scientific laws in different universes or in different regions of our universe, confronts all science we know. Where is even an inkling of such difference in scientific laws?

Notice, in all this rambling of the cosmologist, the underlying idea is that universe has a beginning. However, this prerequisite was shown untrue by just the simple remark that infinity, such as our universe, cannot become more infinite through expansion or that zero can become infinity via a big bang, let alone that we cannot cut out of pondering the universe what might have happened prior to a supposed big bang.

After this major crushing of the idea of big bang by the above irrevocable arguments against the big bang, it will be diminishing to the discussion to repeat the arguments against the big bang, based on details about the big bang, such as insufficiency of time to communicate temperature to all parts of the universe or the need for critical rate of expansion to prevent recollapse.

The fans of the big bang, however, like to dig into the barrel of the insignificant and outright outrageous, in order to scrape up supportive details, at times, even timidly inventing with nothing to support it—the entire attempt being flimsy as it is—implication of outside intervention.

For example, such scraping the barrel, considering outside intervention moot, an attempt at discussing such made-up detail of the originally made-up idea of a big bang, is a discussion of what is known as inflationary model of the development of the universe. It presupposes the big bang but only tries to explain away the particular, strictly set, rate of expansion. We will waste some time on this for those who might be curious to take a peek at what cosmologists, still dressed up as astrophysicists, waste their time on.

Briefly, the inflationary model of the advancement after the big bang is a simplistic model attempting to explain away that already mentioned, menacing to the theory, inexplicable homogeneity of the universe in the aftermath of the big bang (big bang is presumed) and the sudden spread of temperature after the big bang, not possible to take place since it would require speeds higher than the maximally possible speed of light. The inflationary model of the universe is based on the idea known as supercooling of water, at temperatures where water should be solid but is still liquid. This trivial effect in the ordinary, down to earth physics, is attempted to be used in trying to introduce, as a tricky way of conceiving homogeneity, an additional kick in the expansion of the universe—when supercooled; that is, in a state where the initial symmetry between the 3 forces—strong nuclear, weak nuclear and electromagnetic—had to be broken (phase transition had to have occurred), but it still hadn't been broken. When enjoying the symmetry, the universe has excess energy (universe with broken symmetry has lost that excess energy and is at a lower energy level) and this contributes as an additional kick to the expansion. This additional kick plays the role of a repulsive, antigravitational, as it were, force. This explains how, with this additional kick, even the regions with greater concentration of particles will be dispersed.

In other words, this model is created to explain why at the first moments the universe was homogeneous, as the relic suggests, although one would think that it was random, with concentrating particles here and there. Well, it was, the cosmologist says, but then it was supercooled and that additional force due to supercooling kicked in and smoothed the whole picture out.

In other words, in these initial moments, the irregularities would be smoothed out because, due to the supercooled state, the particles would be additionally blown farther away from each other and this smooths out any wrinkles, to use the lingo of some cosmologists. So, even if the universe started out non-uniform, this supercooling smoothed it away.

Now, this explains why in this smoothed state the light can travel from one region to another. Rather, why no communication greater than the speed of light is necessary, for all the regions to “know”, as it were, to resemble each other. The supercooling does the job for that task, in the stead of communication by faster than the speed of light “messaging”—quite a ridiculous convoluted conjecture. Thus, any possible conjectures, even ridiculous ones, such as supercooling, are utilized to justify big bang.

Because this is only an account of some ideas which are hovering in the expanses of cosmology, we will not analyze the obvious untenability of such proposals, which, aside from the unacceptability of the big bang itself, also make attempts at endowing the universe with physical properties it cannot have. This was a remark made also in other places in this book when it comes to speculations on the “juicy” topics of existence or ontology, if you wish, by exploiting twisted epistemology.

It is also to be noticed how the cosmologist is talking about the universe that we can observe. He flips all the time between the universe we can observe and the entire (infinite) universe, in this way muddling the reader in the whirl of the hinted, unspoken, presumed idea of this whole talk being about the entire universe. Some readers, however, may not fall for the trick, realizing that this is what he means by universe; namely, the visible part of the universe, even stated euphemistically. This makes the big bang idea a bit more plausible, which mitigates the natural resistance which the same person has when he is told about expansion of the infinity. In this limited form, however, the idea of universe doesn’t do the job which the cosmologist intends—he means the entire universe, but that’s too bad. He can’t have it all, and in this way he can’t have anything of what he intended. Tricks galore, this is what modern physics relies upon, having no real substance, in fact being outright absurd.

However, if you don’t like the inappropriate use of terminology and concepts from real science applied to cosmic matters, let alone the universe, wait till you see how even these traces of real science we saw so far, will disappear when the cosmologist takes full control over these matters with his outright absurd “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics, completely hygienized even of traces of science and basic reason.

In the meantime, everything that looks like standard knowledge is harnessed to drag the dreary cart of big bang. Thus, supercooling, a known effect, is considered on par with quantum mechanics—anti-scientific area, but fully recognized by the mainstream. All this is stirred into an incredible mish-mash of an explanation, supposed to be scientific.

Now, if the above is not enough, here comes a peculiar twist connected with the energy of the universe, whereby we would at once become curious—how does the cosmologist know anything about the energy in the infinite universe? The cosmologist conjures it through infinite extrapolation, perhaps? However, as will be mentioned further on as well, even if we consider that we have at hand improper integrals having infinite limits, there is also the integrand. How does the cosmologist know what the integrand, referring to the infinite universe, is? Need it be repeated, he doesn’t know?

As for the matter treated as energy, the argument goes like this. The cosmologist considers the mass in the universe as positive energy—well, isn’t it true that the mass is positive in \(E = mc^2\), therefore \(E\) is positive. This is quite questionable, however, if that equation is to be used for such mass-energy substitution. Is it really true at all that mass was made of energy? This is, again, a mechanistical assumption based on no grounds. The cosmologist thinks that the claim that matter is locked energy follows from quantum mechanics but quantum mechanics is absurdity and therefore nothing can follow from it.

These flawed conjectures show how important it is to understand exactly the meaning of \(E = mc^2\) and whether it really means that matter can be converted into energy, let alone that mass can be taken as energy, and also whether quantum mechanics is viable scientifically. If that picture is wrong, we can get into these wrong conjectures—what on earth, \(E = mc^2\) shows that mass and energy are equivalent, so, then, why shouldn’t I be able to think energy when I say mass?

On the other hand—because of gravity, particles apart have greater energy as a whole than those same particles together, the former acquiring the form of negative energy.

Let us pay attention to this Jesuit explanation—so, the masses themselves, expressed as energy, are positive energy, but, because they are apart, that energy should be considered negative.

Next thing is to recall that the universe is uniform. Why? That uniformity follows from the uniform relic cosmic microwave background radiation. Therefore, the conjecture is that the two energies cancel each other. This is an obvious stretch, however, because, even if we agree (we shouldn’t because is it not true that there is gravity because of matter?) that gravity cancels matter—because it was conjectured that gravity is negative energy, while matter is positive energy—modeling infinite universe is impossible. The objection will be that we have improper integrals (with infinite limits). However, as was already said, what is important, and what we cannot conjecture about, is what function is to be integrated, what is under the integral. Therefore, it is not at all evident that the total energy of the universe is zero.

Nevertheless, the cosmologist continues—during the expansion of the universe it increases the matter (positive energy) but also increases the gravitational energy (negative energy), leading again to zero net energy—because more of the zero is also zero. What an interesting way of not violating conservation of energy and cheating nature by ostensibly not violating conservation of energy.

Obviously, such a far out, actually straight incorrect idea, is hailed because it works in favor of the big bang enthusiasts. This is not the first time in history when half-baked ideas, or outright wrong ideas, of someone are praised to the skies because they fit well in support of someone else’s hallucinations but that someone else has been promoted by the monarchies or by whoever are the powers-to-be of the day to the position of science dictators. Some would-be scientists had turned such fawning to the figments of the science governors into a family business, crunching otherwise completely senseless papers, but mentioning the magic words that needed support when first introduced, such as “quantum&rdquo", on every page. As in any business, the business of producing papers which open academic doors and then open doors to immortality and planetary fame, requires skills even more sinister and corrupt than the dishonest practices of your everyday crooked businessperson on the black list of the Better Business Bureau. Ambition has no bounds, and when it is unprincipally stimulated, the result is a pseudo-scientific monster of the worst pathological sort, the inflation model of the universe being invisible in comparison with other monsters of science pathology that have overtaken the world.

I wonder what will be the response, and even if it would be at all noticed, when I present in a future book the entirely legitimate discovery of violation of conservation of energy, producing energy “out of nothing”, as it were, when appropriately combining two non-energy quantities?

In comparison, in a normal expansion of the universe, whereby the cosmologist means the so-called hot big bang; that is, without applying the Jesuit dodging, twisting and turning, based on supercooling (the inflationary model), the so-called positive energy density represented by matter, decreases as the universe swells . Do you get the trick? In the normal expansion the energy goes down because the universe gets cooler, as explained with the cylinder with piston, filled with gas. But, here, in the supercooled state, the expansion is not causing cooling, that is the energy density stays the same.

As a result, the cosmologist conjectures, because that mass has become more, it means that the energy has become more, which also means that, conversely, there will be energy to make particles

This is completely inadequate thinking. Mass cannot cancel or compensate energy because mass is not energy, mass when it is really mass, cannot express itself as energy to be able to cancel whatever other energy stands in the way. To say nothing of the general objection throughout this discourse to the claim that the universe can be inflated at all. The universe is infinite and an infinite entity cannot be inflated more.

Conveniently, of course, today, universe is, humbly, not expanding in an inflationary way. How else would you be able to spread the false premises—there is no evidence today of universe inflation? How did this disappearance of the supecooling happen, however? Well, says cosmologist, just as it happens with supercooled water—supercooling ends and water is turned into ice. Incidentally, the end of supercooling incites the breaking of symmetry between the 3 forces and we get into what we experience now—the three forces display themselves separately, the symmetry is broken, the mantra goes. Furthermore, when the symmetry gets broken, the extra energy heats universe, but only below the symmetry, so the broken symmetry stays. And then, as expected by the model, the universe will go on expanding, respectively, cooling, but now we have forged a fabricated explanation as to why the different regions have the same temperature and why universe is expanding at critical rate.

Then, there are further developments of the model, whereby the new phase of broken symmetry is personified (embodied) by bubbles. Further, it is imagined that these bubbles will coalesce with each other until the whole universe turns into the new phase. And, then, if we should know more about this, it is objected that expansion is so fast that the bubbles can’t meet—bubbles will move away from each other faster than the speed of light, even if they grew at the speed of light.

That stuff of idle fantasizing grows on you and you no longer remember the chronic fatality that the kernel of this theory, the big bang, is unrealistic, and therefore any further proposals are nothing but banter. We will, nevertheless, mention the objection that because of this failure to meet, many bubbles will not coalesce and that would leave some regions with unbroken symmetry, which is something that we do not see around us … and so on and so forth. Further and further details pile up discussed in conferences and published in the archival literature and in the middle of all this, senseless in its own self occupation, the real absurdity starts creeping in explicitly—the “theory” of relativity, not that at the bottom, as the big bang, the “theory” of relativity as the theoretical generator of the big bang, hasn’t been already present.

This transfer into absurdity of the above-discussed consideration, inadequate to begin with, is prodded by made-up arguments for further difficulties, stemming from offered quasi-mathematical arguments, having no physical meaning whatsoever, based on the absurd “theory” of relativity. One can read about singularity theorems, using some imagined laws of science, to back-engineer universe to its initial configuration, quantum mechanics begins to be mentioned, presumptions about imagined beginning of time pop up, and so on. Further, as if the “theory” of relativity was not enough of a nuisance, here comes another absurdity on top of it—quantum mechanics, praising itself with lack of singularities. However, there may or may not be singularities in the quantum theory, but the quantum theory is an absurdity itself. Thus, it is not this central problem, the absurdity, that gets addressed, but the attention is directed to side issues—singularities and the like. Thus, unfortunately, neither of the two absurdities can provide the needed laws to tackle universe in any of its aspects, to say nothing that a beginning of universe is implied, which arrives from one of the absurdities. Therefore, it is a total mess, begun by the very proposal for big bang and the adoption of the absurdity known as “theory” of relativity. Thus, for instance, it is absolutely of no consequence what the singularity theorems indicate because they are non sequitur. They, if they even at all make any mathematical sense, arrive from absurdities. Also, any further developments such as the introduction of imaginary time to help with resolving whatever technical problems the proponents perceive in the so-called sum over histories, an inadequacy in itself, or any other approach, idea or technique one may suggest, are, inadequate, once it is realized that all these ideas are to upgrade the absurdity known as spacetime. Knowing that spacetime is an absurd construct and building on it Euclidean space based on imaginary time, means to build insanity and sheer madness over lunacy. Cosmologists who have based their life's work, have wasted their life and those who desperately defend these absurd ideas are doing it just to protect their ego and undeserved standing in academia and society. There is no rational, scientific reason behind such protection. It is an exhibit of pure human weakness. The cosmologist has wasted all his life chasing something which is worse than clairvoyance and bedlam-banter, especially because the doltishness he espouses is decorated with academic garlands of prestige and honor. To say nothing of the enormous material waste they have incurred on society with their influence to extract billions from the governments of countries and squander these billions on absurdities. This is a disgrace, an affront to academic decorum. Certain societal positions of influence come with responsibility to not fall below a certain degree of decorum and style.

To mention it again, what is absolutely taken for granted here, in violation of every rule of science and logic, is that there is a beginning of the universe and that the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics can be pondered as possible descriptions of the universe. On the contrary, what is to be taken for granted is that universe is infinite and infinity cannot be expanded more. There is nothing more infinite than infinity and that should be understandable especially by the mathematicians, what these cosmologists primarily are. It should also be taken for granted that the above-mentioned “theories” are absurdities, which should never be allowed to contaminate any scientific discourse.

Thus, you see how the absurdities stand at the doorstep of all these ruminations and the reasonable person cannot even enter the expanses of these considerations, even when willing to get exposed to these ideas. There are certain thresholds of intellectual hygiene which cannot be crossed. They are actually an offense to even the average intellect of a human being. This occupation with juggling absurdities wrought in mathematical models seems like what incapable mathematicians do because they have no qualities to compete on the real field of mathematics and take up tackling physical problems, impressing, actually intellectually damaging, inexperienced novices aspiring to do physics.

The really irritating thing is that once you have unequivocally rejected the “theory” of relativity and all its progeny such as spacetime, thinking that it would be all, that absurdity still keeps creeping in, coming onto humanity again and again, as an annoying horsefly, nagging in various forms of writing, film or internet.

The answer to the question as to how society allows itself to get infested by such travesty, lies in the complicated intertwining of vested interests with political, ideological and goodness only knows what else interests—anything but real science, logic and reason.

At times cosmologists openly flirt with secularity, knowing full well that the big bang theory is prone to be used outside of science. Even worse, coming as if from science, the big bang theory comes to use for extraneous iniquitous purposes and that use is even more reinforced due to its academic backing. One thing, however, is for sure, the secular views need no enemy when they are backed by arguments said to be arriving from the “theory” of relativity. In 1987 the US Supreme Court in its decision regarding the case known as Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987), ruled, in the name of upholding the secular character of the US Constitution, against teaching intelligent design in schools. Although one may think that it is only up to academia to decide matters of science, when it comes to matters of utmost national importance such as protecting the spirit of the US Constitution, such intervention is justified. Because there is no way to remove the two absurdities, forming the fundamentals of contemporary science, destroying it and thus undermining society, discussed in this book, by reasoning with adepts who have vigorously occupied academia, zealously protecting it, intervention on the matters discussed in this book by the US Supreme Court is more than urgent.

