Relativity—Symbol of the Demise of Science
Public Confounding of Science
More on How Disregarding Absolute Truths Can
Relativity Induced Low Quality Thinking—Danger
to National Security
Why Hasn't It Been Pinpointed and Corrected?
Some Further Societal Considerations
Crucial Criterion of Social Change
Results from A Book Such as This One
If Science is So Wrong Why are We On the Moon?
Practicality of America
Harm to Education
Taxpayer Money—Overwhelmingly Used to Fund Bad
More on How This Damage to Society Can be Amended
Reform in Physics
Usual Arguments Which Can Be Heard to Squander Criticism
Can Truth in Science Prevail Today?
Press-Conference in Press Club Brussels
Europe on 29 October, 2019
Letter to the Members of the European Parliament
Letter to Ursula von der Leyen, President
of European Commission
Open Letter to the EU Chief
Prosecutor Laura Kodruta Kovesi
Undoubtedly, my gratitude goes first and foremost to my parents, prof. Liliana Noninska,
a.k.a. prof. Dryanovska,
who was one of the founders of the Department of Pharmacy at the Medical Academy in Sofia
and its Chair for many years, whose textbook in pharmaceutical chemistry is the standard text
to this day for many future pharmacists there, and
prof. Christo Noninski, an exceptional scientist, who held my hand during my first
steps in science. In addition to the seminal discoveries C. I. Noninski made, he
was a great educator, and I had the privilege to experience that first hand.
Especially important for me now is to recall some occasional discussions I had with him, hinting at the
needed expansion of Newton's second law with regard to the nature of motion, studies he never published
and were never the center of his or my attention at that time. All this came back to me after I discovered
the catastrophic problem in the “theory” of relativity. Now I am developing these ideas,
as well as making further new discoveries, one of which
is the subject of this book. Especially important is my crucial realization that it is the
misunderstanding of uniform translatory motion, most importantly, confounding the fact that
it is actually akin to rest, where all the troubles of physics ultimately lie today.
Thus, without intending to give it away too soon, this is, in short,
what the essence of the book at hand rests upon.
I should also mention my late sister,
the artist Mirra Tengroth, who
was the first to introduce installations and performance art in Sweden. Her encouragement
for me to stay in the US was probably the decisive factor for the freeing of my soul,
not so much geographically, but as a creative individual. Another significant influence on my
general inspiration to deal with science was prof. Anna Boeva, aunt Anna,
as I used to call her, who was my mother's best friend and the co-founder, with my mother,
of the Pharmaceutical Faculty. Prof.
Anna Boeva, as a professor in pharmacognosy, and her brother, the anthropologist prof. Peter Boev,
sharpened my sensitivity toward a more humanistic view of nature, as well as the zest for art and culture.
For instance, prof. Boev took me to the Varna Necropolis excavations, and
I was one of the first to witness the newly discovered oldest gold treasure in the world, marking the
earliest civilization on earth. This and other occasions, such as when prof. Boeva introduced me to the
first murals of the eleventh century proto-Renaissance in Bachkovo Monastery, added
to my experience as a violinist to the extent of hesitating in making a decision whether or not the arts,
especially music, should be my path in life, since I was
already reaching a professional level of handling the instrument. I chose science, although
I also was accepted in the medical school, which I decided not to attend, and I thank
destiny, if I am allowed to say that as a figure of speech, for this choice, which brought me to
understanding intellectual depths which I could not have reached in any other way. Such deficiency would
have left me oblivious to the grave problems the intellectual side of humanity has, and would have
left me in the inescapable position of accepting at face value all I was told regarding what has
been pronounced as science. Unfortunately, many people now unsuspectedly are
in such a position and the enlightening is in their own hands. This book is one tool towards such
an awakening and shedding light on one of the stickiest intellectual menaces humanity has ever experienced.
Special thanks are also due to prof. Judith Ciottone, a true scholar and a friend,
who stood firmly throughout the years behind the studies I was carrying out, never
hesitating to support the truth. She would certainly remember that episode when I
woke her up at three o'clock in the morning, telling her, Judi, I cannot
believe my eyes. The paper, pronounced as the greatest paper of all time, is complete
nonsense. The last thing in the world this theory derives, is the
mass-energy relation E = mc2. For
her as a nuclear chemist and physicist this fact is of especially great importance. What made me
look more thoroughly into that 1905 paper will be mentioned in another book.
I will also never forget, when we were riding on Henry Hudson Expressway in New York City, I told
her that I intend to put on the back burner the experimental studies I have been carrying out
for months, inspired from a trip to Dublin. My decision came after I found
out that no matter what special measures I took to perfection the experiment, no matter how precise
and accurate the measurements were, the ones who I tried to discuss them with came with further and further
objections, most of which were so much made-up that nothing short of a purely theoretical discovery,
based on what is already known as experimental facts in the standard literature,
avoiding any new experimental evidence of any kind, would do. I did not have such theoretical discovery
at hand and, therefore, decided to move temporarily onto something else,
despite the fact that I saw the experimental effect. Moreover, at that moment
I did not see how a constant voltage offset in the alternating
voltage can be represented by a voltage phase shift. The answer came in a dream one morning soon
after. To a great extent it was due to the insistence of prof. Ciottone that
I must go on and not give up even temporarily on thinking about the important problem.
Now, the imbalance of the input and output power in an RC circuit when the alternating voltage has a
constant voltage offset,
together with the catastrophic argument shown here, unequivocally proving
the absurdity of the “theory” of relativity, are the two most solid
conclusions I have reached in my life, which can also be hardly matched by
any other discovery in science when it comes to their unequivocality.
These are the highest points of my career as a scientist, which came about
when I was around sixty. I have always felt that the real life begins after
sixty, when all the experience is gathered together, allowing for generalizations
to be made, surpassing the narrow drives and passions of youth.
I would also like to give tribute to my dear friends from the
times of “cold fusion”, in the first place to my late dear friend
Dr. Eugene Mallove. Although I have not discussed with them any of the
contents of this book, I would also like to mention dear friends such as
prof. Peter Hagelstein of MIT and Don Yansen, who, along with Dr. Gene Mallove
provided the atmosphere to convince me to remain in the US. Although I
can never vow what that really meant creatively, and despite the otherwise stifling
atmosphere, not anywhere less stifling than that in Europe, when trying
to socialize important findings, I feel that on a personal level I would not have
been able to make these and other discoveries anywhere else in the world.
As a heads up to a future book, I must say that, in addition to what was already discovered
as a new nuclear phenomenon, I discovered that what was known as “cold fusion” turned out
to be a phenomenon much more important from a fundamental point of view.
Here is also the place to thank my closest friends, especially the fine talented artist
Ognyan Genov, having also a
very inquisitive mind, who expressed unusual willingness to get to the bottom of the problem.
Now, he is fully prepared to give instruction on it. Thanks are also due to other close friends
of mine such as the brilliant conductor and composer Maestro Lyubomir Denev, song writer and
rock musician Konstantin Atanasoff
as well as the marvelous songwriter, poet and artist Lenny Hat, the
prominent representative of the new generation of underground rock music
Christian Kostoff, and the enthusiastic journalist and writer
Zahari Nikolov, as well as Kaloyan Mihaylov, his sister, the artist Vassilena,
prof. Lucienne Veleva, Antonia Conrad and the prominent mathematician prof. Georgi Iliev.
These and other friends, which I will talk about in another book, although not directly
involved in the issue at hand, nevertheless provided a most creative atmosphere and
book is not written to serve as the usual market product for which a
book is put together, aiming at earning profit for its publisher and
its author. As a matter fact, many people are not aware of the fact that scientists doing
real science are not financially compensated, only supporting themselves by teaching at
colleges and universities. Doing science to earn a living inevitably takes away the independence and
freedom of thought and throws them into the talons of corruption.
The goal of this book is different. Any proceeds, if at
all, will go to a science foundation, dedicated to freeing science from
depositions of absurdity that are over a century old. The clear goal
of this book is to present uncircumventable reasons discovered by this
author, which would make it unavoidable to prevent funding of these
absurdities with taxpayer money. In other words, the main goal of this
book is to take away the current power absurdities have on society under
the mimicry of science. This is an incredibly insidious power, even
ludicrous, stemming solely from the enormous taxpayer endowment. Again,
the goal is to prevent further empowerment of absurdities, by society's
own doing, by continuing to heftily fund these absurdities disguised
It is argued that when it comes
to absurdities, more so when they are widely entrenched, the absurdities
cause the most damage to science and society. Therefore, it goes without
saying that they must be the subject of special attention. Of course,
the usual ways of handling problems in science are to discuss them within
academia. However, my experience throughout many years has made it very
clear that the only possible way to prevent these absurdities from further
proliferating in science and society is by stopping their funding through
Therefore, even if this book somehow experiences unlikely market
success, even if it brings millions of dollars in sales to the author,
while at the same time billions of tax dollars still continue to pour
in for sustaining the gluttonous heralds of absurdities presented as
science, this would be a miserable failure of the book and its author,
in view of his inability to get across the completely unmatched unequivocal
arguments and proof it presents for the occupation of science by absurdities,
harming society and public interest. If the author did not manage to
invoke the political will needed to stop the funding by not being able
to succeed in getting across this unmatched crystal clear proof to society,
he would consider this the failure of his life.
In this particular matter, the
real achievement is not so much to come up with the argument but to be able
to socialize it and convince society to not keep funding it with its own
hard earned tax dollar or euro. To say nothing of the fact that, historically,
there have been more than one worthy argument against relativity, although none
of them directly piercing its very heart, demonstrating its absurdity in the very pages
where it was published.
Because the book has the above-stated non-standard goals in the publishing
world, it uses the potentialities which the internet offers (cf. timeisabsolute.org).
Although frowned upon by the traditional expectation of how a book should
be published properly, expectations which are now becoming more and
more obsolete, the internet provides groundbreaking interactive possibilities,
such as hyperlinking and ability to include every type of audio-visual
media. The internet provides an unmatched quality of reading experience,
as well as ease of access in getting across the message.
This takes place even in the plainest renditions of webpages, which,
even in the most elaborate variants, look pretty much the same anyway.
In principle, a typographically printed book is not different when it
comes to standardization, although in a different form. The traditional
paper book also consists of elements which typically stay the same,
being the carrier of the message—a printed book always has a cover
and pages with printed text, but is severely limited, compared to an
even most rudimentary webpage, when it comes to searchability, hyperlinking
and utilization of audio-visual elements. One feature of publishing
the book as a webpage is especially unsurpassable in the case at hand—the
ability to expand a figure with formulae in the text. Pinch it out and
all the crucial details in the formulae discussed are in your face.
If this is not enough, pinch it out even more, until even the blind
can see the catastrophic discrepancy, an absurdity never seen in the history
of science. With this tool, which only the internet is capable of providing,
when it comes to the published objective truth at hand, no one can ever
say anymore that he or she had not seen this singular catastrophe of
modern science. A paper book is naturally deficient in this respect.
Even a magnifying glass can hardly help. Of course, today, texts
published on the net are reduced in significance by calling them names such as blogs,
social media posts, walls, feeds or other ways of diminishing them when being referred to. Those
who really value intelligent thought of substance, presented for all to see, however, know better
Even when some argue that the aesthetics of sensual experience when
handling a book differs from the dispassionate, robotic world of internet,
when it comes to getting the message across, internet is superior.
After all, getting the message across is what matters. Getting from
New York to Boston in comfort is nice but, after all, the arrival in
Boston is what matters, if, of course, it was not unbearably rough.
For the time being, this form of publishing, publishing on the net rather
than paper-publishing, may not be appreciated by the mainstream media
and the book will be ignored, if not for anything else, other than this
Coverage from the so-called mainstream media would be denied just because
it was published that way. However, the world is quickly moving to a
state whereby what is written in the text will be of importance rather
than how and where the text has been published. The messenger will be
less and less the message. Reaching this state is simply unavoidable
as a result of the tempo of information exchange development. Dissemination
will become harder and harder to contain, until containing it will become
impossible. Those who adjust to this new world sooner rather than later
will be the real winners in the world of exchanging ideas.
The life of internet comprises something never seen before. One drops
one's creation into the interconnected world container, assigned the
sobriquet internet, and it becomes at once common to every single one
of the billions of people living on the planet, even before search engines
index it. The word ocean is not a relevant metaphor to describe internet
because anyone, anywhere in this enormous most peculiar manifold, has
immediate access. For that matter, no separately existing so-called
social media is needed. Internet itself is the natural social media
by default, uncornered and unhindered by business interests. Once one
drops one's creation into this unusual holder, it is promptly smeared
evenly amongst everyone in the world who knows to look for it. The ease
of bringing the horse to water is what matters in the world of ideas,
not whether or not making it drink. This incomparable ease, the very
essence of internet, is what fascinates those who care about dissemination
of their ideas. This happens in such a tangible way, which even TV and
radio cannot match. Such suddenness of access by everyone living on
earth, also endowed with the potential of immediate feedback, has no
analog in history.
As a result, no matter that this text, although containing unequivocal
proof, will be ignored even if published on the internet, now that it
is published on the internet, there will be no excuse for someone continuing
to foist absurdities as science. The whole world now will have available
at once the unequivocal proof, discovered by this author, about the
catastrophic absurdities defining contemporary theoretical physics,
unlike the times when one had to beg the powers-that-be to publish his
or her ideas, which was the only way for these ideas to be heard by
This state of at least free dissemination, although still short of proper
impact on science and society, is beyond anyone's control, unless the
powers-that-be suddenly decide to crush internet and remove it from
the life of the world. Nothing short of crushing will do, because
the essence of internet is to overcome any sort of control imposed,
as long as internet is allowed to exist. By the way, even if the powers-that-be
decide to crush it for self-serving protective reasons, the very fact
that it has already existed cannot be made unknown to humanity and humanity
will always find a way to reinstate it under one or another form.
This natural freedom, offered inherently by the principles which had
made emerging of the computer possible, is being cornered by some, prolifically
using it to their own ends. This is an oddity, which, hopefully, will
not survive long. In any event, as said, due to the nature of computers,
such cornering is doomed. It only takes refusing to register on websites
and one is off the hook. You are free and your access to everyone in
the world is still uninhibited. You may not enjoy what the sites requiring
registration consider valuable therein, but as far as you are concerned,
your freedom to post whatever you please, so that others can read, is
unassailed, no matter how many paid or registration-based sites are
out there. Quality control, being solely your responsibility, should
be of no worry when the arguments for the proof given are unequivocal,
as in this case.
Internet may be the most efficient amplifier of human stupidness
but it is also the most efficient factual archive of truth,
concerns that internet also generates “fake news” notwithstanding.
Therefore, we must reaffirm that internet is also an outlet of
truth, especially truth which is otherwise
assiduously stifled, stifling which the powers-that-be very much want.
These powers go to great lengths
to impose subversively that truthful is only what they portray as such, while anything else is
“fake news”, even if one sees the truth with his or her own eyes. This dictatorial
governance of what the population must think as true is part of the
psychological warfare waged by these powers. This is what internet is in a position
to successfully break down, letting the truth out, as in this case.
All in all, internet means liberty, and liberty is, as a rule, the last
word, no matter what variants and flavors of totalitarian control are
attempted. Internet, by its very nature, is especially intolerant of
Of course, as with many other conveniences, freedom of the net comes
at a price. Once you are on the net, your life becomes available for
the whole world to see, which is heaven to those who like doxxing, having
nothing else to do. The ease of fixing this is also unbeatable—just
get off the net, if you do not want to be spied on and paranoia kicks
in. However, even off-line, the webpage containing the text of the book
can still be read.
Therefore, it should bother no one that this direct internet-based form
of publishing the book, is preferred over the so-far adopted improper
self-publishing, as well as proper commercial publishing by established
publishing companies. The non-prestigiousness of the former and the
prestigiousness of the latter are, even as we speak, obsolete. We are
entering a new age where, as was said, it is what is written, rather
than where it has been published, that is beginning to matter more and
more. Add to it the liberation from the reins and suffocation of market
forces dictating profit, and that will ensure, beyond any doubt, the purity
of intentions and thought, even if pompous words such as idealism are
Clearly, because we are still living with one foot in the old perceptions,
there may be a very limited edition of this book in paperback form,
as a boutique token, while the real, let alone convenient, access to
the book is geared toward its internet life. This is one of the first
attempts to put out resolutions of questions of substantial, if not
prime, scientific and public interest, in a form, the form of a text
published on the internet, reserved so far mostly for insignificant
social interactions. Although there is plenty of scientific publishing
on the internet even at this moment, this decision to put forth on
the internet substantial, crucial scientific findings of most general
significance for the entire science, as well as society, preempts the times when this type of direct
internet dissemination, even of important scientific knowledge, will become prevalent.
This way of presenting the crucial findings is not only as prompt as can be, but is
also bypassing the corrupt practices governing today's academic publishing.
Dissemination via internet of crucial scientific findings, so far reserved exclusively
for academic publishing in order to have impact, will become
the required dominating way for dissemination of information which matters.
No illusion is harbored that this text will make any dent today, as
well as in the foreseeable future, unless it is taken up by some strong
political will, which would stop public funding of absurdities. So long
as absurdities are funded at the scale at which they are funded today,
there is absolutely no hope for any change, no matter how many correct
books one publishes, even in this new media, internet.
It is now my firm conviction that there is
nothing more important to write about in science than to report on uncovered
falsities in its fundamentals, especially when it is not some random
glitch, but when these falsities have overtaken science. It is even more
important to write about the falsities in science when the discoveries
made of the absurd state of fundamental science clearly are not a matter
of personal opinion, but are unequivocally provable objective facts,
as will be seen below. This writing is dedicated to such unequivocal
facts, which definitively dethrone absurd ideas, that unfortunately,
have poisoned a lot of ground in what is considered as world science,
also damaging even wider territories of today's society. This is the
real inconvenient truth that needs to be addressed.
Later in the text it is mentioned that the deterioration of thinking
which has overtaken fundamental science due to the hoax of the century,
the theory of relativity
and its perceived progeny, foisted on society, may not be as benign
as it may seem at first glance, limited only to academic pursuit. The
forcefully installed low-quality thinking in science, which has brought
about the theory of relativity, is also badly damaging the wider society,
not only financially but also intellectually. In addition to the destruction
of science at its fundamental level, that fumbling of science has outgrown
the limited confines of theoretical physics and has spread over to the
social sciences, from where a whole culture of radical dissent has been
created, which at times has converted itself into very ugly tangible
real-life tragedies of resultant acts of terrorism. Clearly, these tragedies
are the visible part of a much deeper intellectual problem in the world,
created by the forceful imposition of lunacy and absurdity, the theory
of relativity being the prime example, as a substitute for real science.
This intellectual problem is made more and more visible
on the global stage, implementing contorted ideas which would have been hard, if not
impossible, to fathom in the not so distant past. These contorted ideas are emanated
from social sciences departments and certain ideological think tanks,
due to a sick imagination, which only a society with thinking destroyed on a fundamental level,
resulting from the collapse of its ultimate authority, science, would allow to unfurl.
It would be a waste of time to go into much detail about these sordid ideas.
only mention that they all rotate around the idea that there is no truth, that truth is
only an invention. Truth being only a metaphor, according to these confused people, the
source of confusion lying with the ravaged fundamentals of physics, they perceive that
they have discovered the alpha and omega of the intellectual being; namely, by
adopting that anything goes.
Thus, there is no more worthy cause
intellectually, than to strive for restoring
logic, reason and the scientific method in discordant science, such
as the science of today. There is no more worthy cause,
than to strive for intellectual freedom by realizing that reality, nature, is
characterized by certain restrictions, and devote all your heart into studying
what exactly these restrictions are and what they are characterized by. As a matter of
fact, this is what comprises the essence of science.
Moreover, it does not make much sense for any
scientist in any area of science to keep doing research, if he or she
even accidentally encounters fatal problems in the fundamentals, no
matter in what area he or she has been specialized. The methods of science
are common for all real scientists. A case in point is the brilliant
work Yves Couder is doing in the fundamentals of experimental physics,
despite his being a botanist. Were not Meyer and Leibniz also not trained
as physicists and Dalton also not trained as a chemist? Furthermore,
it is not possible to make one step ahead, beyond the first pages of
any standard text in particle physics, because of the absurd groundwork
laid out there, right from the beginning, due to the appropriated
fundamental absurdity of theoretical
physics. The same is the case with astrophysics, especially its parts
infested by the absurdities of quantum mechanics and relativity, or electrodynamics,
to give two more examples. There is the legitimate
discipline of astronomy, which includes the study of the chemical
and physical aspects of planets, calling it astrophysics,
in addition to studying their position
in the universe. However, astrophysics, as understood today, as part
of astronomy, in many ways is also associated with the absurd Lorentz
transformations and, therefore, is itself absurd and better not be
mentioned in a scientific context. The tragedy is that the absurdity imposed
on astronomy and the rest of the listed disciplines, further migrates
into society and spreads its venom as an academically justified truth.
Straightening out the fundamentals of physics is a must, and the first
priority of any scientist. Left unattended, sooner or later these flawed
fundamentals will stand in the way, more or less tangibly, in every
real scientist's work.
It will be seen below that one major cause for discord in science, distorting
most fundamental notions in science such as time and space, is the appropriation
of the non-physical Lorentz transformations into physics, enormously
embellished to the extent of controlling major sectors of what is considered
mainstream science, with all of its superstructures and billions of
dollars and euro in funding every year from the taxpayer pocket. Quantum
mechanics is another major problematic area, but its discussion is to
be deferred to some other time, especially, in view of the fact that
debunking the “theory” of relativity does not at all require some special
education in science, neither does it need any practice in science, while
quantum mechanics requires a level of somewhat more specialized knowledge.
If the first problem mentioned is not resolved by removing Lorentz transformations
from physics, and if quantum mechanics does not go back to its roots
in classical mechanics, everything that comprises genuine science is
forsaken. Furthermore, as it will be again mentioned later in the text,
that is not because technology cannot develop within the current milieu
of confusion about the rate of time or distorted notion of space. Technology
is not science and, as can be seen around us, it follows its own course
of empirical, pragmatic development with great success, in spite of
what the destroyed science, contaminated with the absurdities
ushered in by quantum mechanics and relativity, does.
In this book, I am sharing some thoughts on the roots of the tragic
situation of contemporary science, the migration of this tragic state
of science into society at large, harming it, and ways to possibly correct
that neglected intellectual degradation. The emphasis is on one of the
two main culprits responsible for this tragic state, the “theory” of relativity,
called henceforth just relativity, for brevity. It is the easier to
debunk of the two absurdities, the other being quantum mechanics, whose
absurdity, as said, will be discussed elsewhere. It will be shown that
the absurdity of relativity can be seen at once due to the newly found
immediately demonstrable catastrophically devastating fact, seen in
the very pages of its founding 1905 paper.
This book deals with the
demise of society, which began with the destruction of the highest
authority society has, known as science, by deliberate imposition of
sheer lunacy as exceptional scientific achievement. To impose outright lies
or lunacy, aiming at manipulating the population for unseemly advantage,
as the opposite of what the reality is, is termed “fake news”
nowadays. In other words, to impose lunacy as great science is nothing
other than “fake news”. However, when the highest intellectual
authority, science itself, is the generator of this “fake news”,
it becomes the “mother of all fake news”. This term may
not be used much further in the text, but it will not be forgotten that
the “mother of all fake news” today is relativity, for reasons
which will become clear shortly. Relativity's implementation in society's
mind has reverted the world to thinking irrationally, hence, the mother
of all fakeness in thinking that has engulfed the world. In a follow-up
book, also stimulated to appear due to the unbearable thought that absurdity
is made to govern the cognitive aspects of society in a major way, there
will also be some notes on the general theory of science. This will
further develop the above ruminations.
It is a challenge to sift through all the seeming complexity of formulae,
all these tensors, vector spaces and maths paraphernalia, which are
opportunistically overwhelming the literature, and, while initially
not knowing where to begin, finally to discover this one germinal kernel,
this one singular source, which is the ultimate generator of all this
insanity, pouring like a deluge over humanity under the false pretense
of otherworldly science. This came as a surprise to me. I was not expecting
that such a creation held in such high esteem could contain such a catastrophic
As a matter of fact, the discovery of this singular catastrophic problem
gives this author singlehandedly the authority to make the categorical
pronouncements herein. There is nothing else,
no affiliation or clout, which can
serve as a better justification and that
can be compared to this unique opportunity to express challenge regarding
a subject of such magnitude. Therefore, no copycats; that is, attempts
to settle other scientific disputes by the extra-academic route taken
here, can be expected to be of any substance. Rigorous “science
by press-conference”, as in this opportune case of debunking relativity,
can hardly be expected in any other case of scientific discourse,
especially regarding a topic having such magnitude of
global impact. Overwhelmingly,
science disputes still must be carried out through the known channels
of academic peer-review, even as corrupt as peer-review is today. The
main efforts in mainstream science should be directed to improving peer-review
and not to bypassing scientific scrutiny. Conversely, the extraordinary
case at hand, dealing with the ultimate notions of science, differs
from all else comprising the functioning of mainstream science. To repeat,
firstly, the sheer magnitude of the question discussed here, surpasses
any other conceivable problem in mainstream science, including quantum
mechanics. The inadequacy of quantum mechanics at least can find resolution
by going back to classical mechanics. The botching of the notions of
time and space by relativity has no other settlement than by the decisive
radical means of entire removal from science of any presence of the
non-physical and mathematically wrong Lorentz transformations,
especially by denying public funding to anything involving them. This,
in particular, includes complete removal from science of relativity
and its progeny. After much experience over the years, this author has
come to the conclusion that the only instrument for such removal is
by forming political will to cancel the public funding for this mockery
of science based on the Lorentz transformations.
The hard work and sacrifices made, while sifting through the complexities,
however, turned out to be very intellectually rewarding, because not
only is the question of motion, time and space of fundamental importance
for humanity, and correcting the current confusion a must, despite any
challenge of technical nature that may come along, but, to his great
surprise, if not delight, this author has found that there are straightforward
ways to make the current fumbling of these notions understandable to
a wider audience. Indeed, in addition to putting special effort to make
it extremely easy for anyone to understand it conclusively and with
rigor, it turned out that, fortunately, relativity is very prone to
such effort. The solution turned out to be just around the corner. How
can such clearly fatally defective thinking and absurdity stay undetected
for so long is beyond me. I will try not to speculate too much on the
reasons for allowing such a mess in physics, although I will say a word
or two on the matter later in the text.
It turned out further, however, that a challenge, greater than any challenge
which the technical side of the question may pose, is the impossibility
to report properly this discovery to society. Society appears to be
most disinterested in finding a flaw in a question in which it has been
conditioned to be most interested. Mainstream academic dissemination,
expectedly but by no means justified by any standard of integrity, is
out of the question. Therefore, other ways for dissemination were to
be sought. Aside from the inconsequential and flooded internet, whereby
the flood acts as the most efficient censorship there could ever be,
one of the most promising avenues I tried, among many other ways,
the result of vast experience, was to announce the discovery at press-conferences.
The story about these activities
may, in the future, be assembled in a separate very instructive book.
It is not unimportant to note that, in addition to the culprits,
enclosing themselves into an impenetrable shell of corrupt peer-review,
politicians, the dispensers of the public funds available for the taking
by the pseudo-science charlatans, have also built impenetrable walls around them.
Although the problems discussed here must sit on top of every politician's
agenda as problems of prime societal importance and
sweeping them under the rug is the top of political irresponsibility,
try to reach a politician directly and see if you can go beyond his or her aids, staff
and secretaries. The only way for your views, having nothing to do
with you personally, but concerning issues of exceptional
importance for society,
to be heard directly, is through a public appearance such as a press-conference,
which hopefully would be covered by the press, so that politicians
can hear directly from you what you want to tell them.
Understood or not, at least what you had to say
is, in this way, on public record, hopefully,
isolated from the rest of the information noise.
Ideally, why should it matter at all how any discovery,
let alone a discovery of such importance
and impact on society is reported? Especially, when the argument, such
as the one presented here, is unequivocal, will never go away, and flies
on its own wings, not reporting to anyone. The argument or, the arguments,
if you will, presented, play like cat and mouse with anyone who would
dare to finagle in the attempt to escape from the inevitable sword of
Damocles. Thus, it is only a matter of time for the catastrophic argument
I am presenting to take effect and cause the removal of relativity,
one of the greatest intellectual suppressors by which humanity has ever
It is unusual for a scientist to speak directly to the public, say,
by press-conferences, bypassing what are traditionally considered as
main avenues of academic dissemination. Some even consider such extra-academic
ways of dissemination as a scientist's professional suicide. In publishing
traditional matters of science, which are not at odds with what the
mainstream has staunchly adopted as fundamental, that may be.
However, correction of the aggressively adopted distortion of fundamental
notions such as motion, time and space, far exceeds the common norms
of academic publishing. Matters are so twistedly arranged by those
who protect their interest by keeping science in discord, that there is even
no place in academia where such criticism, albeit mandatory, can find
a home. Open any influential mainstream physics journal and see if
there is a place anymore to publish on fundamental matters. Fundamentals of
physics, which are thought to include relativity and quantum mechanics, are
considered completely settled. They are considered as questions closed for discussion.
Besides, dwelling into fundamentals is never encouraged in academia,
never mind how sound the argument, never mind that sound fundamentals
of impeccable quality must be able to withstand criticism and attacks
any day. The milieu of public academic discourse
is not conducive to such sort of talk, which would undermine long-standing
epistemological traditions, no matter how mandatory the breaking of
some of these traditions is.
A discoverer, however, does not wait for an invitation, neither is he
or she around to please someone, following the rules as to how a discovery
should be disseminated. The long-standing ill traditions in epistemology
are broken under the weight of the discovery, and it may not be unusual
for a discovery to find its way out to the world, despite the rules
of academia. Furthermore, the more substantial the discovery, the more
likely that the rules for its dissemination can be broken only from
outside of academia. Besides, it is not fair to the sponsor, the most
generous and decisive sponsor being the taxpayer, for one to play along
with the deceit, quietly keeping one's place in academia, following
its rules, once the deceit is uncovered, but is dangerous to the discoverer
to put it out, pretending that all is well and good. The more significant
the discovery, the greater the mentioned unfairness.
Besides, when thinking about why it is reasonable to look for unusual
ways of dissemination, as said, those who stand to benefit from the
corrupt status quo have made it impossible to properly publish
the argument. In a way, ironically, such
resistance is even more expected, because,
since the times of Galileo, which marks the beginning of modern science,
humanity has never been under such massive occupation and assault by
absurdity, when it comes to basic notions of physics. While Aristotle
can be excused as someone trying to make sense of things during the
dawn of science, current times are considered advanced, and therefore,
messing up basic notions, especially at the modern level of information
exchange, should be unforgivable. Moreover, the fact that major sections
of physics are building their object of study, in effect, on the premise
that one equals two, would not have withstood scrutiny during the times
of Aristotle either.
When speaking about occupation of society by inanities, here is the
place to note that there is a significant difference between the absurdity
passing as academic science and the conspiracy-theorist activity and
clairvoyance TV shows. Aside from the fact that the latter, although
being incorrect, at least are consistent in their incorrectness, the
academic nonsense is an inconsistent internally contradictory nonsense.
Nevertheless, paradoxically, unlike astrology, voodoo and clairvoyance,
the academic absurdity is state-sponsored. Billions of taxpayer dollars
and euro are squandered on academic absurdities, comprising activities
involving Lorentz-transformation-based theories. Conversely, state-sponsorship
of astrology, palm reading or removing of spells by an imam, is strictly
denied. The denial to fund the latter with taxpayer money is fully justified,
as is even more justified to deny such funding to the absurd science
of today. Sadly, it ain't happening.
For those who may wonder why there is no reference section in this
book, it must be said that the above referral to the 1905 publication
is the only reference needed to demote relativity from its false standing as exemplary science
and send it to the dust bin of history, along with complete canceling of
any public funds for anything connected with it. The only
names referred to in this book are those of real scientists with contributions to science.
The book is not intended as a polemic against anyone's views, but is a
categorical document revealing unequivocally the biggest scam of the century.
To say nothing of the fact that fair and productive polemic is only possible
on a level playing field. To have one of the parties talking from a position of power, endowed by
billions of dollars or euro, in jeopardy of losing this endowment and the power that follows from it,
as a result of the polemic, is a situation very far from a level playing field.
Therefore, no such unleveled-playing-field conversation should take place ever, unless it is
strictly moderated, under oath, by the most relevant external party, the public sponsor; that is,
the taxpayer represented by the US Congress.
Before presenting technical
arguments, it is essential to appreciate the harm and damage to
the interest of society, following from the insidious adoption of absurdities
as science, let alone as science worthy of the enthusiastic official
support by those who rule society and its coffers. Therefore, some time will be spent
on analyzing this devastating effect on society, resulting from presenting absurdities as science,
followed by the concrete devastating technical details, proving that relativity is
nothing but a catastrophe. After that, a few words will be said on the deterioration of thinking
due to relativity, emphasizing that this is nothing less than a threat to national security as
well as to the entire Western civilization.
Public interest has been harmed by the unprecedented use of propaganda
to install in the worldwide public mind a creation, such as relativity,
which directly contradicts its own postulate, therefore, it contradicts
the scientific method directly in the most blatant way. It pretends
to be a theory in need of experimental confirmation, but such experiments
are impossible to exist—the alleged theory, relativity, is internally
contradictory. It is an absurdity, and therefore can give rise to nothing
experimentally testable. It, actually, can give rise
to absolutely nothing at all. The widely publicized tests of relativity,
let alone existence of experiments confirming relativity, are nothing
other than cynical lies.
In this decades-long propaganda war for the minds of the population,
along with the unsustained, outright false claims regarding the exceptionality
of achievements connected with relativity, the public is not spared
hearing contradicting, mildly entertaining utterances of a person, supposedly
sage, but these utterances are mostly an expression of his own confused
The public is not spared even the sight of him sticking his tongue out
mockingly, as if that is something, otherwise offensive and a profanation,
all in the right order of things when done by a genius, appearing cuddly
and cute. After all, geniuses are special and different from us all,
and any vacuous thing they do should be greeted with fanfare. How else
is the commoner to recognize the genius?
Clearly, by the same token, the world was expected to approve of the
similarly meaningless creations of the genius, this time in science.
It is the genius who is of importance, not what his creation is. Never
mind that contemporary peer-review, even as corrupt as it is, will not
allow a creation of such low intellectual quality to even cross the
doorstep of a scientific journal, if it were written by you and me.
The genius, however, is allowed to say whatever he pleases. All is good
and anything goes. Not that the world does not abound with false prophets
and false geniuses, but the one with the fake relativity “theory”
is one of the most media-persistent and annoying, let alone causing
enormous waste to society, as well as intellectual degradation as
a result of its massive imposition. Therefore, it directly damages society's
scientific health, destroying its only immune system, which could protect
it from the asinine—the scientific method.
The most cynical part of that military-style occupation of science by
the complacent fatuity of relativity, is that when such intellectual
imposition concerns the deliberate distortion of the most fundamental
notions of science, such as time and space, it is inevitable to consider
that the entire body of science is ill. That is why, in this text, the
problems seen, ostensibly in only one area of science; namely, theoretical
physics, are referred to as problems of the entire universe of contemporary
This text is an expression of a deep disagreement with the imposition,
not only of individuals “above the law”, but, more importantly,
imposition of individuals “above the truth”, as well as
above the stringent standards of the scientific method.
The outrage this book expresses may at times lead to a read which borders on
losing the usual academic tone. Losing academic tone is the least
this completely unmatched
travesty of science—relativity—deserves. That
neglect of the scientific method causes immeasurable harm to
society. More attention will be given below to that harm.
Public interest is harmed by relativity through authoritatively using
brute force to instill in society its wrong worldview, tricking
society into feeding that brute force handsomely with society's own
public funds; that is, tricking society into being its own executioner.
The very fact that the mere critical discussion of said “theory”
is proclaimed off limits by academia, is an undeniable proof for the
brutal coaxing of one-sided views; views which, unfortunately, also
happen to be wrong.
A distorted worldview contributes to widening the gap between
science and technology, making technology seek its developments blindly,
without the guidance of a deeper understanding of the laws of nature.
Clearly, as will be emphasized further in the text, technology can progress
only relying on its own devices, detached from the science basics, as
it is progressing nowadays, mostly driven by engineering efforts in
the industrial companies and military-industrial complex. Today's
technology has no use for what is perceived today as “big”
science, because the fundamentals of contemporary science, and especially
physics, have lost their integrity by falling into the abyss of the
absurd. Thus, “big” science is only visibly big, and threatening
only due to squandering the wealth of the nations. Otherwise, it is
less than small when it comes to its absurd substance.
If science is to be at all of use to technology, then such science should
be honest, reporting only to its scientific method and to nothing
else. At present, unfortunately, fundamental science, especially the
above-mentioned “big” science, is a complacent
self-aggrandizing daftness, with no
basis in reality nor making any sense or being of any use to
anyone, even to itself, except for the participants in that dishonest
hamster-wheel they call science.
The “truths” of such “science”
are only derived from the inane amounts of money major quasi-scientific
enterprises, such as CERN or the US National Laboratories, extort from
the governments, purely politically, in complete disregard of
the scientific method and the principles of real science.
Such diversion of funds to scientific
travesty, thus depriving real science of support, is the
greatest harm any country can
experience. It is actually a crime against a country.
Although, to some, distorting the worldview of the population
may appear as a minor problem, it has a definitive effect on the health
and quality of thinking of a vast majority of people. It allows conditions
for widespread irrationality, a knack for sensationalism and the outlandish,
rather than a balanced outlook of the world that surrounds us. Seekers
of such fun multiply by the day, stimulated by the outpouring of what
nameless “scientists” are falsely said
to have found in their labs.
These seekers do not even realize that such
made-up fun, in fact, takes away from them
the real joy of life. The more extraordinary and unlikely, the more
catching that make-believe-science is to public attention.
Science turned into Hollywood-style
make-believe, is not only desensitized, as viewing real war as a computer
game, but is going even further, smashing all logical connections delineating
the possible from the fantastic.
Even the movies in the later years began crossing the line
by losing the measure when it comes to the extent of imagination they
rely on. Although movies, as a popular hybrid art form, are expected
to be freer in choosing wider contrivances for artistic expression than
the restrictions the natural world demands, they began crossing the
line of the viewable. Now, assisted by the new computer technology in
filmmaking, the plot as a whole and the individual actions began to
allow the characters to defy all possible constraints. This already
leaves the territories of the aesthetic and is progressively making
the movies uninteresting to watch. When anything at all is allowed
to take place, the element of surprise is stolen from the viewer and
whatever is presented on the screen is perceived as something trite,
which can come to mind for just about anyone. In order to keep the interest, the
viewer needs to feel that there is at least some resistance from the
impossible, a resistance by at least some natural barriers which cannot
be overcome. Without such resistance there is no plot. Otherwise,
unbridled imagination, permitting any outcome whatsoever, which may take
the viewer anywhere, is actually an expression of creative impotence.
The full freedom of the plot and the various actions therein, although
seemingly exuberant, in fact are an expression of poverty of imagination.
Thus, the result is the opposite to great inspiration, which the
viewer expects from a good movie.
If necessary restrictions apply even to one of the freest genres, the
movies, what remains for science? The unrestrained approach, when it
comes to the outcome from a scientific study, is plainly out of the question.
Genuine science can function only within the very strict constraints
of its inviolable absolute truths, the laws of nature, logic and reason, all of
which are gathered under the term scientific method. If that is not
understood, scientific research has to do with science only in words.
Science, which has forgotten its goals and responsibilities, is converted
into lenten, jejune entertainment and a job scheme for slyboots, especially
through utilizing corrupt peer-review for that purpose. Relativity,
with its impossible claims that do not even follow from it, enslaves
the by-now-poisoned imagination of the wide-eyed enthusiasts and soon
they cannot get enough of it, just like a heroin addict needs the fix.
Try to be rational and the withdrawal syndrome kicks in as powerfully
as when trying to take away the heroin from the addict.
A society inhabited by messed up individuals, perceiving nature not
by the laws that govern it, but by imposed cartoon superhero characters,
such as the author of relativity, has no future. The national interest
of such a society is damaged irreparably.
One can only imagine what danger to the very existence of the nation
it would be if the irrational, hallucinatory ideas of “theories”,
such as relativity, penetrate into the military, the intelligence and
all that binds the nation together. So far, it is only a
paradoxically lucky circumstance, the luck of the world, actually,
that currently this sort of irrationality is confined within academia
and the job-schemers therein, no matter how profusely funded by the
US Congress and elsewhere, following suit. Despite the fact that academia
is the primary governmental advisor, the practicality of America has
prevailed thus far. The funding of scientific
inadequacies has not gone much further than causing substantial waste
and intellectual impairment. However, things may change for the worse,
if the aggressive forces, benefitting from said “theory”,
using it as the password to Congress' pocketbook,
prevail and the US Congress falls prey to the reason-hating vultures,
thus harming the core interests of the USA, undermining and weakening
it. The danger is real.
Because in this
text there are references to the so-called powers-that-be, it might
be wise to give a hint as to what this author understands under that
term. Powers-that-be is a loosely defined term used to signify the active
forces in society who are responsible for the maintaining of a given
status quo and not allowing the existence of major parallel
societies, capable of undermining the governing stance of these powers.
Without being able to pinpoint
argumentatively exactly who these powers-that-be
are, many feel intuitively their presence (conspiracy theorists notwithstanding).
Some of these, more alert, members of our society would often stop and
wonder—where did all these dramatic changes in the social order
come from? Who installed a given political order and who then took it
out? The twentieth century has more than one such example of installment
and then abandonment of social orders throughout the world.
Clearly, the relaxed, diffuse definition just given, by no means possesses
the rigor of the terms in the physical arguments presented here. While
problems of social sciences, and especially sociology of science, touched
on here, deserve special study, this is hardly the place to get into
greater depth, regarding their essence. The emphasis in this writing
is on the unquestionable, unequivocal facts, which the author has discovered,
regarding one of the greatest injustices in science, signified by relativity,
holding hostage, tightly in its clutches, the entire civilized humanity.
On the other hand, the author feels that it is his responsibility to
share his lifetime experience on the subject, no matter how personal
and perhaps biased it is, with the danger of even cheapening the presentation.
Lifelong experience cannot be all wrong.
Because expressing stances on social issues is a matter of personal
opinion, the writing in this aspect is of far less importance than the
stringent, unequivocal scientific arguments, presented herein, which
are definitive and final, comprising objective facts, not opinion, and
which the author, undoubtedly and most justifiably, will defend vigorously,
as would anyone else who really cares about truth and integrity. Hence,
reading the parts of the writing expressing opinions on social matters
may be skipped, if one is only curious about
the scientific arguments
and wishes to neglect this author's views on sociology of science. The
conclusions and the proof presented here, however, are unequivocal and
the removal of relativity and progeny through denying public funding
remains in full force and is a must, independent of any ruminations
on social matters. On the other hand, if neglecting of the sociological
side of the ruminations to follow is the choice, given the unequivocal
arguments about the devastation done to the fundamentals of physics,
it would be curious how that proven devastation of physics in its most
basic fundamentals, fumbling most basic notions such as time, space
and motion, on such a massive scale at that, can exist in a vacuum,
unaffecting, not touching, society. It seems that one does not need
spectacles to see that such a connection exists.