A proposal for a theory may be generically absurd, absurd from the get go. There are no aesthetic or metaphysical reasons to put forth absurd theories, even if they appear very attractive. An aesthetically appearing absurdity is still absurdity. On the other hand, indeed, one may find artistic qualities in absurdity. This is exploited widely in modern art. However, that doesn’t qualify one bit that kind of absurdity, recognized as aesthetic in art, as a candidate for a scientific theory. An absurd proposal is not even tested in order to verify its scientific validity. The “theory” of relativity is such generic absurdity, which does not need to be tested. It catastrophically collapses on the very pages of the very first paper where it was put forth. If not attended to, it spawns indiscriminately further and further absurdities such as the ones we just talked about.

BAD SCIENCE INSTRUCTION 7—The Grand Unification

As far as the unification theories, striving to unite the alleged four forces of nature—gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear force having to do with radioactivity and strong nuclear force referred to the integrity of protons and neutrons—such pursuit is doomed. Consider the so-called gravitons, a progeny of the non-physical Lorentz transformations and the absurd quantum mechanics, causing any claim for gravitational waves to be ignored. Claiming experimental evidence for gravitational waves is like claiming experimental evidence that one equals two on top of the one and two being nothing. Regarding the electromagnetic force, curiously, when considering it, the cosmologist uses it to portray the atom as a tiny planetary system with electrons orbiting a positive nucleus, a picture which the same cosmologist has already rejected. To say nothing of the business with the allowed orbits, which is entirely phony, as commented when mentioning the failed Plank introduction to the non-science known as quantum mechanics. Because of non-physicality of quantum mechanics the theory of atoms must be entirely reworked. This is a daunting task because the wrong ideas based on Lorentz transformations have ingrained themselves so deeply that their extrication seems impossible. Yet, it must be done. To have theories based on the non-physical Lorentz transformations and the illogical quantum mechanics is worse than not having any theory at all. Weak nuclear force having to do with \(\frac{1}{2}\) spin, also goes because of its connection with the Lorentz transformations. Other ways of explaining radioactivity should be sought. This applies also to any explanations of forces based on spin—integer or fractional. To say nothing, again, of the implication that there could be allowed and forbidden energy states—an idea stemming from the non-scientific, non-physical quantum mechanics. Likewise, for strong nuclear force.

Judging the validity of a theory can be simplified by having it pass, as the first step, the presence of the Lorentz-transformations and quantum-mechanics test, before going into any details about the theory. The minute any traces of these contaminants are detected, the theory goes. Any experimental “confirmations” of such non-sequiturs are the result of fudging in the atmosphere of the bureaucratic superstructures of the humungous super laboratories, where collectives consisting of thousands of people must find at any rate what they have been funded to find. How else would they justify their existence? The same way these posers of labs find proof through numerous approximations and fudging, that the absolutely impossible time-dilation is real. All this is not science but is a self-serving union of corrupt bureaucrats, functioning for the sake of their own survival, ready to come up with any result whatsoever, if that would ensure the swelling of their infrastructure. Functioning for the sake of functioning—a way of surviving in the cold world of capitalism, through offering society a spoiled product, actually phony, elaborately packaged to look amazing.

Unification of these forces under the existing premises is outright impossible, even by using the fudge factors which are quite openly admitted. This unification effort, trying to put together theoretical nothingness, is foredoomed, and the sooner societies realize that, the sooner they will curb their wasted finances and will redirect them to really productive science. The clear criteria to do so are spelled out in this book—call out the emergency ambulance bringing the synchronicity lifeline as well as the evidence for the catastrophic absurdity of the “theory” of relativity, recall the crucial arguments proving quantum mechanics non-scientific, and brace yourself to sift through the numerous projects funded with billions of dollars for these contaminations. As soon as the said contaminations are established, any dollar going for them must be stopped immediately.

An interesting observation is that the cosmologists seem so reassured in their steadfastness as the spoiled children of civilization that they have no problem to be enjoying and celebrating the lack of success, which they themselves admit, instead of being ashamed and trying to hide somewhere with embarrassment.

Thus, one cannot believe that he is reading what he reads. Am I really reading this? So, although whatever the cosmologist claims hasn’t been observed, the conjecture is that it is the most natural way to imagine the universe starting out. Hello, is there anybody there? This is nothing short of poverty of conjecture if not complete insanity.

---

\( \Huge \mathbb{Part \ \ 4} \)

---

Quantum Mechanics—Crucial Further Discrepancies in Understanding, Leading to Deformed Picture of the World

Above, a detailed account was given of some exemplary instances of bad science, giving them even more attention than such deformation of science deserves. In what follows, we will add more elements of the sorry picture of the devastated world of science, will even give several examples from the manual how to do bad science, and will sum up some mandatory steps for inevitable reform in science.

The very occupation with how the world was created, as opposed to the truly worthy topics with which the ordinary scientist is occupied, undeservedly appearing mundane to the public at large, causing the financing of real scientific activity to lag far behind the scientific charlatanism based on the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics, commands the unwarranted disproportionate respect of society toward such an actor, performing the role of a great scientist, a genius, and confers additional prestige. People need exuberant heroes, not modest working bees hiding in their labs, sunk in esoteric thoughts, which don’t sound one bit interesting. Except that there is the subtle detail that the activities of the genius are based on childish speculations, utilizing small trivialities of ordinary science, sprinkled with, mostly subdued by, the outright lunacy of the spacetime variety. The serious scientist, occupied with what is perceived as mundane, takes very special care that all components of his analysis are based on the firm grounds of really established knowledge and truth, not matters that are adopted as established, but when one inspects them, turn out to be brazen absurdities.

As a matter of fact, all the speculations in the so-called modern cosmology are based on the (surprise!) ostensibly mundane findings of the real, but made invisible, true science, mostly misconstrued and misplaced, combined with the absurdities of spacetime. This is shocking when one observes it for the first time. Such pretended grandiosity, based on such a muddle of the trivialities of science, perceived as mundane, combined with the lunacy of the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics, is unfathomable when first encountered. After the first shock, one can’t comprehend how these masseurs of truth are getting away with it. Far from it. They are the heroes of the masses, the standard bearers of science by every popular standard

As an example, when it comes to the energy of the constituents of matter, the picture attributed to the very celebrated quantum mechanics fails. As can be seen from what was presented in my previous book entitled “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”, contrary to the view held by quantum mechanics that the energy of individual atoms is quantized, that is, an atom could only possess allowed values of energy, and other values are forbidden and cannot be possessed by the atom itself, the atom and its respective constituent parts, can possess any infinitely divisible energy value within the Gaussian (rather Poisson) distribution of energies over velocities. What is quantized is the average energy exchanged between these particles; called the exchanging energy, but that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics, but is an intrinsically classical result first discovered by C. I. Noninski (1964).

As shown in the book of this author, entitled “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”, Planck’s conclusion and the subsequent quantum hypothesis attributed to him, falls flat in very the pages of his 1901 article in its very introduction. The Boltzmann equation \( S = k \ log \ W \), written there for entropy, yields \(S = 0\), making it impossible to use it further for the derivation of anything. Doesn’t this fatal failure seen in the very pages of the 1901 paper introducing quantum mechanics look like the precursor to another scientific slack—the catastrophic absurdity which one discovers in a paper that appeared several years later—in 1905—a scientific slack seen in the very pages of another introductory paper, also considered to be of a seminal significance, the paper putting forth the “theory” of relativity? It must be confessed, however, that in this case, the student has surpassed his teacher in doing crooked science and not only getting away with it, but being praised to the skies for producing intellectual laxity, if we are to refer politely to the sheer travesty of science that has come out from under his pen.

What was said about Planck’s faltering inception of quantum mechanics, comes in addition to the observation of C. I. Noninski that Planck does not honor his own conclusion; namely, that what he denotes by the symbol \(U\), cannot be the energy of the particle itself, modeled as a resonator, but is only the exchange energy of the resonator, which is related in a certain way to the entropy \(S\) of the resonator. A proof of the latter is that \(U = 0\) when \(S = 0\), and \(S = 0\) when the amplitude and phase of all resonators coincide, as Planck himself states, but obviously promptly forgets. However, matching amplitude and phase does not mean that the energy of the resonator itself becomes zero.

This is where a profound misunderstanding of thermodynamics intervenes, namely, as early as in its first law \( \Delta E = Q - A\), where \(Q\) is the heat exchanged and \(A\) is the work done on the system, does not at all refer to the energy \(E\) of the system itself, it only refers to the change \(\Delta E\) of the energy in question.

It is seen that the work of scientists engaged in the study of the mundane properties of nature also proves critical when reasoning in terms of the grand questions of being.

Now, we are talking here about the serious scientist, not someone promoted to the status of a great scientist, standing on the clay feet of the “theory” of relativity variety.

So, then, what else should be the approach. How else is one to speculate and explain the birth of the universe? The first thing to be done is remove the absurdity underpinning these explanations—the “theory” of relativity; quantum mechanics is also lurking, which is paradoxical, provided that its champions themselves think of it as the description of the microworld, the galaxies and the universe being as far removed as the quantum mechanical topic of description, as anything could possibly be. Then, is anything, such as birth of the universe, anything viable at all and should it be contemplated at all?

Furthermore, it turns out the reasons for not being able to get rid of the false ideas are very petty—fawning to who would pay the most. Not to speak of those sponsors being ego-driven. Therefore, nothing should be discussed in front of an audience other than an audience which controls the public finances for science, where the wise guys cannot get away with their manipulations. In any other gathering, figures who are already promoted have the public money because of public support, have the political upper hand and completely control the discussion and command public attention, being allowed to utter any lunacy they please, without accountability.

You can see how little is needed to stop that insanity—just a look at the 1905 paper introducing the so-called “theory” of relativity, to see the catastrophe which I discovered, when in doubt that the “theory” of relativity is a catastrophic absurdity never to be talked about again. Never forget to hold on to the synchronicity lifeline when in doubt about the absoluteness of time.

Stupidity galore. This really makes one wonder where the limits of what is allowed publicly are. Even the private universities have a public underpinning, because they require state accreditation. The state accreditation is what bans clairvoyance and shamanism from invading universities. I am far from the "repressive tolerance" idea to take foothold in academia, because that idea is irrational. Intolerance towards clairvoyance invading academia, the same way as intolerance to ideas such as the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics, has a very rational basis, which is founded on absolute truths. The immediate debunking of this iniquitous playing with time is the synchronicity lifeline, which, because of its absolute truthfulness, disallows even a trace of thought that time can be affected by anything, let alone presented as the figment of one’s mind.

Well, otherwise, just like clairvoyance, no one stops the senseless person from exercising senselessness outside of the public funding.

Some History

At the risk of betraying the basic approach of this book, which relies on argumentation based on absolute truths, we will mention some well-known facts from the history of science, in order to accentuate some general conclusions about science. For those who may be interested in this author’s ruminations about truth, here is a slightly modified excerpt from my earlier book.

The last century has given us nothing but deterioration of our scientific worldview, to the point of crashing when it comes to the fundamentals of science and even basic cognition itself.

There were better times, however, not in the sense that all was correct, but science was following its natural course from the inevitable underdeveloped, rudimentary stage, toward perfecting the ideas by concerted efforts which really achieve such development, until the twentieth century brought about the opposite—deliberate, concerted efforts to destroy thinking through the destruction of science itself, especially through mauling the notion of the physical parameter time. Consequently, if someone is wondering what will the fate of the twentieth century physics be, the answer is firm—if humanity wants to survive, the fundamentals of what is considered modern science, having already done enough damage, will find themselves in the dust heap of history. It would not be an overstatement to consider the main reason for this liberation, liberation from presenting absurdity as science, the discovery by this author of the catastrophic absurdity invalidating the “theory” of relativity, which led as a consequence to the emergency synchronicity lifeline. These discoveries of the author of this book comprise the backbone of the inevitable change, answering unequivocally the most fundamental question—the absolute essence of time, uniquely labeling every point of the infinite space. The infinity of space predetermines the lack of beginning both of space and time. Only objects constituting the various cosmic bodies can experience a beginning and an end, but that is simply common formation-and-dissipation of material objects. A lump of coal has been formed millions of years ago and it can be transformed into ash by burning it. There is nothing uncommon about that and, of course, one may be curious about how the galaxies, the planets, the stars were formed, invent models to explain that, the way one models in a laboratory even the conditions on Mars and Venus, in order to study them and prepare their future colonization. These studies have more of an applied character and are not connected with exploring the very fundamentals which govern nature. As said, the proofs mentioned above, confirm the absoluteness of these most fundamental notions, time and space. There can be no hope that anything can be done to undo this absolute truth about them—their absoluteness—and make various fantasies about them, such as spacetime, come true. Thus, if we call all we can see here on earth and in the cosmos by the term universe, then the questions of its beginning and end, and where the current universe is going, are no different in principle from how a concoction is made or how a chemical reaction takes place, when it can take place and when it can’t—a chemical reaction can take place only when the change of the standard Gibbs free energy of the products of the reaction minus the change of the standard Gibbs free energy of the reactants, is negative; that is, when \(\Delta G^o < 0\). The formation, existence and death of the universe, however, has nothing to do with time and space existing as separate notions. Their malapropos intertwining is the root of all the fantastic inconsequences, in the form of black holes, dark matter, string theories and particle physics theories and whatnot, filling not only the tabloid pages and the numerous tabloid pretend-science books, but most damagingly, the pages of prestigious scientific journals. This is the blind leading the blind—wetting the appetite of the vapid part of the public, the customers of this written waste, expecting to generate more income, of course, asking questions about whose answer these authors have no clue themselves, but being brought up to the position of authority, contributing to the further confusion on the matter.

Speaking of history, there were people during the good times of development, even before Galileo’s founding of modern science, who were genuinely trying to truthfully understand the world, making the most of the abecedarian tools which the state-of-the-art of those times could provide them with.

Thus, even in the depths of time, as far back as antiquity, philosophers, for the lack of proper thinkers, were coming up with arguments about the round earth which our own contemporary flat-earthers ought to revisit. The always round shadow of the moon during eclipse spoke about such roundness, which would have elliptic shape if the earth was flat—flat-earth would give round shadow on the moon only when the sun faces the center of that flat earth, which is not the case when earth moves between the sun and the moon to cause eclipse.

The star called Polaris is straight up when one is on the North Pole, while, going South and ending up at the equator, the same, otherwise immovable star, Polaris, appears on the horizon. Flat-earth wouldn't cause such change, no matter where one happens to be on its surface.

Now we know many more unequivocal facts countering the idea of flat-earth, but we will not discuss them because the above was only intended to illustrate how far back in history people were striving for knowledge about the world. The curious can see evidence for the roundness of the earth themselves, not even resorting to the beautiful NASA images of the round earth. When on vacation in a sea resort you may want to notice that when distant ships begin to emerge on the horizon, one first sees their sails, the rest of the ship as if sunk behind the curvature of the earth.

These are trivial things that can be established by perception. This was the method of establishing natural truths for over 2000 years, until Galileo came and changed everything by introducing the scientific method, which explores phenomena beyond perception. The coming to the fore of Galileo has a pivotal significance for the cognitive state of humanity. Unfortunately, the accent in his discoveries is always diverted from probably the most important discovery, concerning the uniform translatory motion, whereby he corrected Aristotle, who considered all motion operative. Galileo pointed to one motion—the uniform translatory motion—which, although containing the word "motion" in its name, is non-operative, cannot be felt, and is akin to rest. This discovery is known as the principle of relativity. This principle is misunderstood to this day and this has thrown humanity into the incredible chaos of pronouncing absurdities as science, through deceptively allowing uniform translatory motion to be presented as a state different from rest, as can be seen explained here. One can rarely see reference in the modern literature, both academic and propagandist, reference to probably the most important experiment (perhaps, only a thought experiment) proposed by Galileo, known as Galileo’s ship. When discussing dropping weights, authors cite Galileo’s experiment at the leaning Tower of Pisa, whereby he dropped two different weights simultaneously, observing them fall together to the ground, in opposition to what Aristotle expected, in this way proving the existence of the inertial force, ignored by Aristotle, slowing down the expected higher velocity of the heavier body. Both weights, lighter and heavier, fall with the same acceleration to the ground because the heavier body has proportionally greater inertia due to its proportionally greater mass.

When it comes to the rotation of the earth, the literature rarely mentions the controversial experiment demonstrating the straight trajectory of the stone, dropped from that same leaning Tower of Pisa, and the missing star parallax alongside Galileo’s discovery of the four moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus.

The straight trajectory of the stone is due to the minuteness of the Coriolis force appearing due to the rotation of the earth, which would cause the deviation from a straight path, but the scientific instruments of the time did not allow its detection. Only after, about a hundred years later, Foucault came to the fore with his pendulum, when the effect of Coriolis force on the plane of swaying of pendulum's bob was observed to change its position, when rotation of the earth obtained its first conclusive proof. The missing star parallax was also due to primitive instrumentation at the time, which causes the attempts to detect such parallax to fail. These two experiments—the one showing apparently straight trajectory, and the other resulting in seemingly missing parallax—have taught humanity that conclusions must not be done only from experience, from naïve perceptions, but must include deeper analysis assisted by the scientific method and conducting further experiments, if needed. There are cases, as it turns out quite crucial, when the decision can be based on pure analysis of the proposal and finding catastrophic contradictions, as is the case with the “theory” of relativity and its absurdity, directly discovered by this author on the very pages of the 1905 paper that puts it forth.

Of course, there are observations such as the jagged outer ridge of the moon, blemished surface of the sun, the four moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus, which are unequivocal and conclusions follow straight from these observations. Some observations, however, have subtleties, and one cannot use; e.g., straight trajectory of the falling stone or missing parallax, to conclude that the earth is still.

The persistent mentioning of Galileo’s two-weight experiment, not so much the mentioned stone’s straight trajectory, has its purpose. It is used to condition the reader to the forthcoming introduction of the “theory” of relativity in its other variant (conceived after 1905) of treating non-inertial frames, falsely considering that said “theory” has anything to do with the experiment in question. Incidentally, both variants, with and without acceleration, comprise one theory. Proving the “theory” related to inertial frames wrong, as is done in my earlier books, as well as here, is enough to conclude that the “theory” in question is over.

Moving on to Newton, most of the time the experiment quoted as the precursor to the three so-called Newton’s laws of motion, is the mentioned Galileo’s two-weight experiment, almost always neglecting Galileo’s ship as having the crucial role in defining these three laws, in effect comprising Newton’s first law, a direct expression of the principle of relativity. Therefore, there was no need to elevate as a special postulate (the first postulate) in the “theory” of relativity something that was already discovered by Galileo and formulated as Newton’s first law.

Parenthetically, calling Newton’s three laws laws of motion, is a contradiction because, then, the third law and its application, the second law, find themselves in contradiction to the first law. The following two sections provide a short explanation of that observation.

Newton’s Contribution to Motion

When it comes to motion, notably, Newton’s contribution consists in appropriating the discovery of Galileo regarding the uniform translatory motion as being akin to rest, and shaping that into the form of what is now known as Newton’s first law, as well as figuring out that rest also comprises compensation between a force and the equal in magnitude but opposite in direction, inertial force, invoked by the applied force. Although Newton speaks of force, the utilization of this force does not result in inducing motion but still sustains the state of rest. In order for the laws of Newton to indeed describe motion, an expansion of Newton’s second law is mandatory. These matters are explained in more detail in this author’s book entitled “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”.

Contradictions in the Current Understanding of the So-Called Newton’s Laws of Motion

As explained in detail in my just mentioned book “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”, the three laws of Newton, known as laws of motion, are in fact laws of rest. Calling these laws “laws of motion” puts Newton’s third law and its application, known as Newton’s second law, in contradiction to Newton’s first law.

This contradiction follows directly from the absolute truth, elevated by this author in the above-mentioned book as the most fundamental equation of mechanics (dynamics), that the square of velocity of a free body under the impartation of a constant force, is inevitably equal to twice the product of its acceleration and its displacement. Notice, the minute we speak of acceleration, that means the free body is being acted upon by a force—in this case a constant force giving rise to a constant acceleration. Thus, the emergence of acceleration is the guarantor of motion—no acceleration, no motion, although the free body may exhibit a displacement. This absolute relation follows directly from the definitions of velocity and acceleration, which, being definitions in physics, cannot be anything other than absolute truths.

Here, one can clearly see the inevitable chain of absolute inferences—the absolute truths, the definitions of velocity and acceleration, leading to the most fundamental equation of mechanics (dynamics), the extended Newton’s second law, and finally to \(E = mc^2\).

Quite significantly, we don’t at all need Newton for the above conclusions. As is known, usually, what is considered modern physics is juxtaposed to the Newtonian mechanics, concluding, quite erroneously, that modern physics is some sort of development, some sort of advancement over the classical approach to time and space of Newton. However, not only is this opinion wrong because of the complete senselessness of the absurdity known as modern physics—the absurdity, having at its basis the lunacy known as “theory” of relativity, never qualifying as any kind of development, let alone advancement—but the steady ground of physics does not even need Newton to begin with. The unequivocal understanding of motion, starting from the understanding of the motion of a free body under the action of a constant force, begins with absolute truths of physics and is model-independent or theory-independent. It just is, following from eternal unshakable absolute truths. More on this issue can be found in the previous book of this author entitled “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”.

Thus, indeed, Galileo’s experiments have inspired Newton to formulate his three laws, known as laws of motion, but that was not solely the experiment with the two weights. Galileo’s ship experiment is what really inspired Newton’s first law, because that ship experiment introduces the principle of relativity, whereby uniform translatory motion is akin to rest, which is what, in effect, is Newton’s first law.

As for motion, it is crucial to understand that force changes the velocity of the body. The body may be changing its position relative to the \(x\)-axis, while moving at constant velocity \(v\); that is, while at uniform translatory motion—an expression of Newton’s first law—but this is not motion. This state is akin to rest. Therefore, it is exactly this changing velocity that characterizes motion and that is exactly what is missing in Newton’s second law as we know it. Newton’s second law, in its known form, represents something else—it is a compensatory law, rather than a law describing motion. It represents the compensation of a force by its counteracting inertial force. Newton’s second law is, in fact, an illustration of the general compensatory Newton’s third law.

Thus, when a free body is not acted upon by an excess force, which would overcome the inertial force, then that free body will keep moving along the \(x\)-axis at an unchanging velocity, \(v = const\), or will remain at rest, as was its initial state.

Furthermore, it may be repeated that the free body will not be set in motion even when a force is imparted to it, because the imparted force will be compensated by the inertial force of the body. Newton’s second law, the law expressing the behavior of the free body after the imparting of a force, only describes a state of rest when the acting force is compensated by an inertial counter force. The body under Newton’s second law will not budge. The applied force is compensated by an inertial force, equal in magnitude and opposite in direction, as Newton’s third law commands.

One may add here Newton’s law concerning the force of gravity, stating that the force in question is proportional to the product of the masses of the interacting objects and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. The amazing thing is that this law predicts just the right way the force decreases with distance so that planets can be kept in elliptical orbits, causing the planets orbiting the sun neither to collapse on the sun, nor to escape from the solar system. Clearly, Newton’s gravitation law cannot be tested in its pure form because all masses in the universe are surrounded by other bodies which incur influence, but if these forces are taken into account, the law holds fairly well. Newton’s law of gravity has a special place in today’s cosmology because it is wrongly imagined that the “theory” of relativity (in its non-inertial-frame variant) is an improvement on it, and is thought that it explains why gravity exists. Of course, after the crucial catastrophic argument, unequivocally proving that the “theory” of relativity is an absurdity, all attention toward this “theory” ought to vanish.

Instead, one first needs to heed the extended form of Newton’s second law, as described in my book entitled “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”, in order for that law to become indeed a law of motion.

As far as rest goes, Newton’s first law considers rest. Therefore, rest is not the issue. The difference between Aristotle and Galileo, respectively Newton, who borrowed the idea from Galileo, is that, as already mentioned, while considering rest, Aristotle wrongly thought that all motion is operative; that is, can be felt. Galileo made the seminal discovery, described in his Galileo’s ship experiment, that there is one motion, known as uniform translatory motion, which is akin to rest. It cannot be felt and cannot be established through any physical experiment. As mentioned, this discovery by Galileo is not understood to this day and the world still recognizes as a legitimate science the “theory” of relativity which most brazenly violates it.

Speaking of rest, it may be added that the hitherto unrecognized classical uncertainty principle, described in my book “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”, unlike the non-physical uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics, recognizes rest.

On the other hand, it is quite trivial to understand that while for a person on the platform, it is the train that is moving, while for a person on the train, what is moving is the platform. This fact from classical physics is mentioned as early as grade school and it does not illustrate the “theory” of relativity. If someone has remained with such an impression, that should change. The “theory” of relativity is a plain and simple violation of what it has itself postulated. The “theory” of relativity is a “theory” that invalidates itself.

Of course, those who advertise modern cosmology always tend to resist the idea of rest, understandably why—all efforts of cosmology are directed towards establishing in the mind of the world that the universe is expanding, ergo there had been a big bang and all the shebangs going with that. However, while it is evident that planets such as earth are not at rest relative to other planets, when it comes to rest relative to the earth itself, the standard of rest is the constancy of the distance between an observer at rest with the earth and an object, secured immovably to the earth. This is in full agreement with Newton’s first law.

Furthermore, in a desperate attempt to illustrate a difference of events, there is always a twisted trivial example from classical physics, lurking in the background, deceitfully redressed to appear as an illustration of the “unusual”, “fantastic” properties revealed by the “theory” of relativity, actually plain trivialities, manipulated to appear different. Recall, for example the train example, whereby classical triviality is used to play a role of an illustration of the “theory” of relativity. One can often read about another example—bouncing ball in the train, going up and down relative to the train, but for an observer on the platform, appearing to go in a zig-zag manner. This is quite trivial also, because that is exactly what is expected to happen according to classical physics, not according to the “theory” of relativity. This book contains a special section, dealing with the important problem, misunderstood as a rule, that comparisons between what happens with inertial systems is only the comparison between what happens within each system—cf. The Importance of Understanding What “With Respect to” or “Referred to” Means in the Definition of the First Postulate. Thus, according to the “theory” of relativity, the observer on the train will see, at the moment \(t = 0\), the ball hit the floor of the train at the same point where the observer on the platform will see it. It is not true that the observer on the platform will see the ball at \(t = 0\) to be 10m apart from where the observer on the train will see it hitting the floor at time \(t = 0\). Any other observation, beside the observation at \(t = 0\), is also outright trivial and expected according to classical physics, having nothing to do with the “theory” of relativity.

To say nothing of the fact that the two observers, on the platform and on the train, will always agree as to the simultaneity of the events. If anyone has any doubts, the emergency ambulance with the blinking red light, providing the absolute simultaneity synchronicity lifeline, will arrive momentarily, should the needy one care to hit the link and consult with what is written therein. Of course, the train example is also immediately available, always ready to be read and understood, so that there won’t be any hesitation regarding the absolute character of simultaneity.

From the above, one can easily understand that relative to a given system (as is the requirement in the “theory” of relativity—cf. The Importance of Understanding What “With Respect to” or “Referred to” Means in the Definition of the First Postulate) one can absolutely determine that two events which occurred at different times have happened at the same place, as long as the distance of that place from other resting bodies or the origin of the coordinate system, has remained the same in time. Recall the above example of the ball hitting the same place on the floor of the train. Alternatively, recall that every observer watches his own coordinate system and the events therein.

As for the absolute position in space, that idea died with the null result from the experiment of Michelson and Morley, who proved that ether, that is the absolute substance that would stay put with the coordinates of the infinite space, does not exist. Alas, this finding has nothing to do with the “theory” of relativity either. Therefore, after Michelson and Morley’s experiment, we will carry on with our classical understanding of relative motion, completely unaware of the nuisance called “theory” of relativity.

Authors, advocating for the “theory” of relativity, can be seen to often relegate to the above examples, because for them the cosmology banter they like to get involved in, crucially depends on the health and acceptance of the “theory” of relativity. As is seen from the above, their hopes are in vain. Their cosmological dreams evaporate the minute they mention the “theory” of relativity.

Thus, as far as time, space or simultaneity go, any person in any frame would agree with anyone else—the time at any instant will be the same for everyone, the length of a meter stick will stay the same in everyone’s system, and simultaneous events will be simultaneous for any person in any system. Any reference system that you may happen to prefer will give the same answer as to time, space and synchronicity.

Thus, to reiterate, space itself is absolute. Those who like to endow things with divine properties and intervention are welcome to do so, although it would make zero sense. Space has extension. However, it is something invisible and cannot be endowed with a material sense. When we speak of displacement, let alone change of velocity, we need a material reference. However, this is trivial and has nothing to do with the “theory” of relativity.

Absolute space is implied in Newton’s laws as the above-mentioned abstraction. This is trivial, however, and need not be dwelled upon.

It is interesting to note that the idea of absolute time is so trivial that it has existed since the times of antiquity. It was understood as early as those dark days that, if there is hope to change many other things, as difficult as it may be at times, changing time is forever impossible. Of course, this was intuition since back then, but today we have the emergency ambulance coming with its synchronicity lifeline to the rescue of any lost soul who has even momentarily lost it, getting into the deceptive clutches of time-fluidity.

The absolute truth that spatially coincident clocks are synchronous must be upheld as the most important statement when it comes to time. Furthermore, in view of the fact that time underlies everything else scientific, the principle that spatially coincident clocks are synchronous must be elevated as the most important principle in science. Therefore, that discovery, made by this author, is the greatest, most fundamental discovery in science. We use this seminal discovery, made by the author of this book, labeled here as the synchronicity lifeline for all the fundamental conclusions made throughout this book. One cannot help but express, once again, one’s utter amazement at how simple things such as the above principle, just like the simple, trivial knowledge that the tea in the cup on the kitchen table will never spontaneously get hotter at the expense of cooling down the temperature of the kitchen, a trivial fact worded in various ways as the second principle of thermodynamics, underlies the most profound and complicated conclusion of science.

Also, as continuously emphasized throughout this book—time must be treated separately from space as its own parameter. Discriminating time from space is crucial for correct conclusions in accord with reality. In this case, the commonsense view, for once, is the correct view, although there are immense evil pressures to convince the world that we have changed our view about time.

Remarkably, the emergency synchronicity lifeline, let alone the catastrophic absurdity, invalidating the “theory” of relativity, apply to any velocity. Therefore, it is not true that, in this particular case of low vs. high velocities, we should part with our common sense; i.e., the common sense telling us that velocity makes no difference and we must continue handling matters and things moving at high velocities, the same way as we treat them at low velocities.

What was said so far suffices to draw categorical conclusions about the absurdity of the “theory” of relativity and the absoluteness of time. The crucial catastrophic argument in that regard, although being in the public domain for over 10 years, has not gained acceptance and the authors still are under the impression that there is something about the velocity of light which brings about the purported mysterious outcomes from the “theory” of relativity. However, it is not like that in any way. The constancy of the velocity of light in every direction, when light is emitted from a stationary source, is the experimental discovery of Michelson and Morley, which the author of the “theory” of relativity has, for no reason, adopted as the second postulate of his “theory”. There is nothing to it and we will not repeat what we already said in the section Regarding the Speed of Light in a Frame of Reference as well as in Extraneous Questions—Michelson and Morley Experiment.