Relativity—Symbol of the Demise of Science
Relativity—Symbol of the Demise of Science
Let us not wait any longer and “prendre la balle au bond”.
It should require a very slight effort. Once seen, this tragic drama of science
can never be unseen.
Suffice it to take a look at pages 61 and 62 (in the English translation)
of the founding 1905 relativity paper
The catastrophe is seen instantly:
1) One single law of motion, referred to coordinate system denoted by
the lower case letter k, for one single body in that coordinate system
k, is expressed by one single, unique equation.
It is crucial to
notice that the coordinate system k is in uniform translatory motion
with respect to coordinate system K and, therefore, respectively, coordinate
system K is in uniform translatory motion with respect to coordinate system k.
Recall, uniform translatory motion
is motion at constant velocity; motion without acceleration; it is the
state of an inertial system. Again, never forget that coordinate systems
k and K are in uniform translatory motion, even though
the author of relativity deceptively implies, in stark contradiction with the
principle of relativity, that uniform translatory motion and rest are two
different states. More on this deception is talked about later in the text.
2) On the contrary, the same
law of motion referred to coordinate system K (left-side system of equations)
becomes, instead, a different law of motion (right-side system of equations),
again referred to the same system K, for the same body,
at the same time.
Absolutely astounding in its brazen absurdity, mocking the
most elementary requirements of science, relativity insolently
ends up “deriving” the impossible;
namely, that the observed one single body in this
one single coordinate system K,
obeys two different laws of motion at the same time—one law,
(right-side system of equations referred to coordinate system K
), and at the same time another law, not containing
(left-side system of equations referred to the same coordinate system K
Instead of decisively condemning this
incredible mockery of science, propaganda has twisted the
arm of the world of learning to elevate that balderdash
as one of the most heroic and profound acts of science. This is a
disgrace, which needs immediate attention, especially by the funding agencies, mandating their
prompt freezing of all support to any proposal, having anything to do with this
absurdity, going by the name “theory” of relativity, as well as any other
Lorentz transformations contaminated activity, wrongly presented as science. The proof
shown above is the best and the most immediate unequivocal way to demonstrate that
the Lorentz transformations lack any physical meaning whatsoever.
Indefinite freezing of funding is the only way for science to free itself
from this staggering absurdity,
viciously occupying science for over a century.
“Deriving” the impossible; that is, deriving the opposite
of what science expects, compels
the taking down of relativity from its pedestal of exceptional science and
disposing of it at once in the farthest wastebin of science, as well
as social history, as a creation less than pseudo-science, as an absurdity.
There is no other theory in history, let alone one so well entrenched into the
body of science as relativity is, which has become defunct due to its own inherent absurdity.
After the above revelation, refusing to waste not only billions,
but refusing to waste even one penny on any studies having anything to do with this
travesty of science, called here relativity for short,
is the only thing which the taxpayer expects from any funding agency. No science project, which
is a candidate for public funding, should contain in any way, shape or form
Lorentz transformations, which are the ultimate culprit for the above-observed parody of science.
What is important here is the catastrophic unequivocal fact, seen immediately,
that relativity absurdly derives that one body in one coordinate system K obeys
two different laws of motion at the same time. Nothing more
need be said in order to reject relativity as containing such a brazen,
catastrophic absurdity, mandating its removal from science and cancellation of all public
Some, however, may be interested in the technology of coming up with such blatant nonsense.
In order to understand the technology of this travesty, notice what the author of relativity
has actually done here. He has taken the incorrect
equalities which he has “derived” in §6
and has written them here in §10
the lower row of equations in the rectangle, as if they are correct equalities (below, under
the next figure, it is explained in detail
why these equalities are incorrect—see link). In addition
to these incorrect equalities, which, as seen in §6, are the victims of the Lorentz transformations,
the author of relativity also uses the
incorrect (wrongly expressing equality between a constant and a variable)
Lorentz transformations themselves—the ultimate
culprit for the catastrophe of relativity, the violators of its defining principle
as the upper row in the rectangle
. As a result of
applying these two rows of incorrect equalities, the author of relativity obtains a different
law of motion in K (right-side system of equations) for the same body, for which he has already
shown what its law of motion in this same system K, is, at the very same time
(left-side system of equations).
Thus, what the author of relativity has derived is the outright impossibility that one and the
same body in one and the same coordinate system K obeys two different laws of motion
at the same time. This is a brazen absurdity, offensive to the intelligence of the reader,
to whom the fact that one body in one coordinate system always obeys only one law
of motion at any given time, is as trivial as any absolute truth, that can in no way be
the subject of any critical discourse, least of all in science.
Below, one can see more discussion on the deception used, in order to appear
that the observed “derivation” is legitimate. The deception used is to make the reader
forget Galileo's discovery that uniform translatory motion is akin to rest and
remain with the false impression that these states are different. According to Galileo's discovery,
the left side and the right side systems of equations referring to K in pages 61 and 62 in §10
) must concern one single state of the
electron and therefore must not differ, as they do in the pages shown.
The author, however, deceptively, treats these two systems
of equations as if they express two different states of the electron; namely, the left side system
of equations referring to an electron at rest, while the right side system of equations
referring to an electron in motion. This is clearly wrong.
REMOVAL OF RELATIVITY FROM PHYSICS IS INEVITABLE—The fact that relativity
derives the absurdity that one and the same
body in one and the same coordinate system K obeys two different laws
of motion at the same time, catastrophically invalidates relativity
in its entirety right here, in the pages shown. This inconspicuous
looking derivation, as if popping up in the middle of other things that
may appear more substantial, is, in fact, exactly the opposite. It is
not only the greatest absurdity science has ever seen in its entire
existence, but it constitutes the crooked pivot, the ailment of the
cuticle, the defective quick, that maladroitly holds together the whole insidious
edifice of contemporary physics. This problem, which one may not
pay attention to even when seeing it, especially if brainwashed that relativity
is absolutely impeccable, is in fact the defective core of the forcefully
imposed fake genius science, going by the name of “theory”
of relativity. Despite the misleading seemingness that there may be
other, more important sections of the theory, dwarfing this as a mere
correctable glitch, this singular discrepancy, hiding in the sea of formulae
and words, smoked out and shown here for the whole world to see, is
actually an unmatched dramatic scientific catastrophe of proportions
far outweighing any other thinkable problem in the history of science.
Once this catastrophic fact is found, nothing else, no matter how elevated
and learned it may seem when flipping the pages of the so-called “theory”
and progeny, no matter how complex the rest of the formulae appear,
makes absolutely no sense. Moreover, it has far-reaching consequences,
not only for science, but also for society as a whole.
UNDERSTANDING THE ARGUMENT IS CRUCIAL—Therefore, it is of utmost
importance that this catastrophe be understood
well, so as to sink deep in the consciousness of every thinking individual
as a red flag and a precaution against any attempt for this travesty
of science to be mitigated and thus allowed to persist in science. This
is a drastic, absolutely incurable catastrophic deficiency in one of
the most celebrated theories in the history of science. Freeing science
from it is of singular significance to the world, on par, if not of greater significance,
than the defeat of geocentrism by heliocentrism. The shown calamitous clash
of the Lorentz transformations with physical reality, provides a final
answer to what caused the destruction of the most basic notions of science—time
and space. The Lorentz transformations are the culprit that gives rise to
the insanity, occupying science for over a century, claiming that space
can be curved and time can have a different rate, depending on the coordinate
system in which it is measured. Now, with the
above proof, of catastrophic magnitude for relativity,
unequivocally confirming that application of the Lorentz transformations
leads to fatal disagreement
with reality, the correct understanding that only Cartesian space
is the real physical space and that time runs at the same rate, independent
of the coordinate system in which it is measured, marks its unquestionable,
Therefore, it is very important for one to spare some negligible amount
of time and effort, in order to understand and appreciate the significance
for all physics of the above-shown seemingly very small detail, a detail
as if buried amongst other more important stuff, but, in fact,
a seeming detail, deciding
the fate of a major part of contemporary physics, a finding of such
impact that no further development of physics is possible without a
major overhaul centered around that ostensibly tenuous, but actually singularly
BEING ABSURDITY, RELATIVITY IS INHERENTLY NOT TESTABLE—Relativity in effect
derives that one equals two (see link), which, being absurdity,
is also a derivation which no experiment can prove—there can never
be any experiment whatsoever that can confirm such a thing.
There may be insane experimenters, who might be obsessed with proving
experimentally that one equals two, as relativity in effect derives,
thus, attempting to prove the unprovable; that is, to prove the validity
of relativity. Need it be said, that these insane experimenters will
arrive nowhere in their efforts? Their pursuit is doomed from the get-go.
The above proof of the catastrophic problem in relativity must
put a stop to any attempt, let alone public funding, at
any hallucinatory ideas and dreams for experimental testing of relativity
GENERALIZATION OF THE ABOVE—To repeat, what is
shown here, is one of the most brazen absurdities
science has ever seen in its history. At that, it has been promulgated
to incredible prominence as the work of genius, stimulating further
barren activities, which, for their part, generate a barrage of “fake
news” in the media. Relativity is the mother of all this “fake
news”, leading further down the line to generating a plethora
of incredible “fake news” in the social sciences, avidly appropriated
by society at large. Every other “fake news” with which
society is bombarded, has in its heart of hearts the destroyed thinking
of relativity, endorsed by the highest societal authority there is pertaining
to matters of the mind, academia. The mess generated by this initial
kernel of inanity, but coming from what the population perceives as
the stalwart of truth; i.e., academia, has no limits and spreads like
What was shown is enough to obliterate relativity in its entirety. The
discovered catastrophic absurdity, presented above, proves that relativity
invalidates itself without any need for further testing for validity.
Clearly, anyone who claims to have evidence that one body in one system
can obey two different laws of motion at the same time, as relativity
derives, and therefore has confirmed relativity, is a charlatan.
Once again, it should not be forgotten that the culprit for the
above catastrophe is the construct known as Lorentz transformations. In addition to its
being physically inconsistent, two of the
four equations comprising Lorentz transformations (cf. the first row in
the rectangle drawn on page 62
are mathematically incorrect because they express equalities between a constant and a
variable. It is seen that constants expressing position and time in a given, observed, coordinate
system, having nothing to do with velocity
of another coordinate system,
external to the observed coordinate system,
are made equal to variables which are functions of velocity
(cf. the first row in the rectangle drawn on page 62
Thus, it is true that, even prior to their application, it can be seen right
away that the Lorentz transformations equate a constant to a variable
(more on this also later in the chapter), which makes them also mathematically
incorrect, in addition to their lack of physical meaning. One can stop at that,
rejecting outright anything that is based on these transformations, relativity included.
Parsing relativity, the way it is done here, however, is the easiest, yet rigorous,
in-your-face way to demonstrate the non-physicality of the Lorentz transformations,
unmatched in its promptness and categorical finality
by any viable argument debunking relativity known to date.
SOME MORE “ENTERTAINING” CATASTROPHES—The willingness of the
author of relativity to capitalize on the clear
absurdity brought about by the Lorentz transformations is stunning.
Thus, some may like to entertain themselves a little more with this
incredibly low-quality thinking, elevated to the skies as the ultimate
creation of a genius. In pages 52 and 53, the author will not blink an
eye when he derives exactly the opposite of what he pontificates.
Indeed, “[e]vidently the two systems of equations found for system
k must express exactly the same thing”, says the author of relativity.
However, it is seen most clearly that the two systems of equations found
by the author of relativity for system k unambiguously do not express
the same thing at all—the most glaring difference is that the
left-side system of equations found for system k contains
while the right-side system of equations, also found for system k, does not
contain velocity .
Neither is it true that “ ... both systems of equations are equivalent
to the Maxwell-Hertz equations for system K”. This fraudulent
statement is made by the author of relativity with the deceptive intention
to use it as justification of the false statement in the first part
of the sentence; namely, that “the two systems of equations found
for system k” express exactly the same thing. However, the left-side
system of equations of these “ ... both systems of equations”
found for system k, is obviously not equivalent to “the Maxwell-Hertz
equations for system K” seen on top of page 52.
The most important
difference is that the left-side system of equations found for system
k contains velocity ,
while the “the Maxwell-Hertz equations for system K”
seen on top of page 52, do not
contain velocity .
The author of relativity minds not these clear facts and goes ahead with what he has
connivingly pronounced as equal.
As a result, he makes equal two unequal
quantities—one a function of
the other not a function of
the bottom system of equations on page 53; the author illegitimately uses these wrong
equalities further in §10)—and
in this way he thinks he has achieved a great derivation the world has
never seen before. He looks you straight in the eye and lies, as if
lying like that is what great science is. Clearly, things are so twisted
that now the whole world is conditioned to think that doing great science
is to lie, and is ready to pay generously for that lie. If the excuse
is that the lie was so elaborately done that this offense to the intellect
of the reader has not been known, now we do know. The question is, what
are we going to do about it?
WHAT DOES THE PRINCIPLE OF RELATIVITY SAY?—Maybe
it will not hurt to show the explicit statement made by the author
of relativity, which in reality is Galileo's discovery, known as the
principle of relativity, without the author of relativity feeling the
need to give credit to Galileo; namely, that uniform translatory motion
is akin to rest; that is, that when the motion is uniform and translatory,
the physical laws are not affected when referred to the one or the other
of two coordinate systems in uniform translatory motion
(incidentally, exactly the way these equations are not affected
when the two systems are at rest). Here it is,
written in black and white on page 41
And, yet, as seen on page 62, shown here deliberately
side by side with page 41, the author of relativity nonchalantly violates
what he himself has set to be the definition of his theory. The Lorentz
transformations used on page 62 to refer the physical law to system
K, affect that physical law, in brazen contradiction to the definition
seen on page 41.
To see this illegitimate affecting of the law, the
reader does not even need to know what exact law that is. Count the
physical parameters. Looking at page 62 one sees that in the first line
of the system of equations referring to k, the number of parameters
is five, while the number of parameters in the first line of the system
of equations referring to K is six, if we count
as one parameter—the second expression is affected due to the
Lorentz transformations, in contradiction with the principle of relativity,
adopted as the definition, as the first postulate, of relativity. This
blatant discrepancy can be seen by anyone. No need to be a scientist
or some great sage, to be able to see with one's own eyes this difference,
in violation of the definition of the theory.
A Benign Exercise, Not Requiring Great Effort
Although overexplaining sometimes may cause more harm than good, especially
in the case presented here, whereby what has already been shown suffices
for a categorical unequivocal overthrowing of relativity and all Lorentz-transformations-based
theories, never to be heard from again, some may find more explanation
useful. Here is an exercise to further convince oneself, in even more
concrete technical terms, of the outrageously brazen presenting of relativity
as something which is nothing other than sheer nonsense.
This exercise is geared specifically
toward those more inquisitive readers who have not had the chance to
study maths in slightly more depth, especially those who have not taken
calculus. Clearly, this detailed explanation could be skipped. It is
obvious to those who have had some exposure to maths.
Let us begin. The crucial criterion for relativity to make sense is
for it to abide by its first postulate, a.k.a. the principle of relativity.
The principle of relativity, as also explained in another part of the
book, reflects the crucial discovery by Galileo that, contrary to what
Aristotle thought, there is one special type of motion, which, curiously,
is not motion at all. This special type of motion is called uniform
translatory motion (motion at constant velocity; motion without acceleration;
the state of an inertial system).
Therefore, most notably, uniform translatory
motion is akin to rest, despite the word “motion”, present
in its name. This type of motion is not operative; that is, it cannot
be felt, neither can it be detected by any physical experiment. Thus,
if two coordinate systems are in uniform translatory motion, any physical
law referred to (written in; seen from) one of the systems, is not affected,
if this same physical law is referred to (written in; seen from) the
other of these two systems in uniform translatory motion—when
a coordinate system is in uniform translatory motion with respect to
another coordinate system; that is, when the coordinate system is an
inertial system, there is, as said, no physical experiment that can
be performed that would indicate if that system is moving or is at rest
with respect to the other coordinate system. These two coordinate systems,
being in that particular state of motion with respect to each other,
behave as if they are at rest with each other. Hence, the principle
of relativity—what is in one of these systems is exactly the same
in the other system. Thus, relativity is oneness,
identicalness, and does not depend on the point of view; that is, it does
not depend on which of the two systems we would choose from which to
do the viewing. Some people incorrectly interpret relativity to mean
the opposite; that is, to mean that what the physical law would look
like depends on the point of view; that is, from what coordinate system
one views the physical law, affects the physical law. The uniformity,
the oneness explained, is given the compact name, principle of relativity.
This misunderstanding has given rise to the popular misnomer “everything
is relative”, allegedly coming from relativity, but, in fact,
From the above, it follows that if there were a physical law, which
we need to study, as the law under study in pages 61 and 62
, then this law must not be affected, as required by the principle
of relativity, both when referred to (seen from, written in) the one,
the coordinate system k, and when referred to (seen from, written in) the other,
the coordinate system K, of the two coordinate systems in uniform translatory motion.
The easiest way to ascertain that the law under study is not affected
when referred to the one or the other of the two coordinate systems,
and that, therefore, everything that was done
is in compliance with the defining principle of relativity,
without even the need to know what exactly this physical law is, is
to count the number of physical quantities in the equation representing
the law being referred to the one of the two systems, and then see if
that number of these same physical quantities corresponds to the number
of the physical quantities in the equation referred to the other coordinate
system. Clearly, to obey the principle of relativity, these two counted
numbers must be equal.
Suddenly, it may seem complicated but if one has patience, one will
soon see that the counting and comparing is no more difficult than playing
with an abacus, which, in fact, is more complicated.
Thus, count the quantities observed in the first row of the system of
equations shown on page 61
—the equation enclosed by an ellipse. One sees mass m,
position x, time t, charge of the electron ε
and the x-axis component of the electric field X. These are five
components, right? Some may say, wait a minute,
one also sees .
is not a physical quantity but is a mathematical symbol, indicating
a mathematical operation. Without going much into calculus, because
the argument at hand can be understood without having the slightest
clue about calculus, it will be mentioned that in this case the mathematical
is a part of the second derivative of x over t. What is
of concern to us here is that the number of physical quantities in the
equation observed, is five.
As is seen on top of page 62
, five is also the number of the physical
quantities in the first row—the equation also circled in ellipse—of
the system of equations referred to (written in; viewed from) k. The
only difference is that some of the five physical quantities are denoted
by a different letter. Thus, while mass m and charge of the electron
ε have retained the same notation (mass and
charge are not coordinates, subject to transformation when referring
a physical law to one or another of the two coordinate systems in uniform
translatory motion), the position x has become ξ,
time t has become τ and the x-axis
component of the electric field X has become X'. This
change of notation, however, is to be expected, because the physical
law is not referred to system K but this time is referred to coordinate
system denoted by lower case k—the coordinates in different coordinate
systems are named (denoted) differently, but they retain their meaning
of spatial and temporal coordinates. Therefore, the two equations are
not affected due to the change of coordinates. These two equations comprise
the same equation written in different coordinate systems with their
Now, what was seen, is the correct way of writing in k and K the physical
law under consideration. This is commonplace, because it is done according
to the principle of relativity, requiring that the physical law is not
affected; that is, requiring that at least the number of physical quantities
stays the same, when the two coordinate systems k and K are in uniform
translatory motion, as these coordinate systems are. In writing these
two systems of equations, although correct, the author has achieved
nothing, and he should have ended his attempt at creating a new theory
right here. It is the only way the law can be referred to k and K and
that one and only way is known since the times of Galileo. It is trivial.
Triviality comprises no new theory, and there is no alternate way to
refer physical law to k and K other than what was already done.
However, in his desire to make a discovery at any rate, even at the
expense of being completely ridiculous and absurd, the author of relativity
carries out an illegitimate referring of the studied physical law to
coordinate system K by using an illegitimate alternate way; namely,
by using the Lorentz transformations, which are,
in addition, mathematically incorrect to begin with—prior to their
application in any theory, the Lorentz transformations themselves constitute,
in fact, an impossible equality between a constant and a variable.
By using the Lorentz transformations, the author brazenly violates the
very fundamental definition of his own “theory” of relativity;
namely, the principle of relativity, the latter requiring, as strongly
emphasized, that the physical law is not affected when referred to the
observed k and K.
Indeed, in order to convince yourself that the principle of relativity
has been violated as a result of applying the Lorentz transformations,
count the parameters, in the very same way as above. In doing so, one
reconfirms that the number of physical quantities in the first row of
the system of equations at top of page 62—the equation also enclosed
by an ellipse—is five. This was done already. However, the first
row of the system of equations seen in the lower part of page 62—the
equation enclosed by an ellipse—contains two more parameters—one
of them is velocity ,
as well as speed of light c, which are part of the coefficient
after application of the Lorentz transformations, the number of physical
quantities in the same law, referred to the same coordinate system K,
now is seven and not five. The Lorentz transformations have illegitimately affected
the physical law when it is referred to coordinate system K. This
affecting of the law is
a catastrophic violation of the principle of relativity, a principle
which is adopted as defining the entire “theory” of relativity.
The principle of relativity, adopted as the definition of the “theory”
of relativity, mandates that the physical law is not affected upon referring
it to coordinate system k and coordinate system K; that is, the principle
of relativity mandates that at
least the number of the physical quantities should stay the same,
which it does not after applying the Lorentz transformations for the
purpose of referring the studied physical law to coordinate system K.
As seen, the catastrophe in relativity shows itself in two ways. This
is a double catastrophe. First, it is clearly seen that the Lorentz
transformations catastrophically violate the principle of relativity.
This is enough for the “theory” of relativity to be removed
entirely from physics. Over and above this drastic catastrophe, one
sees that relativity derives that one body in one coordinate system,
coordinate system K, obeys two different laws of motion at the same
time—one law having five physical quantities and a completely
different law containing seven physical quantities, both laws describing
the motion of one single body at the same time. This is an absurdity.
One body in one system can obey only one single law of motion at any
given time and cannot obey two different laws of motion at the same
time, as the absurd relativity derives. This second catastrophic absurdity,
likewise, is enough, only in its own right, to invalidate relativity
in its entirety. Relativity is so blocked and destroyed by invalidating
itself that one feels astounded by the magnitude with which that easily
discernable catastrophe has been overlooked, allowing this unprecedented
absurdity to take over the world, foisting itself on the world as the
work of genius.
A Detail Revealing Deception as a Method of
In the observed case regarding pages 61 and 62, both systems of coordinates,
both k and K, are without any doubt in uniform translatory motion. Indeed,
it is impossible to obtain, as has been done in the paper, the system
of equations in coordinate system k, a system which is explicitly stated
to be in uniform translatory motion (it is explicitly
stated that k has velocity
with respect to K and that velocity
is constant—indeed, one reads, “the electron, at the moment
when we give it our attention, is at the origin of the co-ordinates,
and moves with the velocity
along the axis of X in the system K”) and not have system
K also be in relative translatory motion with respect to k. Thus, the author's
conditional statement “[i]f the electron is at rest at a given
epoch” in K, is a manipulation (the pseudo-scientific lingo using
“epoch” and “ensues in the next instant in time”
notwithstanding). Such separation of rest from uniform translatory motion
is a deception. It is immaterial whether K is at rest or is in uniform
translatory motion with respect to k, because uniform translatory motion
is akin to rest according to the principle of relativity discovered
centuries ago by Galileo.
It is quite clear why the author of the bogus relativity has had the
nerve to rely on such a brazen deception. If the reader falls for the
deception and agrees that rest differs from uniform translatory motion,
then the bottom system of equations on page 62, written also for K,
would seem to refer to a system K in a different state from the state
in which system K was when the system of equations on page 61 was written,
and, therefore, any difference in law referring to K in these two different
states of K would seem justified—the electron in K would then
seem to be in two different states and, therefore, would obey two different
laws of motion. However, according to the principle of relativity, K
at rest with k, and K in relative translatory motion with respect to
k, is in exactly the same state. According to the principle of relativity,
uniform translatory motion is akin to rest. No physical law referred
to (written in, seen from) k is affected when this same law is referred
to (written in, seen from) K, independent of whether K is at rest with
k or K is in uniform translatory motion with respect to k.
Doing science by deception, as the “genius” does,
is what the world expects today and pays
for it generously. No one is seen to object to that, least of all the
highly positioned politicians governing the distribution of people's
Of course, we do not need to even talk about this reprehensible deception,
because relativity crashes irreparably as early as the first application
of the Lorentz transformations—it is seen on page 62, as well
as on page 52, that after the application of the Lorentz transformations,
the observed physical laws are affected. This affecting of the laws
is in catastrophic contradiction with the principle of relativity, inevitably
adopted, in its being an absolute truth, as the definition of the “theory”
of relativity put forth.
A Useful Mnemonic
By the way, when thinking about relativity, the absurdity of relativity
should immediately appear as a simple mental picture, as the shown forking
figure with pages 61 and 62 back to back (cf.
). I have specially drawn double
arrows, showing right away that what is one single system of equations
referring to (corresponding to, written in, seen from) the coordinate system denoted
by lower case k, becomes two different equations referring to (corresponding
to, written in, seen from) the coordinate system denoted by upper case K. This
is impossible. It is an absurdity because everything that is talked
about and done in pages 61 and 62 refers to just one body, at one given
moment; namely, the moment one gives it one's attention—one body
in one system can obey only one law of motion, and not two different
laws of motion, at the moment one gives it one's attention. To derive
that one body in one system obeys two different laws of motion at the
same time, as relativity derives, is a glaring absurdity.
PIVOTAL AUTHORITY—The above, which I suddenly discovered, by
the way, gives me the unquestionable ultimate authority, more than any official
recognition whatsoever, to write this book posing these
ostensibly sacrilegious, unheard of claims, that today's science is pummeled
by nonsense, mandating a total overhaul on
a fundamental level. This now is
clear as a sunny day. Furthermore, it should be mentioned that
it is this authority, provided by the unequivocal argument discovered, that allows me
to skip all the other abundant academic credentials and details about my personality,
who I am, where my degrees are from and how many peer-reviewed publications I have.
All this is completely irrelevant in the face of the catastrophic unequivocal proof
I have discovered and presented here,
concerning the absurdity of the most celebrated “theory” the
world has ever seen.
There may be some who would exclaim, so what? How can this
discrepancy, even so evident, be connected with the rest of the great
achievements arriving from relativity? Basic saneness, however, requires
knowing that when a theory contradicts its own definition, adopted as
postulate; that is, when it derives
absurdities, that theory is no more, ergo nothing can ever follow from
it, let alone great achievements. Anything that has relativity at its
basis and, more specifically, anything that has the Lorentz transformations
at its basis, is absurdity, nothing other than that. It has no place
in science, claims that great achievements have come from it being brazen
lies. Funding any research based on it with the billions of the taxpayer
dollars or euro, is a crime against humanity. The catastrophic absurdity
caused by the Lorentz transformations is irreparable. It cannot be amended one
iota by any development, be it a hundred or a thousand years on end.
MISUNDERSTANDING OF MOTION—AT THE HEART OF TODAY'S PHYSICS TROUBLE—Digging
deeper into the real heart of the problem, trying to pinpoint
that singular real generator, the real kernel of
the trouble in physics, artificially mired in complexities, one astonishingly
discovers that the culprit causing this trouble is nothing else but the misunderstanding
of the concept of motion, demonstrated in a major way, and as a most
blatant example, in the theory of relativity.
The main problem in that so-called “theory”, referred to
in this book as relativity, is the misunderstanding of the fact,
already commented upon earlier in the side note, discovered some four
hundred years ago by Galileo. Unlike Aristotle, who considered all
motion to be operative; i.e., to be felt, Galileo discovered
that there is one state of motion,
although containing in its name the word “motion”,
which is not motion
at all. The state in question is called uniform translatory motion.
Uniform translatory motion is akin to rest. When two coordinate systems
are in uniform translatory motion, a law of physics remains not affected
when written in the one or in the other of these two coordinate systems
in uniform translatory motion. Uniform translatory motion (a.k.a. motion
without acceleration, motion at constant velocity), is inoperative,
as mentioned, in other words such motion cannot be detected, adding,
once again, that the latter fact was discovered centuries ago by Galileo.
To be in motion per se, a body must also experience qualitative changes, in
addition to displacement in space. In order for a free body to be in
motion, its kinetic energy must change due to change of velocity, in
addition to change in position. Uniform translatory motion, as said,
takes place at constant velocity, ergo, during the time it takes place,
there is no change in its kinetic energy, there is no qualitative change.
Uniform translatory motion is not a motion in its true sense. Uniform
translatory motion does not exhibit qualitative changes spatially, in
order to qualify as genuine motion. One more thing which could be added,
but which will be discussed in greater detail elsewhere, is that when force is presented
fully, both with its temporal and with its spatial characteristics, and also
when the real displacement of a free body under the action
of this complete force is accounted for, that
inevitably leads at high velocities to the mass-energy relationship
E = mc2. This, together with Ampere's law,
expressing the mass-energy relationship, in fact, demonstrates the
classical origin of the mass-energy relationship, a relationship which relativity cannot
even derive and has nothing to do with, despite the aggressive
media campaign that it does.
There is no wonder that Newton's first law talks about rest on par with
uniform translatory motion. Because of compensation of the force
by equal in magnitude but oppositely directed counterforce, as required
by Newton's third law and expressed mathematically by Newton's second
law, to call these three laws,
laws of motion, puts the second and the
third in contradiction with the first law—the first law excludes
motion if the force is compensated, as it is in the third, which is
illustrated by the second law. The three Newton's laws in question are
correct laws but they are laws of rest, not laws of motion, as usually
presented. Discussing this is not the subject of the current text. It
is mentioned in passing, and its further analysis will be postponed
for some future time. Only as a heads-up, it would probably be worth
mentioning here also that Newton's second law only describes the temporal
characteristic of the force, and that is its static aspect. Force also
has a spatial characteristic which must be added to the temporal characteristic
of the force for a full description of the concept of force. The spatial
characteristic is connected with the change of velocity of the free
body under the action of the force, thus signifying that the free body
at hand is in motion.
UNDERSTANDING THE CATASTROPHE IS EASY, REMOVING IT IS DIFFICULT—Some
sort of recap of the above may not be redundant, if not for any
other reason, but because no matter how simple the explanation is defined,
by applying special efforts to define it as comprehensible as possible
for everyone to understand,
although, at the same time, being rigorous enough, some people still
do not get it and perceive it as something high up there, in the skies
beyond them. It is the usual conflict between something simple and the
disbelief by the people that it could be that simple, when they have been told
all their lives that it is so complex that only a few people in the
world are able to comprehend. Students at the beginning of the course
seem to hardly believe the instructor, even when the instructor tells
them that, say, chemistry is difficult because it is simple. There is
always a feeling in the student, building an unjustified barrier to
smoother comprehension, that the professor, having digested the material to fit
within the academic hour, is not telling him or her everything.
The diligent student eventually grasps, upon the completion of the
course, that such perception in most cases is out of place and what was
presented in the lectures is all there is to know about the subject,
at the present level of knowledge.
Thus, to rehash, misunderstanding of the concept of motion when incepting
the theory of relativity, has confused, to put it very mildly,
the author of relativity, so that he used
most uncritically the Lorentz transformations, which unlawfully affect
the physical law. The fact that the physical law is not affected when
referred to (when related to, when written in, when seen from) the one or the other
of two systems in uniform translatory motion, curiously, is pronounced
by its author to be the definition of the theory of relativity, and
he has even adopted it as the first postulate of that theory. Even more
curiously, the author of relativity brazenly violates that adopted principle
so nonchalantly, by mindlessly using the Lorentz transformations, as
if violation of the postulate of a theory, as if violation of the definition
on which the theory is based, is the most usual and acceptable act in
the world. It is not. Such violation is a gross act of making a theory
invalid. The Lorentz transformations, in their violation of the first
postulate of the theory of relativity, render relativity invalid in
CONSTANCY OF THE SPEED OF LIGHT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT—Having
detected this crucial flaw, obliterating the entire theory, one
cannot even reach the point of discussing the speed of light and the
flaw inherent in the second postulate, connected with the speed of light.
In view of the catastrophic violation of the first postulate, it makes
absolutely no sense to even mention the second postulate regarding the
constancy of the speed of light, or talk about anything else in that
so-called “theory”, for that matter. Thus, those who push
the idea that checking the claim for the constancy of the speed of light
is the crucial test for the validity of relativity are dead wrong. Relativity
has already invalidated itself by violating its first postulate. There
is nothing else at all to be done about it.
THE ABSURDITY FOLLOWING FROM THE LORENTZ TRANSFORMATIONS
PRECLUDES ANY FURTHER ACTIONS—Neither
can there be any further development in the form of progeny
theories, inferences and suppositions, stemming from that initial absurdity,
catastrophically messing up the conclusions when it comes to coordinate systems
in uniform translatory motion. The least one can figure out at once,
causing any such further efforts to be dropped, is that any further
development of that messed-up pseudo-theory will still include the Lorentz
transformations, which, in any development whatsoever, will still lead
to non-physical conclusions, to say nothing of the fact that the Lorentz
transformations are inconsistent purely mathematically, to begin with, as was
For instance, the Lorentz transformations in any development at all,
will always lead to the absurd conclusion that the rate of time changes,
depending on the velocity of the respective coordinate system. This
conclusion, however, contradicts the absolute truth that spatially coinciding
clocks are synchronous, which is another way of saying that, at a given
moment, in a given place, time can only have one single value. This
is an absolute truth. That is to say, clocks, independent of whether
they are at rest or are moving with respect to a coordinate system,
are inevitably synchronous with the clocks residing at rest in that
system at any moment of time. Note also, that the clocks, residing at
rest in that system at
any moment of time are always synchronous.
Therefore, contrary to what follows from the Lorentz transformations,
said moving clocks are also always
synchronous among themselves, showing time going at the same rate as
the rate of time shown by the stationary clocks. Thus, again, the Lorentz
transformations contradict that absolute truth. To say nothing of the
fact that the Lorentz transformations are themselves mathematically
Thus, consider, just for fun, the
absurdity stemming from the Lorentz transformations,
that the magnitude of a coordinate in a given, observed, coordinate system should
depend, according to these transformations, on the motion of a coordinate
system external to that observed coordinate system. It is, however, never
true that if one is oblivious to the fact that there is another coordinate
system, external to the observed coordinate system he or she resides in, and that external
coordinate system is in motion, than the length of a solid body placed
in the observed system will differ compared to its length when it becomes
known that there is an external coordinate system moving with respect
to the observed coordinate system.
If the above does not sound convincing enough to understand the non-physical
nature of the Lorentz transformations, which are also mathematically
incorrect, try to figure out what the length of the solid body residing
immovably in the observed system would be, while at the same time there
are two, or three, or a million external coordinate systems, moving
at different velocities with respect to the observed system. If, indeed,
the velocities of these external systems affect the length of the solid
body secured immovably in the observed system, then, the solid body
in question will have at the same time two, three or even a million
different lengths. Think about it, a unique single body, characterized
by millions of different lengths at the same time because we happen
to know that there are millions of external coordinate systems,
moving at different velocities.
If we are deprived from having such knowledge, then the observed body
will have only one length. It is the Lorentz transformations to blame
for arriving at such insanity.
It should be recalled that the above example
was given for a little entertainment.
The Lorentz transformations are immediately seen to lead to absurdities
just by looking at the shown pages 61 and 62
of the 1905 founding paper
of relativity, without torturing one's mind with paradoxical conundrums
such as the above, no matter how evident but still requiring some additional
pondering. There are an overwhelming number of similar thought gymnastics
examples, stimulated by something so inconsequential, as relativity.
One can practically never be able to encounter opportunities in science
such as the one provided by relativity, that could offer this kind of
mild, albeit silly, fun.
EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE? WRONG!—By the way,
and this is a rehash of what was said in the side note,
the theory of relativity
is supposed to mean trivially exactly that; namely, relating of a law of physics
to different coordinate systems during their uniform translatory motion
and failing to expect change in that law, failing to expect that the
law in question would be affected. There is nothing new in that concept, discovered some
four hundred years ago by Galileo. This clarification deserves
to be repeated. Thus, relativity ensures sameness
when the physical law is seen from different points of view. In other
words, nothing is relative, in the sense of being different when looked
upon from different points of view. This goes contrary to the popular
understanding that everything depends on the point of view because theory
of relativity had found so. Aside from the incorrect tendency to transfer
findings of physics outside of the realm of physics, the “theory” of relativity has never
proved such a thing; namely, that, say, rate of time would depend on
the coordinate system in which time is measured (furthermore, the “theory”
of relativity is an absurdity and therefore it does
not offer anything, least of all anything worthy of proving, anyway). Thus, the saying
“everything is relative”
is not only not true, but cannot have anything to do with that twentieth
century travesty of science, known as relativity.
ADDITIONAL MOCKERY OF SANITY BY RELATIVITY—
I would like to accentuate once again this ridiculous peculiarity of
relativity, which gets it into a “double trouble”. Relativity not
only violates its defining principle of relativity by using the Lorentz
transformations, which is more than enough for the theory of relativity, as well
as any theory utilizing the Lorentz transformations,
to never ever be mentioned again in any scientific context and discourse, but
relativity further makes that catastrophically incorrect result equal to
the correct application of the principle of relativity.
Thus, it will never be too much to repeat that over and above
that violation of the principle of relativity by using the non-physical
Lorentz transformations, which in itself is enough to invalidate
relativity in its entirety, is the incredible
mockery by the relativity author of the
reader's intelligence, by having the nerve to equate two clearly non-equal
quantities, ridiculously implying that in this way he has achieved an unheard of
derivation and a new insight into the nature of things. Here, one once
again sees doing science by deception. The most stunning thing is
that the world approves of it, loves it, and gladly showers it with
unheard of amounts of public money, incomparable to any money spent on any
decent scientific pursuit. This invokes some thoughts on this social problem,
which will be shared below, and which may not be unconnected with the overall
confused perception of society about the essence of science.
Public Confounding of Science
Public Confounding of Science
MASSIVE INDIFFERENCE—Thus, a major societal problem,
allowing for such travesty of science
to persist unobstructed, is that no one feels that uncovering that sort of
damaged thinking would be of any use either to themselves or to anyone else
in the world. No political party, no ideological center,
let alone entertainment industry, has any interest whatsoever in denouncing
this type of outrageous falsity. To the latter group it sounds more
like destroying their fun. Destroying their fun they perceive as the
worst offense, worse than any lie or manipulation of which they can
be the victim.
Paradoxically, even the fact that billions of dollars are being wasted
on nonsense, has no effect on them, even on the politicians, responsible
for distributing the wealth of the country, amassed by taxing the population.
Thus, while entertainers reflect only what they have been told, politicians
are in on this deceptive presentation of absurdity as science. They
are funding it, lest they are ready to part with the comfortable life
of a politician and the feeling of power that goes with it. What would
playing heroes by opposing the widely adopted absurdity and, as a result,
losing their job, bring them, other than ephemeral satisfaction of fulfilling
their duty? There are not too many people ready for such lofty privilege
at the expense of the practical needs of life. Besides, the general
feeling is: “Let the little boy have his day”. This is the
attitude, albeit the little boy is an organized group of sinister individuals
of no integrity, mistakenly comprehending themselves
as scientists and the “day”
the boy is having, costs the taxpayer many billions of squandered dollars.
ONE-WAY STREET—This disinterest of society in
the real state of science, is music to the ears of the dastardly acting academia,
also commented on elsewhere in the book.
Tragically, academia has given a home to deleterious participants,
whose main occupation is
to trick the taxpayer at the expense of reason, abandoning basic decency and integrity and
squandering the true tenets of real science. It has allowed them to take advantage of
its natural hermetic nature and enclose themselves even further in an impenetrable bubble,
to carry out an activity they deceptively call science, but which, in fact, has nothing
to do with it. Although paid for by the taxpayer, they have constituted themselves as the
only ones to decide what they will or will not do, what they would ascribe to or reject,
no matter whether or not it makes any sense at all. The taxpayer is excluded from
this decision and is expected to be solely the sponsor, despite the concealed abuse
of the most elementary rules of thinking by those in the bubble. No sponsor would have ever
agreed to back up such travesty of thinking, if it were not hidden from the sponsor by a wall
of specific language and terminology. This book has taken down that wall and the taxpayer
can see in plain sight the devastation of thought these elements have incurred. Will the taxpayers
continue to shed their hard-earned money to keep this travesty going? The answer
is, most likely, positive.
Was it not mentioned that the disinterest in how the taxpayer money is spent
is staggering, when it comes to the sponsorship of just anything which has managed to
acquire the label science, as far as the taxpayer is concerned?
A VERY SPECIFIC KIND OF NONSENSE—Notably,
destruction of science, which these occupiers devote
their life to, occurs
in some specific ways of deliberately instilling a particular
kind of senselessness, which was demonstrated above in a very concrete way. Not
just any senselessness qualifies for adoption by the contorted world of bad science,
controlled by the powers-that-be, pampering the squatters on the mentioned bubble.
To ambush the market of ideas, these
powers need a very specific streamlining
of the unreasonable, the best provider of which is relativity. Anything
else illogical, unreasonable, is pronounced a creation of sick minds,
a creation of crackpots. The pot calling the kettle black.
UNLIKELY CHARITY AND PRESUMED WASTE—At
this moment, it so happened, the
type of lunacy discussed in the previous chapter, allowing sheer
absurdity, exemplified by relativity, to be called science,
is what those in the bubble consider
a legitimate pursuit with which to occupy themselves and use
as an instrument to steal people's money.
However, it may so happen
that at some other time, some other asininity may appear to them to be
more attractive and more handy for burglarizing society
by calling it science. This new puerile decision
will not make the sponsor blink. The bubble
called science is a dedicated place where wasting money is presumed
and is taken for granted by the sponsor. It is perceived as mostly charity.
Does anyone ask the homeless what he or she will use the money for that a
passerby hands out? The American taxpayer, however, is not told that his or her tax
money would be disbursed for supporting science
under such a presumption. Now, after this book,
the taxpayer should know better ... dream on.
IMPENDING TIPPING POINT IF COMPLACENCY PERSISTS—Furthermore,
aside from the practical harm, the irrational, the unreasonable,
authoritatively promoted as something elevated to prestigious science,
spreads like the plague, and when that deterioration reaches a tipping
point, that may be the point of no return, which humanity hopefully
would have enough sense to resist and not allow.
There will be more said on this matter below.
DEMISE OF SCIENCE BY ADOPTING ABSURDITIES—THE
CENTRAL PROBLEM OF SOCIETY—Instilling
absurdities, such as the bogus relativity
discussed here, and placing them deeply in society's mind as a substitute
for real science, is the actual generator of the problems in society
at large. These absurdities also ultimately lead to
low quality of thinking and distrust of science. Below, more will be said also on
how the degradation of thinking affects society so bad that it not only damages the
national security but is a threat to the existence of the entire Western civilization.
CONFOUNDING OF SCIENCE WITH TECHNOLOGY—Before discussing that,
we will stop our attention to another factor
which contributes to the muddled state of thinking about science. Thus, when
analyzing science and its current degradation by adopting absurdities, a special
attention must be paid to the confounding of science and technology in society.
When ruminating on this matter, it is especially important to begin with
the understanding that science and technology do not overlap, even if
science is an honest pursuit, mentioned above as its desired state,
and, unlike what is seen today. Science and technology do
not overlap even if the guidance of science is proper
and technology does benefit from it.
Science and technology are two
distinct human activities. Science is not just another name for technology,
as is the usual insinuation imposed by the media on public opinion.
They are different. Science and technology differ in their goals. Science
does not seek direct practical application of its achievements, as technology
does, but sets the stage for the general understanding of how nature
works and, if properly functioning, is the basis of correct
thinking. Without such understanding,
based on proper science, all practical endeavors will lack
the basic glue, which turns them into achievements of civilization,
not just the stone hammers and tools of the cave man.
Physics and chemistry, properly functioning, are not only what
one understands under science in its full meaning, but are the basis of correct thinking.
Destroy the fundamentals of physics, as they are destroyed today, and the whole society
experiences the repercussions.
Science is about ideas. It brings about new knowledge. Technology is about things and
services. It juggles with the known to produce things and services of
of American society,
and elsewhere, incorrectly puts an equality sign between science and
technology. As a result, no scientist has even the remotest chance of
receiving support from a private investor, if the scientist openly states
his or her true intentions that, although very important to science
and to the advancement of human thought in general,
his or her findings have no foreseeable direct practical application,
assuring prompt return on investment.
This puts the major chunk of funds in support of science predominantly
in the government's hands, controlling the money of the taxpayer. This
attracts myriads of grey manipulators who surround the government officials,
“silently advising” them as to which way the taxpayer money-flow
dedicated to science should go. Once these grey manipulators have their
heyday, government can be tricked into funding even outright nonsense, as
is happening today. This forces desperate scientists, in need of financial
support, to invent fairy tales, promising the world to investors. These
needy scientists, not too few of them, feel they must redirect their
efforts to scrape the barrel for some commercial outcome of their purely
theoretical, non-practically applicable, studies, natural for real science,
even when there is no commercial outcome. Important scientific research
usually has no commercial application. Twisting it to squeeze out marketable
products, only causes severe deformation in the process of making science,
as a rule, lowering its quality.
This is the breeding ground for bad science, born out of despair, in
its striving for survival, relegated to
presenting itself as something it is not.
There are also other factors, discussed later in the text, other than
perceiving technology as science, which are the architects of the dark
edifice of bad science ruling today, the prime offender being
upholding, through vast public financing,
of absurdities in science, such as relativity
TECHNOLOGY SOMETIMES BENEFITS FROM SCIENCE—Technology
occasionally benefits from a scientific achievement—technology
looks around for practically useful outcomes, including if they
come from science, although science itself never has such goal. Below,
when talking about the practicality of America, the social climate of
America will be noted, which, being conducive to technical innovations,
especially if they have a business potential,
brought into mind-boggling prominence dry, obscure academic ideas, created by
the academic thought of Europe.
TECHNOLOGY AND ABSURDITY ARE INCOMPATIBLE—Manipulators can
present absurdities to look like science, so that they can steal billions
of dollars from the taxpayer, under the lofty pretense, which is actually false, that
these billions of dollars will be spent for doing science. This
fraud is occurring today on a vast scale. These manipulators,
however, are powerless when trying to foist absurdities as a substitute for
technology. One thing technology would never substantively
appropriate, although visibly it may be beguiled to appear so,
is absurdities, even if they come from something
haughtily pronounced as science, no matter how
entrenched these absurdities are in what some may falsely call science.
Appropriation of absurdities by technology will cause the bridges to
collapse, the buildings to crumble and the airplanes to crash in midair.
A cow will never confuse ground bricks for fodder, no matter how much
pseudoscience would try to substitute one for the other, praising such
substitution as the non-intuitive approach of a genius.
WRONG SCIENCE HARMS THE WHOLE SOCIETY—Aside
from technology being immune to the destruction
of the fundamentals of science, it may appear from a narrow
perspective, that the everyday scientific activities themselves
may never be affected by the wrong understanding of science fundamentals. For example,
it would make not one bit of difference if one believes or does not
believe that space can be curved or that time can have a different rate in
different coordinate systems, when studying kinetics of a chemical reaction.
Consider, however, that whether or not it is wrongly understood
that the earth is the center of the universe would also make no difference in the
study of that chemical reaction's kinetics. Yet, the
discovery of heliocentrism is considered one of the greatest discoveries of science.
Misunderstanding of such basic notions of science would make no difference, not only
regarding most of the everyday scientific research, but would make no dent in
your everyday life either, when taking the subway to work in the morning.
Yet, Copernicus and Galileo enjoy central praise when the public hears about science, and
the family, sitting at the dinner table, hears from the TV about astounding discoveries
of black holes, dark matter and even time travel, on top of
not even suspecting one bit that what it hears is “fake news”. These “astounding
discoveries”, about which the dining family hears, would not be possible if curvature of space
and changing of time rate, as bogus as they are, were not adopted as legitimate concepts.
On the other hand, the family at the dinner table almost never hears from the TV
as a great achievement, how a rate of a chemical reaction has been increased.
Why is there such a great discrepancy between what affects people's everyday life and
what is presented as great science but has no tangible effect on the daily routine
of the average person? Why is, then, the alleged curvature of
space and change of rate of time, their bogusness notwithstanding,
as well as the fact that the earth is not
the center of our solar system, so important in determining the news people hear, if the
understanding of these notions, correct or wrong,
does not affect these same people in their day to day routine?
In actuality, the evident pragmatism of technology aside, considering
idealistic science itself, in the long run, not only is the activity
of the scientist, but also the life of society as a whole, affected
when basic scientific notions are confused. Even pragmatically
speaking, given that practicality is attributed as a goal only to technology,
capable of developing full well without a trace of new knowledge production,
if we are to consider science itself, it must be remarked that,
in the long run, wrong science as a factor
affecting society, is not as innocuous for
the life of society as it might be thought of. A scientist
is not alone in this world, and developments
of the world do not end with his or her own studies, say, in chemical kinetics.
A scientist and his or her studies are a part of the functioning of the whole complex
organism of science and society. The negative impact of wrong general scientific
ideas ultimately is sneaking through the invisible channels of societal
interaction, and sooner or later is felt with great strength by society
as a whole. Later, more will be said on how the ravaged quality
of scientific thought may affect preventing and defeating even existential world calamities,
threatening in a very tangible way the national security, and even the life
of every individual in the country. Paradoxically,
although this negative impact to society is real,
society shows the least concern regarding
the squandering of billions of tax dollars for
bogus studies, but which the propaganda pounced on every family sitting around the dinner table
through its channels of disinformation. Everyone is so deliberately
dumbed down that he or she becomes oblivious
to the fact that his or her own interest is being harmed.
Commercials work that way but, in the first place, commercials are about
one or a couple of real tangible products, for which only a
small section of society spends its money. The ill propaganda of the absurd science
is after the money of the entire society.
AGAIN ON THE APPEARANCE THAT SOCIETY CAN MOVE ALONG EVEN WHEN SCIENCE IS ABSURD—We will
continue the above reflection on the relation between a fundamental discovery and its
significance for the life of society, because not only is it important to understand that
relation better, but also because the conditions of
detachment under which relativity, as pronounced absurdity, harms society,
are also unique in the history of science. Consequently, the
discovery presented here, that relativity is absurdity, even if
it is finally adopted, and it is comprehended that it leads to rejection
of relativity in its entirety, will still leave some with a sense of
unease regarding the impact of that discovery on society at large. It may falsely appear
that one is witnessing a case similar to other
instances in history, whereby society has been moving along, despite
confusion in the fundamental matters of science. For example, even the understanding
as to whether or not the sun rotates around the earth or vice versa
had not had even the slightest visible effect on the lives of the individual
persons in a society, confused about the issue. Thus, the wrong view
was held onto for many centuries. However, here comes the hiatus, which may help us
understand one aspect of the difference of a theory becoming defunct in the eyes of society,
and relativity, which
was invalid from the moment of its inception, but is able to float unassailed in the
societal space. The wrong geocentric view was held on to for centuries, until, eventually,
after categorical proof for heliocentricity was discovered, the wrong idea about the
earth being the center around which the planets revolve, was found to
stand in the way of the philosophical and ideological progress of humanity
and was shed from science. The reason was not the least also utilitarian—wrong
astronomy did not serve the expanding empires well, using naval navigation.
That practicality required correcting the astronomical views but that
took centuries. The excuse for this longevity of the wrong idea is that
humanity still, throughout all these centuries, did not have the right
instrumentation to uncover the natural truth of heliocentrism, the chance
to have geniuses with the foresight of Copernicus and Galileo notwithstanding.
RELATIVITY CANNOT QUALIFY EVEN
AS A REGULAR DEFUNCT THEORY—Thus, one lacuna in
the view that the wrongfulness of relativity is just like the fate of any other
defunct theory in science, is that relativity does not have this excuse—its
untruth, to put it mildly, can be detected on the spot, as unequivocally
shown above. It invalidates itself. No experiments with any, be it
primitive or advanced instruments, are needed to know that.
It would be offensive even to the defunct
theories in science to consider relativity
as part of their pool. It is not the first time that humanity
has been assaulted by false prophets,
but history can hardly offer a false prophet of such destructive, low
quality, but having powerful and widespread impact
on the highest levels of the humanistic
essence of mankind, as is the foister of relativity.
RELATIVITY IS NOT HISTORICALLY INNOCENT—Aristotle's
teachings have survived for many centuries, until more precise measurement
methods and developments were to come about, in order to reveal the wrongfulness
of his claims. The same applies to every wrong and eventually rejected
theory in science. A wrong theory
in genuinely developing science is historically innocent, as it were.
A theory becoming superseded is a natural process for the developments in real science.
The world, however, has never
seen an imposition on so large a scale of an internally contradictory
creation, such as relativity, whose absurd falsity is, at that, so obvious
and with the potential of rejection so prompt, that there is no need
to wait for decades or centuries to pass, in order to see that falsity and potential
for prompt rejection. Historical innocence is inapplicable to relativity, which could have been detected
as worse than wrong, as absurd, as early as one hundred years ago, as
it is detected now. Development of experimental instruments and methods,
least of all development of scientific thought,
has no role in the clear, prompt debunkability, in fact,
self-invalidation, of that absurd theory at any time in history.
This situation with the obviousness of relativity's more than inadequacy,
its outright absurdity, and yet its long stay, is vapidly unrecognized.
It resembles the placing of one's valuables somewhere in an obvious
place, to protect them from robbers. Put these valuables almost in plain
sight and it will not occur to the robber that they would be so easy
RELATIVITY IS USELESS FOR ANYTHING,
IT IS GOOD FOR NOTHING, AND SO IT IS LEFT ALONE, WHICH,
PARADOXICALLY, PROTECTS IT—Furthermore, unlike the
above-discussed societal pressures, which drove out Aristotelianism
and made way for the establishment of the new views, symbolized by the discoveries
of Copernicus and Galileo, the tragedy for society with relativity is
that neither science nor practice has
any need for it. This allows relativity to have its own independent life, unchecked by
any external governing authority, providing it profusely
with the taxpayer financial fuel,
thus, allowing it to keep debasing science and society
undisturbed. In this way, it can waste society's resources for as long as needed by
those milking society through it. In other words, if a party manages
to install in society's mind that an absurdity such as relativity is
worth spending taxpayer money on, then the politicians, who are appointed by
society, have no other
choice but to follow suit and readily deplete the wealth of the nation
on matters, which a sober society would be appalled to consider spending
money on. This outpouring of waste can continue as long and as abundantly,
as the managers of this evil spending are allowed to
act unaccounted for. Thus, relativity is not only a very specific type of
wrongfulness, never heard of before in science, but it has positioned itself
as untouchable because the damage it incurs has no visible signs, other
than its own inadequacy, while, at the same time, subversively
undermining society intellectually, as any untouchable totalitarian ideology does.
Therefore, those who decide which way the wealth of
society dedicated to science should go, must not wait for external
telltale signs to alert them that something illicit is going on, but
should address the problem head on. Those who decide which way the wealth of
society dedicated to science should go, must not wait to see collapsing bridges,
crumbling buildings and the airplanes crashing in midair, in order
to convince themselves that relativity is absurdity and deserves spending of no
public money. These decision-makers must address the problem
itself; that is, they must address the
naked fact that relativity is absurdity, and only as such, it must not enjoy even a
whit of public support. At that, the problem must be addressed by them
personally, not allowing interested parties to interfere under the
guise of experts. This book provides sufficient evidence for such
categorical determination, which said authorities can accomplish
by themselves sans the “quiet advising” by exactly those who deservedly, must
lose the support of the taxpayer.
IS TECHNOLOGY NOT ENOUGH?—A discussion follows, answering
the question, if technology supplies
us with all one needs to live, then, why does one need science and why
should one be at all concerned about the health of science? Do
even those who deal with the details of partial sciences,
previously commented on that their studies do not directly
experience the effect, nevertheless,
feel the harm, in a more general sense,
due to the overall damaged thinking from the confusion of motion, time and space?
A human being is not a biological specimen who only cares for his or
her well-being and pursues only material happiness. Knowledge about natural
phenomena gives a person confidence of existence and rids the soul of
atavistic fears and prejudices. It is an expression of real freedom,
which, not being directly pragmatic in itself, allows the individual
to be more efficient even in his or her utilitarian needs and pursuit
of happiness. Generation of new scientific knowledge,
just as a masterpiece in the fine arts, is not something
which tangibly puts food on the table or feeds one's cow, but ensures
an overall better sense of how the world functions, so the individual
can be a better participant in that functioning. It is a natural
inclination for the human being to be curious, to know about new things
and ideas, ostensibly for the mere sake of knowing them, without the
need to pay for that knowledge or to turn that knowledge into a means
of sustenance. The fact that production and transfer of scientific knowledge
is turned into business nowadays is an aberration. The sake of knowing
something is not some futile need in humans. Acquisition of new knowledge,
production of knowledge, to put it in more industrial terms, is not
an end in itself but builds an advanced, let alone
correct, way of thinking and comprehending
the world, which is the prerequisite to draw adequate conclusions
about the dangers facing the world and the ways to confront these dangers as well as
to improve the world. Although science is not about solving problems, but is about
understanding the essence of things and phenomena, a learned person
has use for it. He or she sees more connections among things and phenomena,
helping him or her to find more efficient shortcuts. Such liberation
of the soul, provided by scientific enlightenment about the natural
world, is the heart of true happiness. This is the essence of what is
known as civilization, along with the material progress ensured by technology.
Material progress alone, however, provides only the shell of existence
and if that's all there is, there would be only emptiness all around. Imagine
a beautiful resort with no people, only robots serving you.
That would be a bland existence, wouldn't it?
The bland existence in the dehumanized atmosphere of the
purely technologized world may not even be the worst outcome from the
turning of every pursuit into an exercise in utilitarianism. Losing the ability
to think and analyze, which is the prerogative of correct science, may
put in jeopardy our very existence on earth, as discussed further.
Therefore, those who usurp the
noble cause of science with absurd surrogates, falsely calling them
science, commit an intellectual crime against humanity, against democracy
and basic integrity and decency.
WHY SHOULD WRONG SCIENCE BE CORRECTED?—Wrong science must
be corrected, not only because it drains society
financially, dramatically stealing colossal funds, which should go for
proper science, for real science, but also because wrong science, let
alone absurd science, as is the fundamental science of today, has bad repercussions
on the general life of society, and especially on its
quality of thought, essential
for life on earth. The intellectual mess in physics, allowing
for absurdities to pass as science, putting up with the internal contradictions
of relativity, allowing begging the question (petitio principii)
and other violations of logic on which quantum mechanics is based, has
led to incredible confusion in philosophy, further seeping into the
so-called social sciences. How can one expect a society to function
well when its guiding ideas are occupied by confusion? One cannot.
C.I. NONINSKI AND THE ABSURDITY OF QUANTUM MECHANICS—By the way,
speaking of quantum mechanics, it may be interesting to note
even in this book focused on relativity, that the real
generator of the insanity, known as quantum mechanics,
its beginning flawed birthmark, was uncovered by C. l. Noninski in his
crucial 1964 paper, analyzing Planck's 1901 founding paper. C. I. Noninski
uncovered the physical nature of the flaws, which led to the introduction
into science of the inadequate idea that a body contains quanta of energy,
while the correct idea, in fact, implicitly admitted but unnoticed by
Planck, is that what it really means is exchanging energy, which is
typically in portions (quanta). This is a purely classical idea, to which
quantum mechanics must return. C. I. Noninski also
provided a derivation of the blackbody radiation formula by correctly
applying classical physics. Later on, V. C. Noninski, the author of
this book, was able to pinpoint the formal mathematical inadequacy of
quantum mechanics, especially the mathematical, respectively, physical
inconsistency of the main postulates of quantum mechanics. However,
the easiest, most categorical and in-your-face demonstration of the
absurdity, when it comes to the fundamentals of contemporary physics,
this author was able to show in the case of relativity.
OSSIFYING ABSURDITY—Unfortunately, modern society
has created ways to set in stone whatever
it has decided to pass as science, independent of the quality or veracity
of whatever it has pronounced as science. Award a Nobel prize to pseudo-science,
build a monument and pronounce the holder of absurd views a hero and
a genius, and the place of caricature science seems ensured for eternity.
Ways to undo the travesty become more limited the greater the entrenchment
in society's mind the farce presented as science becomes. Renaissance
criteria employing logic and reason to search for the truth, developed
through so much pain and suffering, over the course of three centuries,
have been abandoned in the last hundred years or so.
Bad science, indiscriminately promoted, as relativity has been, sets
the most subtle perceptions of the population in directions at odds
with physical reality. Drugs have a similar effect but they are banned
by the government. Science has a special influential position in society,
the latter relying on science's findings to judge the state of matters in
nature. When the findings of science have nothing to do with reality,
let alone are absurd, that judgment is distorted, causing only harm
Religion, as opposed to science, does not have this role.
Religion represents beliefs which people hold. These beliefs can vary
widely without affecting the integrity of society, provided society
has separated church from state, as is the case in the USA. Science,
on the contrary, very much an element belonging to the structure of
state, weakens society if preposterous individuals,
odiously promoted as scientific
authorities, foist nonsense on society as truth, contradicting even absolute
truths. Promoting as scientifically sound a “theory”, which
derives, in effect, that one equals two, as relativity
does (see link), and, furthermore,
falsely claiming that there exists experimental
proof for the validity of such “theory”, demoralizes
society and turns its intellect into farcical vaudeville,
which is not even amusing. “Anything goes”
becomes the norm. There is
no greater harm to Western society than to have it demoralized, to have
it lose its way, sunk into the irrational fear and paranoia of such
“anythinggoism”. No enemy actions can compare to the self-inflicted
harm a society would incur upon itself by allowing bad science, absurd
science, an oxymoron, such as relativity, to be presented and entrenched
as good science, as proper science.
THE OFFICIAL CHANNELS ARE INACCESSIBLE TO CRITIQUE
OF FUNDAMENTALS OF SCIENCE—The problem, which those
willing to correct matters face, is that the
powers-that-be, which are foisting bad science such
as relativity, as legitimate, push relativity to appear final, a closed subject, prone
to no further questioning. The presenting of bogus science, epitomized
by relativity, as the final word of science, is another subtle but most
efficient harm to society, which may take generations to heal. Furthermore,
the healing of science, the necessary removal of relativity, is not
a simple matter. In a way, such healing is similar to that of a cancer
patient with many metastases, whose removal is impossible because it
would mean harming vital organs. That intervention, not the cancer itself,
may cause imminent death.
Consider what an overhaul such removal of deeply ingrained erroneous
notions would comprise. The toxic shadow of the bogus “theory” in question
is cast everywhere over the natural sciences. The Lorentz transformations
construct, absurd both mathematically and physically, has been formally
used to derive what is known as the spin quantum number of the electron,
thus, unsuccessfully patching the deficiency from the Schrödinger
equation's inability to derive it. Such deficiency, alone, should render
quantum mechanics invalid—Schrödinger's equation comprises
one of the postulates of quantum mechanics. Therefore, there should be
no characteristics of the so-called quantum world that cannot be derived
from that equation. Electrodynamics is wrought with applications
of Lorentz transformations. Particle physics draws its conclusions
using Lorentz transformations. Remove the Lorentz transformations
and it will have no legs to stand on to maintain its models. Abandoning
the “theory” in question, referred to here by the sobriquet
relativity, cannot occur without cosmology as understood today, string theories
and the parts of astrophysics, based on the absurd Lorentz transformations,
experiencing complete demise and falling into oblivion.
OVERCOMING PROPAGANDA IS TOUGH—Propaganda can make up anything,
as is well known, and that is all the more true for relativity, assisted
by a plethora of prominent advocates, spreading less than deserved theatrical
accolades across the worldwide media and vigorously preventing justified
criticism. Propaganda will never cease
to wrongfully insist that relativity has
been confirmed experimentally many times, and that untruth is blindly accepted
by society as a given. This is an opprobrium and ignominy of science.
How can it be emphasized more that through this document, this book,
which proves clearly that none of the phantasms claimed to be “conclusions''
of relativity, not only has no basis in reality, but is inconsistent even
within the framework of the “theory” itself, as are the
unfortunate characteristics of every internally
What special instruments of endorsing comprehension must be used, for
this conclusion to be heard loud and clear, obliterating any possible
advocacy of the absurd? This call will remain a voice in the desert.
Holler as much as you want in a room full of the deaf that the
building is set on fire, your only listeners will be the bugs in the
cracks of the floor.
THE SAD LUCK OF THE WORLD—A needy
consolation is, if an intellectual person can bear such a thought, the factually poor status
of science in our consumer society.
Such status is devastating in the long run, as discussed. However, paradoxically,
the neglect of real science today, nonchalant about it being mired in confusion and absurdity,
which will ultimately lead the world
into the hopeless abyss of the irrational, seemingly saves the contemporary world, in
a very twisted way, by not
having science directly interfering in its short-term practical development.
It is technology that has been delegated by our society today to serve
as the avatar for science in matters
of societal advance, and that is the sad myopic luck of today's world.
SURROGATE SCIENCE AND ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE—The
surrogate science of today, however, may not
survive for long, despite the extraordinarily desperate
measures and manipulations, allowing
it to govern today. It may be around for the foreseeable future but further
on in the future, it will fade away, as even lesser confusions in the
history of science have inevitably found their demise. Needless to mention
Artificial Intelligence (AI) coming to the fore, which will not tolerate
internal contradictions, lest it agrees to self-destruct. Humanity did
not have the Artificial Intelligence tool, and yet, it was able to correct
its confusions in the past. With AI, that correction would become even
easier. The question is, shall one wait for AI to take over, especially,
since, as seen above, anyone can, at this very moment, unequivocally establish at once
that relativity is absurdity and justifiably request
ousting it from science? Will the powers-that-be hear that justifiable request or
will they continue to allow harm to society and demise of Western civilization,
by continuing to pretend that the absurdity of relativity is invisible and keep
supporting its intellectually devastating entrenchment in science?
OTHER IDEAS WRONGLY PUSHED TO APPEAR
the inappropriate passing of widely advertised ideas
as solid science, such as those of climate
change, allegedly due to human activity, also impairs and in some
cases, destroys the understanding of what really constitutes a scientific
fact and a scientific theory.
There cannot be a scientific theory if it is not based on scientific
facts. The ultimate establishment of a scientific fact is when it is
seen directly in the pages of a published purported theory, the way
it was possible to be done here, whereby the fact that relativity is
absurdity is seen directly in the pages of its founding paper.
Such deductive establishment
for a scientific fact is a crowning possibility for achievement in science.
Less straightforward is when it is not possible to establish scientific facts in
any other way than through
experiments. Great experiments have been done historically, which have led to
indubitable conclusions as well, but for that to be achieved those experiments had to
allow application of the strict criteria defined by the scientific method.
Thus, in experimental studies, in order for an observation to qualify as a
scientific fact, it must be established by reproducible experiments,
carried out under controlled conditions.
Ensuring controlled conditions
to carry out experiments in studies such as climate change is impossible, let
alone repeating these experiments under controlled conditions, in order
to establish their reproducibility and thus guarantee the reality
of the claims. The most anyone interested in climate change studies
can do, is to carry out observations and look for some limited sample
of telltale signs, as well as have at hand some very limited historical,
geological and geophysical data, intrinsically insufficient to draw
categorical conclusions. These natural limitations in the study of long
term behavior of climate are a detriment and must not be put aside as
a result of blowing political winds, demanding categorical answers.
There cannot be unequivocal answers regarding the world's climate and
no party should present it otherwise. The hybrid science of climate
change is akin to observational sciences, such as zoology and botany,
let alone archaeology, based mostly on classifications of the hitherto
known species or artifacts and conjectures therefrom. These classifications
and the entire conjectural body of these sciences may undergo full revamping
with any future new discovery of a species or an artifact. Some of these
alleged sciences are on their way to approaching the only real full-fledged
sciences, physics and chemistry, by further greater formalization, as
well as further delineation of their subject and discovering scientific
laws pertaining only to them. However, there are disciplines, which
are inherently doomed to their semi-scientific or even quasi-scientific
existence. History, for example, can never become real science in the
full sense of the word, not only because of the popular adage that
it is written by the winners, but, most importantly, because it is impossible
in principle to carry out reproducible experiments under controlled
conditions, required by science per se. Such is the science
of climate change as well, as mentioned. One may
extend the examples of areas cursory to real science, to any society-related
discipline, such as sociology, economics, epidemiology or migration, to give a few examples.
Because of the complexity of the subject of study, mostly due to the lack of any possibility to
control the pertinent parameters during their studies,
the scientific character of conclusions is usually wanting,
applying elements of mostly unreliable statistics, being
just about the most that can be done. Instead, all
efforts are directed toward achieving results, a technological kind of goal; at that,
many times predominantly by applying mechanical separation and brute force,
methods foreign to the essence of the problem. Real science would seek to
understand the essence, as its primary occupation.
A significant mark of the limited scientificity, if not the symbol of weakness, of
the conclusions connected
with the mentioned so-called social sciences, is the need for peer-review, in order
to achieve a consensual feel for the probability of the reality of a conclusion. This is the
most that can be done in those disciplines, in which it is not possible to reach solid,
let alone unequivocal, conclusions,
not even mentioning the deliberate garbling of news as well
as imposing media blackout of inconvenient facts, done for political correctness,
or manipulations used for chantage of the political opponent. Thus, the lesser the role
of peer-review, the more a conclusion
approaches a conclusion of real science. It is not even needed to mention again the
non-sequitur of peer-review in the case of relativity, which, if
peer-review did matter, relativity
would have never been permitted on the territory of science. In the case presented here, the role of
peer-review is irrelevant because anyone, even a person without any knowledge or
expertise in science can discern the catastrophic discrepancy shown. The most he or
she has to do is to spend some very limited time to understand what is presented.
He or she may spend even more time and effort when reading the labels of the
goods in a supermarket.
CLIMATE CHANGE IS REAL—We may dwell a
little further into the question of climate change, in view of the unrestrained
propaganda to make it a central issue of public policy, turning it even into a
subject of international legislation, noting that in
case of climate change, there is a nuance, to which attention must be given.
Academics who subscribe to the view that climate change is real, are
doing nothing unusual. Their opinion cannot be given in support of the
human effect on climate change. That climate change takes place, is
trivial. It is an obvious, inevitable fact, in no need of further proof.
There are, however, academics who may be seen subscribing to the view
that it is the human activity that causes climate change, but this is
an obviously unsupportable view, in principle, because of the above-stated
impossibility to carry out reproducible experiments under controlled
conditions, which is the only way to reach conclusive proof for such
a view and to consider such view scientifically founded. Such a prerequisite
for calling anthropogenic climate change a scientifically founded fact
cannot be snubbed in order to serve political purposes, if the integrity
of what comprises science is to be preserved.
THERE IS NEVER A WANT OF ACADEMIC OPPORTUNISTS—In
this regard, having academics opportunistically putting themselves
in servitude to the political climate (no pun intended) of the day,
it is not to be forgotten that there are academics who
also subscribe to the absolute validity of relativity and are completely
blind to the dramatic falsity, unequivocally proven here, of relativity and progeny.
To be blind to such an obvious absurdity is beyond wrong, especially when the obligation
of an academic is to uphold the centerfold of science, truth.
This author has been told by academics that they can prove any
theory if they are paid well. To the objection that he or she does
not even know what the theory actually is, the answer was that for
fifteen thousand dollars a month “I will prove any theory“; “help me get
a Fulbright stipend and I will prove any ethnic theses I am hired to
prove“, this author was once told. Moral collapse, lack of integrity and
principles, is the character of academia today.
Therefore, subscription to a view by an academic,
or by no matter how many more academics and sage authorities, is not
one bit a measure or proof for the veracity of a claim.
ACADEMIC OPPORTUNISTS BENEFITTING FROM RELATIVITY FALTER IN THE FACE
OF THE SHOWN UNEQUIVOCAL PROOF—Notably, however,
unlike the wishy-washy atmosphere around chronically unprovable
claims, such as the human effect on climate change, allowing alleged
academics ample room for finagling, such dishonest, only politically-driven
academics, really falter when they meet with the unequivocal proof presented
here that relativity and progeny are beyond incorrect. They are absurd.
THE ULTIMATE SCIENTIFIC PROOF—What is shown here, is the
ultimate scientific proof there could ever
be, when it comes to a discovery in science; namely, concluding
that a theory is absurd by detecting catastrophic
internal contradiction in the very pages where
that purported theory is published. It so happened that this
ultimate scientific proof applies, in particular, to relativity and
progeny. It is especially noteworthy that it concerns a pretend scientific
creation, the type of which is nowhere else to be seen when it comes
to a bogus theory, which is artificially made to have great magnitude
of impact, engaging the entire humanity as a defrauded client.
Establishing the catastrophic discrepancy between two derived
formulae, a discrepancy which contradicts the very definition of the
theory, therefore invalidating relativity outright in its entirety, is
an extremely rare case of successful deductive reasoning in
science, when it comes to making a decisive conclusion
about a theory, mandating its overthrowing,
let alone a theory of such a level of adoption and
This is an absolute truth which spreads
over anything else having any connection with that absolutely overthrown
theory. This is an unsurpassed, ultimate example of deductive reasoning,
when it comes to science. It is fortunate for the process of scientific
research, although unfortunate for the analyzed theory.
To say nothing of the
fact that it also concerns a question of major world significance.
THE NEED FOR CORRECTING SCIENCE MEETS WITH DESTROYED THINKING—The
mentioned destroyed understanding of what science and its attributes
are, the confusion about the essence of scientific findings, is rampant.
That confusion is a major cause for society to tolerate absurdities
being presented as science, causing in this way self-inflicted harm.
Deficiency in understanding what science really is
affects all public debates on science concerning not only the topic of
the purported human
effect on climate change, but every single topic of public science policy,
mostly touching on disciplines tangential to science, such as medicine,
and extending to scientific disciplines such as biology, which are still
struggling to find their place amongst full-fledged science, with science's
characteristic innate ability to allow carrying out of reproducible
experiments under controlled conditions and to draw conclusions based
on such types of experiments. In opposition to the easy going
opinion, which slaps the label “science” on anything the speaker
deems appropriate, it is only
conclusions arrived at while abiding by the just
mentioned conditions for the establishment of scientific facts and
their processing, are products of genuine, high-quality science.
Only such properly made conclusion may further turn into scientific laws characterizing
the discipline as scientific, which delineate it from all other scientific disciplines.
DELETERIOUS IMMUNITY AGAINST CRITICISM—One discipline that
is left out in such public debates, frivolous as they are with
regard to the requirements of a genuine scientific discourse, is theoretical
physics, whereby the general feeling is that everything is fine there,
mainly because the overall perception is that theoretical physics is
over everyone's head. This book, however, dispels that toxic misunderstanding,
and reveals that what is thought of as theoretical physics today, is,
in fact, both badly damaged,
as well as prone to prompt repair by canceling public funding, which
feeds the absurdities that are suffocating physics. Damaged physics, also damaging society,
can only be repaired, provided there is far-sighted strong political will for
canceling such deplorable funding.
This is the reason why this book focuses on relativity, which is probably
the most serious agent causing the existence and further stimulation
of that confusion, through instilling inconsistencies and outright absurdities
as truths. Relativity, ironically, very fortunately for those who love truth, especially
when it is clear-cut, is also the easiest to debunk
of any other thinkable problem of such world-scale magnitude.
In science, it is specifically relativity
that adds uncalled for additional difficulties
to the already difficult pursuit of scientific truth. Relativity has
come out of thin air, completely foreign to science and, as such, wastes
serious time and public resources in inherently unproductive
banter, dimming, misdirecting
and muddling armies of capable young minds, instead of applying these
resources and time for benefit and progress. Youth massively is losing
the ability to think. That degradation has its roots in the degradation
of basic science, garbling such basic notions as time and space, induced
by the beloved child of the propaganda, the absurd relativity.
INTELLECTUAL TERRORISM—The destructive
effect of bogus “theories”, especially those such
as relativity, forcibly imposed on science and deeply ingrained in it,
is equivalent to intellectual
terrorism—much more subtle and invisible to society, but even
more efficient in its massive destruction of the essence of innocent
people, specifically their mindset and ability to think, a destruction
done for the purposes of political agendas, such as dominance and social
After nine-eleven 2001, the American society has become more alert to
the outward expressions of terrorism. Unfortunately, in contrast, the
subtle, intellectual terrorism, symbolized by relativity, is soaking
deeper into society, evidenced by the massive propaganda of
that bad science,
shoving it down the throat of the unsuspecting public as true, even
great, science, through flooding the magazines with propaganda-articles
and bookstores with best-selling books, reciting bland hallucinations
as a substitute for decent books about real science.
Those, who might think that it is a stretch to perceive
such an imposition to be a deliberate act, may be asked why is it, then,
that no notice is taken of the publicly available catastrophic proof
that relativity is absurdity and relativity, absurd as it is, is still
widely promoted as the greatest science there is? Why has relativity
still not been sent to where it belongs—in the dust-heap of history?
Again, if one doubts that the bizarre philosophies existing in academia
today have their origin in the muddled thinking of relativity, with
which academia is obsessed, one may spend some time reading the disconcerted
writings of purported academics in the social sciences, who began, timidly in
the nineteen sixties but later quite openly, advocating complete unruliness
in science, with two exceptions, quantum mechanics and especially relativity,
as the stalwarts of the unchanging collective consensual madness, coining
the term paradigm, as the signifier of that misguided, out of place
collective consensus in science. Thus, despite the advocated utter unruliness
in science, the absurdity, heralded by relativity, was pronounced as a
topic closed for criticism. It has become a hard and fast, unbreakable
rule that quantum mechanics and especially relativity, cannot be discussed,
let alone criticized. The advocated unruliness applies to everything
else except for quantum mechanics and relativity. Hypocritically, following
the wrong advice that “imagination is more important than knowledge”,
serving as a protective cover against any possible criticism of even
the wildest incoherence offered as theory in science, it was given the
impression that from now on, everything in science would be allowed
as an undertaking. On one hand, even the grossest inanity would be allowed,
but on the other hand, there was also a deceptive feeling created that
if everything would be so free in science, then criticism would also
be welcomed. Wrong! There was a caveat placed on that new seemingly
unbridled freedom and democracy to be installed in science—objecting
to quantum mechanics and, especially, to relativity, was pronounced
off limits and became strictly forbidden. These topics were elevated
to some kind of cult, short of worshipping them as a deity. Under the
pressure of the untouchable quantum mechanics and relativity, it was
adopted that there is some sort of new thinking in science, which defies
everything that science cherished the most before. It was now unobjectionable
to be illogical, to defy reason and be contradictory, preposterous and
absurd. The complete relaxing, induced by relativity, of the laws of
straight thinking, initially done in a very limited academic setting,
not only in fundamental physics, but also infecting the more populous
social sciences, which enthusiastically embraced it, developed into
further absurdities, ostensibly justified by this destroyed new thinking, finding
scientific justification in now destroyed fundamental science. This
led to hitherto unforeseeable extreme expanses, where the proposal is
for science to reject its method, to reject its own self, ultimately
resulting in calls for separation of science from state. Real science,
obeying logic, reason and the scientific method, now began to be seen
as the enemy—the enemy of the people, the enemy of democracy,
the evil that brings all the bad we experience in our lives. That ludicrous
sentiment, viewing science as being the suppressor, spawned resistance
in support of this ludicrous thesis, a resistance
which was not only academic. Aside from the violent aspects of this
resistance, it aggressively infiltrated the political milieu and began
governing, coining new legislation, transforming society according to
its deformed and destroyed thinking and worldview, which would have
been unthinkable had society preserved its sanity to protect the fundament
of its thinking, which is real science with its scientific method. Thus,
the deformations on a fundamental level reflected in a tangible way
on the wider society.
REAL SCIENCE DOES NOT WORK BY CONSENSUS—Therefore,
the persistence for
over a century of such gross contradiction to the
scientific method as that demonstrated by relativity, a persistence
unchecked even by academics, who are obligated by their very calling to
unconditionally obey the scientific method, needs to be addressed
repeatedly, with great indignation at that. It is especially necessary
to emphasize the scientific method's most important feature—logic,
the foundation for correct reasoning. In view of the intellectually damaged atmosphere
of today, it must be constantly reaffirmed,
that obeying logic, reason and all the scientific method's elements
is not a matters of consensus
among scientists. Scientific truth, the goal of the scientific method,
is not just a social construct, least of all
is truth just a metaphor or an invention. Real science does not work by consensus and voting.
One may be right, while even millions are wrong. To obey the scientific
method is not a matter of the personal desire or personal taste of a scientist.
Especially, when the scientist is to recognize unequivocal proof, such
as the proof shown, that relativity is absurdity and must be removed
from science without a trace.
MISGUIDED AVANT-GARDE—We will now ask, for the
purposes of another instance of mild entertainment in this book, could it be that it
was considered innovative and avant-garde, a herald
of new aesthetics in science, an instant recipe to make a name for yourself,
on the occasion of being the first to announce nonsense,
unheard of so far, as an achievement in science,
if one decides to mimic
in science what happened earlier in the visual arts?
Could it be that the inspiration to end science was
the “Black Square”, hung on the wall,
announcing the end of the visual arts, the artistic “masterpiece”
which was brought into
prominence by being pronounced no less than the herald of the modern age?
If that were the case, no matter whether
or not such an act may be considered aesthetic in the visual arts, in
science, it is beyond doubt lacking any aesthetic quality. What is aesthetic
in science, unlike art, has its very stringent definition. The scientific
aesthetic creation, from the point of view of science, necessarily
honors the scientific method, requiring the obeying of logic and reason,
which is the only tool to reach the aesthetic ideal of science, truth.
Truth symbolizes beauty in science. Logic and reason is what pleases
the senses in science.
HYPOCRITICAL PRETEND SCIENCE—COEXISTENCE OF TWO FLAVORS OF IT—Especially
society's intellectual health is the symbiotic entanglement
of what appears as elements of scientific methodology, encased in
“scientific lingo”, on the one hand, and, on
the other hand, the manipulative political needs of certain elites.
Curiously, these manipulators, at times, also use methods such as advanced statistics
or data-fitting, which, means that they obviously use
method despite besmirching and denying it a place in science. Obviously, despite otherwise
they do not hesitate to use method when that accomplishes their goal to appear scientific.
These two opposing tendencies—using methods of science, while
at the same time denying method in science—in the end have amalgamated
into a quasi-scientific mess, heavily relying on scientific lingo, occupying
the public sources of tax money. This mess is beginning to exist alongside the other
big mess; namely, the mentioned, already established as “proper”,
absurd Lorentz-transformations-based “big” science.
Thus, the one flavor of pretend science, the amalgamated popular
science such as the purported anthropogenic climate change, pronounced as science
for public consumption, now exists together with another flavor of pretend science.
The amalgamated science of purported anthropogenic climate change
co-exists with the already made respectable
absurd relativity and progeny, occupying the core of what is perceived
as fundamental science. Look where it started and what monster grew
out of that above-shown inauspicious looking little glitch in the
pages of the paper that started that insanity, spawning every
further insanity which has become part of the popular mainstream,
conflating in a confused mishmash, parts of
methods which science uses, mixed with non-scientific passions, focused on select topics.
REAL ABSURDITIES AND REAL VIOLENCE—When speaking about
the violent side of this widely instilled phony new thinking,
there can even be a gruesome illustration of the direct public harm
relativity ultimately causes to society. In certain cases, mostly seen
in the universities of the West coast of the United States, the bizarre
philosophies spawned from the muddled thinking of relativity, also led
to real physical atrocities in the form of known instances of actual
The effect of the muddled thinking on which absurdities such as relativity
rests, further perpetrated by conscienceless pseudo-academics in the
social sciences departments, are at the basis of many incidents, which
go beyond the natural rebelliousness of youth. This conceptual chain—from
muddled thinking, stimulated by relativity, to muddled writings in the
social sciences and, further on, to real actions of radicals—may
be followed by observing how the quackery in those pseudo-academic,
relativity-loving writings in social sciences, demanding separation
of science from state, have pervertedly influenced the copycat manifesto
of a real-life terrorist, calling for revolution to overthrow the presence
of technology, and in the process of this grotesque calling, taking
real human lives. These macabre results, influenced by seemingly innocuous,
albeit confused, academic writings, elevating absurd relativity to an absolute,
in the minds of young, impressionable students, require that agencies,
such as FBI, go deeper into the root of the problem of the known domestic
terrorism cases, rather than only dealing with the visible damages. Real
atrocities, stemming from the rampant low-quality thinking, which actually
has its roots in botched science, especially theoretical physics, damaged
to the core, yet abundantly financed by society, is not a small matter
or children's game. It is not “business as usual”, to be
delegated only to the everyday routine operations and actions of investigating
only the circumstances and apprehending the visible perpetrators. It
is the generator, the very root of the evil, that must be investigated,
and that may be very close to home. It may be in the pages of the very
textbooks our youth is required to read. Pronouncing absurdities as
science, the greatest of all science, at that, in these textbooks, lays
out a road to nowhere. No one knows where youth, set on such a road,
may find itself in the end.
As a matter of fact, the strong echo of the deterioration of
social thought under the influence of absurdities adopted as exact science,
bringing to mind the crooked ideas in the above-mentioned terrorist manifesto, is
heard louder and louder today, mainly in the political milieu of Europe. This
bizarre struggle has its roots in the academic writings in social sciences
of the nineteen sixties. This struggle aims at replacing normal with the anomalous and
reducing developed societies to their pre-industrialized state, as a tool for
changing the social order, the latest method being the impossible
globalization of local European measures involving changing legislation
regarding climate change, while taking advantage of stark incompetents
as symbols of that bizarre battle. This is taking place on a wide
political front, even as we speak.
AUTHORITY OF SCIENCE QUESTIONED—Distrust of science in
the population is one element of the mindset
destruction. This distrust of science has much deeper roots than those
reachable by the governmental organizations, dedicated to enlighten
the population through propaganda. The common conscience of the population
senses the falsity of this propaganda and ignores it, especially when
it does not concern health issues or their personal lives in a direct
However, even when health and wellness issues are involved, the situation is also not
rosy. Distrust of science
grows in the population, with the constant change of opinion by parties
often accompanying their message by the phrase “scientists have
found”, regarding the multifarious miracle diets, always advertised
as the be all and end all of healthy life, only to find
in the very next issue of the magazine or the TV show, that the opposite
is claimed to be true. To say nothing of the helplessness
widely demonstrated by professionals in the medical field, whose advice does not extend
much beyond the trivial, common sense, requirement for physical distancing in
case of an epidemic.