Although some people think that the constancy of the speed of light postulate (the second postulate.) is the key to the validity of the “theory” of relativity, that is as far from the truth, as any confusion can be. The constancy of velocity of light is not the bush in which the rabbit hides. The bush where the rabbit hides is already discovered and that is the catastrophic violation by the “theory” of relativity of the first postulate. (a.k.a. the principle of relativity). Thus, the “theory” of relativity is already debunked before even reaching the second postulate.

Of course, those who are interested in how Roemer determined the velocity of light and many other trivia, there is the plentiful information on the internet, which may be consulted. This, however, does not touch on the crucial points discussed herewith, revealing the absurdities serving as the foundation of the ruminations in cosmology. What was said so far needs our full attention, never allowing the guard to be down when it comes to the infestations with the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics.

Thus, we should be careful not to allow unaccounted for seeping of the iniquitous ideas from these intellectual contaminants, including ignoring little stories which the popular literature loves to be peppered with, in order to make the text more readable for the wider audience. Knowing the essence of what rot has been dumped on humanity, these little stories cannot be anything else but bland random accounts about someone’s life and deeds that need not be known. The advice given in these inconsequential stories needs to be heard as much as the advice of someone immoral who has achieved factual nothing in life, but who has found sponsors to finance his idleness. Does this sound like something that someone having basic self-respect wants to hear?

So, what we will be looking for is to see if there is anything at all additional to the main contamination, anything worthwhile on which we may sacrifice our time. No, there isn’t, is the plain, honest answer, but we will carry on, curious to see how it might be possible to have such nothingness and plain wrongness be elevated to such heights of prominence, efficiently suffocating the real basics of science and thought.

The “Theory” of Relativity Cannot Derive \(E = mc^2\)

At this point we may note that we have taken some time to attend in some detail to the fatal questions concerning physics and contemporary cosmology, respectively—more thorough observation being relegated to this author’s book entitled “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”. It is typical, however, for the cosmology enthusiasts, to fly over these questions without paying much attention—we saw what happens when some more attention is paid to the premises of the fundamentals of physics adopted today. Rejection of the entire body of what is considered knowledge results from such slightly more attentive reading and pondering. The reason for this neglect of the flawed premises is not only the danger of their rejection when looked at more carefully, but also the desire to vastly fly forward into the “juicy” stuff, where they can’t wait to unleash their pretend-physics imagination in the free expanses of the deliriums and hallucinations. At times, an impartial person who has nothing to gain, only interested in the truth, gets the impression, that such occupation has the effect of a narcotic, even a concoction of something stronger. It is the opinion of this author that it is counterproductive to attempt reasoning with these fellows. It’s like trying to unhook a heroin addict through reasoning. The only way is to cut the supply. Same here—the only way to deal with this pathological science marasmus, is to cut the public funding feeding it.

Now, having said that, let’s get into the “juicy” stuff and see what’s awaiting us there.

Take, for example, the claim that the “theory” of relativity has derived the mass-energy relationship \(E = mc^2\) (where E is energy, m is mass, and c is the speed of light). Ooops! This is a bummer. We just made a decision that we will take care not to discuss anything connected with the “theory” of relativity. It was not for no reason that we decided to separate wheat from the chaff and never spend time on things that have anything to do with the “theory” of relativity. Labeling them non-sequiturs would be putting it mildly.

However, in view of the great interest regarding this particular equation, we will say a few words. First off, the “theory” of relativity is a catastrophic absurdity. This very fact must exclude any claim that anything at all can be derived from it, in the first place.

Anyone who tries to forget that, and uses one of the two elements contradicting each other, to derive anything, is cheating. Especially blatant cheating is to use, in particular, the element, comprising the expression which follows from applying the non-physical Lorentz transformations, as is done, in violation of any scientific integrity, in §10 of the 1905 paper putting forth the “theory” of relativity.

On top of it, even if one has the deceptive mind and is determined to cheat, such derivation of \(E = mc^2\) is in error purely technically, as is seen from the integral at the end of §10 of the 1905 paper. It is seen that the integral in question is solved under the premise that the velocity in the coefficient \(\beta = \frac{1}{\sqrt{1-\frac{v^2}{c^2}} }\), which comprises the constant velocity of the moving coordinate system, is deceitfully confused with the velocity, part of the expression of the force \(F = m \frac{dv}{dt}\), applied on the body k moving in K. These are two different velocities. Given that the velocity \(v\) of the uniform translatory motion of the body is constant, the coefficient \(\beta\) must be factored out of the integral and what is obtained is not only not \(E = mc^2\), but is an incorrect expression for the kinetic energy of the moving body in K.

The solving of the integral is one of those already mentioned deceptive ways, where confusing the meaning of quantities is deemed completely acceptable, as long as the goal is achieved, no matter what it takes. Achieving the goal at any rate, even through cheating, is what counts and this is considered the work of a genius, the insight and acumen of a genius.

Furthermore, aside from the fact that his “theory” cannot derive \(E = mc^2\), the author of the “theory” of relativity has nothing to do with \(E = mc^2\) even as intuition, because there have been a number of scientists who earlier, prior to him, decades before him, had already spelled out this relationship.

Furthermore, the mass-energy relationship \(E = mc^2\) can be derived classically by the extended Newton’s second law, as shown in this author’s book “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”. Another classical expression of the mass-energy relationship is Ampere’s law itself, also shown in that book.

It would be worth mentioning that the mass-energy relationship is an absolute truth following from a chain of absolute truths beginning with the very definitions of velocity and acceleration of a free body acted upon by a constant force:

\[ v = \frac{dx}{dt}, a = \frac{dv}{dt}\Rightarrow \nonumber\] \[ v^2 = 2ax\Rightarrow \nonumber\] \[F_{real} = ma + \frac{mv^2}{2x} \Rightarrow \nonumber\] \[ E = mc^2. \nonumber\]

This is a summary. For more details consult the book mentioned.

The Extended Newton Second Law

As can be seen from the book of this author entitled “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”, the extended Newton’s second law (named after Newton solely out of respect for the great scientist, not that it derives, as just summarized above, from the well-known Newton second law) has the form \[F_{real} = ma + \frac{mv^2}{2x}. \label{extendednewton}\]

Of course, it may come about from considerations following from D’Alembert’s principle, requiring correction of the principle. However, this author has shown that the extended Newton’s law, eq.\eqref{extendednewton}, is an absolute equality, unassociated with any discovered law, but is another way of expressing the absolute equality \[v^2 = 2 ax, \label{themostfundamental}\]

part of the chain of steps, part of a chain of absolute truths, shown at the end of the previous section, stemming from the very definitions of velocity and acceleration, which are the epitome of indisputable absolute truths of physics.

The equality \(v^2 = 2 ax\) is absolute, and may be elevated to the status of the most fundamental equation of mechanics (dynamics), because, again, it is derived from the absolute truths, comprising the definition of velocity \(v = \frac{dx}{dt}\) and acceleration \(a = \frac{dv}{dt}\).

It is shown in “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today” that the absolute equality, eq.\eqref{themostfundamental}, demonstrates as an absolute, the fact that there cannot be real displacement \(x\) of a free body, under the goading of a constant force, without change of velocity \(v\) of the free body. Also, it follows from eq.\eqref{themostfundamental}, that uncertainty relations are an inherent classical phenomenon, and that at high velocities eq.\eqref{themostfundamental} turns into the mass-energy relationship \[ E = mc^2, \]

as already mentioned at the end of the previous section.

Incidentally, the equation \( E = mc^2 \) only indicates the equivalence of mass and energy, not that energy can be obtained from mass and vice versa. The mass defect observed as a result of a nuclear reaction is only an expression of this equivalence but does not mean conversion of mass into energy. The mechanism of the mass defect remains to be studied. During a nuclear process we have two facts at hand—energy is released and mass is decreased. That decrease of mass happens to be equivalent to the energy released (what if the decrease of mass had been different from the energy released?) That coincidence doesn’t mean that mass has turned into energy.

When the mass-energy equivalence \(E = mc^2\) is shown to follow from the absolute truths of physics (cf. page 286 of “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”) there is absolutely no implication about converting the mass \(m\) of the free body into energy. All the mass-energy relation \(E = mc^2\) shows is that at high velocities, where acceleration becomes negligible, motion is expressed by the energy of the free body, the notion of force losing meaning.

Because the mass-energy relation \(E = mc^2\) is used to express the energy released due to the formation of subatomic assemblies such as the nuclei, from their constituents, bound by nuclear forces, at present, it is not quite clear what the mechanism of loss of mass (the origin of the mass defect) is, if it is denied, as it should be, that mass is converted into energy, thus mass becoming lesser in the process of energy release.

One may speculate that even contemporary views, otherwise prone to criticism, can give a clue in what direction, after correcting their physical meaning, that loss of mass can be due to the rearrangement of the elementary particles; e.g., electrons, quarks etc., with respect to the Higgs field which purportedly produces their mass, in such a way that mass is decreased. A rearrangement in this field, therefore, may cause the decrease of mass solely due to sheer reconstructing of their position with respect to one another but not because mass has converted itself into energy. In the process of this rearrangement, a lower energy state is reached, releasing the extra energy, but not due to conversion of mass into energy. The two notions—mass and energy—have different physical essence, disallowing that one can give rise to the other and vice versa.

There are some similar wrong implications which boggle the mind, making one wonder how there can be such thinking. Such is the assertion that only the measurement makes length. That is, that a body doesn’t have length prior to that length being measured. In other words, that a body has no properties before we know of them. Thus, one may read texts in the cosmological literature that, see, time should run slower near a massive body such as a planet. Guess why? Because, says the cosmologist, the massive body affects the characteristics of light—light loses energy when traveling away from a planet with its attracting gravity. The gravitational field drags back the light, causing it to lose energy because now, the distance between the maximums of the light wave become greater, causing its wavelength to become longer, which leads to the decrease of light's frequency, ergo, its energy gets lower. Now, the reader rightfully asks, so what that light loses energy (if it really does, which is doubtful)? Even if true, this has absolutely nothing to do with time. If you think light comprises the device measuring time, then, if the massive body exerts such an effect on the time-measuring device, then it is the device which measures time that gets broken. don’t blame time. A broken clock measures time incorrectly. Let alone that the fact that a clock has stopped working doesn’t mean that time has stopped flowing. Time can never become victim of anything, least of all a victim of the effect of broken clocks.

One must really be alert for such implications of influences on time. Every time one hears the sick talk about twin paradox or GPS proving time-dilation, one should immediately call the emergency ambulance, delivering the synchronicity lifeline, while at the same time thinking of the ocean of innumerable synchronous stationary clocks he is immersed in, as was the advice given here. Then, all ideas about properties of something, such as light, influencing time, will go away as an annoying nuisance.

As was discussed already, presupposing wrong effects and impossible influences or reversing of cause and effect in a petitio principii manner (allowing to beg the question; allowing the question to contain the answer) is something quite usual in contemporary physics, and the authors consider it as if it is all as normal as day following night. Curiously, once adopting reasoning based on petitio principii, these same authors begin amazing themselves at the fascinating outcomes of their good work, that has revealed such miraculous new properties of the world.

Notice also this. Some, in their despair, present that the “theory” of relativity in its part which considers inertial systems, does not fall into true paradoxes the same way in which the part of that “theory” which treats non-inertial systems. This is clearly untrue because both parts of the “theory” of relativity have at their basis the Lorentz transformations we saw earlier, even with a numerical example, let alone directly with the demonstration of the catastrophic absurdity incurred by these transformations, that the Lorentz transformations are illegally, damagingly destructive to the physical laws, mangling these physical laws into a formulaic mush describing nothing physical, nothing expressing any aspect of nature. Suffice it to recall that all parts of the “theory” of relativity employ the non-physical spacetime, let alone that their conclusions are rejected at once by the synchronicity lifeline argument. As was noted in Lorentz Transformations—The Generator of Evil, Lorentz transformations are the unifier, the link of all evil in all the thinkable forms, developments and progeny of the “theory” of relativity. Remove the Lorentz transformations, and we will return to the good old classical physics, riding along the road of reason, logic and the scientific method, in harmony with the reality of nature.

Classical Uncertainty Principle

When speaking about uncertainty principle, one intuitively juxtaposes it to its opposite—determinism. Determinism is unquestionable when it comes to concepts such as the laws which define chemistry as a well-delineated science, if we need an example. There would be no chemistry without the law of constant proportions, neither could there be chemistry without the periodic system of elements, or gas laws, if you wish, which one may argue are purely physical laws. One may include here such areas as chemical kinetics with its fully deterministic laws and even the laws of electrochemistry, beginning with Faraday’s laws and the reproducible outcomes of the electrochemistry of continuously renewed electrode surface. A fully reproducible observation, an observation which detects the same outcome from an experiment anywhere in the world, provided the same conditions of experiment are ensured, is a deterministic outcome. In real science, such outcome is taken for granted if an activity is to be considered science. Reproducibility is the epitome of real science, it is its defining feature, not any kind of assumption or some tentativeness that can be replaced one day.

The absolute equality \(v^2 = 2 ax\), eq.\eqref{themostfundamental}, is a fully deterministic equation, which, as may be unexpected to the cosmologist, contains as a feature, the classical uncertainty principle. Established scientific laws are not adopting determinism by chance but because it is the defining feature of science.

Of course, there are more complex matters to be studied than physics and chemistry. There is biology, there is medicine, to say nothing of the laws that govern society. These areas still don’t have their delineating laws and the more we tend to think about societal, medical or environmental matters, the less scientific these areas are in their current state. The laws that govern these areas are still not well understood and all we can say today is that we are striving to reach a point of finding reproducible, deterministic, laws pertaining to these disciplines and defining them. If we cannot find such laws, calling them sciences is only contingent.

As anything scientific, theology is completely out of place in discussing scientific matters, and therefore should be left out of any scientific discourse. Now we enjoy separation of church and state. Inquisition involved with pronouncements on matters scientific was justified by its defenders during those days because the biblical doctrines were the law of the land. Now, these days are completely gone, and the attempt of some people at resurgence is ill-construed.

All arguments to loosen up the strict determinism, which an established law requires, so that the law be considered as belonging to genuine science, cannot be shaken by wrong derivations such the one done by Rayleigh and Jeans. Rayleigh and Jeans made the mistake in their conjecture, falsely considering that the equipartition theorem (which applies to the ensemble as a whole) is valid for each group of particles possessing the same velocity. Thus, it was not that something was wrong with the classical mechanics when they derived their blackbody radiation formula leading to the “ultraviolet catastrophe”—ostensibly the energy of emission going to infinity as the emitted radiation went to the higher frequencies. The problem was the lacunas in their own understanding of the physics of the day.

Planck’s conjecture was based on nothing and is incorrect. It contradicts his own understanding for the entropy of a resonator, let alone that Planck cannot even reach the point of conjecturing anything because his “theory” collapses at its very first step—Boltzmann’s entropy formula is incorrectly used. His is not the correct explanation as to why there’s a maximum in the curve experimentally established by Lummer and Pringsheim of the emission of the blackbody. Planck’s quantum hypothesis is a non sequitur because Planck could not even derive the formula for the emission of the blackbody. All he did was pure and simple curve-fitting, which follows from no theory at all.

The correctly understood uncertainty principle is inherent to classical physics, hence, no quantum hypothesis is needed at all. As a matter of fact, classical physics is quantum in its character but for completely different reasons, wholly going along with science, not due to the absurd quantum mechanics. To realize this, recall the example with eating your soup.

Pay attention to this. From what cosmologists imply, the importance of the uncertainty principle is none other than as a challenge to the prediction of the future position and velocity of the particle. However, firstly, uncertainty principle talks about simultaneous exact determination of position and velocity of the particle. This is not possible also in classical mechanics. We don’t need quantum mechanics to reach such a conclusion, no matter how you want to achieve it—say with shining light on it or in any other way.

From the absolute formula, the parabola \(v^2 = 2ax\), describing the motion of a free body under the impact of a constant force, for a given acceleration \(a\), knowing position \(x\), one can obtain the velocity \(v\). However, it is not possible to have exact determination of position; that is, to have the uncertainty \(dx\) in determining \(x\) to be zero, while at the same time also having the uncertainty \(dv\) in determining \(v\) to be also zero, because during motion at every point of the \(v - x\) curve the first derivative \(\frac{dv}{dx} \ne 0\). Therefore, \(dvdx = const > 0\) and \(dv = \frac{const}{dx} = \infty\) for \(dx = 0\). In fact, we cannot divide by 0 and \(\infty\) is written only contingently, for emphasis. Thus, although we can predict via \(v^2 = 2ax\) the future position of the free body, its action, \(dvdx\), if it has mass of 1kg, will be non-zero and changing. This leads to further peculiarities about, which the curious may read in my book entitled “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”.

Furthermore, some confuse the method of determining the position and velocity of the particle and ascribe it to illustrate the uncertainty principle, in the way now, already become traditional, to deny the particle having properties prior to measuring them. There is nothing extraordinary in this way of observing the particle; that is, by shining light on it, except that the smallness of the particle may interfere with the energy of the light and this is what is inferred here. It’s about us using an inappropriate device to study experimentally the \(v\) and \(x\) of the particle, not that its future position cannot be predicted. Interference of the measurement with the behavior of the particle doesn’t mean that its behavior is not deterministic, which we can find out, if we need to, by designing a better, non-interfering way, to carry out the observation.

The inappropriateness of the method of study should not be presented to mean that it is the particle that has the deficiencies. Thus, the remark about the interference of light with the particle has nothing to do with the uncertainty principle, because even if there were no such principle, this difficulty of determining the position of the particle when applying the wrong method of study would exist anyway.

Therefore, all these measurement problems have nothing to do with whatever is meant by quantum hypothesis. Planck cannot even reach the point of introducing a quantum hypothesis because his “derivation” entirely breaks down much earlier, as mentioned here.

This “Planck constant” mantra, that the product of uncertainties in the position \(x\) and the momentum \(p\) (velocity multiplied by mass \(m\)) cannot be smaller than a constant \(\hbar\) called Planck constant (actually less than \(\frac{\hbar}{2}\)), when talking about the uncertainty principle, is an obfuscation. As noted above, the uncertainty principle is inherent to classical physics and the non-zero \(dpdx\) product of the uncertainty in momentum \(p\) and position \(x\), the action, can be arbitrary, as long as it is not zero, which would cause the motion to turn into rest. Of course, there are natural limitations to the magnitude of the \(dpdx\) product because of the finite sizes of the particles, but that natural limitation is not the Planck constant.

There is another thing to be noticed here. While the proponent of the unusual properties of matter was explaining how the light will interfere with the properties of the particle, and we noticed that this interference is only due to the inappropriate way the proponent has chosen to measure these properties, that proponent suddenly shows his true colors and intentions. Now he flips the script and attributes his own poor choice of measurement method to some inherent mystical properties of the particle undergoing the measurement, telling us that it is the particle itself that inherently possesses properties giving rise to the uncertainty principle. It was mentioned above how this principle naturally arises in classical physics and that has nothing to do with quantum mechanics—classical uncertainty principle is inherent also in the mechanical behavior of the bodies of the macro world, not only in the microworld where quantum mechanics locks it. Classical uncertainty principle is fundamental to physics on any scale, not as currently thought, only to quantum mechanics. The discovery and enunciation of the classical uncertainty principle, the only physically viable uncertainty principle, does not concern physics partially, as if some new property of specifically the microworld was discovered, but not applicable to the macro world. Physics is one, describing a unified single world through classical physics. Therefore, the development of physics should be reverted to where it belongs—the classical physics, abandoning the non-physical quantum mechanics.

It should also be of no concern as to whether or not philosophy understands it. Philosophy is completely irrelevant when the questions of science are concerned. Mixing science and philosophy into the so-called philosophy of science is one of the most vicious oxymorons (oxymora) foisted on the world since the 1960s. Secondly, there is nothing to appreciate, least of all philosophically, when the uncertainty principle is in your face upon considering motion, beginning with the motion of a free body induced by a constant force, as mentioned above.

Further, many people are concerned with prediction, especially of complex things such as the universe. This will not be possible in the foreseeable future. However, so far as individual scientific laws are concerned, if they are really established conclusively, one of the features they possess is that they have predictive force, they are deterministic. As mentioned, determinism is the other name for the true scientificity.

Therefore, nothing of the sort, pontificated by the cosmologists; namely, that due to the developments of science, especially because of the emergence of the uncertainty principle, the deterministic picture of the world has been replaced by non-deterministic, has happened. Insufficiency of knowledge about a phenomenon in no way determines that the phenomenon itself is non-deterministic, that it is inherently governed by uncertainties. Here again, the scholars' own insecurities are projected on the phenomena they study. If this is not inability to reason, to be polite, we can make the excuse that cosmologists are just making things up to sound interesting, as if they are unveiling some paradoxical, never seen before, world. Uncertainty principle exists in the fully deterministically described motion of a free body impacted by a constant force. This, as noted, can immediately be seen from the very definitions of velocity and acceleration.

The above should be understandable without the need to resort to Maxwell’s sort of all-knowing demons to comprehend that we can fully deterministically know the law of motion of a free body under the action of a constant force, while at the same time this motion be characterized by the uncertainty principle. However, it is not because the universe is intrinsically a slave of uncertainties that achieve full certainty of our knowledge for the entire universe, but, simply, because at this point, our knowledge of it is wanting, no matter how great an interest we have to know it exactly.

Also, the lack of knowledge about a phenomenon has no connection with the principle of economy in making inferences, which many an internetter uses for amusement, having no scientific basis as a principle of producing knowledge. The lack of knowledge cannot be saved by Occam’s razor, as this popularly known principle is named. Maybe one can also exclaim: What better example than the law of motion of the free body under the action of a constant force, to illustrate the principle of economy (Occam’s razor), if one needs to be an internet hero? Why even invoke such a principle, when talking with a straight face about complications, let alone absurdities, such as quantum mechanics? On top of it, adding the remark, that if uncertainty principle is what would characterize some purported new mechanics, then there is no need to to go to such lengths because there is no need to call a mechanics containing uncertainty principle, the classical mechanics, a new mechanics, since that good old classical mechanics contains uncertainty principle as its inherent characteristic.

The ostensible lack of certainty with regard to positions and velocities (recall that what, in fact, is had in mind is their simultaneous determination, which also exists in classical physics), replacing that with a combined velocity-momentum quantum state, is an artificially created non-physical deficiency, which is due to the non-physical character of quantum mechanics itself. Besides, it is not true that particles, according to quantum mechanics, are no longer characterized by certainty and that the prescriptions of quantum mechanics do not predict a single possible outcome for position and velocity, since quantum mechanics, as absurd as it is, has postulated position eigenvector equation and momentum eigenvector equation, which, in the end, purportedly result in producing concrete eigenvalues. As for the fact that what exact eigenvalue is going to pop-up after the application of the position or momentum operator on the state function \(\psi\), endowing quantum mechanics with statistical character, that is an idiosyncrasy of the way the non-physical premises of quantum mechanics are set up, and is not an immanent property of the systems in nature.

Thus, the fact that the outcome from the application of a quantum mechanical operator on a state function comes with a probability of occurrence, and is not with 100% certainty, is the already mentioned deficiency of the already unscientific, actually absurd, quantum mechanics. The uncertainty endowed by quantum mechanics to natural phenomena is not inherent in the nature of these phenomena but is a paradoxical absurd consequence of quantum mechanics, which, therefore, is unscientific.

It is curious to see how people who themselves are creators of absurdities, such as the “theory” of relativity, calling them science, are cited as objectors to quantum mechanics—another absurdity. When someone asks what weight can the opinions of such objectors have, the answer could be only one—none. Their opinion is completely inconsequential, despite its coinciding with the truth on this particular matter, which is the absurdity of quantum mechanics.

It has to be heard loud and clear: Not only does quantum mechanics not agree with experiment, but it defies elementary formal logic. Quantum mechanics is an absurdity. It underlies nothing because it is an absurdity. Its “success” is only a propagandistically imposed caricature. Least of all does quantum mechanics underlie the elements in the gadgets we use today. It is only an aggressive propaganda that it does. One can only regret that there are those who have hopes of incorporating quantum mechanics in what they falsely perceive to be the theory of gravity, a progeny of another absurdity—the “theory” of relativity. One absurdity incorporated in another absurdity doesn’t amount to more. This is like adding a zero to a zero, if that analogy is not off mark because the cipher zero is an entirely legitimate component of sensible math, while the two mentioned absurdities are as far removed from sense as day from night.

Maybe it is curious to add here, that, unbelievably, the “theory” of relativity is not at all considered by the cosmologists as defying classical physics. According to them, the “theory” of relativity belongs to classical physics because it is deterministic, never mind that it must not even belong to physics because it is absurd—so, the determinism is the criterion, turning a blind eye to the intellectual catastrophe the “theory” of relativity actually is. According to the cosmologists, quantum mechanics is non-classical because of its probabilistic character, never mind that it is also absurd. Absurdity is tolerable. The watershed is whether or not a theory is probabilistic—a travesty in its full colors. Pronouncing that classical physics is not probabilistic, and therefore the “theory” of relativity belongs to classical physics, is bizarre.

No wonder, then, why we do not have the so vigorously promoted combination between the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics, and never will. Both these theories are absurdities, and anything else other than removing them from physics would be a wasted effort.

The Wave-Particle Duality

A question of significant interest is the wave-particle duality. As can be seen from the analysis in “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”, along with all his other failures—practically all that he has published—the author of the “theory” of relativity fails to prove the wave-particle duality in the paper devoted to that problem, even though he had been awarded a prestigious prize for that work. The attempt in that paper is to demonstrate that the infinitely divisible electromagnetic waves display the same relationship seen in thermodynamic systems, consisting of individual particles, thus signifying finite divisibility. That impossibility to theoretically connect the two worlds—the world of particles and the world of waves—can always be presented as an argument, when one tries to mitigate the failure by saying that, nevertheless, it was an expression of exceptional intuition because light is seen to exhibit that duality experimentally, as in the double slit experiment.

The double slit experiment appears puzzling if one attempts to explain it by using quantum mechanics, which cannot derive any of the claimed relationships, neither can it even reach a stage when anything, such as a quantum postulate, can be put forth at all, as seen in Planck’s 1901 paper. That derivation stumbles at its very first steps, which needs to be repeated here in this context. Thus, Planck was not able to derive the blackbody radiation formula but arrives at it through juggling with formulae, in the typical manner for modern physics, to neglect the meaning of quantities, the logic and anything the scientific method requires, as long as the final mathematical expression is found which fits the experimental result. This resembles curve-fitting, but is not, because curve-fitting will never be called derivation of a formula, a derivation giving rise to a new, let alone groundbreaking, theory.

These difficulties were overcome by C. I. Noninski in 1964, when he was able to indeed derive, purely based on classical physics, the blackbody radiation formula, again using a Boltzmann formula, but an adequate one—not his entropy formula, but Boltzmann’s formula for the distribution of particles according to their energy. This is how the claimed shudder in physics, purportedly caused by quantum mechanics, was shown to be only imagined.

C. I. Noninski showed that the confused quantization of the particles’ own energy is, in fact, the clearly understandable physical picture of the quantum essence of the exchanging energy amongst the constituents of the system. One eats soup by scooping clearly classical portions (quanta) of it with the spoon, not by continuously pouring it into one’s mouth. Because in C. I. Noninski’s picture, the portions of energy have an immanently periodic character—these portions of energy arrive from observing a system of oscillators—thus, the “particles”, as it were, have intrinsically wave character. This is how the peculiar double-slit experiment may find its explanation along these demystifying, plausible lines. Now, one “particle” passing through the slits may give rise to an interference pattern characteristic of a wave, without invoking the paradox of one particle being at two places at the same time, which had earlier puzzled the researchers. We will add, just for the record, for those who wonder what interference is, that canceling out of a maximum of one wave by the minimum of another wave, if they happen to so coincide in time. In real life, one can imagine such interference, calling out some colors, causing us to see a rainbow-like picture of the remaining colors.

As a matter of fact, such smearing of a particle, appearing to exist at two different places at the same time, does not follow even from the physically absurd quantum mechanics, if we consider its position eigenvector postulate in position space. The position eigenfunction equation, as absurd as it is, is said to yield a definite position eigenvalue after collapsing the \( \psi \)-function after applying on it the position operator \( \hat{x} \).

As for the mathematics of quantum mechanics, since an eigenfunction equation was mentioned, several of which form its postulate basis, they do not make even mathematical sense, which has caused irritation in more than one mathematician. In order to "solve" the problem that these equations have no solutions or the solutions are indeterminate, let alone do not belong to the Hilbert space they must belong to, here, again, the old knack for deception is applied in full force. Thus, expressions are invented and are pronounced to be the solutions of the eigenfunction equations, although they actually are not the solutions. Or, to avoid indeterminateness, the particles are endowed, for no reason, to be at two different places at the same time, after which they begin to become amazed at the fantastic new world which quantum mechanics reveals for one particle to be in two different places at the same time. To say nothing of the fact that even with these deceptive tricks, what is considered to be a solution is still leading to indeterminateness, which makes the pronounced solutions not belong to the Hilbert space, although they must belong. All in all, the formal machinery of quantum mechanics is a mess, and just about the main occupation of those dealing with quantum mechanics is to look for ad hoc patches to match what they obtain through the imposed recipes and procedures to match the obtained experimental results. This, they pronounce as great successes of quantum mechanics, always adding that quantum mechanics works. Hardly.

When it comes to describing the world, the mathematics of quantum mechanics is the last thing that can be expected to help with that. In fact, the mathematics of quantum mechanics cannot describe anything. Besides, description in the real world in terms of particles and waves is also observation of the world in those terms—unless observation is understood in the old Aristotelian way, which Galileo rejected by introducing also critical analysis of the observations made.

Especially important is not to impose an artificial picture, such as wave-particle duality, appearing as a conciliatory picture of agreement between internally contradictory notions. As mentioned above, there actually is no need for such a division. The above-described exchanging energy picture following from C. I. Noninski’s derivation of the blackbody formula causes the particle-wave duality to shed its internally contradictory sheath. Thus, wave-particle duality doesn’t seem unusual anymore—with such picture, it becomes clear and natural how under certain conditions, as in the double-slit experiment, light can behave as a wave, while under other conditions, as in the photoelectric effect, it can behave as a particle. Where is the novelty that the conditions predispose for the exhibition of these rather than those properties? “Tom[ei]to-tom[ä]to” dichotomy does not touch the essence of the vegetable tomato, even if one considers it a fruit.