The financial harm to society by these covert corporate battles
in the former case, reflected
in the ever-changing opinions, is, in the long run, less of a harm than
the creation in the individual of the overall feeling of anxiety
in his or her natural tendency to seek the support of science.
In the latter case, the helpless medical professionals better seek
less media publicity, because their demonstrable helplessness achieves nothing else than
adding more disorientation and distrust in what is promoted as scientists' opinion.
Add to it the propaganda of the non-physical, incorporated in quantum mechanics
(to be discussed elsewhere), as some sort of higher science, even if
we do not mention the outright meaninglessness of relativity, and the
public is left confused like never before.
PREPOSTEROUS LIFE OF RASH PRONOUNCEMENTS VERSUS THE REAL STUFF—An
accompanying danger to the public mindset, of a slightly different
character, but in effect still a symptom of distrust in science, is the
wrong impression the public can get when it meets with criticism of
ostensibly steadily established “theories”. In such cases,
a conviction, which is very hard to eradicate, is created as a result
of criticizing the bogus “theory”, that all science is shaky
in principle, and is not only in a temporary diseased
state. A decadent feeling is created that it is impossible to cure science.
An impression is formed that all of yesterday's truths in science are always disproved
by some new truths of today; i.e., that real science, with its steady core of truths and
knowledge, is no more.
Those who promote real science and are genuinely concerned about its
proper standing in society should take every effort to make it clear
that, on the contrary, there is firmly established knowledge in science
and not every scientific truth is relative, doomed to be disposed of
one day. Today, unlike the views held in the past, it is known that
earth is not flat, resting on the backs of elephants, and that
truthfully established scientific fact will never change, no matter
how advanced society will become. This is an absolute truth. It
is also an absolute, unchanging truth that the earth rotates around
the sun and not vice versa, as people had incorrectly
thought for many centuries. This is also an absolute truth, despite
the fact that the sun is not the center of the whole universe. This
latter absolute truth is a further advance in our scientific understanding,
a further firmly established absolute scientific truth, even compared
to the advance science made from the geocentric to the heliocentric
view. Notice that in these examples of scientific findings turned into
absolute truths, we are not even mentioning absolute truths of the type
that a human being typically has two hands and walks on two legs, or
other truisms such as, water in a puddle is wet and the Sun rises
from the East. There is also no need to mention that the definitions in
physics also comprise absolute truths. There can be no legitimate theory
in physics that would go against its own definitions, as well as
not go against other
absolute truths, as relativity does. The main adage that has to come across is that there
are absolute, inviolable truths, which cannot become anything different,
no matter what new knowledge is being achieved,
esoteric knowledge, which science outrightly snubs, aside. The firm conviction
for the existence of such truths is the basis of any advancement of
the intellect. Without that firm ground, intellect roams unhinged until
In its quest for the never reachable objective truth, but ever nearing
the approach to that objective truth, science advances through relative
truths, some of which turn into absolute truths. Recall the discovery
by Galileo of the principle of relativity, which is now an absolute
truth. It is the relative truths, the truths of the day, truths of the
state-of-the art, which science sheds when required by the scientific method.
Absolute truths are trivialities. Once recognized, science,
expectedly, loses interest in their study. However, the least thing
real science ever does is to challenge absolute truths. Real science
will never challenge the absolute truth,
that one body in a given system
at any moment can only obey one law of motion. Phlogiston theory
was abandoned and an improved relative truth in the form of caloric
theory was set forth, better explaining the newly-found facts. Now,
although caloric theory is based on the newly established fact that
burning has to do with oxygen, causing oxidation, that theory later
was also found incorrect (not in the part
regarding the role of oxygen in the process of burning)
and is now obsolete, replaced by the notions
of thermodynamics and statistical physics. These latter
theories will undoubtedly undergo further development and many of their
notions will be abandoned, while retaining the absolute truths on which these
disciplines rest. Thus, there are notions in these disciplines which
will remain inviolable. Heat from the hot morning tea will always flow
spontaneously from the hot teacup to the colder kitchen and not vice
versa—the tea in the cup will never become spontaneously hotter
at the expense of the kitchen becoming colder. This is an absolute fact.
Describing and presenting it is an absolute truth, as is an absolute
truth that water does not flow uphill. Notably, one direction
where change could be expected is to narrow the applicability of the described
kitchen example, now being extended over all possible cases of energy transfer,
by further finding
that there may be conditions which would defy the described morning tea observation
in the kitchen. As a curiosity, an academic told this author that
even if he sees an unequivocal experimental demonstration of a defiant phenomenon under such
thus far purportedly unknown conditions, he will never accept it ever.
What is described in this paragraph
briefly outlines the natural process of building knowledge in science,
including the stiff resistance, at times, of some of the
science practitioners, even in the face of facts.
It may also be added, for those who perceive truth as an “either-or”
outcome, such as, “a woman is either pregnant or not” or
“a light bulb is either lit or not”, that there are truths
which are valid only in the domain in which they are defined. The fact
that these partial truths do not apply to a wider domain does not render
these partial truths invalid. The examples given with the pregnancy and the puddle
are related to the absolute truths discussed. Recognizing that a truth is absolute
cannot be used against the process of searching for truth by studying relative truths.
It is incorrect to ask that every truth be absolute and if it is not, abandon the
further study of what is currently perceived as truth. The freedom, which one should feel
to challenge any truth must not be construed to mean either in a sense that there are no
absolute truths at all, or that once there are absolute truths, then if one has
reasons to study whether an assertion is true means that the entire science falls apart.
Arrhenius' theory is not invalid because
it defines bases in a limited fashion, only as species releasing hydroxide
anion, while Brönsted-Lowry theory gives a wider definition of a base
as a species capable of accepting a proton. Both theories are valid and
lead to true conclusions, the latter being defined over a broader domain
ONCE AGAIN, ON THE SHINING EXAMPLE OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH—In this connection,
once again, it should be clear, that the principle
of relativity, discovered centuries ago by Galileo (not the absurd 1905
“theory” of relativity, which we have adopted to call here
simply relativity), is one of these absolute truths of physics that
are permanent, once discovered, and can never be violated, let alone
at the same time, as relativity absurdly
does (cf. be-violated-and-not-be-violated).
The principle of relativity is not a twentieth century invention,
as propaganda has widely distributed, but is contained in the foundations
of science several centuries old. The “theory” of relativity
put forth in the twentieth century, which, in fact,
makes a mockery of Galileo's principle of relativity,
is just some reprehensible bacchanalia of the deliberate deceit
that the absurdity of contradictions counts as science, and that an
outright deceptive equating of true and false counts as a great achievement
of the human mind—in fact, a lowest of the low class attempt to do physics.
THE SELF-DEMOLITION OF RELATIVITY IS NOT YOUR USUAL DEBUNKING OF A THEORY—It may
deceitfully appear that the critique of relativity presented
here should also fall under the same rubric as that of overthrowing of the
relative truths of the day and replacing them with newly found relative
truths. Because, was it not, that such overthrowing and replacement
is natural for science? However, nothing can be more wrong than adopting
such a parallel.
The methods of science, including
its potential overthrowing of existing relative truths and replacing them with new
relative truths, need
not at all be applied to relativity, because relativity disqualifies
itself as having anything to do with science, prior to becoming a subject
of scientific inquiry. Likewise, it does not require at all that there
should be some special development of scientific thought, some special
advancement of science or society, to understand that relativity is
less than incorrect, that it is absurd, and must be abandoned. Neither
does it require that the technology of experiment, the methods and instrumentation
which science employs, must become more advanced, to detect its flawed
nature. It is also not true that relativity is so superb and complicated
but true, that only a few people in the world can understand it. Quite
the contrary, as shown, relativity is absurdly incorrect on a very primitive
and comprehensible level, with its simplistically fallacious claims,
whose confused nature can be comprehended at once by any average person
of sound mind.
Unlike the rest of science, where definitive overthrowing of wrong theories
comes about as a result of the natural process of amassing more knowledge
and perfecting the methods of acquiring that knowledge, relativity can
be debunked on the spot, as unequivocally demonstrated above. It could,
and must, have been debunked the minute it had been put forth because
it is based on internal contradictions, easy to detect without any instrumentation
or laboratory studies and experiments whatsoever.
Let us say it again. Science, in its entire history,
has never experienced such an aberration, such an ambush
by mediocre thinking, overtaking it on such a large scale, with such
a negative impact on society, both financial and ideological, and at
the same time so determinately protected, as relativity. This overtaking
of society by plain meaninglessness is, in a way, worse than the Middle
Ages, whose scientific underdevelopment had justification; it went along
with the general primitivism of the entire society at that time. However,
it is unfathomable how it came about today, with all the technology
for information exchange in existence, that the aberration called relativity
is still allowed to see the light of day, overwhelmingly, at that. The
methods of sustaining such a bogus creation in the new information age,
an age expected to free the mind and bring the truth more easily to
the masses, deserve a special sociological study.
Alchemy, astrology, phrenology, numerology and eugenics have
all been abandoned as pseudoscience but, in quite stark and hard
to explain contrast, the propaganda machine continues to pounce on the
population every day the absurd idea that there is some new counterintuitive
view of time, space and gravity, alternative to classical understanding.
This purportedly new view, presented as a new alternative to time, space
and gravity, is as bogus as astrology, even worse, because astrology
being wrong, is not at least self-contradictory. However, once again,
unlike astrology, relativity, in contrast, is nevertheless very carefully
guarded to appear legitimately in place in the public scientific agenda and,
unlike astrology, has the unrestrained support of the state and its finances.
At that, such falsity, as the ridiculous claiming the truthfulness of
some new, esoteric understanding of time and space, respectively, the
bogusness of the new gravity idea, is something which is so easy to
spot and debunk as absurd, as shown here, that it boggles the mind what
made such folly so durable as presence in physics.
THE FALL OF RELATIVITY IS NOT THE FALL OF SCIENCE—It is significant
to point out also, that it is ludicrous to conclude
from the context of this writing that, because relativity is a disaster
and must be removed from physics, therefore, since now-defunct-relativity
was earlier proclaimed as the greatest science there is, science as
such is dead. Relativity is not synonymous with science. Relativity
is only a gross, never seen before aberration of science, from which
science has to clean itself immediately. From the criticism expressed
here, it does not at all follow that society has somehow advanced to
a state to realize that science is obsolete, that science is gone forever
and no corrections of bad science of today are possible, to restore
its integrity. Quite the contrary. It is not science itself, the relevant,
the honest science, that must be under attack. Rather, it is the meaninglessness,
which some pass for science, but, in reality, is abuse of science, that
must be criticized vigorously, and the bending of science be removed,
freeing the path for real science. By removing it, I mean taking it
away from science without substitution with anything else, at the same
time allowing for those who like to deal with inanities of that kind
to freely do so, but not call that science and make society pay for
it. The bad science in question must be removed the way weed is removed
from a wheat field, without substituting it with anything else. If someone
finds use for the weed, he or she is welcome to enjoy it, but not confound
it with the wheat, the metaphor used here for real, fundable science.
Science has no use for any part of an internally contradictory theory,
a prime example of which is relativity.
THE REAL TEST OF A SCIENTIST—Standing firm against the travesty
of science, introduced by the infestation
of science with the bogus Lorentz transformations, is not a simple matter
or an occupation for the feeble in mind and character. However, this
is the real test for the real scientist. The real scientist is recognized
not by being docile and able to withstand the pressures of the wrong
ideas, continuing to carry on studies as if these wrongs are invisible,
but by actively opposing their perpetration.
THE TOUGH JOB OF UNDOING SCIENCE MISERY—However, how can
the non-existence of one, say, Higgs boson,
be explained to the general population? The truth, evidenced by the
unequivocal debunking of the Lorentz transformations here, is that this
is a phantasmagoric particle whose reality does not follow from any physically viable
theory. Therefore, no experiments should have been staged under the
premise that there is a theoretical foundation for its search. To say
nothing of the experimental evidence for its existence, which is as
flimsy as only a huge bureaucratic superstructure without accountability,
such as CERN, is in a position to create. However, to announce that truth
publicly, to dethrone the falsity going by the name of Higgs boson,
is a practically impossible task, in view of the enormous world propaganda
machine paid to promote it. The public distrust in science, which a
sudden dethroning of such propaganda-laden creation will result in,
makes one wonder what will harm society more in the short-run—letting
this falsity proliferate, as is happening nowadays, or shocking the
public by abruptly removing it. There is no question that, ultimately,
true science mandates that flawed concepts be unconditionally removed,
but in that removal, the skills needed are no less than the skills and
caution required when utilizing stockpiled mines and explosives. One
thing is for sure, however, and it is mentioned more than once in this
book as the panacea—stop the public funding of any such bogus
science stemming from the inadequacy of the Lorentz transformations.
Lack of public funding will inevitably make all these Lorentz-transformations-based
absurdities fade away into oblivion. It is only the public money spent
on them that makes them still be around. These Lorentz-transformations-based
absurdities, the likes of modern cosmology
hallucinatory creations such as
black holes, big bang, gravitational waves and dark matter,
do not have wings of their own to fly and naturally assert
their scientific character, without the exuberant public funding. Any claim
for their reality, let alone experimental confirmation, is outright fraud. The
population hears about them only due to billions of taxpayer dollars, wastefully funneled to
maintain their fake study.
Clearly, in the long run, shaking the public trust in science by removing
said pseudo-theory, is far less of a danger to society than the harm
induced by letting the wrong worldview, garbled by relativity,
thrive among the population and
infiltrate its consciousness. Therefore, sooner or later, this menacing
“theory”, relativity, must be removed from physics altogether,
without a trace.
Systematically bombarding society with irrationality,
perfidiously wrapped as a seminal theory which allegedly has changed
the world, is not some private matter which can be resolved by the viewer
turning it off with the remote or by pushing the mute button. It has
real economic and financial consequences, forcing millions of talented
scientists to waste their precious time and energy with the promoted
bad science because matters are so arranged socially that bad science
is the only “science” that they are being paid to do. The
scientist will find himself or herself out in the cold if he or she
dares to express even a glimpse of doubt or criticism. Academic freedom
does not apply to relativity. The latter must be recognized as a legitimate
contribution in science and be obeyed, no matter what crucial, legitimate
arguments there may be against it, if one does not want to disturb his
or her comfort. The demoralizing effect of such a suppressive atmosphere
is devastating not only to academia, but also to society at large. Actions
to unchain science from that tyrant are discussed in many places here
as well as in a dedicated chapter of this book. The singular panacea,
mentioned also multiple times in this book, is to stop funding of absurdities
with taxpayer money, the way many other pseudoscientific occupations,
such as clairvoyance, voodoo and ghost chasing,
are denied public funding as well.
RELATIVITY IS AN IMMEDIATE BARRIER TO ANY FURTHER ADVANCEMENT—No
further pursuits make any sense, the least of which is planning and
carrying out experiments, should the candidate-theory be found to be
illogical, internally contradictory or in defiance of absolute truths,
as is relativity. Recurrences of the misperception that relativity
can be experimentally confirmed, let alone that it has already been
experimentally confirmed, are chronically popping-up in the mass media.
Therefore, it must constantly be reminded until it sinks in that—
such as relativity, invalidates itself.
Internally contradictory “theory”,
such as relativity, leads to no sane, let alone experimentally testable
conclusions whatsoever and must be rejected out of hand, prior to
carrying out any experiments.
Claims for experimental verification and
confirmation of an internally contradictory “theory”,
such as relativity, are either a result of experimental error in
experiments which should never have been performed to begin with,
or are a deliberate manipulation and outright fraud.
Claims that there have been, or ever can
be, experiments proving the validity of an internally contradictory
“theory”, such as relativity, must be ignored out of
hand as fraudulently false claims, as “the mother of all
THE LIMPING BEHEMOTHS OF BAD SCIENCE—Thus, if you have
nothing else to do and wasting of time is no problem for you, involve yourself
in pondering, for example,
the CERN experiments, claiming
to show proof of the validity of the “theory” of relativity
and of its imagined consequences, such as time-dilation and length-contraction,
to say nothing about the purported existence of Higgs boson or
gravitational waves. In view of the unequivocal proof for the absurdity of relativity, it
is inevitable to conclude that these experiments should never
have been performed. Furthermore, when it comes to
ignoring—the favorite method of contemporary powers to
dissipate dissent—it is exactly these pointless
experiments and their follow-up bogus claims,
as well as any reports on them printed in the so-called peer-reviewed archival literature,
that must be ignored outright, despite the fact that enormous
money and effort have already been wasted to carry them out.
In contrast, it is the in-your-face unequivocal proof,
shown here, that relativity is absurdity, which on top of that is demonstrable
at once, that the world must give its full attention to. Unequivocal proof,
such as the one shown here, demands nothing less than that. Unfortunately, the situation
today is exactly the opposite to what it must be.
Furthermore, despite the fact that the unequivocal arguments and proof presented here
that relativity and progeny are absurdities, therefore it makes absolutely
no sense to plan experiments to test relativity, let alone be curious
about any experiments devoted to studying these absurdities, some may
just want to see how it is at all possible to stage such experiments
and what such experiments and the gathering and assessment of data from
them could possibly look like. In view of the shown unequivocal
evidence, this is a trifle desire, but people entertain curiosity about unexpected
things, so why deny them the freedom to waste their time in this particular way?
As a result, although this ignoring of the bad science
in centers of pseudoscience such as CERN, is mandated, in the first place,
because of the lack of any basis to even plan such experiments,
all this curious crownd will see
is that anything carried out there, pretending
to be scientific research, is of poor quality in a purely technical sense.
The poor quality of the reported research, which lacks any merit to begin with,
the inadequate details and claims, following from predominantly questionable
approximations is, not in the least, due to the impossible cooperation
of thousands of co-authors of a single paper, a bizarre cooperation,
which may only result in disaster.
The thousand advocates that may come forth to the rescue of their brethren in these
centers of fake science,
claiming that, on the contrary, the scientific research in these, in fact, useless centers,
is of high quality, do not realize that no matter what praises are
directed to what passes there as laboratory work, all that busy work
amounts to absolutely nothing, because it
has no scientific basis whatsoever from the get go. This should never have taken place at all.
These wasteful superstructures, put in
place to study the absurdities following from the
should not have even been built. This book contains the singular categorical proof, which
disables any expectation that there may be even the slightest
hope that such “theories” may be of
any use to science.
The unequivocal proof, presented in this book, that the “theory”
behind the major activities in CERN and other such mastodons of public spending waste, is
beyond repair. Relativity invalidates its own self, prior to any further
undertaking. This proof is crucial for anything further that may be hallucinated to stem from it
(relativity is absurdity and absolutely nothing can follow from it).
Thus, those who might be interested in why the main CERN experiments, as well as those in the similar
world centers, are conceptually inadequate,
may establish it by unwinding back to the fundamentals. This unwinding
will inevitably lead to the bogus relativity, especially to
the non-physical Lorentz transformations, which relativity rests on, not to mention the accompanying
additional madness relativity employs to equate the true and the untrue.
Therefore, without any further ado, it must again be restated that
these fumbled fundamentals, especially those exemplified by relativity,
must be rejected immediately as bad science. Relativity
is bad science because it is not even non-physical; as shown, it is internally
contradictory, which is akin to pure senselessness; that is, it is
something out of the question to have anything to do with real science
and scientific research, as commented on above. Bad science is a bad fundament of anything further,
including uncalled for experiments. It defines nothing at all, short of
vapidity and waste of time and resources. The ubiquitous adoption and
spreading of absurd relativity is an epidemic of nonsense, engulfing
the allegedly learned world. It is sustained only as a result of
public funding, which the forces destroying science are managing to
deceptively extract from the unsuspecting taxpayer. Therefore, the proposed panacea to get science
out of the morass of absurdity must be repeated over and over again like
a mantra—there is no other way to heal science but by canceling its financial
taxpayer money support.
SPENDING FOR SOME MEGAPROJECTS MAY BE JUSTIFIED—CONVERSELY, FOR
RELATIVITY NO SPENDING AT ALL IS JUSTIFIED—On the other hand, it also
cannot be emphasized too strongly, that there is no reason to put in doubt the
need to public financing of other “big” science projects, such as the
Human Genome Project or Human Brain Project. Not all “big” science is
bad science. Discussions regarding the extent of public support for these
have a completely different basis. At least their status of being real scientific areas
cannot be questioned and even if for some reason they would lose funding, they
will still remain legitimate scientific areas.
Conversely, the categoricity of debunking the
“big” science projects,
connected with contemporary theoretical physics, such as the CERN or
NASA attempts to justify the unjustifiable by spending many billions,
even trillions of dollars on absurd pursuits related to the absurd relativity
and other Lorentz-transformations-based absurdities, makes such projects entirely ineligible
for public support. Remove, as a result of the unequivocal arguments shown here, the out-of-place
relativity and the spin-off Lorentz-transformations-based absurdities
by stopping their public funding, and the whole menace, the whole magnificent
ugly edifice of CERN and parts of NASA, wasting public resources on relativity
and alleged progeny super-creations, will break down under the ballast
of their own inadequacy. David, clothed in the form of inauspicious
but crucial arguments shown here, will crush mortally the glamorous Goliath of
power, politics, vanity and everything else but science, embodied in
CERN, in the relativity-oriented projects of NASA or in the US National Laboratories.
Colossal laboratories such as CERN, do not exist by floating in the air due to their
own scientific consistency. They exist only because of political decisions,
without real vetting the essence of what they would do. Now, with the argument
presented here, proving that this essence is in fact catastrophic absurdity, it
becomes obvious that it has been a bad political decision, which must promptly be
corrected. This correction is imperative because these huge infrastructures are
a heavy burden on the world taxpayer, which is not only financial,
but laboratories such as CERN have also
exceptional authority that also guides society
in how to comprehend reality, so that it can achieve intellectual advancement,
as well as help to properly
protect itself from the various dangers it may face.
Therefore, the responsibility to the world of the major
scientific centers is huge. The world cannot afford their functioning to be
subordinate to pronounced absurdities, such as the ones revealed in this book
centerd around the proof for the catastrophic invalidity of relativity.
Their effect and the responsibility that follows is greater than their visible might.
Therefore, the functioning of vapid monstrocities, such as CERN,
as protectors and propagators of absurdities, presenting them
as science, is more than unacceptable and must be stopped. This is done most efficiently
by stopping their public financing as is repeatedly stated in this book.
EXISTENCE OF STRUCTURES THAT JUST HAPPEN TO BE ALREADY THERE IS NO
JUSTIFICATION FOR CONTINUING TO ASK FOR MONEY
TO DO ABSURD SCIENCE—Experiments based on flawed fundamentals,
such as Lorentz-transformations-based
“theories”, the prime example of which is relativity, must
never be considered, let alone their carrying out be funded, no matter
how magnificent the infrastructures already are that have been built
by tricking taxpayer into shedding his or her hard earned tax dollar or
euro. The unsustainable cannot ever be sustained. Claims which are unprovable
in principle, can never be proven, no matter how many billions of euro
or dollars have already been squandered for that purpose, even if it
is at CERN. It is not possible to accept any experiment, carried out
at CERN or anywhere else, for that matter, claiming to confirm a theory
which derives that one equals two, as relativity in effect does
it really does; what else does it mean to derive, as relativity derives,
as is clearly seen in the first figure shown
above, that one body in one system K obeys at the same time two different laws
of motion; namely,
Over and over again—there can never
be an experiment proving that one equals two, no matter how some may
insist that modern science can be counterintuitive, yet valid. Hence,
there should be no preparations for staging experiments to test such
an obviously absurd claim, no politicians should be lobbied to vote
for funding such gobbledygook. The same applies to other experiments,
claiming confirmation of imagined effects allegedly following from that
bogus “theory”, such as the experiments with μ-mesons
and Cesium clocks, to say nothing of the multibillion dollar experiments
in the US National Labs and CERN, aimed at doomed fruitless testing
of relativity and its purported impossible progeny, following from the
fact that said “theory” leads to no sensible outcome whatsoever.
There are no real effects at all that can follow from relativity, despite
the vigorous propaganda to the contrary, most vigorous being the lie
that relativity has anything to do with the mass-energy relationship
E = mc2,
which further evolves into the lie that
the author of relativity is
the father of the atomic bomb. Relativity, being absurdity,
cannot even derive E = mc2. As a result,
relativity can never, not only find,
but even suggest that eventually there might one day unexpectedly appear
a reason for its experimental verification. Meaninglessness, describing
the “theory” in question, and any meaninglessness for that
matter, can never be the subject of experimental verification, unless
one needs to waste his or her time or is determined to deceive society
SUPERSTRUCTURES ARE NO SUBSTITUTES FOR SCIENTIFIC METHOD—The
scientific method, which is the only criterion for the quality
of scientific work, is the epitome of what constitutes civilization
and is the ultimate glue which holds the country together. It cannot be
substituted merely by pronouncements coming from politically installed
superstructures, despite what these superstructures espouse, proclaimed
to be scientific, no matter how much financing these superstructures
have received. It is not the financing, neither is it the might of an
institutional infrastructure that would determine truth in science.
The common perception that the mightier the institution, the more probable
the truth and discoveries coming out of it are, is far from correct
or evident. It is not unusual that inauspicious arguments can overthrow
a behemoth of falsity, if the scientific method is abided by,
which is almost never the case when too big to fail behemoth infrastructures
have taken over.
INVISIBLE COLLEGES—It is also not scientometrics—citation
index, impact factor and the like echo-chamber tools—which some
try to impose as criteria that would determine the worthiness of a
scientific claim. These echo-chamber pseudo-criteria can
by no means constitute the proper criteria for quality scientific work.
Fair and justified judgment of the quality of scientific
work must be carried out differently.
Anyone's work must be judged on the basis of its own
real scientific contributions, not by where it has been published
or how many times it has been cited, the worst example in this respect
being relativity—an example of bad science enjoying probably the most favorable
citations in history.
For instance, when applying
for an academic position at a university,
the individual members of the select committee must read and judge for themselves the
merits of the claimed contributions of the candidate and not rely on what anyone else has
judged. More often than not, even as an
epidemic, perpetrators of quasi-scientific theories and writings form
“invisible colleges”, and are self-servingly incessantly
citing each other, thus further promulgating falsities, passing them
as legitimate science. Relativity itself is a proof
that scientometrics is flawed as a method of judging the scientific merits of
a proposal. One can hardly think of anything else which may challenge relativity as the
champion of citation and having seeming mass academic approval, which, in the end,
proved only to be “fake news”, as this book demonstrates.
SUPERFLUOUS CORROBORATION—Interesting in this connection,
is the immediate expectation, imposed on society, that texts such as
this must have met with the approval at least of colleagues. An impression
is created that the more people approve of it, the more legitimate and
true it would be. It is massively forgotten that the establishment of
scientific truth is not done by voting. As was already
said above, real science does not work by consensus—as is usual in science,
when progress occurs, when discoveries are made, one is right and millions
are wrong. Community standards of consensus do not apply when truth
is sought in science. Collectivist, paradigm-based science, is science's
demise. More on that paradigm-based science, which should be thought
of only in pejorative sense, will be found in a separate book containing
some notes on the general theory of science as well. On the contrary,
truth in science prevails only through overcoming serious resistance,
most often against the will of the collective, sheepishly bound around
a paradigm, the latter symbolizing
non-scientific opportunism. The more important
the newly discovered truth is for science,
the greater the resistance by the collective
and its pragmatic, job-scheme-driven interests.
EFFICIENT STYMYING—Those who seek truth are brought to
their knees, humiliated and suppressed. Some, like Boltzmann, have even
committed suicide because of the mocking and ridiculing of his views
throughout the universities of Europe. Intellectual suppression is not
less rampant today. On the contrary, with the new information technologies,
intellectual suppression, paradoxically, is greater than ever. The trusted
territories of academic publishing, which have real impact on society,
are protected by the bodyguards with the intellectual baseball bats.
The excuse, hypocritical as it is,
which in the future will surely backfire, is that ours is
a free society and today there are many avenues, such as internet, which
have never been available historically, to voice your voice. However,
as of today, future changes notwithstanding, the impact on society of
these avenues is the weakest history has ever known, especially regarding
science. The ostensibility of freedom, the seemingness of access, is
today's most efficient censorship.
Reaching an unequivocal conclusion, especially on a
problem of world impact, shaped up in a comprehensible, yet rigorous form for
almost everyone to understand, the way the unequivocal proof shown here is,
escapes from the entrapment of such elaborate suppression, and is made
plainly available for anyone who cares to see it. However, it is
only in the future when this possibility will acquire its full strength.
HOW IS THE LAITY TO JUDGE WORTHINESS
OF SCIENCE; THE ROLE OF ACADEMIA—Despite the
categorical solution presented here regarding the discussed concrete pivotal scientific problem,
when it comes to judging science in general, the question still may persist as to how is
the everyday person to recognize what is worthy in other areas of science which are not
conducive to translation into such an easy to understand form? Relativity is
not the only nonsense in this world, right? Not everyone is equipped to discern
that nonsense, especially when it is subtle, let alone wrapped in scientific
lingo. It is hard even for the specialists in one field of science to
recognize when there are real contributions in another field of science.
This is exactly where the crucial role
and duty of academia is, as the authority, and this is why academia must
carry out its authority with utmost responsibility and integrity.
Unfortunately, this is exactly
where academia has failed and commits the most unforgivable and sacrilegious
crime against society. The opening like an anemone, as the argument
in this book, debunking relativity, does, allowing for anyone to see
such dramatic discrepancy in its most fundamental essence, is not an
everyday event. This should give every scientist pause. The pause is not because this book
makes it possible to see the broken works of science, therefore constituting some kind of
betrayal of an academic oath of omerta, but because academia has allowed such
malfunctioning at all. On the contrary, the opening to the world of its malfunctioning
is a positive act. It is the beginning of a healing
process which must not be postponed. It is the fact that academia can avidly adopt at all,
and irresponsibly carry through the decades of a whole century, easily discernible conceptual
inadequacies, such as relativity, passing them on as science, is what is worrisome. Academia's
inability to police itself, casts doubt on everything else it does.
Academia should have never allowed itself to be infiltrated by
inadequacies which even the uninitiated can discern, provided
they are translated for him or her into a form he or she can understand.
It should have never come to a situation for a book such as this to be written at all.
These inadequacies, in the long run, when translated properly, are seen to concern common
truths, whose violation can be recognized by anyone, even without education
and special instructions. What was discussed here lends itself to proper
translation, even in plain language, and that should have never remained unnoticed
by academia. Relativity provides ample
room for such translation, because its ridiculous essence is less than
childish. The opportunity, seized in this book, to so easily debunk a
bogus theory such as relativity, falsely proclaimed as seminal, however,
is just a happenstance, a fortuitous circumstance,
never before seen in science life, let alone at such a level of significance.
It is hoped, however, that what was done here will not only lead to
clearing science from that particular absurdity, suffocatingly engulfing the highest
strata of science on a world scale, but will lead also to rethinking of the entire way
Henceforth, many bright individuals, powerless as they are
otherwise, would be in dismay, witnessing the complacency of the corrupt
academia, unwilling to take up even its starkest obligations as a defender
of truth and scientific method. This is nothing to cheer about, neither is it a matter
to be nonchalantly neglected, but is a problem which should cause immediate great concern.
It would not be an exaggeration to see it as a concern of life and death of humanity, as discussed
also later in another chapter.
SHALLOW CELEBRITIES ATTRACT ATTENTION, NOT
SERIOUSNESS OF SCIENCE—Although kept hermetic, somehow
the population at large has the intuitive sensitivity that not all is right in science,
and is not holding its breath when pounced upon with the announcements of the
purported new scientific miracles. No wonder why society at large dismisses
science as boring, not worth dealing with and counts on celebrities
and stars to look up to in other fields, but not science. Those that
the entertainment industry has wrapped up as “science stars”
have nothing to do with real science and are as shallow as your usual
tabloid character. This is what the reader of the tabloids expects.
This is what he or she finds served on the shelves of the kiosks or commercial
bookstores, be it physics, baseball or a reality show.
TABLOID CULTURE AND SCIENCE—Clearly, every genre in the
tabloid culture has its peculiar ways of cooking and serving its menu
of celebrities to the entertainment-hungry masses. Some are more honest,
some are less. A baseball star at least is using visibly his muscles,
a tennis star must climb the ladder of wins. Everyone sees the high-jump
athlete overcoming a height the competitors fail to do. A little more
obscure is the elevations of movie stars, rock-musicians and most of
all, reality-show stars. Of all this panopticum of not very seldom
vapidity, the elevation
of a tabloid “science star” is the most inaccessible to
public scrutiny or straightforward explanation. The creation of tabloid
“science stars”, and in many ways of the “science
stars” in history, is in the hands of a specific authority, detached
from society, sitting somewhere in its ivory tower, which society knows
exists but cannot usually pinpoint exactly where. The population knows
that the authority in question must be somewhere in the universities,
but where exactly, and how exactly it does its job of ruling in science,
is beyond the radar, not only of the common person but for most intellectuals
DICTATORSHIP IN SCIENCE—The authority in question, the
one dictating in science, is the most important, although undetectable
and concealed in appearance, tentacle of the ubiquitous powers-that-be,
often mentioned in this text. Everyone sees the external attributes
of power. Recall the elaborate regal ceremonies taking place in monarchies
to this day. A theater, some may say. Yes, a theater, but in the most
concrete governing terms. The governing of science, however, cannot
even be seen as a theater. It is higher than that. It has always been
an ephemeral undertaking, only for the elite of the elite, in which
the commoner, the middle class, and even common billionaires or common
high politicians, have no business knowing about, let alone interfering
with. Totalitarian dictators could not interfere, despite known charades
in biology, touted to prove to the naïve what powerful dictator
of science he also was. They were dictators, all right, but nowhere
near as crucial and severe as those who have imposed the likes of
the absurd relativity
on everyone on earth, on countries having every thinkable social order,
for a historical period far outreaching any period during which any
thinkable dictator has ever ruled.
Former alert US Congressional representatives could
not interfere. Neither could anyone else. No one. No one outside of
the removed powers-that-be, reticent, ever-reproducing through history.
The word of said authority, wherever it resides is, nevertheless, the
law for most of the population. The population cannot imagine lifting
this much weight or scoring such a difficult goal, and therefore it
is somehow convinced that what the authority decides
is as truthful and legitimate as if
the population is seeing it with their own eyes. Sheepishly
trusting authority is part of human nature. As already noted, this is well known by those
who manipulate and is efficiently exploited by them, especially in sparing
no expense to become the authority themselves by all lawful and unlawful
means, preventing competition, most of all the reasonable competition.
OBJECTION TO CRITIQUE OF FUNDAMENTALS—A common objection
to criticism of the fundamentals is that continuously criticizing
these fundamentals would leave no time for bringing scientific thought
forward in a fruitful way, because of inability to escape the stalemate
of constant doubt. Such objection neglects the obvious fact that wrong
fundamentals are even worse for the progress of science than the seeming
stalemate due to the necessary criticism. On the contrary, to constantly
challenge the fundamentals is not only not preventing one from getting
work done, but is helping to prevent unproductive work. Healthy criticism,
even of the fundamentals of science, if it is justified, is a core requirement
in science. What fundamentals are these that cannot withstand criticism?
The answer is clear—such fundamentals are a recipe for disaster
and crisis in physics, leading to crisis in society, a crisis which
is observed nowadays.
More on How Disregarding Absolute Truths Can Affect Society
More on How Disregarding
Absolute Truths Can Affect Society
ENTERTAINMENT OF ABSURDITY RESTS ON THE CONSCIENCE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL
ABSURDITY-LOVING PERSON, AS LONG AS HE OR SHE KEEPS IT PRIVATE—Society
will not be affected by disregarding
absolute truths, let alone by violating logic and admitting absurdities,
even if labeling them as science, if the refusal to honor certain
truths as absolute, to say nothing about having the knack to enjoy absurdities,
is kept enclosed in its own sphere of influence and is financed independently
of public finances. After all, that is why our society is free—it
can tolerate any recitation, illogical or not, provided it does not
cause harm to society.
This is the way poetry exists or the diverse forms of fiction novels
and other forms of art, to say nothing of the religions and groups of
interest. The United States itself is based on such separation—separation
of church and state. It is not without good reason that the funding
of the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is lagging far behind the
funding of even the National Science Foundation (NSF), let alone the
National Institutes of Health (NIH). It may seem fun for some to enjoy
the thought of time travel, as they find it interesting to expect UFOs
to land on earth soon, but that joy of theirs, unscientific as it is,
must not be funded with public money. Having no foundation in
natural reality, this should be left solely to their own devices. It is, in
fact, the actual practice of the government,
not to fund this kind of scientifically
unsupported activity. That has always been the case with
fortune-telling, chasing sprites and voodoo. No governmental funds are
allocated for their support.
WHY GOVERNMENT IS FUNDING RELATIVITY-CONNECTED ACTIVITY, IS A MYSTERY—In
stark contrast to this justified governmental refusal to fund rigmarole with
taxpayer money, it has not been recognized as unacceptable
for the government to fund not less of a rigmarole exemplified the
absurd relativity and all Lorentz-transformations-based intellectually
pernicious outgrowths, officially passing for theoretical physics. Abundant
funding with taxpayer money of the theoretical physics travesty, tragically
poisoned with the here discussed inanities and absurd
gibberish, is considered fully in
the order of things, which it should not be. Today's theoretical physics
is an even greater nuisance, and even a threat to society, more so than
the benign silliness of clairvoyance, because what passes as theoretical
physics has the halo of great academic authority, which clairvoyance
does not have.
Brainwashing the world with the incorrect science, let alone pretend
science, which is nothing other than a parade of absurdities, in stark
disregard of absolute truths and allowing absurdities to substitute
genuine science, notably exemplified
by the defective thinking which has led to the absurd relativity, may
result in massive misconceptions among the population, which may begin
confusing faith and science, seeking inadequate parallels between them.
IMPOSSIBLE ANALOGIES—It may occur to some tender poetic soul,
uninitiated in questions scientific, yet trying to
lean on science and even pontificate, feeling secure
by reading “what is in the paper” presented as science,
that faith in the afterlife is as absurd and incredible as string
theory, the existence of parallel universes or time-travel and, because
the newspapers and books in bookstores talk of string theory, parallel
universes and time-travel seriously, therefore, the reality of afterlife
should also be taken seriously and scientifically justified.
A responsible, honest scientist must respond with an emphatic, no, not
only to such parallels, but to any proposition that real science has
ever proved such outrageous things. It is categorically clear, and it is
shown conclusively in this text, that alleged progeny of relativity,
such as string theory, the travel back and forth in time, curved space
and everything else purportedly having at its foundation relativity, is
completely impossible, because the “theory” in question,
lying at the bottom of these pseudoscientific claims, is internally
contradictory; that is, it is nothing else but a creation, empty of
any sense and, therefore, cannot lead, not only to these phenomena, but
cannot lead to anything at all. Furthermore, the argument shown proves
that time-travel, curvature of space and anything else which comprises
Lorentz-transformations-based hallucinations, are impossible in principle,
because they contradict the absolute truths of physics, they contradict
the laws of the natural reality we live in. To say
nothing of the additional lunacy relativity promotes, requiring that
the wrong outcome and the right outcome must be
equal to each other.
This comes as a bonus of silliness, over and above the non-physical
nature of the Lorentz-transformations-based outcomes.
The poet who has fallen into the trap of the above pseudo-analogies,
is a victim of a prevalent methodological problem in today's society,
which badly harms it—the firm pronouncement of the unreal, let
alone absurd, as science. What is a poet supposed to do when he is reading
what authorities, positioning themselves as sage scientists, are widely
promoting? Does that authoritative promotion of senselessness not comprise
a mean, underhanded playing with the tender soul of the poet by officially
recognizing absurdity as something serious, worthy of paying attention
to? Even if these authorities truly believe in what they are promoting,
even then their activity is reprehensible, because, as explained, they
are preventing every possibility for fresh air, for necessary criticism,
to penetrate the tightly shut doors of their castles of falsity,
suffocating reason. Let
alone that succinct, yet rigorous unequivocal arguments shown here,
proving the absurdity of all the hallucinations ascribed to relativity
and alleged progeny, have been available publicly for over a decade.
As said, now, in the age of internet, which makes stifling of ideas
impossible, at least as their dissemination goes, although still falling
short of these ideas having impact on society due only to their being published
on the internet, there can be no excuse that the powers-that-be did
not know about these arguments and proof.
MATTERS OF FAITH CANNOT SEEK JUSTIFICATION IN SCIENCE,
LET ALONE IN THE BAD SCIENCE OF RELATIVITY—Notice,
it is not discussed here whether or not there is afterlife,
leaving that question for pondering to theologians and people discussing
faith, but is emphasized that now, knowing that relativity and progeny
are absurdities; that is, that they cannot qualify as science, relativity
and progeny also cannot serve as scientific justification for any other
absurdity that happens to float in the world outside science.
The vice in such false analogies is that it obscures the fact that,
while, for instance, the question for the reality of afterlife may be
pondered, its proponents as well as its deniers can never conclusively
prove to the other party their point of view, a view solely
based on faith. Conversely,
the falsity of relativity and any of its progeny, is demonstrated unequivocally,
without delay. This last fact must be restated as clearly as possible.
The bogus theories, arriving from relativity, are based on the wrong
acceptance that Lorentz transformations have physical meaning,
to say nothing of their purely mathematical senselessness, consisting
in their equating a constant to a variable. It is demonstrated
conclusively in this text, by using also an unequivocal inescapable direct visual way,
that these transformations do not have physical meaning and must be
removed from physics with the same decisiveness with which relativity,
which has appropriated them and is based on them, must
be removed from physics. No such conclusive argument
can ever exist at all in any faith-based
debate, whereby each party holds on to the dogmas of its faith, without giving even an inch of
ground to the other party. Interfaith debates, generally, are a waste of time. Insidious
forces of science try to turn debates in science, especially
debates concerning the fundamentals of science, into inter-faith
debates and that is clearly unacceptable.
No need to even mention again that relativity, over and above appropriating
the non-physical Lorentz transformations, leading to a result which
violates its own definition, is also internally contradictory, brazenly
allowing for the true to be equal to the false, brazenly allowing for
the lie to be equivalent to truth, as clearly seen
above (cf. be-violated-and-not-be-violated).
especially the Lorentz transformations from physics, and all the
rest of what comprises theoretical physics of today will also automatically
vanish from physics as non-scientific banter.
LET SCIENCE BE SCIENCE, AND FAITH BE FAITH—Therefore, for
the purposes of mild entertainment, we will make the
comment that, if one is to follow the confused logic of the mentioned
poets and the amateur lovers of science but otherwise firm believers
in faith, who like to justify their beliefs by what they think has been
found in science, then the fact that the false notions of Lorentz-transformations-based
theories are categorically debunked as bad science, proved unequivocally here, should lead to
the conclusion that the belief in afterlife is equally as false and
However, such mechanical transfer of conclusions from science
to faith will, naturally, not be adopted. Consequently, faith will be
left to the believers to tackle, while firmly reinstating the unequivocal
truth in science, shown above; namely, the categorical conclusion that
all Lorentz-transformations-based theories in physics are to be abandoned
and put in the same category as clairvoyance, astrology and chasing
of ghosts, and even worse than that.