The wrong picture of the world drawn by quantum mechanics creeps into our understanding of the building blocks of matter—the atoms. Many times in science, especially in the pedagogy of science, we resort to models in order to simplify explanation. Such models use constructs which are said to be so without proof. The simplistic model of the atom, the closest thing that can come to mind once we understood that the atom consists of positive and negative electric charges, compensating each other to make it electro-neutral, is to imagine the atom as a planet having one kind of electric property, being orbited by a satellite characterized by the other kind of electrical property. The immediate obvious difficulty with such a model, whereby the radiation from the “orbiting” charge will make such entity unstable within the first moments of its existence, is overcome by the proposer of this model, decreeing that it will be stable “because I say so”—an approach which doesn’t sound untypical for modern physics. The proposer has heard that Planck has been talking, on a completely unfounded basis, that the microscopic particle can only possess certain allowed energies, while other energies are forbidden, and he promptly accommodates his model to this, also incorrect, view, when asked how is, then, the known exchange of energy between particles to take place according to his model. Well, the emission or absorption of energy will take place by jumping from one energy level to another. Simple thing, isn’t it? Good for a model, although based on flawed premises. Some people use it to this day and base their ruminations on it, always keeping it in the back of their mind. There are further “sophistications” of this approach by abandoning the pictorial way of expressing it, endowing a mathematical function to be representative of the properties of a system. We already commented on the flaws of this picture too. Chemistry, to this day, uses the so-called orbitals to illustrate the chemical bonding and there are not a few people who take these fictional graphical representations of what is pronounced as solutions of one of the aforementioned eigenvector equations, as real physical entities in flesh and blood, which can even be directly observed. This is how far the brainwashing and degradation of thought has gone.

Reflections on Physics of Elementary Particles

Particle physics was already discussed, mostly in the context of evolution of the universe, but we will reiterate here, as a continuation of the previous theme, that particle physics finds itself in a similar position. You spot Lorentz transformations and that blocks you from further reading. Before mentioning anything about the modern particle physics, one should mention the flawed impression that has been created that the author of the “theory” of relativity has anything to do with explaining the Brownian motion, an “explanation” presented in his 1905 paper, said to be a significant confirmation of the atomistic view. Atomistic view aside, that paper is as flawed as any other of the papers of that author, in addition to the catastrophe of his most prominent paper, introducing the “theory” of relativity. Thus, in this book, another flawed 1905 paper was mentioned, the one on photoelectric effect. Equally as bad is his 1905 paper on the specific heats of solids, as well as every single one written throughout his life. Especially exemplary in this respect is his paper of 1916 on quantum theory of radiation, which is a repetition, albeit on another theme, of the same sort of catastrophe as the catastrophe in his 1905 paper putting forth his “theory” of relativity. Thus, sadly, the theoretical background of particle physics of the twentieth century started badly from the onset.

The theories concerning particle physics need not be commented upon. Suffice it to ask the question—how can each one of these theories survive without the absurd Lorentz transformations? None of them can survive. If the models of the current particle physics are to continue existing, it must be explained how the ideas of spin, hadrons, baryons and the hypothetical quarks, bosons … can survive without the Lorentz transformations, which, as we saw, must be removed without a trace. They can’t survive, as the string “theories” can’t. The experimental signals that were detected, ascribing them to such particles, must be reexamined to establish if they are really valid experimental results of non-trivial nature, and if they are, there must be an alternative explanation sought, excluding the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics.

These theories have strayed so far from common sense and science that they already have an independent life, bathing in the absurd of some crooked reality of their own.

How can you live with yourself when you know you are supporting ideas based on absurdities such as the Lorentz transformations? Any getting into the nitty-gritty of a “theory” based on the Lorentz transformations, thus trying to excuse their absurdity, is immoral.

By the way, there is nothing wrong with considering how to use particle energies on the order of electron-volts to characterize the chemical reactions. Cosmologists present the matter as if we need to go deeper into the structures building the electrons, protons and neutrons, because without knowing these deeper structures, our knowledge of nature will only be partial. However, for the purposes of, say, chemistry, such knowledge is redundant. Chemistry has its immense wider significance even if the furthering of our knowledge in depth is insufficient. The problems of chemistry horizontally are infinite, and deepening of the knowledge concerning the more intimate structures of the elementary particles will not help in resolving the problems of chemistry one bit. We have not reached the stage to know anywhere near beyond touching the surface of what takes place in the realm of single digits of electron-volts, to have the background, the footing, to get into higher energies of study. Therefore, advocating for such studies, with the argument that it’s better for societal support to be concentrated on one big topic—particle physics—rather than spreading out wealth on lesser topics, such as chemistry—is out of place today. Financing such efforts will defocus the really pressing needs of science, especially in terms of knowledge build-up, which would lose its systematic consequence. There have always been out-of-order discoveries in science but not at such a horrendous expense to society, as the expense seen in high-energy physics today.

There is no such thing as ultimate building blocks of matter. There is no reason to suppose that nature is not infinite in its depth, as more and more basic structures are uncovered. As for chemistry and all the follow-up sciences, such as biology, and even non-sciences such as medicine, knowing the laws down to atoms and their constituting particles electrons, protons and neutrons, is fairly enough. It is another story that there is yet much to be learned even at this level of matter’s build-up. Consider the absurdity of the flawed attempt to truthfully study their behavior via the absurd quantum mechanics. This shows how far we are from understanding matter to the levels which we have attempted thus far throughout the centuries.

Instead of “vertically”, as it were, studying the subatomic structures, which would bring no new chemical knowledge, and therefore being useless for chemistry, the science of chemistry “widens” the understanding of the laws and principles governing the behavior of the individual atoms and the practically inexhaustible pool of their various combinations.

The question appears—can’t there be parallel studies of the further intimate structure of matter? There certainly can, as long as it is not at the expense of the still unfinished job of understanding matter on its atomistic and molecular level.

As for what picture, particle or wave, we should use to describe nature, it was already mentioned that the realistic picture is the one following from the views of C. I. Noninski, expressed in 1964, whereby the exchanging energy, the quanta, which follow from this picture, can also be considered in a wave sense, since the idea arrives from the analysis of assemblies of oscillators, which inherently have the attributes of a wave.

Thus, the “particle” picture very well may be explained by the bits, quanta, of exchanging energy, which has nothing to do with what is known as quantum mechanics.

As was implied earlier, whether or not these particles have spin is an open question mainly because the notion of spin is being connected with the absurd “theory” of relativity and its non-physical Lorentz transformations. Thus, any ruminations about spin are unsubstantiated and we will not delve into them, despite the great emphasis, actually fairy tales, put on spin in modern particle physics.

Pauli’s exclusion principle occupies a special place in these ruminations. However, there cannot be Pauli’s exclusion principle on the sole basis that it is founded on quantization of the particles’ own energy, which is a non-existent fact, imagined by the so-called quantum mechanics. What is really quantized is the exchanging energy, and “quantum” mechanics must be thought of only in this sense. Thus, in order to speak about Pauli’s exclusion principle, you must have already adopted the absurd quantum mechanics as a legitimate scientific theory rooted in reality, which it isn’t.

The same should be said about the Dirac “theory”. Dirac’s “theory” is absurdity. It cannot explain anything either physically, least of all mathematically. Neither can it predict anything. Thus, if anything is observed experimentally that is ascribed to Dirac’s prediction, that could either be an experimental error or its explanation rests somewhere else. Only the mere fact that it uses Lorentz transformations proves that it is an absurdity. Explanation of the Stern-Gerlach experiment, if true, is still outstanding.

Another bizarre thing that has no place in physics are the so-called “force-carrying particles”, let alone “virtual particles”. Models using such notions are weird, childish models, which even their adherents admit cannot be verified experimentally. One may really wonder at the inferences applied: we know that these force-carrying particles exist because we know that forces exist. What kind of a twisted logic is this? That is to say, the fact that there are forces tells us that there are particles associated with these forces? Hardly. Wouldn’t it be better to carry out real scientific research rather than resort to such vapid, admittedly man-made, models, illustrating barren views?

Natural and Non-Natural Development

Notice—the development from Aristotle to Galileo and then Newton, is a natural development in science. Theories that were made defunct have the historical excuse of the natural development from a more rudimentary to an advanced stage. In contrast, the pathological deviation, which should never have occurred, from the rational thought in physics into the world of absurdities and sheer nonsense, a pathological world symbolized by all which the author of the “theory” of relativity has contaminated the scientific literature with, is unnatural and is, indeed, pathological. It must be rejected at once as one of the greatest and most iniquitous confusions in all of science.

---

\( \Huge \mathbb{Part \ \ 5} \)

---

The Path to Reform in Physics, Respectively Cosmology

As seen from the above, physics and its poster child—modern cosmology—is crying out loud for reform. It is hoped that the reader would not underestimate the absolutely crucial imperative for such reform, deriving from this author’s discovery of the absolute fact—the absoluteness of time.

Thus, the catastrophe of the “theory” of relativity, thoroughly explained in the previous publications of this author, represented by this example herewith, and the synchronicity lifeline, are the ultimate initial truths where any rumination involving time, and from there, rethinking of all physics, must begin.

In particular, when it comes to what is perceived as modern cosmology, one cannot begin any discussion without paying central attention to the above absolutes. This is easy to say, but things have become so compounded by a century of disorder in science and the implosion of that disorder into the very fabric of science, that, as we will emphasize below, debate and change cannot take place within the academy, but must necessarily take place outside it. This “paying central attention” must first and foremost be carried out by those who are responsible for the allocation of public funds, of taxpayers’ money, earmarked for science, realizing that today, the money in question does not go to science at all, and the mention of the word science in the allocation of these funds is only a screen behind which deeply corrupt and impure ideological and political interests hide.

The initial steps of what needs to be done in this imperative reform of physics are:

— Understand that correction of the profound absurdities, deviously presented as science, pestering the world of knowledge and education, cannot be accomplished through discussions in academia. Academia is entirely dependent on public money and has vested interests in preserving the status quo, despite the fact that the status quo in science is dramatically against the public interest, both intellectually and financially. The bulk, the billions and trillions of dollars and euro which society considers as going for science, are, in fact, squandered on disgraceful absurdities, with which the scientific establishment deceives society, outright lies that this money is for the advancement of humanity. Thus, the question of correcting physics, ridding it from the absurdities it is infested with, is not scientific. It is a purely political issue, wholly dependent on the political will of those responsible for the allocation of public funds earmarked for science (not for technology; technology works through public-private partnerships and the need for adjustments there are in a form such that anyone can see and demand change if the need arises.) In science, the levers are entirely in the hands of enlightened political forces and their skill and determination to bring about much-needed change.

Although the above is the crucial factor for change, it may not hurt to mention, however random and far from exhaustive as a list, also some concrete topics yearning for change:

— Clean any rumination on scientific matters of any traces of the symbol of pathological science known as spacetime, the way clairvoyance, shamanism and chasing spirits has no place in physics. Spacetime is even worse. Clairvoyance and shamanism are wrong but at least they follow their own logic, as counter-realistic as that logic is. Spacetime is constructed to illustrate a “theory”—the “theory” of relativity—which does not honor even its own definition, elevated as a postulate.

— Reexamine the claimed experimental “evidence” claiming confirmations of the absurdity known as “theory” of relativity, and either establish flaws in the experiment itself or, if the results from the experiment are confirmed, find an alternative explanation in harmony with the real truthful science. Examples of such crucial experiments are as follows.

Possibly Correct Experiments

Considering the complete collapse of the “theory” of relativity, it is a must that any discussion be suspended on matters such as big bang, dark matter, respectively dark energy, and the various suggestions, mostly quite simplistic, if not “back of the envelope” type, for the expanding universe. Suffice it to say the mostly heuristic, anti-scientific assumptions, such as adopting a hypothesis on the basis of modesty (meaning that we, as humanity, must not consider ourselves as the center of anything) sounds not quite there. Assuming that there must be dark matter, although we cannot detect it, but we will talk about it seriously just because we know it must be there because, otherwise, our views will fail, is mostly wishful thinking. It is methodologically unsound to be concerned first about the integrity of one’s views, fearing that facts may destroy these views. Science works the other way round—firmly established facts are first, the views are the shaky element, which we must be ready to shed anytime countering facts emerge. Furthermore, never mind that even with the assumption that there must be dark matter, the quantity of dark matter, by it’s proponent’s own admission, is still not enough to fill the gap of what we “know” about the structure of the universe, but, see, there must be even more matter of some hypothetical different kind, which we don’t know about but we will some day—all that on the background of the mangled thinking based on the absurd “theory” of relativity. Thus, understandably, here we need not get into any particular detail on these matters. Mere mentioning what appears as the experimental claims that initiated these pursuits regarding the unfounded (recall the spacetime debacle) fantasies for the birth and faith of the universe, will suffice for a dismissal. As for the concrete parameters of the proposed change, of course, only some random experiments will be listed now. That list will be augmented and specified when the time comes to work out the particular details by those who would be interested in taking up this applied task of science, devoted to better understanding our universe. Let us again mention—this better understanding will necessarily lack any trace of the “theory” of relativity, as well as what the mainstream understands today under quantum mechanics.

Because of the discovered grave problems in the fundamentals, all purportedly connected experimental effects must be reconsidered. The first thing is to ignore categorically any attempt at explaining any claimed effect by using the “theory” of relativity and its illustration—spacetime. Having this firmly in mind, rejecting, from the outset, any proposal for speculation about these purported experimental findings, on the grounds of any progeny of the “theory” of relativity, of the like of spacetime and string theories, as well as quantum mechanics, we may mention, as a potentially truthful observation, say

Hubble redshift of galaxies

This is an example of a randomly picked astronomical observation, which has gained some prominence, because it has given rise to outlandish speculations. In this case, aside from exploring its experimental viability (most likely real), it must be recognized that whatever speculations it may be used for, they only concern the visible part of the infinite universe. This localness of the Hubble observation reduces to a nil any inference that the infinite universe began with what is known as a big bang. Any projection of any phenomena concerning the visible part of the universe to the infinite universe are unjustified and must be immediately rejected. Further, although the significance of the redshift of galaxies is reduced to something common and plausible when its real, limited realm of applicability is considered; that is, the visible universe, not the entire infinite universe, the apparent expansion, if real, concerns negligible time-span, compared to the infinite time of the universe’s existence, and there is no guarantee that the purported expansion today will not be followed by reduction one day. Thus, restraint from flabbergasting conclusions, based on limited observations, is to be advised in most cases. It is one thing to observe the four moons of Jupiter and the phases of Venus and draw a conclusion about our solar system, as Galileo did, and quite another to generalize from a limited observation, and project it onto infinity.

Adoption of this unacceptable view; namely, that the whole universe is expanding, because, see, what we see with our telescopes and spectrometers appears to be expanding, is in most cases combined with another anti-scientific notion, that of spacetime, in order to fabricate mind-boggling claims of the most incredible kind, applied to the whole universe per se, as infinite as it is. The minimum which must undergo correction is to do two things: abandon the view that it is the entire universe that is expanding, and lose the anti-scientific notion of spacetime. Such a grandiose claim, as the expanding of the universe, is impossible in principle, if not for anything else but for its mere impossible grandiosity to harness the infinity, let alone even imagine that something infinite can become more infinite through expansion. Otherwise, as far as our visible universe is concerned, various hypotheses are entirely possible to be advanced, and they may even turn into theories, should there be enough supportive evidence. To the disappointment of the cosmologists, having the ultimate coded even in their moniker, such studies are partial and could in no way apply to the beginning and end of the entire universe as such.

What those involved in dreaming about the origin and fate of the universe have interest in, is not astronomy per se, but the chance to infer from what Hubble studied, the idea that universe expands, which allows, after mental meanders, speculating as to whether time can have a beginning and end. The latter, of course, is completely untenable as even a mere subject of discussion, as became clear from what was said in this book. Nonetheless, perfecting the knowledge on the dynamic of the visible universe can have its own independent significance but that won’t help in any way in satisfying our curiosity about the imagined beginning and the further fate of universe, least of all if it has an end. The truth is that neither beginning nor end are to be pondered since infinity has no ends.

Cosmic microwave background radiation (primordial relic radiation)

This might have found itself promoted as a legitimate experimental effect because it fits, as an apparent piece of supportive evidence, the big bang theory, presenting that kind of radiation as a relic from what is thought to be the first moments of universe’s existence. Such view, implying that infinite universe has a beginning, is enough of a reason to reconsider it and, if real, find alternative explanation.