THE SOLID GROUND—In this tumbling in the dark of the untenable,
when it comes to science,
the only ray of hope for the poet, when he or she decides to find inspiration
specifically in science, and even more so for the aspiring scientist,
is leaning on rational arguments, based on absolute truths and the
scientific method with its logic and reason.
DISCOURSE WITHOUT END—Irresolvable matters of
faith aside, debates regarding matters of science, such as those concerning
climate change or even Darwin's evolution
are also never ending debates. They are never
ending because there are no
truths in these debates, establishable as being absolute, to the agreement
of all parties involved, when sane and unburdened by vested interests.
To say nothing of the fact that they are not
prone to the basic requirements of a solid exact science for reproducible
experiments under controlled conditions.
The known historical data of the temperature variations in some limited
locations on the earth are clearly insufficient to allow proper generalizations.
Therefore, no matter what arguments the proponents of the human effect
on climate present, the opponent will always pull out of his or her
sleeve deficiencies in that view, such as that deficiency in historical
data argument just mentioned. To say nothing of the fact that any argument,
which any of these parties decides to pull out, will inevitably always
be based on circumstantial evidence, attempted to serve as proof, and
will never be comparable to the in-your-face clear, unequivocal and
rigorous catastrophic proof, directly presented here, that relativity is an absurdity.
Although one intuitively feels that evolution is the only scientific
description of appearance and development of species, let alone that
it is not necessarily in conflict with theological doctrines (why should
not a theologian agree that God has arranged matters so that evolution
should be the way of species progressing once created?), the very first
moment, the moment of creation, is inaccessible to be categorically
agreed upon by both parties and will always remain only a point of belief.
The moment-of-creation argument will always be brought about by the
proponents of evolution, shutting the door of agreement with the creationists,
who themselves cannot escape the fact that the moment of creation has
been in the past, it can never be repeated and therefore can never be
scientifically established by a reproducible controlled experiment.
Therefore, let faith be faith and science be science. They have nothing
The proponents of evolution, as an infinite chain of events in infinite
time, will always challenge even the very concept of God by invoking
the ubiquitousness of God, which also includes God's nonexistence, let
alone that the creation itself of the creator-God, as said, will be
forever wanting in its potential to be established scientifically. Thus,
proponents of creation versus evolution may face even logical inconsistency
arguments from the evolutionists opposing it. Again, the solution of
the stalemate can only be that accepting God is only a matter of faith
and once accepted, there can be no rational, logical arguments to accept
the reality of God, but it is only a matter of faith. Success in finding
arguments which can revert the believer and make him or her become a
non-believer, is out of the question. Thus, the debate acquires a non-scientific
hue, which is of no interest to a scientist and, therefore, ends right
there without any advance whatsoever. Therefore, again, let faith be
faith and science be science. They are incompatible and are completely
unrelated human activities.
Furthermore, if some debate is still to be maintained, forgetting the
mentioned crucial divides that destroy it, and one wants to look at
the evidence, it will be found that the evidence, say, the fossils,
artifacts or even archives and some libraries, are inaccessible to
just anyone willing to critically observe the data, and the only thing
remaining for the general population is to take those who have had access
to the claimed factual evidence by their word. To say nothing of the fact that
there is no reason to vow that what was found in the excavations is
all-there-was during the pre-historic times of the world or even times
that are close to the times we live in.
So, in these activities, which are more or less remote from
science in the full meaning of the word, doctrines are more or less opinions
and they resemble faith-based doctrines, the veracity of which is established by
consent rather than by their objective nature. More than one of these teachings or
theories in the mainstream science, are adopted because they seem most likely,
the preponderance of evidence seems to point to them or are just part of a
historically adopted view. Truthfulness of assertions on these
matters is more or less judged by peer-review and, as said, the more the need for
peer-review, the less scientific is the matter offered for discussion.
Conversely, there is practically no such mainstream theory or the
rejection thereof, which can face, one way or the other, the unequivocal
proof seen here to obliterate relativity.
THE DISCOURSE WITH UNEQUIVOCAL END—This is not the case
with relativity, where, as seen, the unequivocal
facts are directly and fully immediately accessible to anyone willing
to observe them critically. The conclusions are absolutely not
opinions but are unequivocally established facts.
The stalemate between believers, devoted to a faith, and non-believers much resembles the
conflict between the airy assertions which the corrupt physicists present
to the public; namely, that they have proved experimentally time-dilation,
length-contraction, relativity of simultaneity, the Higgs
boson, gravitational waves, black holes, dark matter and curvature of
space, and those who express even well-intentioned desire to see
the evidence personally. The difference is that the corrupt
physicists, acting on faith, are silenced by the unequivocal arguments
TRAGIC POLITICAL CURIOSITY—There is an especially curious
effect of the bogus curvature of space
when none other than the former President of the United States, Barack
Obama, was conditioned by his mentor at Harvard (Obama as his student
had the idea and his mentor approved it and even published a paper)
to believe that the US Constitution is characterized by space and that
curvature of “constitutional space” is a viable concept
because, see, physics has proved that space can be curved.
As the argument presented here demonstrates, physics
has never and can never prove that space can be curved, neither has physics proved or can
ever prove any of the other insanities following from relativity and any other
Lorentz-transformations-based progeny, to say nothing
of the fact that a reductionist transfer of findings in physics to societal
matters, is unacceptable in principle.
Can you imagine the extent of the damage by relativity, reaching the highest levels
of government due to instilling falsities through relativity, which
physics has never ever proved and which can never be proved at all,
to begin with, as clearly seen by the argument shown above? Can you
imagine the harm and damage the world has experienced having been led
for eight years by someone so confused in his worldview at such a fundamental
conceptual level? This accusation of confusion at the fundamental cognitive
mangling of basic concepts, such as time and space, should be
leveled also at the current world leaders. No sobering in recognition
of the true nature of these fundamental concepts is anywhere to be seen
at all, although the above arguments have been publicly available for
over a decade. Even this book is written under the premise that these
arguments are publicly available and therefore they are repeated in
this text only for convenience. To carry on through life, let alone
lead nations, while basing one's thinking on fumbled concepts at such
a basic level, promises nothing else but disaster to the world.
THE NEED FOR SOCIETY TO FOLLOW
CORRECT SCIENCE IS NOT REDUCTIONISM—The formation
of broken thinking in society, due to science adopting broken science fundamentals, differs
from the noted unacceptable transferring physical laws to explain social phenomena.
Science, as the greatest authority when it comes to thinking, adversely affects society when
science adopts absurdities as legitimate scientific elements and asks society to pay for it.
Thus, while using discovered relations between quantities in physics to explain social
phenomena is wrong, science clean of absurdities properly teaches society that correct
reasoning regarding social issues must also avoid absurdities. Thus, the effect of science on
society is more about the general process of thinking rather than the transfer of concrete
physical laws to explain social phenomena. Thus, the influence of science on society is
something unavoidable, and therefore it is crucially important that science be devoid of
absurdities. Using physical or chemical laws to explain what happens in society is a rudimentary
attempt at explaining the much more complex life of society. Explaining society is an undertaking
of its own, characterized by its own much more complex laws,
the understanding of which, at present, are only in their
nascent state. There is much more to be understood about society, but using physics and
chemistry for its understanding is inadequate even as a tentative tool.
The above has to be appreciated, especially when scientific principles and laws have their
limited application even in science and their generalization is out of place societally.
A case in point is the law of natural selection and the survival of the fittest. Applied to
the human race, that law only accounts for the biological aspect of humanity. There, however,
is the much more important characteristic of the human, his or her ability to reason,
which is the substantive dividing threshold between the human and the rest of the natural world.
Reducing a human only to its biological aspect is one of the most dehumanizing acts there could be.
Our society is guilty to a great extent of committing that reprehensible dehumanizing act.
Many of the things that are discussed here are common sense and no time should be spent on them.
However, relativity has made it legitimate to accept that plain nonsense such as
that, in effect, one equals two as something
not only worthy of attention, but elevates such silliness to the epitome of great new science.
This has legitimized, as being sensible,
any insensible thing that can come to mind. Well, science says so, science accepts that one equals two
is already a true equality. Who are we to argue that wrong is right, that lie is truth and that
aberration is the norm? Literature has noted this twisted societal turn decades ago, but it has done so
intuitively, without putting its finger on where it actually arises from. One cannot blame literature for
this omission. Fiction writers are not versed in the details of science. This book comes to the rescue.
It exactly points to the very source of the abundant absurdity, swamping society; namely,
the destroyed science,
which has fallen into the clutches of aggressively touted absurd relativity. From now on, there is no
excuse for any party to justify its irrationality by using science. If hesitant in his or her search
for truth, they can always turn to this book and tune up their intellectual senses to what is right in
science, which would allow further reassurance that reason must be "keyed in" into everything else in life.
ABSURDITY CAN NEVER TURN INTO REASON—Let us
say it again. As seen, any Lorentz-transformations-based theory,
beginning with relativity and carrying through all kinds of other derivatives,
perceived as progeny of relativity, including curvature of space, are
nothing else but sheer lunacy—one cannot have the Lorentz transformations
violate absolute truths of physics, as unequivocally shown, and be inconsistent
even mathematically, and at the same time expect that there can be places
where such catastrophe will somehow magically disappear in some theories
containing said transformations, and that these follow-up Lorentz-transformations-based
theories will suddenly begin to make sense.
No, emphatically, nothing else further
can make sense when the fundamentals of thinking are senseless.
Therefore, before occupying themselves with any other world science policy, climate
change caused by human activity or whatever else, the world leaders,
even prior to the population at large could figure it out,
must straighten out their thinking
regarding the basic notions of cognition such as time, space and motion and
disallow public support of anything connected with relativity and
Lorentz-transformations progeny, garbling these notions and making mockery out
INVALUABLE TOOL FOR INTELLECTUAL HEALING—There is no better
opportunity for this intellectual healing to occur
other than by putting some not so significant effort in trying to understand
the specially digested unequivocal arguments presented above, proving
that the fundamentals of today's science, and therefore, the fundamentals
of today's thinking, are badly damaged and need urgent repair. Any other
debates concerning science policies pale, and are a waste of time, in
comparison with the demand for reform, in the first place, through canceling
the humungous public funding of theoretical physics, destroyed
by the Lorentz-transformations-based travesty of science.
As a general conclusion, it is to be strongly emphasized that, beyond
any rational objection, in no debate, especially regarding any of the
widely promoted global science policies, can anyone ever produce direct
evidence of the quality and unequivocality of the arguments shown above,
mandating removal from science of relativity and progeny.
The unequivocality of the shown proof of the absurd
character of relativity can always serve in a more general sense as
the intellectual calibrator, as something which one can lean on
intellectually in this
world, never losing his or her intellectual stability and mental poleposts. This is a more
efficient support to the soul and thought, even more than any other method allowing the
soul and thought to find a protective shore in today's raging
hurricanes in the ocean of ideas,
overwhelming our informationally-saturated times.
RESEARCH IS LOW QUALITY, LET ALONE UNNEEDED—In addition to
the here shown immediate proof that relativity is not science,
let alone science of extraordinary level of achievement, the proving of that fact is reached directly in
the present book, without the
necessity to do any experiments in any facilities. That definitive proof is based
solely on analyzing the background, by just inspecting the founding
1905 relativity paper, published in Annalen der Physik,
and clearly pinpointing the exact catastrophic error.
Curiously, the imposing multi-billion dollar facilities,
threatening to the uninitiated by their mere appearance, which for not a few of the uninitiated,
the appearance itself seems to mean confirmation of what is claimed there, means so much more than some
inauspicious discrepancy in formulae a hundred years old. Never mind that
the absurdity of these formulae is as actual today as it was a century ago, which
mandates that these
hyper-infrastructures, dedicated to the study of what follows from these formulae, in fact, sheer
absurdity, should never have been built to begin with.
Interestingly, what is more, hands-on access to these facilities,
as unnecessary from a scientific point of view as it is,
is strictly denied. Such access, although unneeded for the purposes of the essence for which they
were built, will only reveal the incredibly low quality of the scientific research conducted
at these intellectually empty facilities. By the way, denying access to facilities,
as an expected sneaky way to hide them from exposure to criticism,
cannot save any of the Lorentz-transformation-based theories these facilities were
built to sustain.
Denying access to these facilities, other than superficial access to tourists,
cannot deny anyone the direct access and the direct observation of the
catastrophic flaw seen in the very pages of the theory.
The fact that these fcilities were built specifically for the purposes of examining
what allegedly follows from these very pages but the direct access to these pages confirms that
they contain nothing but nonsense, ironically, says nothing else but that
these facilities, threatening to the
eye of the uninitiated, should not be there at all. Ostriches hiding their head in the san come to mind.
AUTHORITIES MUST PAY SPECIAL ATTENTION TO THIS WASTE—The establishment
of this low quality research, even in the most
basic technical way, will be left to the respective authorities,
who must inspect in concrete terms and figures what the billions
in taxpayer money is being wasted on. This writing fully suffices to pinpoint
the crucial, catastrophic reason why such activity, wrongly called scientific
research, should no longer take place anywhere in the world, under any
governmental sponsorship, even if the nitty-gritty of what exactly happens
in these wasteful facilities is jealously protected from independent scrutiny.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN DEBATABLE AND UNEQUIVOCAL—SHOWN HERE IN DIRECT TERMS—What
was just enunciated is the emphasis on the big difference between
the claims, seemingly bogus but subsisting due to being prone to infinite
debate, as opposed to the categorical, unequivocal proof of falsity,
regarding the bogus notions of relativity, analyzed here. At that, the
analysis is done by using the exact terms and notions of relativity
itself, as published, and not relegating to external examples, no matter
how correct (and there are indeed such) these external examples may
The corrupt relativity-enslaved physicists, supporting
absurdities, fraudulently calling them science, do not realize that
they are in an inescapable trap with regard to this here-discussed set
TOKAMAK IS LEGITIMATE AND ITS DIFFICULTIES ARE NATURAL—The
situation of the absurdist adherents to relativity differs from the
approaches, also unseemly in their own right, of those who play the game of
prolonging the term of studies regarding a viable scientific project.
Although the corrupt physicists advocating relativity will do anything to maintain
constancy of funding for their falsities, these falsities inherently
lack the natural potential that would allow every generation to extend their
life by another sixty years, as is the case currently with hot nuclear
fusion tokamak reactors—it is undeniable that, unlike relativity,
the phenomenon of nuclear fusion is real. It is only the engineering
aspects that remain to be sorted out for such a reactor
to be fully functional. Sorting out of the engineering
problems, accompanying the otherwise viable nuclear fusion, so that
it can find practical application, is the subject of a different conversation
and study, where one may find that the viable solution, which undeniably
exists, is constantly unjustifiably pushed forward in time by another
sixty years, for every new generation to tackle. In addition to what
was said, this pushing forward in time of the applicable engineering
solution is done, not so much because these engineering problems are
so hard to resolve, but because the powers-that-be just do not want that
sort of energy freedom for the people. Furthermore, as surmised, it
is also beneficial for those involved in such grandiose projects to
have the centralized public funding and sustenance of infrastructures, which
otherwise, once the problem is solved and hot fusion reactors become
widely available for practical use, will be dispersed and may even vanish
as a centralized research structure. When egotism and greed prevail,
garnered with the petty middle class interests of
job scheming, humanity is always stalling.
Clearly, this unjustified prolonging
of viable mega-projects such as hot fusion, to keep funding from disappearing,
is a problem. However, despite the fact that dealing with their deliberate holding
back is far more complicated, that question, as pointed out, is in
a different league with its own problems and solutions, unassociated
with the current theme of discussion, concerning outright senselessness
and well-funded concerted efforts to keep that senselessness alive.
Especially, as this text demonstrates, anyone curious about the question,
can immediately have access to the theses proving the inherent impossibility
to even think of the fake “effects” claimed from relativity,
such as, time-dilation, length-contraction and relativity of simultaneity,
let alone to demonstrate it experimentally.
RESOLUTION REGARDING RELATIVITY IS FINAL—It should also not
be forgotten that the arguments presented, unequivocally
proving that relativity is absurdity, are final. There is no more to
be said and those who have been mistaken have to move on. Society, however,
prefers to have topics that are never to be resolved completely, such
as the claim that climate change is caused by human activity. This claim,
as tenuous as it is, ensures livelihood for a whole army of sycophants.
Where are the researchers, feeling they are involved in lofty things,
detached from the masses, going to go, if the hot-fusion flagship tokamak
finally finds technical solution and supplies the world with free energy?
They may find their place in developing the technology, some may say.
This, however, is not to the liking of those who think of themselves
as worthy of doing something higher, of being scientists. Thus, tokamak
projects may be extended forever, the way some unionized construction
workers extend their contract, ensuring longer period of pay, never
mind that the job could be done in half the time.
RELATIVITY HAS NO FUTURE, NO MATTER HOW INVINCIBLE IT SEEMS TODAY—On
the other hand, getting back from the scientifically viable tokamak
to the untenable relativity, what the corrupt physicists of today espousing
bogus relativity do not think about, is that sooner or later their manipulative
game will be uncovered. Their corrupt game will be over and they
will vanish, collapsing under the weight
of the phony, inadequate mental structures built around
the vapid ideas they espouse. Clearly,
being currently in charge of inane funding and infrastructure, they
feel invincible because they have the means to arrange efficient resistance
to any critique, a resistance aiming at prolonging
the life of their falsities. Extending
forever the life of conceptually empty projects, however, based on internally
contradictory “theories” such as relativity, is impossible.
Sooner or later the day of reckoning comes, when the scientific collegiate
will feel compelled to honor the truth, rejecting the false heroes of
science. Today, clearly, “Après moi, le déluge” (“After
me, the deluge”) is the attitude. Society should mature enough
sooner rather than later to disallow such an attitude that harms it.
MASS-ENERGY RELATIONSHIP E = mc2 AND
THE BOMB HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RELATIVITY—To
say nothing of the fact
that the mass-energy relationship E = mc2
has nothing to do with relativity, despite the vigorous propaganda that
it does (the mass-energy relationship E = mc2
is found in classical physics; Ampere's law expresses that relationship,
as well as the expanded Newton's second law; this is discussed elsewhere).
Said mass-energy relationship cannot even be derived by relativity.
This is the crucial difference between the current science wars regarding
climate change, evolution vs. creationism, effects of GMO, alternative
medicine and vaccination controversy, on the one hand, and the critique
of the waste connected with relativity, on the other.
Unlike the other controversies
mentioned, making public the crucial, definitive arguments overthrowing
relativity, unearthing it as a genuine malevolence, fully scientifically
mandating its removal from science, is where a final, categorical solution
can be reached. This is what is escaping today's society and its politicians,
allowing the enormous waste caused by the contemporary poor state of
theoretical physics to pile up in astronomical proportions, while that
waste can be entirely avoided with full justification. Instead, society
is being avidly directed towards issues, such as the uncertainty-laden
human effects onclimate change studies, w
hich can hardly find definitive scientific justification.
Climate change, which is called science to sound politically correct,
although it lacks the crucial determinant allowing it to be called full-fledged
science; namely, allowing for reproducible experiments under controlled
conditions to be carried out, can only be imposed as a problem politically,
which is inevitably accompanied by justified scientific dissent. This
causes unnecessary tensions in society and is an additional type of
waste, the mentioned chronic reluctance of society to seek
final answers only aggravating the situation.
Relativity Induced Low Quality Thinking—Danger
to National Security
Induced Low Quality Thinking—Danger to National Security
THE IMPACT OF SCIENCE—The
impact of what is pronounced as science is enormous in the long run.
The ideological background, the way people think about themselves and
the world around them, not only about what they consume, is crucial for
the directions society follows. Have the beacon of science malfunctioning,
especially allowing its fundamentals to be flubbed, and the deadly reefs,
hidden inauspiciously under the guise of seemingly benign philosophical
misconceptions, may turn out fatal, especially in today's informationally-enhanced
society. Deep down in one's perceptions it is not immaterial if one
is assured that there can be time travel, in principle, even though
not available today; if, in principle, there are parallel universes
or whether or not the Higgs boson is indeed real. These assurances,
along with the unanswerable questions as to what is the purpose of life
or whether there is life after death, are the core of ruminations from
early childhood. Life after death and purpose of life questions are
difficult, if at all answerable. Time-travel, parallel universes and
Higgs boson questions, on the contrary, are questions answerable at
once—there are no such phenomena and any suggestion to the opposite
is deceitful, to say the least. The mentioned hallucinations
are the result of the vile adoption of the product of flawed thinking; namely,
the Lorentz transformations, as if yielding worthwhile conclusions conforming with reality.
To leave society in a quandary about such evident falsities, subject to immediate
unequivocal debunking, is the greatest disservice there can be.
Hopefully, the above gives clarity to the mentioned sense of unease
when it seems apparent to some, quite unjustifiably, at that,
that the confusion about science fundamentals does not affect regular everyday life.
Not long ago, before the information age, it was possible to
maintain a state whereby the population is consoled by scientific bliss,
feeling blasé, immaterial of whether something is true or false. Nowadays,
vast sections of the population have access to alternative information
sources and the clash between what is being presented to them as real
and the actual, real truth, may happen sooner rather than later. Such
clash, causing crashing of ideals and deeply ingrained perceptions due
to indoctrination, is fatal for the societal integrity. It is a sure
basis for its demise.
No future awaits society taken over by broken thinking. Therefore, a
destruction of the finest fabric of public perception by widely imposed
bogus “theories”, such as relativity, destroying the basis
of thinking, is far more harmful to society, hence, to our existence
on earth, than the popularly promoted dangers, such as those of, say,
the human effect on climate change, the need for clean environment
notwithstanding. Moreover, the human effect on climate change is prone
to challenge because of inherent uncertainties characterizing the study
of climate change. In general, speaking of climate, it is manipulative,
serving only political purposes, to portray that unequivocal conclusions
can be reached as a result of studies of the world's climate, which
are studies mired in so much innate characteristic uncertainties.
In contrast, if one is really determined to prevent the demise of humanity,
by preventing a fatal disturbance of its defining characteristic; namely,
its intellect, and seeks a really unequivocal way for such prevention,
one must look no further than the unequivocal proof shown here that
relativity and its progeny are absurdities and have no place in science.
Science is the dedicated keeper of the intellectual integrity of humanity.
Destroy science by implementing on a wide scale absurdities such as
relativity, and the intellect is gone. With intellect gone, humanity
has lost its essence.
Therefore, not only is the presence of relativity as a scientific topic
and policy, having a world impact comparable to, if not greater, than the
impact on the world of the perceived human effect of climate change,
but the out of place presence of relativity and its Lorentz-transformations-based
outgrowths at the center of attention of the world science policy, carrying with it
massive squandering of wealth of the nations which must go to real science,
is the real imminent danger for survival of the world.
The destructive effect of relativity and progeny on thinking
has become more and more evident
in the past decade or so, plunging society into the nightmare of the
unthinkable, even implementing incredible
ruinous lunacy into the legislation, which, otherwise,
without the bizarre academic approval
of the absurd, would belong only to mental institutions. Especially
dangerous is the directing of the deteriorated thinking, lowered to
a historic mediocrity, to forming bizarre views regarding biological issues.
Such an ideological deterioration with a pronounced biological slant,
is one of the characteristics of the Nazi ideology, which now has spread
over a wider variety of biological issues, beyond the pure racism characterizing
the original Nazi ideology. Aiding this demise is the total
decomposition, the disastrous fallout of installed incoherence
and absurdity in the fundamentals of
the exact sciences, of basic components of correct thinking, such as the reliance
on the firm conviction that
truth exists. The portrayal by the bizarre postmodernism
of truth only as an invention, only as a social construct and
a metaphor, even when excusing such view by saying that what is really meant is
only some so-called “social truth”, is the basis of the general confusion in
our society. Postmodernism is the modern,
more elaborate form of fascism, if one is to be quite blunt and not fear hurting
Such confusion causes society to plunge into irrational fears, and is
especially dangerous when the peoples of the world need to seek urgent solutions for
life-threatening global disasters.
The agents causing the specter of disasters, such as those from nuclear radiation
and pandemics, are invisible.
They are threats to the survival of humanity but they have clear, visible horrifying effects.
However, the pandemic of intellectual destruction, destruction of thinking by destroyed
fundamentals of science, produces apparently invisible effects on the unsuspecting victims.
A society with destroyed thinking
visibly goes about its business as usual, the effects of low-quality thinking expressing themselves
in so subtle a way that centuries may pass and society may not be able to come out of
the stupor it has gotten itself into due to the incorrect comprehension of reality.
The intellectual degradation takes place so gradually that it is not noticed until it
is discovered suddenly that society is dumbed down and reason and logic do not matter any more. It is
already an uphill battle and very difficult to restore a state whereby simple truths
such as one does not equal two would not be allowed in effect to comprise fundamentals of science,
further penetrating in society as damaged and muddled thinking.
once humanity has found itself in deadly conflicts and the reason for the many victims
is not far from the wanting quality of thinking. It is not unimportant that the historical
winner, as a rule, has a better understanding of the world and nature due to better quality thinking
and therefore is better equipped to wage the war and win it.
Thus, when it comes to a war against an invisible enemy, the war to overcome
destruction of the mind by bad science imposed on society, is an assault by an
invisible double edged sword—both the agent and the effects on the victim are invisible.
When underhanded forces cause society to adopt the invisible agent, society does not even
know its thinking has been diseased.
When the general thinking of society is undermined and
damaged by instilling absurdities at the very fundamentals of science; that is,
what society relies on to be the solid rock of its thinking, defining the
quality of society's thinking, allows
guileful manipulators to enjoy a free pass at any dastardly thing that
may serve them well. It is very difficult, if not impossible, to corner these
manipulators and catch them red-handed when they resort to their dastard
DEFINITIVE SOLUTION POSSIBLE—Luckily,
in the current world, the resolution of
that undermining and damage can be done conclusively at the very fundamental level,
right where this insanity begins. The removal in its entirety of relativity
and Lorentz-transformations-based progeny from science, bringing
quantum mechanics back to its classical
roots, especially by society refusing to financially support these intellectual
abnormalities, is the solution
to restoring reason and sanity, not only back to science but,
consequently, back to society, as a result improving the overall
quality of thinking. It is again emphatically stated that, fortunately,
bringing back science to its real state of being the stalwart of truth and reason
on a fundamental level,
is accomplishable definitively
by relying on the unequivocal proof presented in this book. This golden
once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to have in one's possession unequivocal
proof of such unmatched categoricity, regarding a problem of global proportions,
must make authorities close their coffers for relativity and progeny at once,
and “stimulate” that absurdity out by funding it no more. Thus,
once again, flatly, healing from that menace is clear-cut.
It can be provided immediately by a strong political will, determined to
sever the source of the installed absurdities
from their vast public financial support. There is no other reason or
agenda, least of all an ulterior motive, which provokes such a call for
severing public financial support, other
than the one caused by the ultimate abuse of science by relativity and progeny. There is nothing more
pressing as a world science policy than sobering up to the fact that public funds
must no longer be squandered for sustaining of the
abuse of logic and reason by relativity and progeny, an abuse unequivocally proven here.
This is a priority for several reasons. First, because of the deeper
and more subtle intellectual
damage relativity inflicts upon the entire society, compared to other
threats, such as pandemics or the purported anthropogenic climate change.
Another reason is that, unlike the resolution of pandemics
or purported anthropogenic climate change, the absurdity of relativity is
unambiguous—no extra-scientific measures, which are needed to deal with pandemics and the purported
anthropogenic climate change, are necessary. Last but not least, is that
the reason is clearly seen internally, in the theory itself.
The absurdity is seen in the very pages of the published
“theory”, and this unequivocally cries out for the removal of relativity
from science. This allows the resolution to be instituted categorically and at once,
unlike delays characteristic when resolving other
global threats, should there be fearless political will to
immediately sever the source of public support for relativity and
any Lorentz-transformations-based pretense for research.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon anyone who proclaims himself or herself
to be concerned about the future of the world, to first solve the major
world science policy problem with relativity and progeny, by removing
them from the udder of public funding, and only then deal with all the
equivocal problems, deservedly or undeservedly elevated to the world
stage as public science policies and disaster solutions.
Moreover, the resolution in the case of relativity, compared to other
public science policy problems and disaster solutions, comprises
saving rather than spending of funds.
To do this, it cannot be repeated
too many times, a very strong political will and bravery is needed, as well as a
real love for the truth. Political will to stop its massive public financial
support and love for truth, are the only factors that would allow overcoming
of the many-headed Hydra of corruption in science and society.
ABUSE OF NECESSARY CONSERVATISM—From all said so far,
it follows that the necessary conservatism in science is severely
abused by certain governing forces in society, by
making conserved the absurdities contaminating science, which are
exactly the elements that must not be conserved, the elements that must be rejected and
immediately overthrown. Conserving exactly what must not be conserved, conserving the
absurdity in science, has led scientific
thought astray for over a century, causing irreparable harm to society.
This harm is so grave that, as mentioned above, it may cause the fall
of the entire Western world.
There are well-known examples of entire
empires disappearing from the map of history, not in the least, as a
result of neglecting the rational, which today is exemplified by proper science,
in favor of pursuits devoted to spiritual matters and prejudice.
The Western societies,
on the contrary, had put at the center of their activity the pursuit
of reason, leading to discoveries, and that became the basis for the
ideology of science, which, when correctly functioning, comprises the
heart of the most advanced civilization the world has ever known. No
wonder that armed with the ideology of science, based on the scientific
method, which pointed this society in the right direction, leading to true
advancement, society, aided by technology, found itself as the winner
amongst the alternative civilizations.
THE WASTED CENTURY—The scientific method emerged some four centuries ago and
developed throughout the following three
centuries until its actual demise in the twentieth century, although still being paid
lip service in the educational institutions. Technology alone would not have
been able to lead civilization along this bright victorious path
without the guiding hand of science, as impractical in purely
utilitarian sense as science is.
Nowadays, Western societies have fallen into the dead-end of complacency
and factual neglect of the real scientific truth, ensured by the scientific
method. Governing forces of society have given in to the paltry
needs of the population at large to seek entertainment, to seek the
fantastic, the outlandish and esoteric in every piece of information, especially
concerning science. Fundamentals of science are neglected,
which, leaving science unguarded, has allowed the infiltration of
notions and approaches which correctly functioning science would never allow. Dealing with the
fundamentals of science is considered not interesting, even reprehensible.
Fundamentals of science are presented as a subject closed for discussion,
although by their very nature, they must be the constant object of scrutiny,
otherwise, if flaws in these foundations are missed, no research in science
will make sense.
Infinity, distant worlds, hallucinations such as
contemporary cosmology, the absurd Lorentz-transformations-based parts of
astrophysics, astrology and clairvoyance are
engulfing the public mind more and more, stimulating the publishing of innumerable
make-believe books, questionable even as entertainment devices and staging an inane
number of barely watchable Hollywood-style productions. In
this dangerous, if not ruinous, ideological state of affairs regarding serious matters, all
of them debased and degraded to sheer instruments of misplaced fun,
everything else but the solid scientific foundations is the center of attention.
In this respect, there is a real urgency to correct that diversion and
a pressing need to get science in the West back to its Renaissance traditions
of the scientific method—the protector of truth. At stake
is nothing less than the very survival of our civilization.
HOW SCIENCE FUNCTIONS HAS EVERYTHING TO DO WITH THE LIFE OF A COUNTRY—National
security is not something abstract, detached from education
and from how science functions. Brainwashing the youth of the nation
through instilling the idea that violation of logic is OK has everything
to do with degrading the nation's well-being and security. There would hardly
be anyone who would dispute this, if it is stated openly.
The infrastructures mentioned do not fulfill these
expectations and this is very dangerous for national security. It does
not need too much explanation to understand what the connection is between
the hallucinations imposed by such huge centers of authority and maintaining
the integrity of a nation. Any nation engulfed in the delirium
of believing that absurdity comprises science, let alone providing financial
support for such inanity, its main authority embracing that, is a goner.
If society allows this to take control, speaking of national security would make
no sense. There will be no nation any more, to be concerned about its security.
ABUSE OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IS WHERE THE PROBLEMS BEGIN—The
scientific method, which is one of the greatest achievements
of humanity, and which the civilized world has adopted as the definition
of civilization itself, through centuries of vigorous, sometimes deadly,
confrontations with the enemies of reason, must be cherished as something
more precious than gold. There can be no modern nation, let alone security
of such nation, without preserving civilization itself. Preservation
of civilization, which is another way of saying preservation of the
scientific method, requires at least that absolute truths are recognized.
Absurdities and hallucinations taking over and commanding a nation,
are its death knell. To refresh the reader's memory, such absolute
truths are, for example, the uniqueness
of one single body and the uniqueness that governs its motion at every
moment of that single body. This is an absolute truth which is most brazenly
violated in the so-called relativity. Further brazen violations of basic
sanity reach nothing less
than committing elementary logical fallacies, such as petitio
principii (the question contains the answer), which quantum
mechanics is based on (problems of quantum mechanics are discussed elsewhere).
APPLYING SCIENTIFIC METHOD STARTS IN THE MIDDLE—In
a very twisted, paradoxical
way, alongside the factual allowing, in university courses across the country,
absurdity to be thought of as science,
the obeying of logic, the avoiding of conflict with absolute truths, is thought to be
so commonplace and fundamental to the scientific method being paid lip service to in science
the violation of the scientific method by disobeying logic,
is feigningly considered so unfathomable,
that it is always taken for granted.
This need to obey logic and reason is never even discussed in the usual university science courses.
Indeed, in effect jumping the gun,
the first step when introducing the scientific method in a science
course, is always said to be the experimental verification of a hypothesis,
implying mindlessly that even gibberish, as long as it is designated as a hypothesis,
is eligible to be the subject
of experimentation. Taking advantage of that lack of
attention to what should go without saying, has allowed charlatans to covertly
mess up basic notions that normally do not even need to waste time discussing, to foist
subversively major absurdities, one of them discussed here, relativity, to insidiously
penetrate physics. What this really does is to force people, and scientists in particular,
to discuss ridiculous things instead of devoting efforts to sensible real matters.
That is why our society is not progressing at the speed it should. In fact, this
situation greatly hampers the advance of society.
Thus, instead of honoring from the beginning, the testing for logicality
and coherence with absolute truths, that beginning part of the scientific
method is skipped and students are always told that testing a theory
commences with its experimental verification. In this way, a predisposition
is set up in the student's consciousness to overlook logic and absolute
truths; that is, to overlook things that students can verify themselves.
Instead, they are conditioned to accept anything irrational, presented
as truth, because someone somewhere has been said to have verified it
Furthermore, the student has no way of checking that
experiment himself or herself, neither is the student encouraged or
given the chance to look into the logic of what he or she is being exposed
to, and can only rely on the authority of the instructor, who has
also been conditioned earlier, during his or her own education, in exactly
the same disingenuous way. The student is also misled to think that science
amounts to solving problems. When authority speaks, the
student is silent. Thus, the student plugs numbers into the
formulae of the Lorentz transformations, as a misleading illustration
of what science does. The student obtains an expected numerical answer
and gets a grade A for the effort. The student has learned well what
was taught. Yet he or she, the subject of wrong instruction, will remain
forever oblivious to the fact that what he or she had used for the
calculations makes absolutely no mathematical, or even less, physical
sense. The instruction has left the student with the most important
part of the knowledge—the conceptual lunacy of
the Lorentz transformations—obscured
for him or her, maybe for life. Thus, by skipping the beginning of the
application of the scientific method, verification of the logicality
of what is to be ruminated upon, the student is deliberately prevented
from promptly determining that such experiments,
let alone studying the absurdity itself, are not even necessary,
because there is nothing to verify due to the fact that
such as relativity, is invalidating itself even prior to putting it
to experimental test, and there are no real conclusions whatsoever that
can be claimed to follow from it.
This is how perpetration of the irrational, under the guise of science,
takes place every day in our colleges and universities, as well as in
society at large. This is a never ending vicious cycle which needs to
be interrupted (by applying the repeatedly mentioned
because it brings society into a downward spiral of intellectual
DESTROYING SCIENTIFIC METHOD—CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY—Therefore,
considering the sacrifice made by the precious heroes fighting
for the scientific method throughout centuries, it would not
be an exaggeration to consider the deliberate destruction of the scientific method
akin to a crime against humanity. There can be no secure nation,
if it tolerates such crime, no matter how subtle and concealed that
To propose and have a society avidly embrace a “theory”,
such as relativity, which contains
logical errors, internal contradictions and is in defiance of absolute
truths, is the ultimate affront to science. It does not require
much justification to assert that a bogus “theory”, wrought
with such elementary but crucial flaws, is to be recognized as absurd
immediately and abandoned without a second thought, rather than be shot
into a century of prominence and celebration, as was
relativity. The easily discernible crime against
humanity is celebrated for exactly the opposite.
It is really outrageous to experience that it would not matter how many
times it is repeated that
no conclusions at all, let alone any
conclusions at all that can be tested experimentally, can follow
from relativity because relativity is internally contradictory,
relativity is an absurdity, and absurdity cannot
give rise to any sensible outcome whatsoever,
this will never sink into some people's minds.
They will keep on brainlessly ranting that there are innumerable experimental confirmations.
We nevertheless will keep that forlorn attempt to impel sanity, which
I, for one, will continue till my last breath.
SCIENTIFIC METHOD AND WORLD CRISES—In view of its preeminent importance, we
will return in this section to the serious alert that neglect
of the scientific method, letting absurdities govern science at a fundamental level,
damaging science, is especially dangerous when considering the real
global threats, where answers are difficult by nature.
The immediately establishable absolute proof shown here
for the absurdity of one of the most
advertised creations in science, relativity, is unquestionable as unquestionable are the
conclusively established major experimental laws of science.
These laws, although
impossible to demonstrate directly, here on the net, the way absurdity of relativity can,
nevertheless, can be confirmed categorically at any moment in any
well-equipped science lab. Conversely, there are significant topics,
occupying world attention, which are,
by far, not as fortunate in reaching paramount clarity. Many major themes of world interest
such as anthropogenic climate change, viral pandemics, vaccines and reports on experiences
in outer space are obscured by a complex of factors. The most insidious factor is the low quality
of thinking, stemming from the destroyed functioning of fundamental science, the main adviser
in intellectual matters of society. Destroyed thinking on a fundamental level
is the primary concern of this book, this concern even being the reason why this
author undertook its writing.
CONSPIRACY, WIDE-EYEDNESS AND FEAR-MONGERING—The low quality of thinking
formed by destroyed fundamental science makes the population more acceptive to conspiracy
theories and to be easier to indoctrinate to the taste of manipulators. The gaps in knowledge,
inherent in the difficulties
of reaching the truth when it comes
to complicated issues, which by their nature are impossible to resolve categorically,
are filled by conspiracy
theories or by an easy installment of fears and panic about issues which cannot even be guaranteed
to be real. This is all the more dangerous when parties of great power are obsessed with such mania.
Conspiracy theories, wide-eyedness of globally promoted unsustained fears,
foisted politically and pushed
enthusiastically by the mainstream media, go hand in hand with corruption in science,
tolerating and even stimulating the low-quality thinking, insensitive to the fact that absurdities
can never constitute science. Thus, again and again,
straightening out of such an unacceptable situation, whereby the mediocrity of the absurd dominates,
can come about only by beginning the correction at the top of
intellectual endeavors; that is, by beginning to correct fundamentals on which contemporary
science rests, as calembourous, if not topsy-turvy, as this may sound.
THE PYRAMID OF THE CATEGORICAL—To give a visual representation of what was said,
one may consider the hierarchy of the immediate reliability
of conclusions. At the helm of this hierarchy, is the debunking of relativity, shown here. That unmatched
summit, symbolizing the ultimate finality of conclusions, is closely followed by the
fully reliable, but indirectly establishable, absoluteness of the various scientific laws,
such as Ohm's and Boyle's law, to name a few, which need a science lab for their testing,
if someone decides to express doubt. The outcome will inevitably be full confirmation,
as students around the globe are repeatedly confirming in their labs.
These topics, holding the top positions in the hierarchy of unequivocal knowledge,
together with the absolute truths, comprise the foundation of correct thinking.
The above prerequisites of high quality thinking in the world, groomed by correctly governed
and functioning fundamental sciences, form the basis of correct understanding of the world,
as well as high social responsibility and trust in science, assuring confidence that what
is reported officially is true.
Therefore, it is a disaster when absurdities such as relativity are manipulatively placed to
serve as steady knowledge at the top of this hierarchy,
the hierarchy which shapes the way society sees the world
and determining society's thinking. This is especially disastrous when
one realizes that, sadly, problems of major world significance, some purported, some real, occupy the
lower levels of the described hierarchy of reliability of scientific
conclusions. Some of these complex world topics suffer inherently anyway from
an innate, characteristic uncertainty,
when it comes to establishing whether or not they are indeed real phenomena.
Such is the claim for the anthropogenic character of
climate change. Other topics, such as viral pandemics,
although potentially real, if not only used as buttons to spread panic for political advantage,
contain the inherent impossibility to
establish reliably, let alone directly, their source,
as well as most of their global characteristics.
Even on a personal level, prognosis about the effect of the cause of the pandemic,
regarding a concrete individual, may not be firm, in view of other uncontrolled accompanying factors.
Such is the case also with the health effect of tobacco,
vaccines or asbestos. There may be indications statistically
that these are harmful, disease-causing agents, but whether or not a concrete individual would be
affected cannot be foretold. Human life is not just a number in a statistical
ensemble. That is why, emphasis has been put here on everyone's societal
responsibility—there may be a non-zero chance, in principle, that your child would be
affected by the vaccine or that smoking would not affect you, but social responsibility tells
you what is the right thing to do—stop smoking, vaccinate your child, do not use
asbestos if you are a developer and do not put plastic bottles on the market, if you are the
producer of a beverage. Here, we do not discuss other ethical concerns that may be
raised in a consumer society such as ours. In all such cases, without exception, the population
at large entirely relies on indirect reports. The population at large relies on the honesty
and integrity of external parties. Indirect accounts are practically all one hears,
reported by NASA and every agency devoted
to shaping and conducting public science policy, turned eventually into legislation, which may
affect many peoples of the world. For this reason, official
factors, feeding the sources of information and shaping legislation, must necessarily have,
first and foremost, along with devotion to truthfulness and honesty,
a correct basis of thinking, excluding the adoption of absurdities such as relativity
as something representing reality. Needless to say, these authorities must be of highest
integrity, foreign to any corruption. Society trusts them on matters individuals cannot
see for themselves. Betraying the trust society has endowed these authorities with, is
just about the highest crime these public organizations can commit.
Conversely, these individuals can see for themselves,
when shown the direct unequivocal
proof for the absurdity of relativity, although they are powerless
to induce any change and remove relativity
as a damaging agent to society.
These authorities, especially academia, therefore,
have the highest possible responsibility. The gist of this responsibility is to straighten out
the fundamentals of their scientific thinking. At present, these fundamentals are destroyed,
the thinking of the highest authorities is destroyed, and the National Academy of Sciences
carries on its intellectual governance of society as a most outrageous intellectual hoodlum.
This harms society not only in the discussed impact of science on society, perceived as
subtle but, in fact, crucial for proper functioning of society, but also has a
very tangible, everyday existential effect, threatening everyone's life.