Stern-Gerlach experiment, inspiring the idea for the spin of the electron

Aside from revisiting Stern-Gerlach experiment itself, the quantity known as electron spin, arriving from that experiment, needs to be looked into because of the involvement of the absurd Lorentz transformations in the theoretical derivation of this possibly pretend-physical notion. Furthermore, the conclusion that it is a pretend-physical notion is stoked by the fact that even Schrodinger’s equation, inadequate by itself, yet claimed to derive the other three quantum numbers, left it out, orphaned, from being a solution to that equation. Curiously, seeing all the manipulations and fabrications applied in quantum mechanics, the champions of quantum mechanics knowing that in order for quantum mechanics to appear scientific it must be able to give the impression that it derives the spin of the electron, those champions, in their usual manner, should’ve been expected to, at least, fabricate an appearance that Schrodinger’s equation derives the quantum mechanical number known as spin. However, these champions have found no way to even try to mimic a solution, calling it spin, that would appear coming from Schrodinger’s equation. This, of course, does not mean that the champions of quantum mechanics suddenly became conscientious and, having already falsified everything else in quantum mechanics, it suddenly dawned on them that they should now be honest and refrain from fabrication. More likely, the problem was found to be so grave that the manipulations of the absurd quantum mechanics turned out wanting and resorting to another absurd device—the Lorentz transformations—had come in handy for the purpose.

As with the other experiments which appear to demonstrate non-trivial effects, the Stern-Gerlach experiment should be redone to establish the reality of the effects, and if that is established, and the non-triviality of the effect is reproduced, look for alternative explanations, based on physics which honors reason. This approach should apply to all follow-up experiments such as the one claiming the establishment of positron and neutron, to name a few.

Viability of Pauli exclusion principle

Mentioning of this notion is in connection with the ruminations for the model claiming the so-called black holes. However, any notion connected with quantum mechanics must be outright rejected due to the crucial arguments expressed in my book “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today” briefly mentioned in the section The Pebble that Upset the Applecart herewith.

These experiments, of the sort of the ones demonstrating entanglement, should find their classical, if not trivial, explanation, either based on C. I. Noninski’s exchanging energy view as classical quanta or along lines of common explanation, falsely endowed with imagined properties, as shown by a classical example in this author’s book “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”.

Double-slit experiment and All Experiments with Light Demonstrating Unusual Effects

All these experiments should find their classical explanation, based on the view expressed by C. I. Noninski, deriving the physically viable quantum character of light, based of the portions of average exchanging energy, portions having intrinsically wave character due to their arrival from the inherently wave-character of the oscillators these portions result from. The derivation of these classical quanta, being able to derive purely classically the blackbody radiation formula, is presented in my book entitled “Deception Governed by Absurdities—The Science of Today”.

Classical Uncertainty Principle

The prudent reader should pay special attention that there is no proof, neither can there ever be proof by using the theoretical machinery applied for the purpose (cf. spacetime fiasco), of any claim for transformation of our view of the universe, that the universe must have had a beginning in time, that there is anything remotely scientific predicting that all physical theories break down at the beginning of the universe, the immanent lack of proof for such a beginning notwithstanding. There is absolutely no proof whatsoever, even remotely resembling scientific reasoning, that there must have been a time when the other absurdity, quantum mechanics, could have played any role whatsoever in anything, including matters concerning the universe. To say nothing of the outrageous claim, which can never meet with any kind of proof, that time has a beginning and an end. Inadequate models that the universe, respectively time, starts from a point, just like the North Pole is a point, which going South develops into circles of growing diameters until reaching the equator, after which the circles begin to shrivel, ending up as a dot at the South Pole, where time also ends, cannot serve as any kind of proof and only show the weakness of reasoning of these advocates of the absurd, who should know better not to even resort to such unsupportive clutches.

Or, how do you like that? Because, see, we think we know what happened after the big bang, but we don’t know what happened before the big bang, that not knowing what happened before the big bang gives us the basis to be sure that what happened before the big bang is inconsequential. Therefore, we are told, that prior part should not form any part of the scientific model of the universe, and we should cut that part from the model. That lack of knowledge of the “before” the big bang should reassure us that the beginning of time was at the big bang. Really?

Notwithstanding the fact that on top of it, we actually don’t even know what happened after the purported big bang because our speculations are based on absurdities such as the “theory” of relativity, employing the non-physical Lorentz transformations, illustrated by daft constructs such as spacetime.

This kind of reasoning can be tolerated only if someone powerful desperately supports uttering any daftness that might come to mind to the supported parties. Any normal, decent scientist of integrity would never resort to such gibberish in argumentation. To say nothing, that a regular, unsupported scientist, will experience dire consequences if he does.

Any claimed universal acceptance of the above, even the gall of mentioning it at all, is solely due to propaganda, not because there is anything to it.

The claim that the mentioned effects stem from mathematics and that mathematical theorems can’t be argued, is lame. A theorem may be mathematically correct but it may not at all correspond to and describe the physical reality, as is the case at hand, if we at all agree that there is even a mathematical merit to it, which is also suspect. New expanses in physics cannot be conquered by developing new mathematical techniques, especially when the basis of such techniques is the absurd “theory” of relativity with its non-physical Lorentz transformations, illustrated by the construct known as spacetime.

Not being a research program, the above-listed topics comprise just a glimpse at what must be done to get physics back to its normal track of championing truth and reason. Above all is the task of cleaning physics’ every crevice from its corruption with the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics, and efforts towards forming political will to stop public financial support and air of societal acceptance for such a disgrace.

Absolutely Impossible Experiments

Because of the categorical absolute truth regarding the absoluteness of time, proved at once by what is called here synchronicity lifeline, these experiments, exploring absolutely impossible effects such as time-dilation, can very safely be ignored altogether. They can only be of interest to enthusiasts, curious to see how wrong ideas can infest science and cause absolutely unnecessary big efforts.

Impossible Expectation of Non-Trivial Effects From the \(\mu\)-meson Experiments, Cesium Clock experiments, CERN experiments, GPS And All Else Claimed to Confirm the Absurd “theory” of Relativity.

All the alleged “confirmations” of the “theory” of relativity are in error, beginning with Eddington’s observations, the cesium clock experiments, the \(\mu\)-meson and anything else that can come to mind—call the synchronicity lifeline, implementing the principle that “spatially coincident clocks are synchronous”, if in doubt. Impossible claims, let alone the inherent impossibility to claim anything at all coming from an absurdity such as the “theory” of relativity, needs nothing more to be said as a justification, other than that all “confirmatory” experiments are in error, deserving solely outright dismissal. The errors, let alone the fact that these experiments must not have been carried out at all, to begin with, were deliberately not accounted for, in order to pander to the prevalent view, or were inadvertently made. These experiments must not be even mentioned, much less discussed in any other context than as an example of the deepest lows which humanity has faltered as roadblocks along the road of its development.

How would you react to propaganda blaring from all of its loudspeakers that scientists have experimentally confirmed that sun rises from the west because it rises from the east, or that scientists have experimentally confirmed that one equals two? The claims that there are experiments confirming time-dilation, length-contraction and that simultaneity is relative, are on par with such absurd claims, never mind that they may be blaring from the loudspeakers of the propaganda. These claims can never meet with experimental confirmation. Society can support financially the carrying out of such clearly impossible experiments only as a result of deliberately sustained ignorance and widely and aggressively spread blatant lies, which allows itself to be badly manipulated and misled.

Of course, someone may be curious to look into the nitty-gritty of such impossible experimental proposals, as did prof. Judith Ciottone, just to see, out of curiosity, what might have gone wrong to give the explorers the wrong impression. She, for example, pointed out the fact that, in order to obtain the false result inferring time-dilation, the authors who used \(\mu\)-mesons for the purpose, have compared two incompatible sets of experiments—one carried out in Cambridge, MA, the other at Mt. Washington, NH, where the conditions of the decay differ and that is what is causing the difference in lifetime—chemical \(\mu\)-meson decay is a well-known mechanism in addition to the spontaneous radioactive decay. Thus, the conditions of the more polluted Cambridge affect the decay in a trivial way, compared to the decay in the clean mountain nature of another state.

CERN experiments are wrought with flawed approximations to match the expectations for time-dilation and illegitimately pronounce the question closed. As for the corrections of the GPS clocks, here again, the synchronicity lifeline; i.e., the principle “spatially coincident clocks are synchronous” is quite enough to understand that the “theory” of relativity has no bearing whatsoever on anything connected with the GPS—consider the fact that the GPS clock is immersed in an ocean of stationary synchronous clocks—the corrections being trivially needed, in order to account for the finite speed of the signals which they use to communicate with one another.

This author has also found himself analyzing outrageous experimental claims, only to find trivial mistakes causing the flamboyant claims. These findings were published in the peer-reviewed literature, as were the findings regarding the excess energy, connected with what is known as cold fusion. Furthermore, not only has this author published in the peer-reviewed literature his (alone and with C. I. Noninski) own positive findings regarding the excess energy aspect of cold fusion, but he has also published in the peer-reviewed literature (together with C. I. Noninski) the debunking of the false negative claims by the most vocal critics, such as the groups at MIT and Caltech. In this way, this author has positioned himself against the deliberate, unjustified conditioning of the entire world against said phenomenon. Later, this author found out that, in addition to cold fusion, much more profound and far-reaching effects are at play, which will be the subject of a follow-up book.

In the meantime, the author of this book became aware that he was naïve to have published in peer-reviewed archival journals, because the peer-review system is incorrigibly corrupt. A definitive proof that the peer-review system is corrupt is the mere fact that it has allowed itself for over a century to be massively contaminated with the waste arriving from quantum mechanics, and especially with the absurd “theory” of relativity, instead of being an impenetrable barrier to such brazen travesty of science.

Of course, if the peer-review system should remain, there may be some ways of mitigating its corrupt essence, say, by the proposal made in this author’s previous books, suggesting that the peer-review be retained only for junior, inexperienced aspiring scientists. The established scientists, those with tens of peer-reviewed papers already under their belt, especially as single author, must be relieved from peer-review. The responsibility is solely theirs and easily parting with authority, if they resort to deception and absurdity to make a name for themselves, and attain fame, as is the case with the author of the absurd “theory” of relativity, or to other corrupt practices, would not stand well with them. Thus, anyone who has even a trace of self-respect must not touch peer-review with a ten foot pole, as well as take any possible measure to oppose any censorship, especially on the internet, by carefully avoiding any subscription-based commercial territories, parasitizing on the free internet. As was said, however, at the end of the day, the resolution of the travesty of science is only in the political field, preventing the vast current public financial support of the absurdities presented as science.

— Get off the high horse of super-scientists, dealing with the eternal questions of existence, and reeducate yourself in order to modestly deal with the real problems of science, perceived today as mundane. I know that this is not the avenue that would impress the US Congress to gladly dispose of more and more billions, but that’s the honest thing to do, if you’re a real scientist. Once these problems are cleaned from absurdities, you may find that the models you are trying are inadequate. When doing the above diligently, you will find the true meaning of entropy change, where it applies, and what quantum mechanics really is, let alone reject the absurdity known as “theory” of relativity. You will, in the course of such mandatory re-education, learn that imagination is not more important than knowledge, and that in order to speculate even on the most remote themes, your speculation would not be worth the paper on which it is written or the computer bits that are used for typing it in, if you anarchistically allow yourself to spew gobbledygook and call it science.

Physics Must “Call Time” on Absurdity Slavery

We must all “call time” on our gullible attitude towards the propaganda of the decimated concept of time, presenting that destruction as unsurpassed science. This and the other books of this author give copious evidence for that imperative. These books undo the propagandistic goading of the world into the absurdity pen, the slaughterhouse of truthful comprehension of the world, affecting the basis of its thinking. The door of correct thinking has become wide open also with the arguments presented in this latest effort to give truth a chance. The ultimate correction of today’s wrong comprehension of time, restoring the understanding of its absoluteness, provided herewith, is the only way for the intellectual clocks of the world, which are now made to tick to the wrong tune of wrong theories, to adjust themselves to the truth. The truth is right here on these pages, available to everyone who would show interest. Amazement, fascination and bewilderment at nonsense is over.

Anyone who feels the need to find answers to the existential questions of life, must begin here. The broken tools, the broken theoretical devices imposed for more than a century, which left not even a trace of a chance to answer these questions, are out in the dust pile. They don’t deserve to remain even in the museum of history of science. They are that bad. The picture of the world they espouse to portray, is not even a deformed picture, let alone a picture of the world, but is something that cannot define even its own self. The non-picture adopted during the past century and counting, is not even akin to adopting the picture of the earth secured on the backs of four elephants, themselves resting on the back of a turtle. This is too picturesque—naïvely imagined but beautiful. At least this kind of view, wrong as it is, is not self-contradictory and can even be drawn on a canvas. It is consistent within its own peculiar ways and images of the world. Conversely, what is adopted in the form of the two absurd theories, discussed at length herewith, as the machinery to describe and explain the world, contradicts its own premises, comprising sheer nothing, not even a funny image. It is the opposite of funny or entertaining. It is tragic, incurring irreparable damage to the cognitive faculties of humanity, accompanied by countless thefts of billions of taxpayer dollars and euros and squandering these looted billions to build monumental temples of waste in the form of infrastructures and laboratories dedicated to pathological science based on absurdities.

Thus, while the four-elephant picture, having also a turtle in it, may pass as some vivid way of expressing one’s imagination, the absurd spacetime kind of view does not make even that much sense, much less allowing itself to be called a theory. All “theories” having at their basis the absurd Lorentz transformations, beginning with the “theory” of relativity, through black holes, big bang, modern particle “theory”, gravitational waves and ending with superstrings, are absurd creations and cannot even pass the test of any kind of imagination. Absurdity crushes imagination, at least, because of lack of creative potential. There is nothing creative about random chatter that ties up pieces of nonsense in logical chains. Therefore, all the modern fundamental physics looks like this—“the mountain strained itself and gave birth to a mouse”, which is even very generous to say, given that what was born is sheer nothing, an absurdity.

When comparing the two absurd theories to the primitive stories of elephants supporting earth or viewing the stars as pieces of aluminum foil glued to the canvas of the sky above us, as my little sister thought stars were, asking my father to reach out and get her one of them, the difference is not even about lacking evidence. It is more likely to see four elephants supporting the earth than to expect witnessing that one equals two, which in effect, is what theoretical physics builds its premises on.

What the view involving elephants predicts isn’t even relevant, because it predicts at least something, whereas the mainstream of theoretical physics doesn’t actually predict anything, which stems from the fact that the very foundations of theoretical physics are absurd—being absurd, they predict nothing. It is only through propaganda that society hears that the big science, exemplified by the here-discussed two main mainstream theories, actually based on absurdities, predicts something awesome and fascinating. It is not even something out of this world because it is nothing at all, and nothing does not qualify as something, be it from this world or from another world.

Whether or not the elephant picture agrees with experience is irrelevant, because at least it produces a picture—funny, entertaining, silly or whatever you’d like to call it, but a picture, nevertheless. What the promoted theoretical physics is, isn’t anything, such that one can claim whatsoever, let alone claim confirmation by experience. You can take one element of it, physically wrong as it is—the Lorentz transformations—you can use that element to draw pictures. However, the other element, physically correct as it is—the principle of relativity—clashes with the first, the incorrect to begin with (what else can you expect?), element. It is a deception, an outright cheating, to portray that modern theoretical physics, recognizing only one of the elements—the Lorentz transformations—their own wrongness notwithstanding, and forgetting about the other intrinsic element, indelible from the “theory”—the principle of relativity—is a grandiose, never seen theory in the world of physics, a creation of a genius. It is cheating because the first element, wrong in its own right, contradicts that second element, that conflict causing the collapse of the “theory”, thus standing in the way of the bewildering impression intended—such clash between the two elements, such catastrophic contradiction between them, the non-physicality of the Lorentz transformations themselves notwithstanding, eliminates the “theory”, rendering it pure, unmitigated absurdity, never to be heard of again, least of all in the realm of science. Alas, this “forgetting” to notice the said fatal, catastrophic contradiction, eliminating the “theory” as a theory invalidating itself, starts from the very inception of the “theory” of relativity, it is the “theory” of relativity’s essence—an irreparable catastrophe which dooms the “theory” of relativity and all its progeny into oblivion.

One may tell tales of how people viewed the world in earlier times, and how wrong they were, but that will not mitigate one bit the finality of the catastrophe which the “theory” of relativity comprises. The “theory” of relativity is the symbol of the greatest failure of science ever.

The tragedy is that the manipulators who portray the greatest failure in science as its greatest success, make it appear that it is a part of the great upheaval of humanity, the crown jewel of its regular development, which was started by Galileo, who was the first to appreciate regularities in nature in a scientific way. Galileo went beyond regularities which were obvious to everyone, such as that sun rises every day from the east, that water is wet, and that babies appear on earth after their mothers, to discover, out of the many things anyone can see around, the very specific regularities which will not only be reproduced with similar objects under similar conditions, but can be generalized for all like phenomena.

Furthermore, the seminal act of Galileo, establishing the beginnings of science, lays the foundation of the immanent determinism when it comes to real, confirmed discovery in science. Determinism is the other word for finalized science. Probability in studied relations can exist only when the laws of science are not established well. This shakiness of exact knowledge accompanies the process of acquiring of it. When it is established, it turns into an absolute truth. Many exact scientific laws can be given as an example, which are unshakable, as long as the conditions pertaining to them are kept. One very prominent establishment of deterministic absolute scientific truth, is the fatal catastrophic failure, discovered by this author, of the absurdity of the “theory” of relativity, unequivocally mandating, beyond a shadow of doubt, its removal from science.

The impression that uncertainty principle governs the limit of scientific laws is based on misunderstanding of that principle, of its real essence. As mentioned, classical uncertainty principle characterizes even fully deterministic laws, but not in the sense in which the cosmologist understands the uncertainty principle, wrongly associating it with inherent indeterminacy of position, respectively of momentum. Therefore, the uncertainty principle cannot be the watershed between the classical physics and the non-classical physics. The so-called non-classical physics, and this is where the watershed passes through, is absurd, and therefore it cannot even be called science. Furthermore, classical physics is the physics of reality of truth, of logic, therefore it may be referred to as real physics. We, however, have chosen to call the real physics by the moniker classical physics and that will stay on, as long as what is meant is real physics. In this sense, it is not true that the “theory” of relativity belongs to classical physics due to the sole criterion that it is deterministic, while quantum mechanics is non-classical because it is probabilistic. The “theory” of relativity is absurdity and cannot even be called physics, or science, or anything connected with knowledge. It should simply disappear altogether from the cognitive radar of humanity. Ditto, regarding quantum mechanics, with the proviso, that it has a way out into the classical physics, the latter being quantum in its essence. Thus, it is not the probabilistic vs. non-probabilistic approach which is the gorge dividing the “theory” of relativity from quantum mechanics, rather, their absurdity is what unites them, mandating their removal.

Speaking of determinism, the view that true science is deterministic does not follow from ideology, but has the firm footing of the scientific method and the scientific facts in the form of the firmly established scientific theories and their deterministic laws. Scientific method is at the foothold of the Western civilization, and is the prerequisite of its great successes, shaping its status as the historical winner. The physics of the twentieth century, represented by the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics, on the contrary, compromises the scientific method, and in this way undermines the Western civilization. Centuries of exclusive intellectual development is now thrown to the birds, migrating the worship of lunacy and absurdity, which exact sciences now espouse, from the exact sciences into the rest of academia and from there, spreading out like wildfire, into the politics, causing incredible degradation of the entire society. Degradation—this is the other name of today’s fundamentals of science. Such behavior on the part of the historical winner is unbecoming, outright irresponsible, especially because it has no alternative, which dooms the entire humanity to face demise.

An important characteristic of the scientific method is that it studies the laws of nature, rarely questioning, if at all, where these laws have come from in the presumed infinite universe, which has neither a beginning, nor an end. Asking the right questions is crucial when it comes to the scientific method. The notion of infinity is used as an intermediate tool, but the final result is always something real and consistent, unlike the attempt of the cosmologist at introducing imaginary time to simplify the calculations based on the absurd sum over histories (such sum is absurd because it is an outgrowth of the absurd quantum mechanics), accomplishing in the end nothing other than obtaining absurd solutions on the non-physical, so-called, spacetime. Quite an achievement, isn’t it?

When it comes to the fundamentality of the physical laws and notions, the discovery by this author of the absolute argument for the absoluteness of time, named here the synchronicity lifeline, tightly connected with this author’s discovery of the catastrophic absurdity, entirely demolishing the “theory” of relativity by unequivocally proving its absurdity, is the most fundamental of all discoveries in science. Therefore, it is not for no reason called, in this author’s previous books, the greatest discovery in the history of science. There is no other discovery that can match the generality and the basic character of this finding. The discovery of the absoluteness of time goes hand in hand with the discovery of the absoluteness of space—as already commented, a ruler of \(1\)m is exactly a \(1\)m ruler in any coordinate system, moving or not.

The current mainstream also treats as fundamental the four forces known in nature, the most demonstrable of which is the weakest of the four—gravity. Unfortunately, despite the fact that anyone experiences it all the time, it is not well understood, except for Newton’s law of gravity. Science hasn’t been able to advance one step ahead of what Newton has discovered about gravity. All the attempts to explain gravity using the “theory” of relativity are stillborn, because said “theory” is an absurdity and cannot be the basis of explaining anything. Therefore, all the attempts so far to explain gravity through that “theory” are nothing but a waste of time.

The second force, the electromagnetic force, can also be detected easily but not as easy as gravity. Unfortunately, its description is still not satisfactory. Thus, while all the four Maxwell equations are said to describe electromagnetic phenomena, the impeccable one, of the two of these four laws, as far as electrodynamics goes, is Ampere’s law. Unfortunately, the other law of electrodynamics, Faraday’s law, cannot explain the force, the so-called Lorentz force, giving rise to the voltage measured in the unipolar generator. There is no change of magnetic flux in the unipolar generator, as the Faraday’s law requires in order to have electric current flowing, yet a potential difference is measured, causing the flow of current. If Maxwell’s equations are to be indeed equations of science, fully describing electromagnetic phenomena, they must derive the Lorentz force, but they don’t. Therefore, the Lorentz force is always listed alongside Maxwell’s equations, so they together can be used for engineering calculations, which defies the Maxwell equations’ scientificity.

As can be seen from the very first page of the 1905 paper introducing the “theory” of relativity, the main goal of proposing that “theory” was exactly the problems with Maxwell’s equations, attempting to derive from them the Lorentz force. However, that attempt is a flagrant failure.

The least understood forces are the strong nuclear force and the weak nuclear force, which are postulated, because “there must be something that holds nucleons in the atomic nucleus together”. There is a model that nuclear physicists hold on to, called standard model. However, it is mostly speculative. The additional problem with their understanding is the contamination of the attempts at understanding these forces by involving the absurd “theory” of relativity as well as the non-scientific quantum mechanics. Therefore, at present, any hope for the unification of these four forces is out of the question, least of all under the banner of the two absurd theories—the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics.

There can be absolutely no expectations that there can be any kind of union between the two absurdities—the “theory” of relativity and quantum mechanics—in anything even remotely similar to a Grand Unified Theory. United nonsense remains nonsense, unqualified nonsense.

All of this goes to show that physics ought to occupy itself with much more prosaic tasks in coming to terms with its own fundamentals, prior to even thinking of involving itself in crossing over to other spheres of human activity, with pronouncements on teleological, let alone theological matters. Applied matters are handled by technology, which is pragmatic and finds its solutions without relegating to theories. Technology does not depend on whether our outlook on life or worldview, are correct or not. In contrast, correct worldview is fatal for science and it better occupy itself with correcting it, rather than, limping, try to jump the gun and give advice where it can’t, as a matter of principle, and vice versa, the latter meaning that other areas of human activity as well ought to refrain from advising science on matters outside of their concern.

Consequently, to merge the non sequiturs and absurdities of modern theoretical physics, which were imposed on the world at the beginning of the twentieth century as science, actually as pathological surrogates of science, marking the degradation of the modern world, with the fabulous developments of real science achieved during the previous almost three centuries, is like having a terrorist hiding amongst its victims, to escape justice. Modern physics, which is absurdity foisted as science, exploded science from within, blew it apart to smithereens, while portraying itself as bestowing greatest benevolence over science and the world. This is cynical and tragic. This is a disgrace.

As I already mentioned, the proponents of cosmology, dragging the astrophysicists down with them, obviously expected to give the ultimate answers to the questions of existence, alas, ending up in complete failure and embarrassment. What else is to be expected from someone so enchanted and convinced without a second thought in the genius of someone who cannot even qualify as mediocrity, someone who can do nothing other than spawn other mediocrities, thus irreparably harming the world both intellectually and financially.

It is nothing but cringeworthy, to have such great aspirations, expecting to answer the ultimate questions of existence, while falling flat into the pit of history for not being prudent to choose the right theoretical instrument, choosing instead absurdities, for such a daunting task. There are ambitious young people even today, lured by the propagandistically fabricated prominence of something lower than the grass on the lawn, fall for the promises of grandeur and scientific ultimateness. It will be sad if these young people also find out too late that it took them a whole life to see in what deception they have been trapped. The “how-can-it-not-be-right-being-so-prominent” mentality dims the judgment and gets one uncritically into the promoted bliss of essential nothingness. Besides, it is cold outside. One can really conduct a whole study about what prevents bright young people from being critical, instead of being guided by opportunism. One factor is understandable—they have to build families, raise children, it’s not the time to make waves. How about later? Later in life, you have gotten sunk into the rut and now absurdity-laden science has become your habitat, you are already used to it. So, there is no way out. Maybe still later in life, when all obligations are off and you’re free for a broader outlook on science? Why don’t we see such settled, experienced people, who have nothing to lose or gain anymore, raise their voice? I don’t know. Don’t have the answer. I know what I would do and I am doing it with this book and the other books I’ve written.

If there is another group to be lamented for their unbeknownst-to-them falling into the well of something they immanently have no clue about, even if it were to be the best crafted physics theory, and even if they were able to keep up with the advances of these theories, are the philosophers. It brings tears to one’s eyes to see a trusting herd of devoted followers be so mercilessly led to the intellectual slaughterhouse of the glittering nonsense, turning their trusting eyes to their intellectual torturers, convinced that they will soon learn more about the secrets of the world, gladly parting, in the process, with their hard-earned tax dollar to fund outright absurdities, convinced that by shedding their dollar they are supporting science.

As a matter of fact, one need not be so sentimental. Philosophers intrinsically do not, rather cannot, play a role in all this activity. They are only consumers of the scientific ideas and when they ask questions pertaining to science, they are like the moon, they shine with reflected light. What can philosophers ruminate about when it comes to science, if they don’t hear it from the scientists. And, if these scientists are dishonest and corrupt, as they are today, the crookedness will be amplified by the philosopher’s involvement, no matter how skillfully the philosopher’s questions are asked.

The intellectual prison the philosophers are immanently locked in, deprives them from having the tools to explore such questions truthfully. None of the philosophers has the inherent capacity to deal with the questions of real science. Philosophers lack the instruments to do so.

During the past centuries, human thought was rudimentary and approaching with philosophy the questions of nature and reality was the most people could do.

The problem that science evolved beyond the reach of philosophers is because it began shaping up as science in its true sense—exploring nature objectively, rejecting the immanently subjective approach of the philosophers. To excuse philosophers for not understanding the developed science, ascribing that misunderstanding to technicalities, is giving a wrong impression.

Nowadays, there is a newly coined combination known as philosopher of science, which is an oxymoron. There is a principal unfillable cognitive gap between a scientist and a philosopher because not only has science, even in its true sense, become very specialized, but it requires very particular kind of knowledge and thinking which is acquired in the course of years of systematic study and dedicated experience, allowing the scientist to achieve the ultimate goal of science, unachievable by any other activity; namely, unequivocal discriminating between truth and falsity. Conversely, the philosopher is omnivorous, swimming in the ocean of eternal tolerance toward anyone else’s views.

Now, at the end of this book, which puts the final dot over the i and the final dash across the t regarding the concept of time, it is time (no pun intended) to begin planning for the next book devoted to the discoveries of this author concerning energy. Albeit of lesser fundamentality compared to unpacking the concept of time, understanding energy and its production is not of a lesser importance, especially when it comes to its role as a major instrument of suppressing both collective and individual freedoms by establishing imperial dependencies. When that book will come to pass is uncertain, in view of the challenges and the effort to overcome these challenges connected with the just-finished book, not the least breaking the hurdles to have the world hear its message and adopt the mandatory reform it cries out loud for. One may, however, hint even at this point at some of the main ideas which that prospective book will hold. Again, seeking to base the conclusions on unchallengeable absolute truths and the fact that physics makes mathematics, not vice versa, as well as carefully observing what is really the cause and what is the effect, it would be recognized that it is not enough to remark that the zero value of a closed integral in a conservative field is what comprises the conclusive proof that production of free energy—“energy out of nothing”, as it were—is impossible. Neither is it enough just honoring the truth that certain quantities have a non-energy character, as an argument to deny the possibility for violation of the thermodynamic principles. It is not excluded that, as a result of a newly discovered constructions, such as, for instance, of proper juxtaposition of conservative fields in a system, parts or the entire energy components along the path of the closed integrals, comprise “energy coming out of nothing”, despite the overall loop being zero. At that, energy (or energy per unit time, which is power) itself, is always a product of two non-energy components such as force and displacement, or current and voltage—in the electric systems, it is the non-energy components that are directly measurable, while their product, the energy (the power) is always a result of a calculation; the correctness of that calculation constitutes the main factor which determines as to whether or not energy (power) is truly produced.

Furthermore, the principles of thermodynamics are empirical principles. Therefore, they cannot be the cause determining that an empirical claim is invalid because it violates them—to claim otherwise is to confuse cause with the effect (we saw a lot of such confusion in the present book, albeit connected with understanding the concept of time). It is the opposite. Firstly, the viability of an empirical proposal is examined and only then the principles of thermodynamics are assessed, the latter becoming very much in question, once the empirical finding is found to be sound.

Anyway, we, naturally, will not go on discussing this matter here. What was said only wets the appetite for something which this author will devote effort at some point. What must be mentioned, however, again is that, if practical success is to be achieved in this principally different area of production of energy, defying anything known so far, thus freeing the world, one must really pay attention to what was concluded in the present book, and devote oneself to activism in diverting the humungous amount of public funding towards the true productive development of real science. In actuality, the bulk of today’s funding announced to be for science, is squandered into the pit of absurdity, ambushing the world into the vicious thinking that said funding goes to science. Correcting this corruption, diverting the public funding towards real science will not only cure the disease which the world cognition is captured in today, but will also allow the discovery of new principles with incredible practical ramifications, such as the creation of principally new energy sources.

The above speaks louder than words that now, finishing this book is not a final adieu, but that this book must be a constant reminder and a source of inspiration to seek change of the intellectual morass contemporary physics has sunk into, and find prompt measures to push for real institutional changes which will never again allow our youth and society at large to be assaulted and coerced into adopting absurdity, mocking of truth, forgetting integrity and intellectual uncleanness to become the norm.