Therefore, the main spirit of this book, warning of the troubles bad
science incurs on society, should not be taken lightly, only as some
kind of metaphor. It has very troublesome, even deadly dimensions
and therefore must be heeded. This is why, it was alluded that neglecting the dangers
destroyed fundamentals of science incur on society, borders on crime against humanity.
The discussed global threats, inherently difficult to understand, let alone handle, cannot
be curbed unless there is cooperation between science, obeying reason and functioning with
high integrity, and a population behaving with high social responsibility, as is needed in
difficult cases such as the vaccination controversy or during pandemic disasters.
Furthermore, treating education and health issues as business does not help in solving
the discussed problems.
The first act to fix the damaged science fundamentals, and therefrom to improve the
quality of society's thinking, is to cancel, at once, the funding of relativity-related
surrogate science. Let alone that this act is the easiest and ensures firmly guaranteed success to
fix the damaged science fundamentals. This mandatory action pops up
in any topic of global significance, no matter how seemingly unrelated. Even the questions
of war and peace cannot be handled with low quality thinking, destroyed at its very core
by the current instilling of the idea that absurdities, nonsense and lunacy, such as
the essence of relativity, can form the
grounds for proper reasoning.
Why Hasn't It Been Pinpointed and Corrected
It Been Pinpointed and Corrected?
Such deliberate destruction of science by
nothing less than destroying its very core; namely, defiance of the most elementary
requirements of logic, as in relativity, is, as
said, without analog in the history of science. How, then, could
such an absurdity ever remain unnoticed and not be promptly dealt with?
BLAME IT ON THE ENHANCED HERMETICITY OF THE NATIONAL
ACADEMY OF SCIENCES—The problem of the inadequate behavior of
academia in this serious covert intellectual crisis,
was already commented upon in an earlier
chapter. In this context, it deserves to be mentioned again that the lasting presence in science
of an absurdity such as relativity,
is due, first and foremost, to the natural hermetic essence of academia and
its ruling organ—the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)—the hermetic essence
deliberately additionally enhanced, as was already implied. Thus, NAS is additionally
isolated from society in its lofty, airy castle of pursuit, which is
perceived as highly intellectual and correct, only because it takes place
in the Academy, independent of how, in fact, anti-intellectual and absurd,
it might really be. Thus, academia has complete reign over society intellectually.
Society, outside academia, has no control over academia. God forbid, then, if a dictate of
academia is frivolous and corrupt, as it is today. In this way, once infected
by absurdity, the infection is encapsulated within the host, and the host, the Academy,
dominating society intellectually, spreads the diseased thinking
throughout society, unopposed, torturing it and undermining its humanistic and financial basis.
VIRUSES AND WORLD PANDEMICS—We can continue the thoughts
from the last chapter by metaphorically likening the invasion into the most
intimate machinery of science to an intellectual virus. The reassuring thing is that
the virus of absurd relativity and its dilapidating Lorentz-transformations-based progeny
is immediately curable, the cure being presented here
in a most comprehensible form, mandating
that no public money be spent on it. Realize how different it is from the pandemics due
to invasion of human bodies by viruses, pandemics which have wiped out entire peoples and
empires. Unlike the plainly observed intellectual virus of relativity, which can be eradicated
at once should there be a decisive political will to stop nurturing it with public funds,
governments are powerless to even understand the nature of pandemics
caused by viruses of biological origin, and are at their mercy,
capable of opposing these pandemics only unintelligently,
by applying governmental suppression.
I mentioned at the beginning how fortunate I am not to have devoted my
life to occupations which do not bring final answers, such as medicine or music. Otherwise,
I would have found myself in the same position with regard to science as is the position of
everyone today with regard to world medicinal virus pandemics. We all sit and wait to be told
what these pandemics are, by parties who themselves are unaware of where the truth lies,
to say nothing of instilling fear through, in fact, false pandemics
aimed at achieving political gain. The most one hopes for in the case of genuine pandemics
in the medical sense, is to find out where
the preponderance of evidence will lead, never sure what the real truth is because
preponderance of evidence is another way of saying helplessness
when facts are scarce, let alone unreliable.
In opposition, the intellectual virus of today's theoretical physics, an even greater menace
to the entire humanity, is nailed down here with unmatched certainty. Said intellectual epidemic,
rooted in relativity, will not make you
bed-ridden, forcing you to keep the room, not only for bodily weakness, but also for quarantine.
The intellectual virus, exemplified by relativity, is not directly felt, it is not
visibly contagious, but is destructive to the soul of society no less than any other pandemic.
Observing how staunchly unmoved and set in their ways the ruling structures are
in the face of obvious waste, calling it support of science, it is
really disheartening to see how superficially society is being governed, foregoing real cures for
truly devastating issues, pandering only to visible signs of disaster, which are simply consequences
of the bad science allowed to govern society. If governing of science by absurdities and corruption
is not disabled by denying it public support, there will be no end to all kinds of other pandemics
awaiting humanity. It is hardly appreciated, and that needs to be repeated,
that the health of science, its freedom from absurdities,
not only has material dimensions, but that the correct science, science free from absurdities, forms
a correct worldview, which ensures also better ways of understanding world disasters and
finding better ways
to oppose them. Science, resting on broken fundamentals, fails to contribute to forming a
correct understanding of the world, and is a big disaster
itself. If it is not understood that returning science to its proper roots, honoring the
scientific method, is, actually, the most practical thing in the widest sense possible,
our civilization is doomed.
No mechanical prevention of the invasion of viruses by using face masks and border control
will save it from extinction.
POLITICIANS, SUPPLYING THE FUNDS TO SUSTAIN THAT
PLAGUE, ARE IN A STALEMATE—The selfish politicians know not to ostracize
academia, especially by trying to reform how society interacts with
academia, because, although subtle, the political pain they will suffer
is inevitable and tangible sooner rather than later. Dealing with
rogue science is not like dealing with just any rogue. The retaliation, which the
quasi-scientific hoaxters inflict on their perceived enemies is subtle,
but deep and sometimes untraceably mean. Once he or she gets entangled
in that cobweb, the politician can expect no support from his or her
already heavily brainwashed constituents. This battle is only for very
strong and valiant politicians. Really honest politicians are not
abundant in many other ways in our society,
but when it comes to society-academia interaction, the situation is
tragic in comparison.
MALFUNCTIONING ACADEMIA IS PRACTICALLY IRREPARABLE
BOTH FROM WITHIN AND FROM WITHOUT—Change, other than through direct
external canceling of the public funds going for absurdities, a change
mainly driven by considerations aiming at protecting the taxpayer economically,
could only come about due to the fading away of academia's ruling structures
as a result of natural causes. Such hope for change from within academia is slim, since
measures are taken for the new generations to be groomed in the same
self-serving, corrupt fashion. As a result, there is no hope for anything
different from what one sees today. For the foreseeable future, the world
will not change much in this respect. It is extremely unlikely for
internal coup d'états to take place
in academia so that the latter will be taken over by the
forces of reason and genuine science.
The honest have to figure out for themselves
how to carry on with their love and devotion to real science.
This could be a very lonely position to be in. This author
does not have much to offer as a way to deal with the corruption within
academia, and is of the opinion that everything is entirely in the hands
of the individual, his or her personal ideals and means.
NO SCIENCE DOCTRINE HAS ESTABLISHED ITSELF ONLY
DUE TO ITS OWN MERITS—One may speculate
that in all of history, someone's
curiosity, talents and foresight, were noticed only when they happened
to fall into the focus
of the interests of the existing powers-that-be, causing him or her
to be shot into historical prominence. The right person, in the right
place, at the right time, as the saying goes. This is how the Galileos
and the Newtons of the world have found their place in textbooks. Clearly,
unfortunately, history has not always been so lucky—the powers-that-be
of today have found it important to bring into prominence a creation,
a “theory” such as relativity, of intellectual standards
below anything known so far.
AS A PROTECTIVE MEASURE, THE ROLE OF THE
NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES IS DELIBERATELY
MINIMIZED IN THE PUBLIC EYE—A curious
attribute in the USA, installed as a protection from unwanted
attacks of a laissez-faire society, appearing to recognize
no authority, is creating the opinion that the role of academia is minimal,
deceitfully coming across as such, even to the majority of faculty in
universities. Many of them may not even know about the true role of its ruling
organ, the National Academy of Sciences, thinking of it,
despite its name, only as one of those
common types of a learned society, in which members pay membership fee;
more of a professional or trade organization, rather than a center
of power in the sciences and society.
It is notable that in the very American spirit of public-private partnership,
the National Academy of Sciences is ostensibly a private enterprise,
but it has the decisive impact, the final word in matters scientific,
when it comes to the government. As said, the government has no control
whatsoever, in making NAS accountable, once money is manipulatively extracted
from the government. NAS is only accountable to itself, in a totalitarian,
dictatorship style, a dictatorship of the worst kind—an intellectual
Ideally, academia and its center of power—the
National Academy of Sciences—is supposed to police itself
in order to maintain the highest integrity, a calling which,
unfortunately, it is not living up to.
At the same time, it is a vulnerable monarchical
creation, depending on the will, determined by the interests of the
reclusive higher powers in science
(not the US Congress or the European Commission,
which only serve these powers), which created it and which continue
maintaining it, to ensure their unabated stay at the helm through the
most important element of their
might; namely, intellectual control. The
National Academy of Sciences is not to be confused with other academies
of sciences, in name only, such as the American Academy of Sciences
or the New York Academy of Sciences, which have no impact whatsoever
on ruling science.
IMPERIAL FOUNDATIONS OF THE ACADEMY OF SCIENCES—The idea
behind creating the academy of sciences has been to spread
a wing of royal guardianship over the defenseless filigree intellect,
protecting it from the hurricanes of commerce and other “lowly”
non-intellectual worldly pursuits and attacks. Those royal powers were
told that proper, relevant science leads to efficient technology (a
connection otherwise questionable, if carried
out too far) in the form of better ships and artillery. England
needs to win over France and vice versa. So, the two empires
ensure that science functions in its sheltered crystal castle, called
academia, expected to lay the golden egg, aimed at insuring dominance.
Later, it was found that dominance does not have only military hue, but
that real dominance is the dominance in intellectual matters.
The soft power of science matters more in the long run.
These were the times when the crude direct colonialism was found to
be getting less efficient than the soft power of cultural dominance.
Some monarchies took it to heart and even introduced prizes in science,
so that they would be the ones who would install intellectual borderlines
by delineating what is notable as achievement in science, abstracting it
from all else which is not a notable achievement. This subtle control
of the intellectual matters of the world also has pragmatic ends, as
every dominance has. Clearly, as mentioned below, if merely utilitarianism
should be the stimulus for the powers-that-be to support a similar pursuit,
technology would do. Not a penny would leave the pockets of the powerful
to support science, no matter how truly significant science is for the
integrity of society by maintaining a correct worldview, through its
RELAXING OF STANDARDS—With
realizing that intellectual control is no less
of a pragmatic goal, having also the free hand to set up standards as
they please, the governing powers have decided to relax the commoner's
understanding of practicality, for reasons about which this author can
only speculate, only to allow absurdities to occupy the territories,
which were supposedly delegated to reason. In allowing this, said powers
either seem to unsuspectedly sign their own demise or there is something
more, which this author fails to understand at this time.
OPPORTUNISTIC SCIENCE ESTABLISHMENT WASTES NO TIME TO
BENEFIT FROM RELAXED STANDARDS—Consequently, for its part,
the science establishment, sensing the opportunity
this relaxing of standards is ensuring for an easier approach to extracting
finances from society, has developed a whole arsenal of weapons to drum
into society and its politicians that science is important because it
has direct practical application. Namely here, in this management activity,
aimed at giving legitimacy to science as a fundable area, is the breakdown
and the infiltration, by corruption, of self-serving forces of science
abuse. As time went by, the powers themselves have found that such an
approach is to their interest. Now a symbiotic concert of the crooked
is taking place, backed by politicians and other servants of the status
THE POWER OF BELONGING—Add to what was already said, that the
ideological basis for a given scientific theory
to govern, is its belonging to the national, or even group, identity
and pride, and the picture of staunchly holding onto what has already
been promoted, good or bad, becomes even stickier. The more powerful
the nation, the more likely for a theory to become entrenched into the
body of world consciousness. The same, true for a nation, applies also
to a powerful group of worldwide influence. It is completely unlikely for
science doctrines, independent of their quality, to become governing, generated
in some countries, just because of the relatively lesser weight in world affairs of
these countries. It is not considered politically correct to define
science as nationally or ethnically specified, and yet, it is those who
label such defining as politically incorrect who are the ones that, in fact,
enjoy the exact opposite—only the blind will not see that nations
and groups dominating the modern world also dominate science, and,
as seen from this book, quite unjustifiably. In that
tendency to dominate, it is not a rare occurrence to protect ill-conceived
national pride by defending an even incorrect theory, by hanging on the
critic derogatory names and accusing him or her of political insensitivities,
instead of addressing the problem and conceding the error.
Therefore, any infestation of the sanitized environment of academia
with the corruption of the outside world, corruption especially prominently
seen today, cannot occur without the knowledge and the active participation
of the powers-that-be for their own good. The situation is similar to
the involvement of some governmental structures in drug distribution,
as recently leaked information indicates. Try to undo what the powers
have decided to put in place only by reasoning with them, by providing
even the finest and most convincing arguments. Should it be said that
one will end up nowhere?
Why would the powers-that-be have the interest to cause such destruction
of the essence of academia by instilling specific irrationalities, provided
by an irrelevant “theory” such as relativity, and categorically
oppose other insanities, is anybody's guess, although suppositions may
come to mind.
EXISTENCE OF A STRUCTURE FREE OF CORRUPRION IS PERCEIVED
AS A THREAT—It should
be clear that seeking the truth is not beneficial to the powers.
It is hardly possible to maintain a structure devoid of corruption in
a society whose other name is corruption. One cannot expect, a society
based on institutionalized corruption (consider, for example, the entirely
legal existence and aggressive functioning of lobbyists in the US Congress)
to allow competing sane intellectual forces, constantly monitoring and
permanently criticizing it. As said, corruption is the essence of the
system we all live in. A parallel existence of a clean structure
lacking corruption, is not only a foreign body to such a society, but
threatens its very existence by actively undermining it with its potentially
open demonstration of displeasure with
the corrupt existing order. Freedom of
speech is allowed on an individual level about everyday things. A
dissent on a personal level is considered OK. The country takes
great pride in being so free, when it comes to such appearance of freedom.
However, dissent organized in a structure such as academia is a big
threat to the existing order and is discouraged in every way. No individual
can bring any arguments, no matter how true and urgent their adoption is, for society's
sake, when already decided matters of general public
interest are targeted. Let alone that honesty, scientific method
and truth, least of all those brought by individuals at large, are not
to the liking of the secretive and manipulative money-makers, to say
nothing of those who obtain their powerful aristocratic positions as
their birthright. Are there still naïve people out there who do not
REAL SCIENCE IS AN ORPHAN TODAY, SUNK IN CORRUPTION—The
backbone of contemporary science is the result of large scale corruption
and is far from abiding by the requirements of, at least, its internal
logic. The practical needs of superpowers, such as the companies in
the oil, pharmaceutical and food industries, have made it so that simply
technological advances, marginal to the development of science per
se, have gained the inordinate stance of major achievements, passed
as scientific achievements, awarded the highest prizes, which should
be reserved for real science. It is enough to mention the numerous Nobel
prizes, awarded to work connected with certain technical aspects of
chromatography, awarding Nobel prizes for absurdities notwithstanding.
All that taking place while existing science is in need of profound
reform to bring back real science.
THE MALFUNCTIONING SCIENCE BRINGS IN MISGUIDED COMPETITION—
The usual intertwining of big business
with government, especially with the military-industrial complex,
has led to massive funding of projects, which
were promoted as such that would give advantage to the USA over competing
powers, but in fact are barren projects based on void ideas such as
the ones discussed. Consider, for instance, the trap into which the
American government is falling, regarding the impossible quantum computers,
because quantum mechanics as such has no basis in physical reality,
and is in opposition to the most basic requirements of logic and reason,
as will be the subject of a follow-up book. The ping pong game that
China is funding efforts on quantum computers has the repercussion that
the USA should too. The USA taking over funding for quantum computers,
results in China putting even more money into that barren field.
WHEN ABSURDITY RULES SCIENCE ANYTHING, EVEN SILLINESS, ACQUIRES
THE APPEARANCE OF BEING “SCIENTIFICALLY JUSTIFIED”—When
crooked relativity (not the physically viable relativity due to
Galileo Galilei) is, sadly, established as the norm in physics, as has
occurred nowadays, then “anything goes” can be claimed to
have scientific basis, and the “anything goes” mentality
governing society acquires apparent justification.
INTELLECTUAL ELITES—A TOOL IN THE HANDS OF THE POWERS-THAT-BE—Muddling
the minds of the elites, forcing them to accept internally
contradictory absurdities, as if they are a true expression of
some new reality, unknown so far, allows the powers-that-be to manipulate
society through those elites more efficiently, in the powers' own interest.
Furthermore, hallucinations, fantastic speculations, presented as science,
are far more entertaining to the public than reasoning based on solid
logic, which the public finds boring.
Pure science is absolutely not interesting to the general public if
it is presented raw and truthful. That is a very important fact
for all politicians, whose main actions are determined by the desires
of their constituents. Politicians will never do anything, even if it
is truthful and demands honest action, provided it is against the general
attitudes of people who vote for them, otherwise these politicians will
lose their seats.
In view of the fact that, when truthfully presented, activities in pure
science are disliked by the public, politicians feel discouraged to
release public funds for these sciences, unless something fantastic
and mind-boggling is composed to offer smoke and mirrors to the
public. To accomplish this, secretive “quietly advising”
activists, helped by royal structures, have established these certain,
mentioned, recognizable passwords for politicians
to open their coffers. The politicians have become so conditioned that
only hearing the name of the one who put
forth the bogus relativity of the
twentieth century, is enough
for a politician to melt and be ready to fund any proposed daftness
claimed to arrive from that relativity.
Special efforts have been applied for decades to have it appear to the
politicians that relativity is the ultimate guarantee for quality and
advance in science, science being society's ultimate, unquestionable
authority. What a tragic state of affairs, constituting deceit of global
Clearly, science should not be a pursuit that should bore everyone when
its results are presented. Scientists, however, should not hide from
everyone the fact that when it comes to commonly understood entertainment,
science is indeed a slow and boring pursuit by its very essence.
Not helping the state of affairs with true and honest science is the
fact that, as said, today, more than ever,
not too few people are not taking seriously what is being passed on
to them as science, because they intuitively feel how corrupt it really
is. Therefore, there is a desperate need for promoting of funding
to be carried out over the heads of the unsuspecting public, despite
the growing passivity of that public,
let alone such wasteful funding being contrary to the vital interests
of this same public. Thus, this promotion is pushed away from the
public eye, treating the questions of funding as
none of its business because it is not the
direct provider of the funds, by focusing their activity entirely on the decision-makers,
“quietly advising” them self-servingly as to what is and is not science,
advice taylored according to the needs of the manipulators and charlatans.
JEALOUS PROTECTION OF UNTRUTHS—The
situation for public funding being so flimsy,
it is the last thing those secretively acting charlatans need is for someone
to come out and instill doubts about the veracity of these already deviously
promoted passwords, let alone invalidate them,
as this book does.
To these secretive, subversive elements,
the maintenance of the existing structures mimicking science, and the
upkeep of the passwords opening the sesame
door of the US Congress coffers, is way more important than the truth
itself. It is a contradiction in terms—science, required by its
very definition to be the stalwart of truth, becomes dependent on manipulated
politicians who are forced to neglect the truth for the purposes of maintaining
public funding for a truth-defying-surrogate that passes for
PEOPLE—ENABLERS OF THEIR OWN INTELLECTUAL ENSLAVEMENT—It
is amazing how facts shown in black and white can be ignored and,
as said, people still sheepishly continue
to cling to intellectual slavery. The usual answer when trying to explain
even elementary things in science is “I don't understand'', “I'm
not an expert'', in this way inviting the manipulators to dip freely
their sticky fingers into the taxpayer pocket. This intellectual slavery,
a result of the refusal to even take a look at the blatant lies being
passed as science, is self-induced and it is helping the corrupt establishment
to further the absurd, destructive ideas.
The powers-that-be know about these sheepish attitudes, and, what is
more, they specially breed them in the population and then reap the
“benefits”. Thus, society experiences a self-perpetrating,
self-inflicted bout of mediocrity, a mediocrity feedback loop of harm
and further destruction.
Explanation as to why bad science, such as relativity, may be allowed
to exist at all in academia, to say nothing about it having such an
important role in the so-called “big” science, can be sought
along the above lines, and when such promotion is padded with the gargantuan
amounts of money the US government sheds every year, one can hardly
see the above speculations as implausible.
ONCE AGAIN ON THE MAIN ADAGE OF THE BOOK—Damaged
thinking, especially caused by allowing absurdities to be adopted as fundamentals of science,
leads not only to dangerously wrong worldview in general, but adversely affects the comprehension
and finding the right solution in concrete cases of disasters, especially those of global proportions.
Therefore, maintaining a good quality of thinking formed by ensuring that science is genuine,
free of absurdities, is not some isolated academic concern, but has a general world impact.
It is all the more reason for authorities to be careful to what they pay for, when they
think they are paying for science. It is imperative that they do not delegate the
decisions to irresponsible parties with vested interests.
Good quality thinking also helps to see the connections and the interaction of seemingly
unrelated world policies, which are often the target of condemnation, driven by emotions
rather than reason.
Underestimation of the problem of flawed thinking, which some consider too small to be
paid attention to, may turn out fatal for the world.
Some Further Societal Consideration
Some Further Societal
THE HUMAN BEING IS NOT ONLY DEFINED BY ITS LEAST SUBSTANTIAL
has changed a lot these past few
decades. The biological side of humanity as a major point of political
emphasis, especially in the West, has become
more and more pronounced and has become queerly diversified
and openly exhibitionist, alongside with the proliferation of
various faith-based movements and ideologies, which in the past had
no demonstrable political tint. Some of these are projects of moneyed
individuals, not infrequently appearing as purely ideology-driven movements.
There are also assemblies, whereby the integrity of the movement seems
to be accomplished by subtle and not-so-subtle manipulation of the members
through fear and peer coercion.
ABSOLUTE CONTROL BY ABSURDITIES—As already emphasized, the laxity of judgment,
appropriated by many of these various tendencies,
movements and ideologies, has its roots in the deception that the broken thinking
of relativity amounts to great science. Such root, perceived as authoritative as
anything could possibly be, makes said laxity appear firmly scientifically justified.
What is most important, however, is that none of these ideologies
and religions can compete with the
forcefully imposed absurd fundamental tenets of the twentieth century
physics, exemplified by quantum mechanics and especially by relativity
and their all-encompassing magnitude of world impact, through their
crooked iron-fist control over the entire mainstream world of learning.
EMPHASIS IS ON DETRIMENTAL UBIQUITOUSNESS OF RELATIVITY—Notice, what
is talked about here is not the worthiness of the message
carried by these movements and ideologies, but what is emphasized is the
limited impact of these ideologies and religions on the world, compared
to the astounding negative compact effect of relativity throughout all
societies and world orders.
THE GENESIS OF INSTALLMENT IN SCIENCE OF ABSURDITIES—The
deliberate muddling of science, so that science, no matter correct
or wrong, can be used as a money-extractor and tool of ideology, rather
than a tool for the search of truth, is a child of modern times,
ushered in by the Solvay conferences in Brussels at the beginning of
the twentieth century. These were secretly held invitation-only meetings,
with the goal to round the corners of sometimes opposing scientific
views in the governing empires of the time, and, as a result, serve
the world a unified strong appearance of a science doctrine, no matter
right or wrong, which would withstand the centrifugal forces of the
individual nations' interests. Thus, the politically hammered strength
of the doctrine, regally blessed by the three main empires of the day,
not its truthfulness and agreement with reality,
qualified as the leading reason for its adoption.
The adopted common doctrine not only brazenly disagrees with reality,
but also with most basic logic and sanity, as shown here in the case
of relativity. Brazen disagreements with logic and sanity in other topics
present in this doctrine will be pointed out elsewhere.
It would hardly be an exaggeration to say that these intellectually
devastating Solvay conferences were also the heralds of the material
devastation of Europe by the coming war. These gatherings, degrading
science, were the conceptual fathers of that impending material devastation
of Europe. That muddling of science was a time bomb. It is also at the
basis of today's dangerous crumbling of united Europe. Adopting confusion
to govern science, as was done at these conferences, inevitably transfers
into confusion in society. A confused society is a ready candidate for
The unprincipled rounding of corners at gatherings such as Solvay conferences,
had been a purely political act, anti-scientific and corrupt to the
core, whose bitter fruits are being served to the world to this day,
in larger and larger portions. Thus, a point has been reached, whereby
over twenty countries are contributing with funds, in magnitude never
seen before, to sustain multibillion dollar or euro projects, which
are nothing other than a magnificent underhanded and well-protected cash
cow and job scheme, set up by unscrupulous individuals, whose least
concern is real science, no matter how much they advertise it as science,
in their effort to please the public.
INTELLECTUAL COUP D'ÉTATS—Thus, in the case at hand,
it is to be realized that society is conditioned
to act in defense of something that has gained ground through an intellectual,
scientific coup d'état of planetary proportions, which
has occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century, primarily in
physics. As mentioned, the main governing colonial powers of that time—Great
Britain, France and Germany—have corruptly accommodated and mitigated
in secrecy the diverging scientific views of their elites,
creating the monster of the absurd modern physics.
THE INFIRM GROUNDS OF TODAY'S SPECTER OF SCIENCE—As seen,
however, this monster has a flimsy ethereal soul, which hangs
on the thin thread of an easily detectable absurdity, existing in plain
sight. That brazen absurdity would not have been able to keep itself
alive long time ago, if it were not for the unscrupulous propaganda
and massive deceit, including politicking at the highest levels of government.
HYPOCRISY TO THE FULLEST—
Notably, it is exactly those who postulate that science must be apolitical
and have specifically created intolerance to political intervention
in science, are the ones most actively mingling, behind closed doors, with
those at the helm of politics, manipulating them to support insanities,
which they pass as science, making the politicians feel they would otherwise
be embarrassed and their ignorance in science would show, if these
politicians do not comply. The fear of embarrassment is very strong,
especially with people of strong ego and the hoaxters know very well how
to depress that psychological button to their advantage.
WRONG ANALOGIES PREVENT SEEING THE INTELLECTUAL DECLINE—It is
a recurring topic, when it comes to critique
of something portrayed as so well-established a doctrine, although actually phony,
as relativity is, for some to wonder how, then, did the world
become so advanced by the beginning of the new century, if science was
in such a decline. This is discussed in another chapter, where the wrong
analogy between science and technology is emphasized as being the protective
cloak hiding such abomination. Everything wrong in this analogy boils down
to the wrong perception of inevitability due to endowing technology
with a wrong meaning. The common thinking is that, if science were so
wrong, then it inevitably should have led to the collapse of technology
and, as a result, to the collapse of society. Society, however, has not
collapsed as of yet, and the existing conclusion is that, therefore,
all is well and good in science. This conclusion is wrong because it
follows from a wrong analogy as a premise.
Thus, if, as is
discussed in the mentioned chapter, one understands correctly the
connections between science, technology and progress in society, and
does not judge progress superficially, only considering technological
advances, but goes deeper into the essence of societal ideology, one
should note that society is in fact experiencing intellectual collapse,
despite the fabulous technological advancement which we all see around
The dead-end, in which theoretical physics finds itself today, resembles the final
state of a person who has kept borrowing money for a number of years
but that borrowing could not go on indefinitely. While money is being
borrowed, everything seems all right and even prosperous, until that
“one day” comes and collapse occurs.
ADJUSTMENTS AND AD HOC PATCHES—THE MAIN OCCUPATION OF TODAY'S
DESTROYED SCIENCE—Like a delinquent borrower, juggling with the charge card balances, all
of twentieth century physics has devoted itself to making adjustments
to theories that are wrong, let alone plain absurd, in their very fundamentals,
instead of cleaning these fundamentals from the outset and nipping the
problems in the bud. The concealment, adjustment and ad hoc patching have gone a long
way and in great depth.
WRONG UNDERSTANDING THAT A CENTURY OF DEVELOPMENT HAS IRONED OUT THE SEEN
CATASTROPHIC ABSURDITIES—Despite the impression of some that the catastrophic absurdity
which has been shown here, directly in the pages introducing relativity, concerns
something a hundred years old, which
since that time has purportedly undergone such telltale tremendous
development that all the problems this book
is about have been taken care of, there is big news awaiting these lost enthusiasts.
The birthmark defect shown, invalidating relativity, is in full force to this day, spreading
over any thinkable Lorentz-transformations-based alleged progeny of relativity. This is a
catastrophe, which even a hundred years of development could not mitigate,
neither can it ever be mitigated to any extent whatsoever.
DOOMED DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO SALVAGE ABSURD SCIENCE
BY MAKING IT HERMETIC—Nowadays,
this pseudo-science, all wrapped up in patches, is made so hermetic that it
is even beyond the reach of most experts. It is made hermetic deliberately,
otherwise, as seen, the absurd edifice of contemporary fundamental physics
will immediately collapse under the weight
of its own absurdity. A collective of a couple of thousand, and even more, co-authors
(the paper in Physical Review Letters proclaiming existence
of the Higgs boson, has, believe
it or not, 5154 co-authors and the listing of their names occupies twenty
four of the entire thirty three pages of the paper), hidden behind colossal
structures of supercolliders, have made themselves completely unaccountable.
Managing to become in charge of multibillion dollar facilities,
pronounced as science labs, makes these ill practitioners unassailable,
let alone that they themselves can no longer police their own activity.
It is too big to fail, for that matter. Under these conditions, only
loyalty to the group, abiding by a collective falsity called paradigm,
not seeking the truth by applying the scientific method, becomes the
norm and the ideal.
INSIDIOUS ENCROACHING ON SOCIETY OF THE SINISTER
COLLECTIVIST NOTION OF PARADIGM—Many think that using the
term paradigm makes them sound elevated and learned.
The use of that term has acquired citizenship beyond the confines
of science, proudly uttered in a most unexpected context. However, the
term paradigm actually symbolizes suppression, uniformity and totalitarian
mind control, even worse—greater than any mind control
known in modern times because of its subtlety. Therefore,
anyone who values freedom should
be repulsed by it and despise using the term paradigm in any context.
In the follow-up book mentioned, there will be more said about the destruction
of science, which occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century,
crushing a hard-won state of development of the scientific method, throughout
over three centuries of bitter intellectual battles that had their beginnings
in the times of Galileo.
ABUSE OF REASON LED TO THE INSTALLMENT OF ABSURDITIES AS LEGITIMATE, HONORABLE
AND CELEBRATED ENTITIES IN SCIENCE AND SOCIETY—One is so perplexed, once
finding out the senselessness of the so-much
celebrated relativity, that he or she can
hardly fathom an explanation as
to how and why it found a place in science at all, a prominent place,
at that. As said, this vigorous installment of obvious quackery provides
ample room for sociologists to study.
In trying to rationalize this disaster in a most accommodating way, one may suggest
that allowing such laxity of thought, to say the least, having the nerve to impose
absurdity as science, demonstrated by relativity, might
have come about due to the severe times Europe experienced as a result
of the big two-part war in Europe—World War I and especially World
War II—the deadliest and the most devastating war of all time.
The earlier centuries were possessed by
the irrational, as their natural state. With the Renaissance came the
awakening of humanity toward the ideal of reason, and reason presupposes
admitting the existence and dictatorship of absolute truths. Purportedly, however,
the harshness of seeking absolute truths in society
might have caused more pain and suffering than would have happened if reason
were to be ignored outright. One may
conjecture that the advent of reason had come about too soon, too abruptly
for humanity to handle, giving birth to ill-begotten, distorted attempts
to restore reason, such as the totalitarian systems known only too well.
The pendulum had swung too much in the direction of overstating reason,
to the extent of misinterpreting and abusing it. Therefore, relaxing
the strict boundaries of truth, allowing for its abuse, was badly needed, in order
to bring truth back to its normal state, especially in areas
devoted to reason by their essence. Otherwise, unprepared humanity
would have continued its suffering.
Healing the trauma from merciless political doctrines was sought
by partial, controlled, opening up to the irrational, as a substitute
for the rigid, dictatorial plainness of the overstated and misplaced truth.
If alleviating the
suffering of humanity were the motivation for relaxing the standards of
science, then it has been a dangerous play with fire, which in the long
run would cause more suffering, as is observed today.
Let alone that humanity does have outlets in the arts and in faith for soothing
its frustration. Science should stay
untouched by social conditions, exactly for the reasons of being
the ultimate stalwart and calibration of what is truthful and also good
for society. If society loses the integrity of that guide, it is in
jeopardy, and this is the state of society today.
ORIGINS OF INFILTRATION AND STAY OF ABSURDITIES IN SCIENCE AND SOCIETY—The
big world war, in two parts, during the twentieth century, dealt
a heavy blow to civilization. That heavy blow had a very visible side.
Tens of millions of lives were lost. Entire cities were destroyed. Infrastructures,
factories and farms were demolished. Visible scars of this war are still
seen in some cities of Europe.
Alongside this tangible destruction, there was a destruction of
a different type. The destruction of the souls, obliteration of culture
in many ways and breaking down of the invisible intellectual strings
that were holding civilization together. All that led to a cultural
vacuum, which was ready to accommodate all sorts of marauders and intellectual
charlatans. These are the times when absurdities occupied science unopposed,
and shot their evil roots into the destroyed homeland of reason, which
humanity had built with so much sacrifice.
After the war, around the nineteen sixties, when the intellectuals of Europe
began to come to their senses, their breathing becoming easier in this
post-war period, some began noticing the substitution in science, of
reason with absurdities. Unfortunately, the sobering of these intellectuals
was sporadic and disorganized. Nonetheless, it was becoming a threat
to the heralds of absurdity, who had already occupied science and were
determined to persist with that occupation. That made the latter invent
a powerful retort in the form of a collectivist doctrine, calling that
way of collectivist governance of thought “paradigm”, whereby
all that matters is the opinion of the collective, which they call consensus,
independent of whether or not the opinion of the collective is an outright
absurdity. The individual scientist is forced to adopt it and think
accordingly. Otherwise, the rowdy individual, trying to think independently,
is severely ostracized.
This same collectivism, shaped up in the same fashion as
the two collectivistic totalitarian
states, which ravaged Europe and allowed absurdity to occupy science
as a hermit crab occupies an empty shell, reproduced itself first
in the academic writings of those who invented the insidious collectivist
concept of paradigm, worming its way into academia as a dictator there,
and from there spreading over to the vast outside society, taking over
even its higher legislation. A case in point is Article 13 in the Charter
of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union, mandating that arts
and scientific research shall be free of constraint. This is not a so
thinly veiled rejection of the scientific method, because the
scientific method, on the contrary, sets clear constraints
for scientific research. The genuine scientific research, in the true
sense of this phrase, cannot be free of the constraints of the absolute
truths of science, of its definitions, of the scientific laws discovered
by science, of the methods requiring reproducibility under controlled
conditions when drawing conclusions from an experiment and from governance
of logic and reason when drawing conclusions during scientific research.
The seeming freedom, which Article 13 appears to ensure, is in fact a
severe affront to the real freedom Europeans must enjoy, which abides
by the inevitable constraints in scientific research. It should not
even be a matter of discussion, because of its obviousness, that Article
13 is in fact a heavy blow to democracy, allowing the occupants of whatever
is considered contemporary science, to hold on to their crooked ways
of maintaining absurdity as high science, immune to any accountability—the
highest European law protects their free-of-constraint so-called scientific
research, without allowing a single argument against, independent of how valid,
let alone crucial that argument is. Of course, there may be those
who would try to present the language of Article 13 as being some kind of legalese,
which does not mean what it says. The peoples of Europe, however, must be
clearly informed about such seemingness of language, if it really does not mean what it says.
Those who are inclined to use political terminology and think in those
terms may exclaim that this resembles a state of society with blind faith
and loyalty to a ruling state ideology and thought control, which
usually goes by the term fascism. If we use this term, symbolizing totalitarian
control of an ideology, the tyranny of relativity as the symbol of such
charged term, is beyond compare.
A FIRM SIGNIFIER OF THE ULTIMATE SAMENESS OF
ALL MODERN POLITICAL REGIMES AND SYSTEMS—An indelible feature,
characterizing all modern societies and socio-political
systems, beginning with the past totalitarian regimes and ending with
the so-called democracies thereafter, including today's post-modernist
world, is the bizarre, unshakable adoption of relativity. Social orders
come and go, but the evil presence of one thing stays untouched, stays
above all, as a sad, misguided symbol of ill-perceived intellectual
progress—the absurd relativity. It is above all social systems.
It governs them. This admission of absurdity as the governing doctrine,
symbolized by relativity, is one of the best litmus tests to indicate
why societies are in such decline, so unable to get rid of corruption
and to solve their socio-economic problems. If corruption is indeed
so deep as to allow for such obvious, simple to spot,
gibberish, such as relativity, to exist
and govern, then there is no hope to expect that there will be solutions
to the real complexities and meanderings of the societal ills.
Relativity is the epitome of how a subtle factor, practically unnoticeable
in the everyday rhythm of life, amongst the barrage of news stories
about politicians, disasters and entertainment, can efficiently destroy
the finest intellectual fabric of society. It always stays somewhere
on the back burner of society's mind, as a misperceived reassurance of
intellectual might and progress, which has never occurred, if absurdities
such as relativity are the measure.
No street rallies, no protests, no mutinies or revolutions can be seen,
calling for the overthrow of the suppression by the discussed relativity
amphigoric piffle, insidiously passed for a scientific theory. At that,
presented as theory so great, that no amount of supportive public spending
would seem too great. Never mind that one does not even need to demolish
it because it contains its own demolition. It would be unable to protect itself,
should someone with impact on society and with strong enough political
will and determination to decide to look at the simple but rigorous proof
shown here and decide to act after seeing the inevitable; namely, that
such travesty must lose its public support.
Crucial Criterion of Social Change
of Social Change
THE SHALLOW ESSENCE OF THE MODERN MOVEMENTS FOR SOCIAL CHANGE—The
permanency of such an outrightly fatuous
occupant of intellectual territories, as relativity, ambushing the highest
levels of human activity throughout every social and political order
thinkable, indicates that the changes in these social orders and political
systems are superficial, when it comes to the ultimate basis of humanity,
its thinking. These apparent changes of the social order
do not cut into the heart of the problems menacing society at its core.
Thus, the criterion for real change in society could only be
the appropriation of ways to self-clean from the assault on reason,
such as the assault instituted by relativity, as well as to have ways
in place for filtering these absurdities out, as soon as they rear their
ugly head. This criterion will ensure that the alleged change is not
only the regurgitating of various social turmoils, which, when all is
said and done and the dust settles, lead to more or less similar intellectually
A new society should not be a slave to the currently common excuse that,
see, these matters are very complicated. They can only be sorted out
by experts. These so-called experts are venal across the board, jealously
protecting the status quo. The proof is in the pudding—the
world of science has not been able to clean itself for over a century from the tyranny
of immediately detectable gross absurdity, as seen here.
Where were the experts all this time, to aid in that mandatory cleaning?
Clearly, no experts
are needed to tell anyone halfway sane, that when one single object
is placed on an empty table, there are not two objects placed on that
empty table. To allow an obvious absolute truth, such as that,
to be played with and dishonored, by excusing oneself with lack of expertise,
or even by unfathomable requesting of an independent confirmation of
that directly observable fact, is intellectual dishonesty, if not slavery,
of the worst kind. Such an intellectual slave, putting up with obvious
vapidity, should not, then, complain about the state of the educational,
healthcare and political problems of society. These, however, are the
central problems people complain about, not understanding from where
they all arise. People are, in general, oblivious to the fact that the mentioned problems
ultimately arrive from the massively
destroyed quality of thinking, caused in the past century to no small extent
by the forceful installment of absurdities such as relativity
in science and in the wider society as a household idea, substituting real
science. How can the quality of thinking of a
society be high, when the thinking of what is pronounced as the highest
crust of intellect; i.e., science, is occupied by the lowest of the
low quality of thinking, allowing for absurdities to be insolently pronounced
as science? Need one say that it cannot? The low quality of academic
thinking, especially when absurdity is pronounced
as an otherworldly achievement
of human intellect, cannot result in anything other than a bad state
of cognition for the rest of society.
In view of the singular importance for the future of civilization, no
democracy, no class struggle or dictatorial regime, should be of any
importance, if these political conditions of society preserve the current
state of affairs in science and protect the removal of the mentioned corrupt and
dishonest parody of science. The culture of not only putting up
with, but even encouraging and celebrating, an absurdity such as relativity,
as a great intellectual
achievement, must disappear. Otherwise, anything
undertaken to fix the ills of
society will inevitably meet first with the barrier of the damaged thinking, and
that would prevent any solution from being really efficient. Poor thinking
breeds only low quality solutions, if at all, especially regarding the
very complex problems society has.
ENUNCIATING THE CRITERION FOR REAL SOCIAL CHANGE—The above,
getting exact science back to its honest, truthful path
of reason and logic, should be elevated to the status of a crucial criterion
for survival of our civilization. Moreover, it is wrong to elevate hybrid
sciences, such as climate change, to the false status of “crystal
clear science”. These hybrid sciences are ambiguous and
mired in inherent uncertainties. Especially, it must not escape notice that
the hybrid sciences, such as climate change, are nevertheless, inevitably
finding themselves in the midst of confused
fundamental exact science, at issue in this text.
CLIMATE CHANGE OPPORTUNISTS JUMP THE GUN—Speaking
of climate change, anyone commenting one way or the other on
the politically imposed view that climate change is caused by human
activity, is an opportunist, expecting dividends for his or her comments.
This is true, especially before making efforts to prevent the funding
of absurd physics, which must stop because of undeniable, unequivocal
arguments. To say nothing of the fact that these
effects have unequivocal proof to back them up.
Neither those who foist that climate change has anthropogenic
character, nor the ones who deny it, can ever have categorical proof for their
theses, the way the debunking of relativity unequivocally has, because
the knowledge concerning the world's climate is always inherently connected
with uncertainties, which inevitably obscure any firm conclusion. In
other words, one cannot rely on the conclusions either of the proponents,
or of the naysayers, when it comes to recognizing the human effect on
climate change as a scientific fact. All these conclusions,
at this point of time and in the foreseeable future,
are nothing other than pseudoscientific banter.
JUMPING THE GUN IN PUBLIC SCIENCE
POLICIES IS CONTEMPTUOUS—Furthermore,
it is cynical to occupy the world's attention and finances
with undertakings, undeservedly calling them science,
in which it is impossible to reach
definitive conclusions because these conclusions are completely prone to
inherent uncertainties, when at the same time, bypassing is occurring of real scientific
problems of the same, if not greater, magnitude and importance, such as the vacuity
of the Lorentz-transformations-based “big” science, which
can be resolved unequivocally. Instead, the decision-makers of the world
continue to allow the generous support of one of the greatest lows the
history of science knows—the Lorentz-transformations-based “big”
science. This is an enormous injustice to the taxpayers, who not only
lose their money, but also have to endure such an insult to their intelligence.
To say nothing of the fact that retaining and publicly supporting absurdities
is an even greater injustice and an outright destruction of the very
basis of humanity—its ability to reason.
Notably, the debunking of relativity is in a completely different
territory of its own, different
from anything else in public science policy. The clear cut argument,
debunking relativity and all progeny comprising Lorentz-transformations-based
“big” science, is unmatched in the history of science in
its clarity and unequivocality, especially pertaining to questions of
such magnitude of entrenchment and impact. The debunking of relativity,
respectively, the Lorentz-transformations-based “big” science,
cannot be compared to anything else for that matter, both in significance
and in rigor of argument. No political discourse or disagreement can
come anywhere near the staggering, unique rigor and absoluteness of
conclusion, compared to the unequivocal debunking of relativity.
The possibility of pinpointing unequivocally the exact
essence of absurdity in relativity and progeny, harming
the entire humanity, is something very precious. It is not an everyday event.
Alas, it is not only not appreciated, but is, quite bluntly,
widely ignored. Compare it
to any other global threat, such as Spanish flu or other pandemics, the
scientific basis of which is not clear to this day. Understanding the
scientific basis of a pandemic is closely related to its practical eradication.
Although solving problems and achieving goals is not the aim of science, in
the case of global threats, goals akin to engineering and technological solutions,
such as stopping a pandemic, are an emergency that cannot be
postponed. The mighty hand of correct understanding,
provided by science, is indispensable. Today, all the solutions to these
scientifically not-well understood global threats come about by extra-scientific,
even non-medicinal, routes of state
intervention. Such unintelligent, brute force, known from medieval times, is the most
that can be done to protect humanity.
It is not efficient as much as it is undemocratic.
Society, however, is forced to accept it, having no other choice. This is the point when
those who doubt the role of science in society should stop and
reconsider their stance about science and whether or not they should keep ignoring
conclusively resolvable issues regarding the public support of absurd science,
represented by relativity and progeny. It is regrettable that it should come to
calamities and disasters before awareness is raised about such obvious matters as the
ones discussed in this book. The lame excuse can be that it is the result
of very complex social circumstances.
Some of these circumstances are discussed in this book. Finding ways to overcome these
hindering social circumstances in order to bring forth
the truth about the governing absurdity in
science, especially preventing its further public support, constitutes the
core of the life-efforts of this author.
PANDEMICS. EXERCISE OF A LAYMAN
ATTEMPTING TO DRAW EQUIVOCAL CONCLUSIONS ON A
GLOBAL ISSUE (EXPERTS CAN'T DO ANY BETTER)—Now, a
telling speculation follows, indicating that
trying to assess a global threat and acquire a feeling for manipulation by elements of
“fake news”, used for certain political goals, is in the hands of everyone,
provided one is open to inspecting readily available data presented as facts.
Presenting of these data as facts is unavoidably conditional.
This exercise of drawing conclusions
based on inevitably uncertain premises, is contrasted to the here discussed unequivocality
of conclusions regarding the absurdity of relativity.
Hence, the exercise allows one to appreciate how lucky we are to now have the power,
provided by this book, of the here discussed unequivocal proof regarding
relativity, which unquestionably proves that anything connected with relativity
is “fake news”. Relativity is an intellectual disaster on a scale comparable to,
if not greater than, a pandemic. Unlike a pandemic, however, in the case of relativity,
the solution is final, provided there is political will and determination
to actively eradicate it, and not simply allow it to wane on its own.
As in relativity, whereby it is either valid or not (we saw it is not valid), with no shades in-between,
the problem of a pandemic is also a black and white problem, but a purely political one.
The problem with a pandemic is whether to apply unintelligent, brute force and medieval measures
of state repression, which humanity has resorted to during the bubonic plague and the
Spanish flu, or not to resort to such measures, and let the events take their natural course,
with partial restrictions such as flu-vacations here and there, as is the case
every year with any seasonal flu.
The first thing to be assessed, actually, is whether or
not there really is a problem; that is, whether or not there is really the potential for a pandemic.
The country does not arise as if in a war, with a follow-up lockdown, at every cough in January.
Here is how important that assessment is—if there is no such problem, then stoking
fears in the population, to the level of psychosis, regarding a non-existent
existential threat, is an act
of exceptional dastardness, which must lead to necessary legal repercussions.
Such ballyhoo is nothing less than informational terrorism, which is an especially
beguiling form of terrorism, whereby there is no one to point a finger at. The only
thing you do is to intuitively feel, based on other instances, as well as considering
cui bono, who might be the culprit for instigating the panic. Thus, the mean
thing about instilling the sense of false pandemic is that it is done in such a way,
that the culprit can never be caught red-handed. Everything you say would sound
like just speculation. This treachery is easy to accomplish when the world mainstream
media are under your control and the seasonal indisposition, which these media can fan
to the skies, has been with us since almost the beginning of time. The dastardness lies
also in the fact that once stoked, no one can tell any more what exactly it is all about.
As a result, what is almost always adopted first, is the catastrophic scenario.
Usually, the obedient so-called experts are promptly
elevated on the airwaves to justify these political decisions. However, in actuality,
there can be no such experts fully equipped to be listened to by those who are
in power. There is a pair of open scissors
between two incompatible activities, which are expected to bring the right recipe for
a practical solution. Alas, none of these activities, in actuality, has the inherent
ability to offer the solution—the scissors now, and in the foreseeable future,
cannot close. Achievements of science, typically abstract in their character, bringing
knowledge and understanding about species causing the pandemic, are not enough to
practically instruct medicine, which needs no theories and abstractions, but straightforward,
hands-on, concrete directions on how the patient who contracted the species can be cured.
Medicine is not science in the full sense of the
word, because even when the science of biochemistry or the discipline tangential to science,
microbiology (akin to botany and zoology), does its best in studying the virus,
that does not allow medicine to reach even the practical goals of society in healing
the population, let alone extract general rules and laws, which can exactly predict
future occurrences and their treatment. In its practical handling of a pandemic,
society still resorts to medieval methods of preventing pandemics. We have not
moved one bit from medieval times when it comes to solving the problems of
controlling a pandemic.
Thus, science, on the one hand, studies the nature of
viruses, but that has no connection with the practical ways of having any different
kind, any rational kind of prevention, other than the simplistic brute force of the
government. On the one hand we have scientists, in essence chemists, practicing
biochemistry. These scientists study the object causing the problem, namely, the DNA
or RNA molecule of the virus. It is an essential feature of science that scientific
studies are not carried out in order to solve problems. They study nature and come
up with knowledge about nature, without being interested in whether or not this knowledge
would have any utilitarian application. The entomologist studies a beetle. The geologist
bangs the rock with his hammer in order to see and describe its insides. The late
Boyan Petrov studied flowers and discovered new species, unknown to botany, in places
where it would occur to no one to even look for them, in the Himalayas, where survival
is the most important consideration, even to the extent of hanging on for
dear life under the harsh conditions there. These scientists, although, as said, what
these fine scholars do can only conditionally be termed science, will not found
companies to make profit from their findings and
new knowledge they have acquired. Neither can knowledge, generated for
the sake of science, typically be the basis for political decisions as to how to prevent a
pandemic, in particular. Science, scientific research, is one of the scissors'
sharp ends. It will be of no use to the everyday politician for shaping
his or her practical policies.
The other sharp end of the scissors is the
medicinal, the practical, the applied approach to the problem. It is not a scientific,
but a purely applied problem, of the sort technological problems are; namely, what
the biological activity of the studied RNA or DNA molecule is, how to prevent disease,
how to treat a patient should the patient have contracted a disease. With viruses, such an
applied goal is mostly unresolved at present. Recall the HIV virus thought to cause
AIDS—there is neither a cure nor a vaccine, not that the problem with the
seasonal flu is more optimistic.
On the one hand, scientists, the one sharp edge of
the scissors, may speculate that the virus molecule has a protein, as well
as sometimes a lipid sheath with hooks to attach to the cells, which assist in damaging
these cells by the virus, and would presumably provide the road to a practical cure, but that does
not help. Even if such purported knowledge, or at least partial knowledge, is not
just speculation, a cure is not there, at least for now, no matter what experts are
called to express opinions. This second sharp edge of the scissors is away from the
first edge. Therefore, in the emergency of a potential pandemic, the solution of the
problem is not set to emerge from medicine either.
What decisions, then, should a politician make,
if none of these possible sharp edges of the scissors provides him or her with a clear solution?
On the one hand, the politician is pressured by the already propaganda-overhyped people.
As a result, the catastrophic scenario is at the tip of his or her fingers. He or she is on the verge
of signing an order to impose martial law at any minute—ordering martial law,
as said, is a well-known,
unintelligent, repressive solution caused by helplessness, which has been used for centuries to
On the other hand, the responsible, democratically-inclined,
politician has some data, presented as purported facts at his or her disposal to use for the decision.
Although questionable to a certain extent, the politician has no other choice but to consider
these available facts if he or she
decides to take the rational road. Resorting to this only available way to
evaluate the situation, the politician finds that even the first clicks on
the internet on the subject give data that the common everyday seasonal flu leads to tens of
thousands of deaths per season. But wait, the season this year in the USA is almost ending,
while those reported to have passed away from the new virus are only several hundred.
Now, we must say that when talking in this cold, dispassionate language using numbers,
we realize that, of course, every single person is of concern. No one's life should
be merely a statistic, but
in order to assess political decisions aiming at saving the lives of others,
we have no choice but to succumb
to using available numbers from population statistics. In doing so, we note that several
hundred, compared to tens of thousands, is a significant difference,
which should not give the politician a reason to be alarmed so much, let alone lock down the
country. That is on top of the fact that the new virus is portrayed as having the very scary
peculiarity, namely, that a person can contract it even from someone in one's proximity, who
has no symptoms, that carrier having even no clue that he or she has the virus. Not to speak
of the fact that the new virus is alleged to be super-contagious. What is this kind of villain,
who kills several hundred per season, while its common compatriot, which no one talks about,
neither considers to be a reason to place the country on lockdown, ravages whole countries,
kills tens of thousands, without being designated a monster? Go figure!
It is, furthermore, out of the question to speak of a pandemic based on these openly available
figures. In a true pandemic, such as the Spanish flu, even at its beginning, those that
passed away from the virus in a country of 7 million people, are in the thousands per day,
not several hundred for the entire period, as they are due to the new virus.
In the second of the three maxima in the deaths-time graph of the 1918 Spanish flu, a graph
also readily available on the internet, the overall number of casualties per day is already
in the millions per day.
Besides, in the graph shown for the increase of casualties from the new virus in time,
appearing as an exponential curve, the basic question is, what are these casualties, now
ascribed to the new virus, really due to? Are the casualties of those who already had underlying
chronic problems before contracting the virus, also included? If these are also included,
one needs to see the same kind of graph during the common seasonal flu, so that the graph
for the new virus is corrected. It is seen, even without spectacles, that when such a necessary
correction is done, the graph referring to the new virus will not be exponential, or at least
will be less steep. Furthermore, even if it is exponential, the common seasonal flu graph
dwarfs the graph of the new virus by a large margin, as noted. The common flu, which many
of us have every year, with all its complications and nasty outcomes, is never trumpeted
loudly, as is the brouhaha around the new virus, causing the country to go into lockdown.
Having these data and analyzing them personally, the prudent politician appears before
of the people, and with graphs in sight, explains why he or she will not proclaim a state of
emergency, but will let things go as they do every year during flu season, applying
the usual precautionary measures. As a result, the typically fearful captains of the market
also will relax their guard, always at-the-ready. That would avoid uncalled for cataclysms
in industry and in the marketplace.
The above was an exercise in illustrating how a lay person individually can attempt to analyze
a global problem, based on available data. This analysis is presented just to show
that it is possible to analyze world problems and come up with conclusions which do not go
along with the official manipulative version, even if based on unreliable facts, and one is
not afraid to look at these facts and analyze them. These are existential questions of life
and death, although the basis for this analysis cannot be anything else but flimsy for all
parties involved, including the specialists, in a case such as the purported viral pandemic
UNEQUIVOCAL CONCLUSION, WHICH EVEN A LAYPERSON
CAN DRAW ABOUT A GLOBAL ISSUE, USING THE DEFINITIVE PROOF SHOWN IN
THIS BOOK—Compare the above inevitably flimsy outcome of the analysis, to the absolute,
unequivocal conclusion, also concerning a major global issue, proving that relativity
is absurdity. This unequivocal conclusion allows anyone to
definitively convince oneself personally by the proof presented here, provided
he or she is not afraid to spend a few minutes of their life to look at and understand the
in-your-face unequivocal proof shown in this book. The conclusion from such a benign
effort, comprising the inspection of evident facts, may seemingly not free humanity
from a directly life-threatening theory. However,
installing such absurdity, passing it for science, by ignoring the unequivocal proof
presented in this book indirectly lowers the intelligence of society. This may be
life-threatening in the long run, when high quality thinking is needed to shape
efficient decisions regarding world disasters and seek ways for survival. It does not
take much to look around and see that intellectual degradation has actually been
taking place for some years.
The above exercise illustrates how uncertain one can be
when basing his or her conclusions even on available published data, which is the best one
can do, in view of their unreliable character. This innate uncertainty, let alone the
unwillingness of those in charge to even look at the only facts available, is used
widely for manipulating society in directions which favor the achievement of political
goals. This is achieved by instilling the uncanny feeling of an
imminent threat when there really is none,
thus making society malleable to the insidious goals of the manipulators.
This exercise also illustrates the need for an intellectual
safe haven, where there is no uncertainty in the conclusions, when it comes to world problems.
A reassurance that there is a safe haven regarding problems of world impact is especially
significant when there are other, hard to resolve, problems which cause mass anxiety. In
times of anxiety, there is nothing more reassuring than when it is felt that science has found
solid ground. The discovery presented here, firmly reconfirming the absoluteness of time
and space, after the massive insidious mangling of those basic notions during the twentieth
century, is an invaluable intellectual, ideological and, if you wish, mental support for humanity,
which appears to be losing its guidance, allowing for even small disturbances to get it out of
control. The undermining of basic science during the twentieth century, inducing low quality thinking,
plays right into the hands of unscrupulous charlatans, having a ball during fragile times.
The above illustration with the virus shows how neglecting
facts can easily become a generator of “fake news”, regarding
a potentially life-threatening
disaster. Alas, it is difficult, if not impossible, to exactly unpack it. In the case of
relativity, anything connected with relativity being “fake news”,
is with certainty, unequivocal,
although concerning something which does not appear, on the face of it,
directly threatening to the life of the planet.
One may hear the question, why should the fact that someone cannot think
straight, as the result of broken science, be of concern to anyone? It shouldn't be, if the lack
of ability to think straight applies to a single individual. However, when the common standards
of thinking of society are forced to be such as to tolerate the illogical, the unreasonable;
when society is forced to accept that absurdity is the standard of what is passed as quality
thinking, and that sort of deterioration is backed up academically, the situation becomes
seriously worrisome, if not tragic. When society turns its eyes toward the gurus of the absurd
and looks up to them, the solutions it will come up with, especially regarding life-threatening
disasters, would be absurd too, and that pretty much puts humanity in jeopardy.
This connection between adoption of bad science such as
relativity, and therefrom, the breeding of defective thinking leading to gaps and deficiencies
when solving world problems, seems far too remote for society. It can easily be dismissed as
pointless philosophical banter, leading to society paying no attention whatsoever,
as if no such connection exists. Thus, society harms itself by its own volition.
Working solutions are to be offered based on clear connections. The connections
alluded to as being the cause, however, do not seem straightforward.
All these connections that are attempted to
be made regarding quality of thinking and solving global problems seem complicated and remote,
especially when the broken science is alluded to. All that needs to be done is to put together
readily available data and honestly analyze it.
Remember, the absurdity of relativity—clear-cut; the virus
problem—available data not reliable.
Unfortunately, the said logical chain comprising violated science, leading to low-quality thinking,
which results in poor decisions in the solving of world crises, in addition to appearing moot,
also does not concern anyone, even if said connection is as clear as a sunny day. It is of least
concern to politicians, busy with their own partisan battles. All efforts in times of world crises,
as well as even during safe periods, are concentrated on solving the immediate needs, while the
source; namely, the confused thinking due to bad science, the source which replenishes the bad
decisions while attempting to solve these needs, is never considered.
To say nothing of the fact that the massive low-quality
thinking allows societies to panic about events taking place, when there is no reason
to even qualify these events as expressions of crisis. Moreover, falsely qualifying the analysis of these
non-crisis events as being scientific analysis, adds to the overall confusion about these issues.
Mixing up real scientific conclusions with conclusions
which are portrayed as conclusions of science, but which actually are not, is a common
practice when it comes to what should be public science policy. Usually this mix-up has
distinct political overtones. This substitution can be very dangerous, especially during
real societal crises.
YOU DO NOT BET YOUR LIFE ON—Thus, although the conclusion one draws from the data
available for the new virus may appear plausible, it would not be advisable to persist
with that conclusion if someone holds a gun to your head and your life depends on it.
This restraint applies to anyone, no matter how important an expert he or she has been
proclaimed to be on the matter. This is not an unequivocal conclusion. It is tentative,
as are most of the conclusions concerning matters in society. It is too complex
to be understood definitively. Worse yet, while at least the culprit for a pandemic, namely,
the virus, can be identified and well-understood, the rest of the elements of the purported
pandemic are not yet clear. In claims for the anthropogenic character of climate change, even
the purported culprit, human activity, rests on claims for proof which are far from categorical.
YOU CAN BET YOUR LIFE ON—On the contrary, the conclusion that relativity is
absurdity and sheer nonsense is unequivocal. You would risk nothing if you insist on
that, even if someone holds a gun to your head.
SCIENCE LACKS THE
POWER TO IMPACT SOCIETY—Science has no
power of its own in many an instance. Science lacks power, not
only in resolving matters which are prone to debate, but it lacks power even in
its ability to have brazen absurdities such as relativity, seen at once with the naked eye,
removed from science, even though, its damage to the intelligence
of the world is unmatched compared to
other notorious cases.
An example of a debatable case whereby science lacks power is
when science proved to be incapable of overcoming, on
its own, the evolution versus intelligent
design controversy, and in this way, prevent the assault on society's secular character
by the view for intelligent design. In order to protect that secular character, the country
had to refer the question to the US Supreme Court in 1987. This inability of science
to make reason prevail is aggravated by the fact that in the evolution vs. intelligent
design debate, there is no absolute truth to lean on. The need for the involvement of the
US Supreme court in this matter arose by nothing other than a paramount societal goal
to be accomplished; namely, to uphold Constitutional secularism. That is enough
of a reason in the eyes of the state to institute that evolution, not intelligent design,
must be taught in schools.
SCIENCE STRONG—Despite what was said
above, ultimately, with the in-your-face proof
regarding the absurdity of relativity, presented in this book,
science becomes strong and does not need
the help of extra-scientific
outside societal factors, such as the US Supreme Court,
to rule on the veracity of the conclusion.
PANIC, CHAOS AND PSYCHOSIS—Unfortunately,
despite its dramatic unequivocal truthfulness mandating immediate action, in order for
the discovery discussed in this book to be socialized; that is, to be noticed by the population
at large, not to mention the politicians representing that society, that discovery must
comprehended as an agent causing panic, turning it further into psychosis
and paranoia—a pretty peculiar condition for the truth to triumph socially.
THE ROLE OF ANALOGY—We can put ourselves in the shoes of a senator
and see how he or she feels when someone
approaches and wants to express concerns about science. The immediate reaction is to reach
for the help of an expert. However, is an expert really needed when the absurdity is
in-your-face; that is, can be seen by anyone?
Here is an analogy to illustrate the tragic situation
with relativity which needs no expert.
Imagine someone approaches you, as a factor who can spend billions of dollars, and asks for
a billion dollar grant to prove the unprovable, to prove something that cannot be, an absurdity,
because a genius has said so.
To bring this analogy home, it is best to explain it
in personal terms. How would you feel if someone approaches you and says he needs one billion
dollars to prove scientifically that if he shoots you and you die, you will be alive, because
some genius has put forth a theory that concludes so?
This is an analogy of what the Lorentz-transformations-based
theories conclude, for which the US is squandering billions of dollars. Fraudsters have pulled
the wool over Congress' eyes for decades, falsely presenting the above brazen stupidity as science
so high that it is beyond the comprehension of anyone, including a congressperson.
It is presented by the fraudster as some very
special counterintuitive higher science which needs to be given a chance. It is outright
stupidity. Stupidity must never ever be given a chance, especially by squandering the
hard-earned tax dollar. It is worse than clairvoyance, voodoo and witchcraft, but some genius
has vouched for it, so, it must be viable. Thus goes the common perception.
Understandably, if the asking for money deviously
wrapped up as science is expressed explicitly personally, as is done above, no congressperson
would listen, but would rather call the Capitol Hill security. Emphatically, the congressperson
will call security without consulting with an expert. Some things do not need an expert to
guarantee their foolishness, putting it mildly. However, wrapping it up in quasi-scientific
lingo makes the congressperson widely open the coffers of the US Congress. This, the
congressperson does with the full, but false, conviction of doing the best for the American
people. The manipulator, acting as an expert, gladly confirms the need for the congressperson
to open the taxpayer coffers. That is the very reason why the manipulator manipulates.
The analogy presented here is a bit drastic, but it
illustrates how relativity, in effect, is shooting down the intelligence of the nation. As a
result, in times of grave danger, with intelligence deteriorated, the nation is at a loss.
What is discussed here is about a bigger question,
even bigger than the overwhelming world suppression by relativity. It is about the overall
quality of thinking, deteriorated nationwide under the yoke of the absurdity called
relativity, unwittingly supported by the US Congress with billions of tax dollars.
This has everything to do with natural disasters such as
pandemics, seeking resolution of economic crises and everything else that vitally concerns the
nation and its national security. It is about thinking of the nation. The basis of
thinking is science. Thus, if science
is disturbed, the thinking of the nation is disturbed, it cannot think
straight and is doomed to fail.
Regrettably, major multibillion dollar projects which the
US Congress supports are based on broken science. This deteriorates the thinking of the
nation, and that leads to low quality of solutions. The country easily falls into the abyss
of unjustified panic, irrational fears and confusion.
absurdity of these Lorentz-transformations-based “big”
science exercises is a government-sponsored absurdity of a special ensnaring kind,
which makes crafting of the tactics and strategy for its
necessary removal difficult. To make things worse, airwaves and bookstores are
overwhelmed by competing pseudoscience of all other kinds. Thus, on
one hand, there is the pseudoscience clothed as academic. On the other
hand, there is the non-governmentally sponsored
“science” of the conspiracy theorists, loved by some
marginal groups, surrounded by clouds of fans of witchcraft, voodoo, spirits
and magic. Academia, being itself diseased by its firmly adopted insanity,
is paralyzed as an agent of change in these wider areas of lunacy. Conversely,
one cannot rely on the reasonableness and sound judgment of the
population at large either, to straighten out the academic insanity.
Most people like this banter and cannot make a distinction between pseudoscientific
falsity, and correct way of thinking, based on logic and direct evidence.
ANYONE PUTTING UP WITH, LET ALONE BENEFITTING FROM, ABSURD RELATIVITY, IS IN ON
THAT ORGANIZED GROUP COMMITTING INTELLECTUAL CRIME AGAINST
HUMANITY—All political systems of the twentieth century have ascribed
to this travesty of science, signified by relativity, eventually all
these political systems, coalescing on the highest intellectual level,
all of them unquestionably accepting relativity. Thus, the distinctions are blurred
between the various political systems at the highest level of human
thought. Nowadays, the absurd relativity and progeny have gained especially
deep social roots.
The firm entrenchment of relativity is reducing the individual
scientist to becoming a co-conspirator, under the pain of
otherwise being ostracized and thrown out in the cold. The individual
scientist is turned into a screw in an idle, gigantic,
intellectually suppressive self-serving machine, shamelessly draining
societal resources by crunching absurdities, governed by a few devoted
dictators, installed by the monarchies and aided by hermetic Stuttgart
or London-based private publishing companies. These companies are
unaccountable to anyone
but their monarchical masters, setting the tone for what passes as science
but is, in fact, sheer lunacy. Hundreds, even thousands of voiceless
working bees in governmental labs, ruled mercilessly by a small insidious
elite, dedicated to maintaining the frivolous master doctrine at any rate,
for their own good.
Thousands and thousands of enthusiastic, young, powerless intellectual
slaves, work for meager crumbs in the national laboratories, CERN and
a plethora of other vapid dictatorial superstructures around the world,
where obedience to the flawed doctrine, not to truth and reason, is
the strictest requirement. Fascism, which now is exemplified by post-modernism,
adorned lately by spawning the poisonous outgrowths of more elaborate
forms of nazism, comprising fascism endowed with biological overtones,
accentuating biological traits ranging from simple racism to the
further flowering of sexual peculiarities, is here to stay, more perfidious
and elaborate than ever. At the bottom of this is the laxity, deliberately
imperially installed in the central area defining humanity and civilization,
science. Loyalty and obedience to a paradigm is the new fascism, more
efficient and multifaceted than its simple, old initial variant.
Results from a Book Such as This One
Results from A Book
Such as This One
TRUTH WITHOUT POLITICAL INFLUENCE HAS NO STRENGTH—Based on my experience, as of today, I am
expecting that the impact of this book on society will be zero. It has
been known for many decades that society, such as the one in the world
we now live in, has absolutely no respect for arguments,
even if they are as true as truth itself, unless they
come from individuals of substantial wealth, a.k.a. well-established
individuals, or influential organized forces, also backed by substantial
wealth, showing itself also as political power. In these significant
matters, such as the ones discussed here, power makes the truth and
not vice versa. As pointed out repeatedly in the text, truth
does not pay, neither does truth by itself have any power.
WHY IS THIS AUTHOR INVOLVING HIMSELF IN THIS?—This,
without a doubt, begs the question, why is
this author bothering to write this text at all, then? Firstly, this
author should state clearly that, if money is what determines what is
to be perceived as true, then a worthy person will not bother with such
purchased truth. That being said, however, because an army with tanks cannot
be defeated with bows and arrows, there may be considerations in the name of
the higher ideals of science, in the name of restoring reason, logic
and the scientific method, for applying affirmative corruption
in striving to achieve these noble goals. Nevertheless, affirmative corruption
has not been applied in the battle to restore reason in the case at hand.
Correcting the perception that money determines what is to be thought
of as true and seeking the real truth, is, unfortunately, also connected
with money of an amount that hardly anyone has. So, there must be the
naïveté that “one day” things may change and the real criteria
for truth will be restored. That naïveté is the drive, which
would make someone, such as this author, sit down and put into words
his thoughts regarding the discussed problem and its resolution, made
to be so complex socially. These are the times, this is that mentioned
“one day”, when a written document has to be available with
honest, truthful analysis, ready for dissemination, that has been waiting
for the right moment to arrive. The above answers the question as to
why this author decided to write this book.
FAWNING TO NO ONE—One strength of the current
writing lies in the fact that it is not
aimed opportunistically at pleasing the powers-that-be, with the goal
to profit or get some questionable standing in society. This book is
concerned solely with the truth, without hidden agendas.
In addition to the above strength, the unequivocal scientific arguments
given are succinct, but rigorous and definitive, and they, like nothing
else, ensure the real credentials and authority of the author, as pointed
out earlier. Thus, the seemingly infinite, widely publicized debates
and controversies of today, are flatly avoided. None of these widely
publicized debates on public science policies can provide answers with
the definitiveness that the catastrophic scientific arguments put forth
here provide. Therefore, these widely publicized debates on public
science policies are merely exercises in eloquence, not avenues to bring
about conclusive solutions. Worse yet, are all the avenues of academia's
activity concerning relativity and its progeny. They are nothing other
than a solemn celebration of the irrational and irrelevant. Neither is this
author trying to enter into polemic with social activists and so-called
academic writers in the social sciences. What is shown here as scientific arguments,
is conclusive and needs no further discussion. The only possible next step
is the expression of political will to cancel the public funding of anything
connected with the shown absurdities, exemplified by relativity.
IGNORING IS TODAY'S INQUISITION—It is often thought that in
today's technological climate of bustling
communications, it would be slightly more difficult to lead ideas, even
critical ideas, such as the ones here, into obsolescence, by disallowing
them publicity and deliberately ignoring them. Ensuring obsolescence
of ideas, making certain that these ideas are ignored,
is the main weapon the powers-that-be use today to
fight ideas they do not like, a denial every critic of non-mainstream matters of science,
matters which have substantial social weight, meets today. Clearly, there is again
a grain of naïveté and idealism also regarding such optimism about the potential that
such difficulty can be mitigated in today's dissemination of ideas, as has been explained
elsewhere in this book. Progress, however, is not a stranger to idealists,
to those who defy personal advancement and progress in the name of ideas.
In actuality, idealists are the best friends of progress.
It is noteworthy that certain groups complain that during certain regimes
their books were burned. However, even worse than burning books,
is to deny these books the light of day to begin with, by blocking their
proper publishing (not self-publishing), as it happens today. As noted,
bringing ideas into oblivion by denying their proper dissemination through
the trusted territories of publishing (as opposed to self-publishing
them), is one of the most important weapons of the powers-that-be to
repel unwanted, albeit correct, ideas that threaten to diminish their
dominance, a dominance which is in opposition to the core interests
SPECIFIC CONDITIONING OF SOCIETY—Another ideological
weapon the powers-that-be use to ostracize the ideas
they perceive as harming their interests, is to condition society to
become introverted; that is, an “I, me, mine” consumer society,
whereby each of its individual members is only obsessed with his or
her personal well-being, pleasures, family and feelings. Conditioning
society in this personal-only direction, making it disinterested in
the wider common social and cultural goals, is carried out by installment
of the introvert mass culture, reflected in its arts, literature, films
and theater, not to mention drugs, as well as moral and character reduction through
various low practices.
The idealistic concerns for the common good, when
it comes to intellect, are denigrated as elitist, elevating the lowest
common denominator to becoming the standard. Turning a large number of
people into a brainless populace, unification and
standardization of taste is good for business
as well. After all, business is a numbers game, not an enlightening
pursuit. The numbers game business plays has only one simple, if not
extremely boring goal; that is, profit, making it blind to any other characteristic
or necessity of anyone's life.
The population is reduced to an unthinking mass,
to the extent of nonchalantly allowing frank
and blanket irrationality to be taken as most rational science. Society
demonstrates that it likes to be lied to, as well as robbed, when
robbing is out of sight, when robbery is through the taxes everyone
pays. If one is punched in the face or if one sees one's car stolen,
there could hardly be another option than calling the police. When, however,
groups who have tricked society into being perceived as prestigious, rob
society by lying through their teeth, everyone remains complacent and
nonchalant. We did not know, would be the answer. Now you know, and
if you keep calm, when tomorrow that robbery under a pseudo-intellectual,
pseudo-scientific veil keeps rolling on, then there will be no excuse.
By allowing itself to be fooled, society is made to feel secure, let
alone entertained. Illusions, made up stories, smoke and mirrors, are
what society enjoys. Even if there are honest elites who perceive the
deceit and raise their voice of pique, their voice is insubstantial,
squandered under the general noise of untruths. To say nothing of the
fact, that speaking and acting truthfully does not pay. Truth does not
sell. The numbers game, which is the game of business, can hardly be
played on sterlingly honest and truthful terms. As a rule, in business,
only profit determines what is honest and what is truthful.
THINKING OF LEGACY—The above efficiently holds
the idealistic person back, leaving one
under a glass ceiling, unheard and unnoticed, waiting for one's inevitable
physical passing. The physical passing away is occurring in too many
an instance, long after the incurred intellectual death, which the powers-that-be
have caused, especially for the creative individual. Thus, everything
one has done, every discovery, every finding, will fade away after one
passes away. Everything will be lost as if one has never been. The ignoring
spoken above, will have reached its ultimate goal.
Only a century will roll out after one passes away and even a writing
such as this will disappear from the face of the earth. Computer technology
changes. Future computers will not even be able to open the text
files written with today's technology. A sturdy carrier then, one may
think, may be paper. It also fades away. So, then, what? Etching it
in stone or embedding it into clay tablets, perhaps, is the age-old
solution? Unless the new knowledge is disseminated properly, and that means
the archival intellectual channels of the world, approving it to have
the chance to induce change,
nothing can survive the blizzard of time, including human thought. This is why
it is so insidious, even criminal, to be prevented from
having your discoveries properly disseminated.
An age-old, low-technology fact is also that no matter what developments
technology might undergo, the fundamentals of life such as the need
for air, water and food will remain eternal. Even the sophistication
of the computer today cannot express itself without the common low-technology
need for power to have it running. It may happen so that the millennia-old
Egyptian pyramids will be a more grandiose symbol of civilization than
today's ephemeral, butterfly computer civilization.
Although capable of keeping it longer, the powers-that-be have the same
problem themselves, that of preserving what they consider worthy, in the
long run; namely, their power. Being concerned mainly with the protection of
their own, as well as their progenies' powers, the physical protection
of details such as ideas and writings are of lesser concern to these
A shorter-term solution was suggested above, in the form of a non-profit
foundation to be established, which purportedly will carry on some of
one's legacies after passing. However,
these ideas will hardly be preserved and protected, even by setting up
foundations, because, as is well known publicly, foundations are the
easiest target of abuse when their founder is gone.
Thus, it is a sticky-wicket. One's temporary presence on earth is in
fact even more tentative, considering this denial of legacy
by denying proper dissemination.
If Science is So Wrong, Why Are We on the Moon?
If Science is So Wrong
Why are We On the Moon?
The answer to this question was implied earlier,
where it was pointed out that society uses technology as an avatar
for science. It is exactly that popular but misleading substitution,
which is seen demonstrated once again in the question, serving as the
title of this section. It is an example of the previously
discussed complete mixup, resulting from the proclaiming of politically
charged issues as science. It is an example of the confusion in societal
understanding as to what science is, as opposed to engineering and technology,
a confusion as to what scientific theory is and how it relates to scientific
facts. As mentioned, this mixup, thinking of technology as science,
has incurred not only internal damage to the nation, but has also led
to real acts of terrorism.
This question contains a presumption that the moon landing, computers
and other technological achievements, must be the product of science.
Having accepted this presumption; namely, that there is such an inevitable
connection, the asker uses it as an argument against the criticism of
contemporary science—landing on The Moon is a fact and, therefore,
the asker reasons, the state of today's science is just fine. Otherwise,
had science been botched,
there would have been no such landing, no computers and no other technological
wonders around, so reasons the naïve proponent of the technology-science
The problem, when asking the question used above as the title, is that
the assumption regarding the inevitable connection between science and
technology, has no actual basis. Technology develops mainly empirically
and, as noted, can full well achieve its utilitarian goals without the
assistance of science. It achieves its advances by laying hands on anything
known that comes along which can serve its practical goals, including
occasional discoveries in science, which, although not being the goal
of science, and never being noticed by science in such a context, can
contribute to the ever striving pursuit of practicality by technology.
Practicality of America
Practicality of America
PROFIT RULES—In this context,
it is worthwhile repeating
the already alluded to well-known fact that the ultimate foundation
of America is practicality. This is expressed by instant gratification,
youth, strength of the body, anti-intellectualism and anti-elitism.
Science is only approved by society if it is perceived that it brings
direct profit. Announcements of scientific discoveries are always accompanied
by an explanation of what concrete technical benefits they will bring
to the individual, since anything spoken of, whatsoever, is necessarily
filtered through what I, the concrete individual, will gain from it,
from what my personal advantage will be.
THE KNOWN PROFIT-DRIVEN ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT SPARE SCIENCE—Science
in the United States is not perceived as ideology, providing
a realistic worldview and correct structure of thinking, but is only
thought of as some practical means to do successful business, arming
one with the advantage which would allow outperforming the competition
in the marketplace. This is how science is sold (no pun
intended) to the public in almost every
text of every media one can think of. As a matter of fact, any text
regarding whatever, as well as science in particular, has some special
agenda behind it, has forces that need propaganda of their undertaking,
aiming at purely financial goals. One can hardly read about any finding
at all, which has arisen solely from the logic of science, without
special agendas, mainly of financial character, accompanying the announcement
explicitly or implicitly. The very special exemption to this
rule will be mentioned below.
THE MAIN PLAYERS WHO INTRODUCED ABSURDITY DID NOT
EVEN BENEFIT FROM IT—From this profit perspective, those who foisted relativity on the world
are tragic personalities, because they were only used. They remained
largely middle class. Others reap the huge “benefits” from
Only such achievements of science are considered worthy that are perceived
as impacting society as a whole in a directly practical way, especially those
achievements serving big business. Achievements as diverse as game theory, input-output
analysis, chromatography and nuclear energy are celebrated because of
their practical usefulness. Theorizing without practical outcome, tampering
with general concepts, such as the essence of time and space, leading
further to other fantasies such as dark matter and the standard model,
are only allowed for “the cream of the crop”, as it were,
and are only delegated to astral personas, well-endowed by society,
and yet untouchable by that same society. Even the most deserving critique
is forbidden, although in actuality, the astral occupations of these
personas are not only devoid of practicality, but also make no scientific
sense either, given their birth-connection, in one
of their most disagreeable parts,
to the non-physical Lorentz transformations, which contradict reality.
The former perception of science, the practical one, enhances the sustenance
of two sides of society—producers and consumers. The latter perception
of science, adopted, although it is entirely impractical in purely utilitarian
terms and on top of it is also senseless, sustains the particular needed
ideology imposed on society. The powers-that-be need this ideology in order to
drive society in a particular direction, not allowing it to stray, even
if reason requires such diversion.
THE PARADOXICAL POLITICALLY AGNOSTIC NATURE OF THE ABSURD RELATIVITY—This
intellectual atmosphere, regarding the sought for and imposed perception
of the practicality of science nowadays, very much resembles the attitude toward
science in totalitarian societies, where science considered worthy of
approval and discussing publicly, was portrayed and reduced to a direct
productive force, in the sense of producing goods for the market and consumption.
Interestingly, on the other hand, even being totalitarian, those societies were going
obediently along the second, the impractical, albeit senseless, the
lofty but absurd, part of the doctrine, imposed all over the civilized
world. In this respect, the world was one, even under the past totalitarian
societies, not differing one iota from the post-modern world of today.
The practicality of the American society, discussed
here, cannot be changed, however detrimental it may be with regard to
science. If this practicality is carried to the extreme, science suffers, because
there is no need to recall that genuine
science is, in its very essence, anything but practical in a business
sense. Paradoxically, however, the practicality of America is not a deterrent
to bad science, to pseudo-science of the likes of relativity, which aside from
being bad science has absolutely no practicality whatsoever. America
is endowing bad science generously. Go figure!?
THE FERTILE PIONEERDOM OF AMERICA AND SCIENCE—In
fairness, it should also be said, however, that when it so happens
that the practical spirit of America, rummaging every possible avenue,
senses profit even in achievements of good science, which also appears to have no
practical value, America does not hesitate to extract
the business potential out of it and turn it into a
profit-making venture. Although scientifically viable
(not absurdities such as relativity), but promising absolutely nothing
to those uninitiated in the American
way of entrepreneurism, the results which follow from that American entrepreneurism
outperform any thinkable success
that initially could not even be dreamed of. An especially brilliant example
of how technology, then business, spawned out of that mundane European
science, is the phenomenal emerging of computers as a major world technological
factor. The fundamental theoretical principles of European science, promising not a trace
of anything marketable, were hidden in the mundane works of European
university cabinet mathematicians, as well as scientists, inauspiciously
hidden from the world in their university offices. Their work would
have remained unknown to the public at large to this day, had the far-sighted
spirit of America not zeroed in on them. These ostensibly grey undertakings,
typical for how the public at large views the academic world, would have
remained in the folders of the university departments and in the pages
of academic archival literature, which practically no one reads, outside
of the few determined colleagues of the authors. These academic achievements would
have had no further development had the US military
and especially business not seen the incredible potential computers
have as a new invaluable defense and intelligence, as well as a new market-aiding
phenomenon. The world would have never known about these theoretical
discoveries had it not been for the Unites States.
Not a lesser example of the role of the United States
for turning abstract thought into grandiose applied creations,
is the boost the military-industrial complex induced
on findings of pure science, such as the discovery of nuclear fusion
and fission, also a product of obscure European minds. These were brought into
technological and military prominence only due to the entrepreneurial
spirit and far-sightedness of America.
THE DISAPPOINTING ACCOMODATION OF NO GOOD IDEAS—All this
is well and good, even when, atypically for science, it comes
to turning into business of certain achievements of science totally unintended
by science to have practical aspect. However, although expected to
be the progressive system of the New World in every way, defying the
conservative backwardness of the Old Europe, the system driving the
USA, together with its great successes in turning of obscure scientific
findings into technological masterpieces, at the same time failed when
it comes to science itself. It turned out that it is easier for the
system to accept that what it is told is right, rather than explore
it deeper and find out if what is being portrayed as science is really
Nothing can compete with business in trying to understand the
veracity of scientific claims which are a candidate to be
turned into a marketable product.
However, if one decides individually to go against the grain, when it
pertains to veracity in pure science, he or she would soon find that
all that is awaiting him or her is personal harm,
no matter how correct the arguments
presented are. The system in the USA showed itself to be as incapable
as the worn out system of Europe, in restraining the poisonous, absurd
science brought in from that effete, intellectually decadent Old Europe.
Instead of fending off the absurdities of the vitiated Europe, that
infestation of absurd science found fertile ground on the American soil.
The reason for this uncalled for, rather unsuspected tragedy, is the
nonchalant negligence, the disregard of critical assessment of the
intellectual essence of what is being offered. The superficial universal
sentiment is this—if it is not business, the USA is not interested.
On the other hand, as long as a party manages to manipulate matters so that money
would start flowing in, the US is in agreement and gives it a green
light without much ado, as long as it has not already been expressly
prohibited by law. Scientific matters are too mundane anyway to garner
any public attention and critique. Therefore, anything would pass, as
long as someone knows how to manipulate government and get it through
the governmental needle eye, convincing the
government that it must spend money on it.
is hardly the target of such a campaign
of manipulation, because it is harder to pull the wool over its eyes—there
are intently watchful shareholders and private owners who are pragmatic
and want real-world results in the form of a bottom line, where the
absurdist knows ahead of time he or she cannot deliver. His or her intention
has never been to deliver, anyway. The only goal is to extract money
gluttonously in order for the self-serving scheme to be kept going. It
is, basically, an elaborate scam.
Therefore, the natural attention of
the manipulators is directed mostly towards the government treasuries,
which, in addition, are much fuller than the private ones. Once the
manipulator finds a way to extract money, especially from things which
the public does not understand but sound gee-whiz and cool, let alone
elevated, America gives non-judgmentally its go ahead, it says “all
power to you”, even if that extraction of money may cause harm.
“Prohibition of alcohol” has been tried without success.
Now, the government is giving in on marijuana. Why, then, should it be concerned
about something as obscure as science, goes the common disposition?
INTELLECTUAL OBLIGATION—BAD SCIENCE
MUST NOT BE GIVEN A FREE PASS—Nevertheless,
despite the foreignness of marketability (in plain business
sense) to the essence of science, and the general loathing of abstract
thinking by mainstream America, one must analyze the repercussions of
bad science, which overwhelm academia nowadays. As discussed, that influence
may be subtle, it may not be obvious, but it can have an effect on the
very existence of today's society. As explained, such a danger is real,
despite the complacency and general disinterest at large in that aspect
of scientific influence. Analysis of the state of affairs regarding
the devastating effects of bad science, focusing it on the US, suffices
in this respect, because the US is unquestionably dominant in the world
today. No change elsewhere will have such an effect on science globally
in comparison (except for, perhaps, if a working perpetuum mobile
machine is demonstrated somewhere else in the world).
has its extremes. There are people who would question even
the worth and the purpose of the most talented work of art. A painting
cannot sustain life on the farm, one would hear them say, one
cannot feed the goats and chickens in the pen
with the painting. It is worthless, according
to them, in any practical way. It appears to them as only satisfying
the vanity and the snobbery of a certain class of elite braggarts, while the
real world can easily live without paintings, music and theater, never
mind their modern and avant-garde variants. The interests
of an intellectual, of a scientist, are often viewed as a waste of time, of someone not
doing real work, not having a real job, a burden on society. The confusion
caused by inadequate “theories”, such as the discussed relativity,
plays right into the hands of such people and groups espousing such
Harm to Education
Harm to Education
NAÏVE, IF NOT LAZY, APPROACH TO EDUCATION—It
is clear from the above that one must be
very careful when falling into the usual politicians' rant about education.
The way politicians and society perceive education is that there is
something outside of them, which honestly takes care of the truthful
establishment of a system of true knowledge, which has to be passed
on to the next generations. Their role, the role of politicians, they
feel, is only to aid the dissemination of knowledge, established and
approved somewhere by someone.
What was presented so far maintains that nothing can be further from the
truth. The parallel society, designated socially as “big”
science, for the most part professing
the dishonest system of science, a parallel society
unaccountable to the mainstream society, does more damage than good
to young souls by indoctrinating them from an early age with notions
which are as removed from reality as night from day. Some of these notions,
for instance those about time and space, or the probabilistic nature, but lacking
logic, of the method describing the microworld, are falsely presented
as so advanced, that no matter how much effort one expends, he or she
can never understand these notions—the mantra is, just memorize
them, use them and do not question them. Defiance of logic is unimportant,
because, see, sophisticated science defies common sense, let alone logic
and reason, and that should not worry you, the student, the mantra goes.
That vicious mind game is begun on the impressionable minds in their
formative years, but that goes unheeded by their parents and educators,
who themselves are conditioned to believe that sophisticated science
defies logic and reason.
Thus, the goal of the zealous politicians and concerned-about-education
citizens, who feel content to have found an easy and seemingly noble
mission in life as supporters of education, is not at all improvement
of the educational system by restoring reason in science, through bringing
back its scientific method. The general perception is that it
is none of their business, because they are not experts, and because
some experts somewhere have taken good care of the substance. Politicians
may pounce on the electorate as much as they wish about how concerned
they are regarding education, but nothing will change and will even get
worse, if it does not suddenly dawn on these same politicians, that
the subject matter of their beloved talk about education is rotten to
the core and must be cleaned. Then, what would be their response? There
are experts, there are specialists—it is their responsibility
for the core of the curriculum to be proper. Politicians will
retort— our responsibility is to implement in the educational institutions
of the nation what is out there. As mentioned, this agreeing to delegate
accountability only to those “some”, unidentified out there,
to have science function as a one-way street,
is the greatest mistake politicians make with regard to the presence
of science in society. This mistake propagates further into
what ensues from science; namely,
education, especially when it comes to major issues of science policy
based on broken science,
which, along with the intellectual damage to the nation, these botched
public science policies are also the
greatest wasteful spenders of public wealth.
THE KNOWN PROFIT-DRIVEN ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT SPARE EDUCATION—However,
even if this somehow magically changes, and politicians
shed their timidity and allow themselves to look more carefully into
what is taught in natural sciences, even then, education in America will still have
chronic problems due to the essence of the overall social system.
A chronic, incurable ill of this society is that education is primarily
business, the student is treated as a customer. Thus, educational inclusivity,
as opposed to the natural exclusivity of higher education, is not a
human right, but a business necessity.
As a result, practically no student would consider paying for taking
classes in general chemistry, if it would not lead directly to earning
money as a result of finishing that course or, perhaps, as a stepping
stone to medical school, which, ultimately is rarely only an idealistic
desire. The understanding that taking a science course has other purposes,
such as enhancing the quality of thinking and improving the worldview,
purposes other than the utilitarian use, is practically non-existent in American
society. “What's in it for me” in a purely monetary, utilitarian
sense, is the only thought that springs into one's mind, especially when
it comes to education.
RESPONSIBILITY OF THE POWERS TO THE EDUCATION OF YOUTH—Every
single individual has his or her own hidden feelings about who
the centers of power for his or her life are. It is where the material
support comes from, but it is also where the moral and psychological
foundation is. When young, the obvious center of power is one's parents.
Later in life, aside from the workplace, there are ideologies that influence
the individual, which determine his or her perception of the powers-that-be.
Usually these are powerfully endowed state forces or private megacenters.
As is easily perceived, the more powerfully endowed these centers are,
the more adherents they have and the more prevalent the governing ideology
is. This is how mass ideologies are formed, governing society. Add to
it the general harshness of life, especially if one is not attentive
to the ostensibly boring everyday chores of one's sustenance, and one
can easily understand where the above-described attitude comes from.
Therefore, nothing can be expected to change in education, unless other
social factors change. Discussing education in the framework of the
existing system can only bring palliative changes, not worth considering
in a more general context.
SUCCESSFUL MARKETING OF ABSURDITIES
RESULTS IN OFF-KEY EDUCATION—All these
ruminations about the practicality of America and about the
state of education, have been made for no other reason than as an attempt
to speculate that it is perhaps the social atmosphere we live in, that
has, in the long run, a role in causing absurdity to rule, and that this
social atmosphere also determines the inability to do away with that
basic social ill—if selling absurdities to the public is marketable,
then it is considered successful. Good or bad, absurd or clear as a
sunny day, all is well, as soon as the bottom line is fine. So is the
prevalent tonality society is tuned in to, and if that tonality continues to dominate,
there will be no stimulus for science not to keep playing out of tune.
WHO SHOULD DO SCIENCE?—Despite the
opinion of some accidental academics, elevated to great societal influence,
science does not become more democratic by excluding from the process of
its functioning the honest, trained scientists of
high integrity, but, instead, delegating it
to the uneducated, incompetent, schoolchildren and asylum patients. On the contrary,
depriving the population at large of the quality advancement of science, which can be
ensured only by highly trained individuals of talent and inspiration,
who have devoted their life to a systematic
study of nature, is, in the long run, the most undemocratic and deadly dangerous
disintegration of civilization there could ever be. While the deadliness of putting
that kind of ideology, favoring incompetence in order to appear democratic, into direct
societal practice is surely obvious,
even when playing with such ideas as a purely academic exercise, is harmful to society.
It is harmful even if that is done to
test the limits of academic freedom. The youth attending universities is very
absorptive of what is being taught there, and almost unconditionally
and uncritically respects it. The skills are still lacking, at that age of development of the
young mind, the skills to distinguish a peculiar academic exercise and sense of bland humor from
what is taught as academic material that should be taken seriously. This is said,
if we presume that the instructors do not intend a deliberate harm to students.
In such a case, muddling the minds of the students with bizarre ideas and
passing obvious nonsense as academic science, is criminal. It was mentioned
more than once that the destruction of reason in the social sciences of academia,
which is now seen to overflow into society at large and further into its
legislation, arrives from the destroyed fundamentals of the exact sciences.
That does not make it justified, neither is it anything to celebrate. On the contrary,
every thinking citizen of this world must oppose it with a passion and actively
work toward restoring sense, first and foremost, in science. No one in his or her
right mind should be complacent about this major threat to the world.
Taxpayer Money—Overwhelmingly Used to Fund Bad Science
Used to Fund Bad Science
NAMES USED AS PASSWORDS FOR EASY EXTRACTION OF PUBLIC MONEY—The competition
for public funding is severe and
knows no bounds for the invention of manipulative methods for reaching
into the pocketbook of the US Congress, as well as elsewhere into the funding
governmental bodies of the world. Nowadays, the organized effort to
extract money for sustaining quasi-scientific infrastructures, dealing
with outright absurd projects, has reached near perfection.
For instance, as has already been alluded to several times, certain names,
although in fact representing bad science, have been elevated through
propaganda so much that their mere mentioning, serves as a key to obtaining
funding from the US Congress with the money of the taxpayer.
MAKING UP STORIES OF PRACTICALITY—That situation is assisted
by the more than willing journalists and
self-proclaimed science writers, who always feel the obligation to present
the achievements of science as having some inevitable practical side. In that case,
it should inevitably appear to
the public that the scientific achievements are a scientific enterprise,
not only a lofty intellectual
pursuit. This is what these journalists and writers
are paid to do, along with such an approach
being, to many of them, also their misguided personal understanding,
to please and condition the public, so that spending will not be resisted
for anything being touted as science.
Thus, anything written in the
mass media about science has the hidden agenda to justify spending,
mainly taxpayer money, and to guarantee primarily to the US Congress,
as the leading sponsor controlling the taxpayer money, as well as to
private investors, reassured by that leading sponsor, that whatever
is talked about in the text is worthy of funding. The internal logic
of science does not matter. The real discoveries, neither made to satisfy
some utilitarian goal, nor, in the general case, having anything practical
to them, may stay moot for the sponsor, if they do not serve the hidden
agenda. Unless the science writers and journalists manage to twist
matters in such a way that even an arcane achievement of science, most unlikely
to be practical, even an absurdity, appears as a plausible utility.
Words are cheap, and those who are willing to manipulate, let alone
are paid to manipulate the unsuspecting population, can do it unhinged.
Generating “fake news” concerning science, leads the
way in the world of deceit, assisted by science's inherently hermetic
nature in relation to the world at large. Such unhinged generation of
this specific type of “fake news”, especially when the “mother
of all fake news”, relativity, is forcefully touted, outperforms
by a large margin the absurdity of anything else made up and
put on paper. As already said, science
and its governing body, academia, is
beyond the control of anyone outside its territories, and is now protecting
absurdities, in defiance of what is natural for
science to protect; namely, logic
and reason. We would add again,
God forbid, if such defiance, protecting absurdities, happens.
Alas, sadly, protecting absurdities is
exactly what academia does today.
WASTE IS NO ONE'S CONCERN—One may think that it would be
obvious that funding bad science is a
waste. Waste, however, is the last concern, if at all, for the unscrupulous
forces using bad science for mercilessly milking the US Congress.
Waste due to bad science, is the least of concern also from the point
of view of a society, which otherwise desperately tries to portray
itself as enlightened. Funding inadequate projects, clearly absurd from
the outset, aside from stealing money from viable science, also incurs
irreparable intellectual damage to society, as has been repeatedly stated
in this text.
PURE SCIENCE MUST BE FUNDED IF LEGITIMATE—It is especially
noteworthy that, it is not that there is, or
should ever be, a ban in principle for funding of projects involving pure science.
Legitimate, real, pure science,
honoring the scientific method, must be supported by society with all its
heart and material potential. The entire problem is that the multibillion
dollar and euro amounts, shed on whatever the recipients call science,
is, in fact, no science at all, but is deceit disguised as science. It
is corruptly hermetic to scrutiny, solely determined to contain
what is purported as science
in certain self-serving limits, delineated by forces foreign to science
and the scientific method. It is only aimed at serving their extra-scientific
goals. In this respect, it must be heard loud and
clear—absurd science is not pure science; absurd science
is not science at all.
PRIVATE SCIENTIFIC INSTITUTIONS ALSO USE PUBLIC MONEY—The excuse
sometimes is that, some of these projects are the prerogative of
private institutions and foundations, and interference by the government
in what they fund is not proper, even if the object of funding constitutes absurdities.
However, these private organizations would not be able to fund multibillion
dollar and euro projects purely on their own. They resort to private-public
partnership with the government. Once government becomes involved, there
is no excuse for wasting taxpayer money on easily proven pseudo-science,
such as Lorentz-transformations-based absurdities, deviously unlocking
the coffers of government with the forged magic key, relativity, which they
all are said to arrive from.
PRIVATE CORPORATIONS STAY SHY OF FUNDING REAL SCIENCE—Thus,
the dog-eat-dog battle for funding is especially intense and relentless
when the government is the target of wooing for grants because it is
unmatched as a resource compared to private funding. First and foremost, aside
from the financing being incomparable to that ensured by government,
private corporations are reluctant to dedicate funds for pure fundamental
research, because these corporations have to answer to their shareholders,
whose main objective is return on investment. The most corporations
do is fund Research and Development (R&D), which, by its very nature,
is another way of saying technology. It is another way of saying direct,
practical application and ultimately, profit, not an idealistic pursuit
of truth and generation of new knowledge, which is the goal of science.
It is true that many companies maintain research labs, which in many
ways appear to be doing fundamental research. Closer observation, however,
reveals that their research, no matter how far-reaching, has practical
application in mind,
contrary to only production of knowledge with no practical, applied ends,
which real science sets as its goal.
To say nothing of the fact that these corporate labs will never challenge
basic doctrines of what is officially proclaimed as science, such as
conservation of energy, relativity or quantum mechanics, even if these
doctrines deserve challenging. Rather, these R&D facilities are occupied
with studying what they themselves perceive as fundamental in areas
such as solid state physics or new energy sources, to name a few. By
limiting themselves to the mentioned established basic doctrines, this
research is not always of the highest scientific quality either. Such
narrow-mindedness dooms them to only menial advances, if not guaranteed
failures, if they ever conduct anything resembling real fundamental
research, given that the accepted fundamental doctrines are flawed,
as they are. Furthermore, if the corporations do not follow the “party
line”, these corporations risk ostracizing and severe punishment
by the zealous competitors, giving these competitors one more
in the market battle. Thus, even corporations with the most
progressive tendencies find themselves in a box, stuck with what has
been known, stuck almost exclusively to technology. Challenging the
status quo, even if justified, is the direct way even
for the large corporations to become small and then disappear.
ONLY THE GOVERNMENT PROVIDES A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF MONEY FOR PURE
SCIENCE BUT TODAY UNKNOWINGLY SUPPORTS BAD SCIENCE—While,
unlike private corporations, the government is willing to financially back
the efforts in pure science, that financial backup has fallen
victim to sly streamlining, in such a way as to support, seemingly
idealistically (i.e., without the need to prove any practical aspect
of the studies), exactly the bad science, the subject of discussion
in this text.
Therefore, while private investors may support anything they like, the
dangerous part is the more important support; namely, the
governmental support of bad science.
That should be the point of main concern.
THE SPONSOR, THE US CONGRESS, MUST TAKE CONTROL
OF WHETHER OR NOT TO FUND PIVOTAL SCIENCE ISSUES—The National Academy of
Sciences (NAS) is the primary culprit to take
the blame for allowing such a sorry state of affairs, in view of its
worldwide impact, incomparable to any other organized ruling force in science.
Sadly, it is an example of a hermetic, unidirectional entity, occupied
by the dark forces of the irrational. It is unidirectional because it
is only for NAS to determine what is and what is not in science, allowing
its originator and ostensible governor, the US Congress, only to fund
it, but never to exert any real control over NAS' claimed scientific activity
and decisions. The common understanding is that the US Congress is not
competent to assess the scientific merits due to lack of expertise.
Thus, NAS is, in effect, more powerful than the US Congress itself, telling
Congress what to do.
THIS BOOK PROVIDES A TOOL ENABLING THE US CONGRESS TO ACT ON ONE OF THE MOST
IMPORTANT SCIENTIFIC MATTERS WITHOUT BEING
MANIPULATED BY VESTED INTERESTS—This
state of affairs, treating the US Congress as a second-rate participant in
governing science, however, must change when it comes to major scientific
issues of national and world importance, especially, when these issues
can be translated so that anyone, even people who are not practicing
science, can understand rigorously. This book has presented a glaring example of such
a major area of science, unequivocally proving the absurdity of relativity
and its Lorentz-transformations-based progeny. It has been translated
by this author so that the US Congress
can fully understand it, without any loss of rigor, as well as without
the need to call external, so-called, experts, who are all corrupt without
exception. This makes it entirely feasible that the US Congress alone
can act to cancel the funding of the absurd science.
Any occupation with absurdities is clearly ineligible
for public funding, rather than having it unjustifiably exuberantly funded by the US
Congress, as it happens today, only because the US Congress is deprived of knowing
that it is funding absurdities. The arguments and proof presented here, easy for anyone
to understand, deal away with such
injustice. It allows the US Congress to get to the bottom of it through its own effort,
thus, putting a barrier to the manipulation of Congress into serving as just a tool
in the hands of the corrupt so-called experts.
THE SCIENCE INTEGRITY ACT MUST PROVIDE AN ADDITIONAL
LAYER OF ACCOUNTABILITY—As a matter of fact, such an additional
layer of accountability, which the US Congress
must institute in its own legislation, to use
the term “additional layer of accountability”,
suggested by the former US Representative Lamar Smith, must become
an integral part of the Science Integrity Act, now under consideration in the
US Congress. It is especially mandatory to institute such an additional
layer of accountability, when scientific questions of major import for
the national science policy, such as the need to abandon funding for
Lorentz-transformations-based physics, are concerned, even more
so, when the argument against such major funding is digested and reduced
without losing rigor, to a form understandable, with minimal effort, by
anyone of sound mind, independent of whether or not he or she practices
MISSING AN ADDITIONAL LAYER OF ACCOUNTABILITY—So far, such
additional layer of accountability, which would ensure
that academia fulfills its obligations to sustain reason and truth, is
missing, and the bad side of academia is allowed to have its unbridled
leeway. Complexities and subtleties emerge further down the road but,
as seen from the arguments presented here, it is simple to explain,
even to an outsider to science, why the road that should not be taken
would inevitably lead to a dead-end. No money and effort should
be spent to follow that road. So far, the possibility to explain this
properly to society is completely blocked. Funding of projects merely
based on models which do not represent reality but are self-serving,
falsely presented as models of physical reality, to say nothing
of their being outright absurdities, constitutes funding
of definite dead-ends. The public is deliberately kept in the dark regarding
this fact. Notably, billion dollar projects are being talked about here.
Prompt avoidance of taking such non-productive roads can be achieved
by including the mentioned additional layer of accountability, an additional
layer outside the conflict of interest, epitomized by academia and
its corrupt peer-review. Trying to resolve the grave problem at hand
only within academia, is not possible. Moreover, helping academia from
the outside by canceling the funding of absurdities, and in this way
helping academia to rid itself of the pseudoscientific menace discussed above,
is not destruction of science but, on the contrary, it is helping to
restore real science. It should never be forgotten that academia is
only a servant of truth and not a truth-creator.
Thus, it cannot be repeated too many times that, when it comes to public funding
of science, an additional layer of accountability, instituted in the
legislation of the US Congress, is mandatory, using the terminology of former Congressman
Lamar Smith. It must again be said that, the way academia
must not consider itself “above the law”,
the same way academia must not consider itself “above truth”, and should
be held accountable, not abundantly stimulated with the money of the taxpayer,
for disregarding reason. Monuments of the odious heroes of scientific absurdity deserve taking down
no less, if not more, than the monuments of dictators, when freedom looms in their countries.
This is especially mandatory in view of the immensely greater destructive
effect on the entire world, of absurdities foisted as science by these odious elements.
THE SCIENCE INTEGRITY
ACT AND QUALITY OF THINKING—When
it comes to the Science Integrity Act, which is being considered by the US Congress,
the first thing is to understand what is science, what is integrity in science?
From all said so far, it is evident that the main
focus of the Science Integrity Act should be to ban funding with tax money of absurdities
falsely presented as science.
Funding absurdities does not mean funding science, does not symbolize freedom in science,
nor is spending tax money on absurdities giving science a chance.
Clairvoyance, astrology and voodoo, correctly, are not given a chance by the US legislator,
neither are they thought of as any kind of science that deserves the freedom to waste
the money of the taxpayer. The glaring example presented here of
the absurdity which relativity comprises, must be followed by measures disallowing tax money support
with an even greater reason. Not even one taxpayer penny should go in support of that absurdity.
The harm of absurdity, funded by the US Congress, goes
deeper than what the administrative measures, the focus of the Science Integrity Act
in its current form, aim at. It harms the thinking of the American people because it is accepting
absurdity as science and, worst of all, that travesty is sanctioned by authority. Science, however,
is the basis of correct thinking. Messing it up by nonchalantly allowing absurdities
to govern science, is unforgivable.
The Science Integrity Act is an act which must ensure correct and high-quality thinking.
There can be no other higher goal in any public science policy, especially clothed as an Act
of the US Congress, than ensuring high quality thinking shaped by proper science. No problem
of national or international importance can be solved by hampered, low quality thinking. No
assessment of whether the country is really facing a pandemic or facing an economic crisis can
be done correctly when the thinking is damaged by bad science, instituted as mainstream.
With damaged thinking, deliberately misleading
society for political purposes notwithstanding, the USA may fall into the trap of falsely leading
the world in a wrong direction of doom and gloom. That is the last thing the world and its economy
needs. A false alarm of this sort artificially triggers economic recession and depression.
Ensuring high quality thinking cannot be done by the
US Congress supporting absurdities such as relativity with billions of taxpayer dollars.
Therefore, when it comes to public policies in science and a Science Integrity Act,
concerns about ensuring quality of thinking must come first, over and above concerns how science
is being disseminated. What is the use of disseminating crooked science? The answer is,
none whatsoever. To say nothing that it is damaging.
Now, the destiny, not only of the nation, but without exaggeration, of the
entire world, rests with the infinite wisdom of the US Congress. If, after the unequivocal
proof presented here, that wisdom is lost and the US Congress continues to allow itself to be led
by the nose and keep funding absurdities, that would remain forever on its conscience.
NONSENSE MUST BE PINPOINTED AND REMOVED—Getting ahead in our
society in no way means that it should
use, as a basis, encapsulated nonsense, deviously pronounced as science.
One can, however, occasionally hear in the corridors of the US Congress, that we
should move ahead and not dwell into what has already been done. This
decadent sentiment is echoing
the very active defenders of the status quo, favoring presenting
of absurdities as science, dastardly “silently advising”
the unsuspecting congresspersons, both representatives and senators,
capitalizing on their fear of embarrassment for not being versed in
science, if these representatives and senators decide to question spending
on science matters.
EXPLOITING THE FEAR OF EMBARRASSMENT TO RETAIN PRESENTING
ABSURDITY AS SCIENCE—Armed with the easy to
comprehend argument provided here, congresspersons
need not have such fear; on the contrary, the proponents of absurdities
should dread embarrassment due to being exposed. Do not touch what is
being funded, is the devious message. Look ahead and do not turn back,
rendering everything that has already been pronounced as science untouchable
and a matter closed for discussion, even if it is a catastrophic absurdity.
This encapsulation of wrong views, let alone absurd views, such as those
professed by relativity, has never occurred in science in the long run.
Neither was the wrong worldview of Aristotle encapsulated to disallow
the appearance of Copernicus and Galileo, nor was Proust's view anchored
to prevent Lavoisier coming to the fore, to give two of the plethora
of examples demonstrating how science works. Constantly renewing science,
correcting its confusions and wrong takes, is a primary characteristic
of this most important human endeavor, defining humanity as superior
to all biological life on earth. To say nothing of the fact that there is
no worthier contribution to science than to present an unequivocal
argument against an absurd existing view.
This is especially true when that view must not be substituted with anything else because
it has been imposed as an extraneous nuisance, contrary to anything that
qualifies as science, as is relativity. Such contribution, further,
competes even with the pivotal replacements in science history of wrong with
correct views. As a matter of fact, science has no analogue to that kind of
contribution, unequivocally rejecting a “theory”, pronounced as scientific, but,
in fact, having nothing to do, not only with proper science, but even with
the defunct scientific theories of yesterday.
This author once again submits, and it should be evident at once upon
inspection of the above-given unequivocal arguments, that no expertise
whatsoever is needed, but only an average basic school education or less,
to know that one can never be equal to two. Therefore, any “theory”,
especially exemplified, as seen, by relativity, deriving in effect such
an impossible equality, as well as everything else based on such “theory”,
must not receive public funding. Such stopping of public funding is the most
efficient way of rejecting absurdity, such as relativity, as part of science.
It should be recognized that there
are truths which do not need the approval of anyone, least
of all of proclaimed scientists and
their corrupt peer-review. Is what I said being heard by anyone at all or
should I conclude by adding ... dream on?
The taxpayers should object to NSF, DOE and DOD spending money on projects
and propaganda of wrong, let alone absurd, theories, such as relativity
and progeny. Does this obvious thing get across to anyone at all, or
should I add here again ... dream on?
PUBLIC FUNDING OF ABSURDITIES IS A MOCKERY OF FREEDOM OF
SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH—Some say science should be
allowed to entertain non-obvious notions
which defy common sense and that scientists should be given the freedom
to pursue research of their choice. There is a known limit, however.
No scientist is allowed, at least through the restriction of spending
public money, to explore clairvoyance, astrology or witchcraft. There
is an understandable ban on spending public money to pursue perpetuum
mobile, although reasons can be given why public money should
go to study even perpetuum mobile, rather than squander
public money to explore an outrageous “theory”, deriving
that one equals two, as relativity in effect does. Funding such absurdities
is a confirmed waste, not giving science a chance.
There is an ongoing stream of substantial funding, the highest of any
other funded science project, going towards studies based on the bad
science of relativity and its absurd Lorentz-transformations-based falsely
alleged progeny; although, as seen above, no scientist's opinion, no
expert's opinion, least of all peer-review, is required to know that relativity is beyond wrong
and deserves no public funding.
THE US CONGRESS IS THE LAST THRESHOLD HUMANKIND HAS BEFORE SCIENCE
IS ENTIRELY DESTROYED—As made
clear elsewhere in this book, the US Congress,
through canceling the funding of absurdities, is the
last hope for humanity to be saved from the intellectual oppression
of vapidity and senselessness, exemplified by relativity and progeny,
vapidity and senselessness which science has never experienced and has
never been occupied by in its entire centuries-old history. Anything
else, short of stopping that funding of absurdities, would play right into the hands
of the unscrupulous, well-endowed charlatans, who would not miss the opportunity to
tergiversate at advocating for any kind of intellectual destruction, as long as it serves them,
and would contribute to their further
entrenchment in the body of science, deepening their ill control and
destruction of the nation's wealth and intellect.
It has to be established that the US Congress can act on its own on
proposals to support the study of absurdities, on proposals to support
studying of violations of absolute truths and deny funding of such proposals,
especially when the proof is unequivocal and is translated
so that it can be understood by an average
person, as is the case with the proof shown here.
As mentioned earlier, climate change and theory of evolution can be disputed endlessly,
and this very fact may a reason for funding.
However, doubting absolute truths,
let alone the outright violating of absolute truths, as relativity does,
cannot, and must not, even be the subject of discussion, least of all be drenched in
grants, funded using tax money. This is where the US Congress can step in and act decisively.
Let me repeat, the US Congress today is completely isolated from having
any say, when funding of fundamental research is concerned. Its
role is reduced to being a mere cash cow, unsuspectingly funding absurdities
presented as science. This must be corrected at once by empowering the US Congress with the
argument presented here.
PRACTICALITY MUST NOT BE THE CRITERION FOR FUNDABILITY OF SCIENCE—In saying
the above, however, it must necessarily be mentioned that there is also a caveat
to this. It may appear that funding of science should be questioned, even when there is clear
and unequivocal proof that the nature of fundamental studies proposed for funding, although
entirely scientifically viable (and not absurd, as is relativity), do not promise
a practical outcome.
It may wrongly appear that funding of such scientifically viable projects
may be questioned solely on the basis of the fact that these projects exclude,
in principle, the expectation for practical application of their
results. Such conclusion is not less devastating than the readiness to fund
absurdities foisted as science.
On the contrary, public funding of viable, non-absurd pure science,
even if it has no practical application,
is a must in a civilized country. Again, emphatically,
pure science must be funded unconditionally,
as long as the studies do not brazenly violate
logic and absolute truths, as relativity and progeny do, as seen.
The US Congress cannot micromanage every scientific proposal. However, when
the US Congress is presented clear evidence, which is translated into
a form so simple, yet rigorous, which the US Congress can fully understand
on its own, that what it is funding with billions of dollars is sheer absurdity,
requiring calling no external experts, who are without exception corrupt,
the US Congress must act to stop such funding. This is not an everyday event, and it would not
affect the major part of the science activity, in which the US Congress has no
business interfering. Such an act
of the US Congress is especially mandatory when the scientific matter
at hand is of major national and international importance, its funding amounting to
billions of dollars, and when continuing its funding would mean nothing other than stimulating
the proliferation of matters such as relativity, unequivocally uncovered here to be
nothing other than sheer absurdity.
Furthermore, it is not unusual for the US Congress to deny funding. There are such limits
set in existence as was already said. The US Congress
does not fund, for instance, astrology,
alchemy, phrenology, numerology or eugenics, to name a few of the non-scientific
occupations, categorically denied funding,
despite the fact that there are people who like them. The
same denial for funding, with even greater justification at that, must
apply to relativity and all the rest of the Lorentz-transformations-based
projects because, as seen, relativity and progeny is not only wrong,
but it is confirmed absurdity.
SUBVERSIVE, BEHIND THE SCENES “QUIET ADVISING”, LOWERED
THE US CONGRESS DETERMINATION TO PUT A STOP TO
PSEUDO-SCIENCE PROJECTS—I remember
how disappointed my colleague was when the building of the
Superconductor Supercollider in the Texas desert was cancelled by the
US Congress, that colleague telling me that
he prefers that the US Congress spend money
on science, whatever it is, rather than wasting it on other projects.
At the time, I was not aware of the problems in science I am now writing
about. Now, however, I see how wise that decision of the US Congress
was. Just saying the word science should not be the magic word that
opens the checkbooks of the members of Congress.
A scientist must not remain with the impression that he or she has
so much unlimited freedom, that his or her scientific research is
so much free of constraint, as to permit asking the US Congress for financial
support for just any whimsical thing that comes to mind. The US Congress must
never squander money on supporting pretend scientific research aiming at
studying whether one can be equal to two, as relativity in effect derives.
I see now that funding bad science, such as the “science” behind the collider in
question, in its essence designed to study proposals having at their fundament
the absurd relativity, would be worse than not funding science at all.
It would be worse because with the billions the US Congress would spend on such
bogus science, it will contribute to the further entrenchment of vicious
practices going by the false moniker science, detrimental in many different
ways to society, as is explained here. Thus, stopping the financing
of absurdities is not only an act of saving society from a wasteful
financial burden, but is also the most efficient method for saving society
from disastrous intellectual devastation. That is an even more worthy
Unfortunately, in time, the US Congress mitigated its stance against
bad science, epitomized by such projects, having at their basis the non-physical
Lorentz-transformations-based views, which not only
have nothing to do with nature,
but being outright absurd. The insidious “silent advising” by the charlatans obviously
has taken roots. In addition, the US Congress did not have the clear-cut tools
which would allow it to be unequivocal in preventing the funding of bad science.
Now, with this book in hand, it is invincible against any underhanded
“silent adviser”, who would dare to use the US Congress for his or her
UNIDIRECTIONAL IMPOSITION OF WHICH WAY FUNDING GOES IS WRONG
AND MUST STOP—As said, the usual arguments
for this one-sidedness—academia with
its corrupt peer-review, unilaterally deciding what is scientifically
worthy, which then the US Congress funds, no questions asked—are
that the US Congress is incompetent to judge the inherently complex
scientific merits of the proposals, for the understanding of which,
specialized knowledge is crucial. However, is that always the case?
I maintain, and I am proving it unequivocally with this book, that in
major directions of funding in physics, the very essence of what is
being funded nowadays, although sounding elevated, is so fundamentally
flawed yet simple to formulate, without the need to dumb it down, that
there can hardly be a congressperson who will not be able to understand
that flaw personally, jargon notwithstanding. Therefore, there should
be a way for the congresspersons to be made aware of the real problems
and we, the society, should expect these congresspersons, after becoming
informed, to act and to prevent the existing large-scale travesty of
science by disallowing its funding.
THE BLUFF THAT THE HERE SHOWN PROOF OBLITERATING RELATIVITY SHOULD
GO FIRST THROUGH PEER-REVIEW, IS A
SUBTERFUGE TO AVOID FACING THE CATASTROPHIC
UNEQUIVOCAL ARGUMENT—It must be emphasized once again, that
the brainwashing, which has occurred
amongst the congresspersons and their staff, that the scientific issue
raised should have external corroboration, is a ruse of the protectors
of the absurd status quo. As repeatedly said,
the congresspersons themselves are fully capable of seeing with their own eyes
and personally judging on their own, that such absurd pseudoscience, as
now funded by the US Congress with billions of dollars, must
be funded no more. By using the arguments in this book, the members of the
US Congress can fully, on their own, without the intrusion of external so-called
experts, who are without exception corrupt, appreciate the absurdity of the major
scientific proposals brought to their attention for funding and as a result,
cancel that funding. Canceling public funding is the most, if not the
only, efficient way to extract the sting from the entity, falsely claimed to
be science, fooling everyone today, torturing and intellectually destroying
CORRUPT PEER-REVIEW—At present, especially in physics,
the peer-review system academia employs for supposedly filtering scientific
matter from everything else that can be expressed, is self-serving and
is not serving the real interests of science. It is not serving the
truth, the way truth is supposed to be reached; namely, by relying on logic and reason, using the
scientific method. In physics today “peer-review” is another
way of saying “corruption”. Therefore, “peer-review” cannot be expected
to undermine its own comfort, by shedding this corruption and beginning
to serve the truth, without external help from the provider of the grants;
namely, the US Congress.
TAKING RISKS IN FUNDING SCIENCE RADICALLY DIFFERS FROM INADMISSIBLE FUNDING
OF CLEAR-CUT NONSENE—Notably, as mentioned above, it is not
that funding should only go for clear cut outcomes,
should avoid taking risks, and no provisions for the usual honest
mistakes and negative outcomes in research should be made. What is being
discussed concerns outright absurdities that could be detected prior
to any activities, but which are jealously protected from being made
known to the funders through incorrigibly corrupt peer-review, which
favors underhanded and unseemly self-interest. As said, it is impossible to improve
or correct this internally, within academia itself, because academia
has specially created a brick wall, allowing for devious,
unobstructed funding projects having
nothing to do with real science. Society should feel no regret if this
type of funding is eliminated altogether. Every sensible concerned scientist
should strive for the increase of funding for scientifically sound fundamental
research, while at the same time, this same concerned scientist should
apply every effort for the elimination of funding for obvious bad science,
such as relativity, evident from the outset to be absurd, but which
is protected by corrupt peer-review. As a matter of fact,
fighting corruption in science, eliminating corruption in the peer-review process, is the epitome
of what a concerned scientist must care about, any other concern being only a
derivative of this primary, essential duty of anyone calling himself or herself a scientist.
More on How This Damage to Society Can be Amended
More on How This Damage to
Society Can be Amended
Although the only possible way by which the discussed absurd situation
in science can be amended was already clearly pointed out—strong,
enlightened political will, using the unequivocal
proof shown here, decisively stopping public funding for the absurdities brought about
in science by relativity and progeny—this chapter
adds more ruminations on the topic.
RATIONAL DISCOURSE WON'T DO—There is no straightforward
way today, relying on arguments alone, to amend
the damage to society caused by the absurd relativity, unless the factors
causing that damage are removed
by canceling their public funding. Any attempt to get into a rational
discourse with the gatekeepers of the faith—the currently installed
actors doing the absurd theoretical physics—will result, if the
critic is exceptionally fortunate, in the receipt of polite form letters
of refusal to involve themselves in exchange. The most one can hear,
other than receiving the polite form letter, is that the current theories
have been shown to be correct in everything so far and that observed
correctness proves their viability in anything else to come in the future.
Never mind that the scientific method excludes such foretelling,
to say nothing of the fact that the arguments presented, mandating the
removal of the governing absurdities, are unequivocal. If one persists,
damage to one's reputation, as well as ostracizing, is in order. Thus,
one is put in a position to invite his or her own harm when putting
forth an unequivocal argument, just because he or she is right.
THE SKY MUST FALL FOR SOCIETY TO DEMAND CHANGE—For society to
notice the problems and demand change, the problems in
science must not appear subtle, no matter how dramatic these ostensibly
subtle problems could be for science itself. For society to notice the
problems of science, these problems must cause a major visible social
crisis, with engineering repercussions and mass tragedies, sadly, involving loss of
life. Society must perceive the problems in science as
a national disaster and feel the urgency of dealing with them, as it deals with
a pandemic, which, in an intellectual sense, the disastrous state of fundamental
science really is, but is hidden from society's eye. This is where the role
of the powers running society lies, especially academia, in the case at hand to overcome this
narrow expectation and take measures even when problems are not obvious to the rest of society.
Even during a pandemic,
societal responsibility is not left to the individual, but the governance of
countries of the world take up their role
of command, even repression, if necessary. Of course, in denying funding of absurdities,
coercion is far from being repressive, but it is as efficient when saving society
from this harmful major menace.
Also, it is widely known, that it is
the enhanced practicality due to the steam engine which caused a social
revolution—the industrial revolution—not the theory
behind the steam engine. However, in correcting the understanding of
basic scientific notions, there is no direct practicality.
Society at large is not educated enough (education
requires systematic pursuit of acquiring knowledge for many years on
end), and, for the most part, cannot appreciate and, therefore, demand
correction of flaws in science itself. This really mandates that those set in
power to govern society enlighten themselves and understand that
intellectual matters of societal impact cannot go on any more like this—mired in the
cobweb of absurdities and lunacy. These absurdities and lunacy must be deprived of
ONCE AGAIN—THE MISSING ROLE OF ACADEMIA—This is
where the responsibility of academia comes into play and this is where
academia is not up to its characteristic standards nowadays. In fact,
it is failing miserably.
Thus, those who have come to realize that change in science is screaming
out, are in a sticky wicket situation, whereby academia, whose call
of duty is to stand firm against absurdities, is stuck in its corrupt
ways, while the public, the unsuspecting sponsor of the exercise in
absurdities, is complacent, not willing to do one thing to save itself
from being exploited. Even worse, damaged both financially and intellectually,
by a huge machine favoring lunacy and insanity, calling it science.
WHICH FUND-DISBURSING AUTHORITIES TO CALL?—One hears advice
to call one's congressional representative, when seen being
so adamant about harm to society caused by
a certain scientific theory.
Unfortunately, as already noted, the typical politician will approach
any such call not by its merits, but by firstly considering its fitting
into his or her political agenda. That political agenda almost always
is to side with the existing party line in any aspect of life, science
included. There is no abstract good for which he or she would vow. The
good of the nation almost always goes only through his or her own political
agenda. This must be kept in mind first and foremost, to avoid vain
expectations when waging the good fight for restoring sanity in science
by calling authorities, with the intent of asking them to stop
the funding of absurdities due to the above presented unequivocal arguments.
Honestly, over time I have come to realize that, instead of calling
congresspersons, one must call the police or the FBI, just as in a highway
CONSPIRACY THEORY IT IS NOT—It should not remain unnoted
that many attempts have been made and are
constantly being made to determine the roots of evil and expose the
fallacies of the existing major scientific theories,
quantum mechanics and relativity. In the process,
those who conspire to keep the damaging “theory” afloat,
themselves accuse the concerned honest critics of succumbing to conspiracy
theories. Such a cheap accusation fails at once when it comes to the so far unmatched,
in-your-face argument presented here, unequivocally proving the absurdity of
relativity. An unequivocal argument, by its very nature,
cannot be exemplified by a conspiracy theory. On the contrary, the unequivocal
argument is undefeatable. It is the opposite of what comprises a conspiracy theory.
THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF THE PRESENTED CRITIQUE,
ALLOWING FOR THE BLOW TO BE FINAL—It also deserves
mentioning that, despite the numerous correct critiques of relativity
throughout the decades, the critique presented here is the shortest
and the most pointed, using the concrete notions in the 1905 original,
not resorting to extraneous (although many of them correctly pointing out
the flaws) paradoxes and gedanken experiments. The critique presented
here is not only the most succinct, but is also deep and definitive
in overthrowing relativity, using its own notions and definitions. Let
alone that, as emphasized, the critique at hand is so defined and formulated that it
can be understood, without losing rigor, by practically anyone having
a sane mind. After this critique, relativity and progeny
must be removed from physics without a trace. Not
one taxpayer penny must go for anything
at all having to do with relativity and its alleged Lorentz-transformations-based
NOT WHAT, BUT WHO DELIVERS THE ARGUMENTS, IS WHAT MATTERS—Unfortunately,
no matter how decisive the arguments for abandoning deeply
entrenched flawed “theories”, especially those such as relativity,
these arguments will remain unheeded by the world. In this world, it
is not the arguments themselves that matter, it is who is uttering these
arguments that makes the difference. Arguments themselves are not at
all influential enough to be heard. Arguments can
only be heard when the party presenting them is influential due to other
factors, having nothing to do with correct arguments, discoveries
or even science, for that matter.
The illusion that “knowledge is power” is maintained to
give false hope to those who have decided to devote their lives
to the study of nature, only to have those more perspicacious feel the
disappointment of their lives, learning that social factors have no
less power than knowledge itself.
INFORMATION VS. KNOWLEDGE—Certain kinds of information may bring
more power to those having access to it. Information alone, however,
is not knowledge in the sense used in science. In order for information
to become scientific knowledge, it must be so processed as to concern
the essence of things in a most general way.
It must have a predictive character, and not the least of importance,
must find a way to establish itself in the archival scientific literature,
especially when information is picked randomly, primarily
to satisfy one's curiosity. Knowledge is not just gathering
of data, even if these data are sieved through to have only the useful
information remaining, but is a result of a particular way of gathering
these data and processing it through reproducible experiments under
controlled conditions, so that data can become scientific fact, or through
further in-depth analysis of the available
scientific facts and unearthing hitherto
unknown new facts and relations. Again, in order to be recognized as
knowledge, such filtered, systematically gathered
information, which has allowed
specific general conclusions to be drawn, must not remain in the
privacy of your own life, but must be properly socialized, first in the scientific
circles, followed by its appropriation by society as a whole.
Furthermore, scientific knowledge that matters, acquires power only when
it is promoted and garners approval by the powers-that-be. Even important
technological advances, not even scientific discoveries, may be crushed,
if the powers-that-be do not allow their perpetration. Consider, in this
respect, the brewing battles when principally new energy-related technologies
are to pass through the needle eye of the powers-that-be. Changes in
science, especially at a fundamental level, even the most obvious and
expected, such as restoring truth and reason, are facing even fiercer
opposition, because, as said, they concern the very fabric, the very
core of the common societal consciousness.
Acquiring a position of influence, a position which will make one heard,
is what must be considered as the primary impossibility, in the context
of this writing. It is not the quality of the arguments that will get
these arguments across to society. Other factors are in play when trying to socialize
even the most correct and profound arguments, especially when they concern
major questions of science of global proportions.
Thus, for those dedicated to honesty and to the scientific method,
when it comes to science, the only possible way to oppose the distortion
of truth and corruption and restore reason in science, is to personally
acquire the ownership and control over the privately held pivotal companies,
devoted to scientific publishing, and setting the tone throughout the
world as to what is and what is not, in science. This is one direct way of
helping to also form the needed political
will for stopping of public funding
for absurdities wrongfully called science. Control of the proper archival scientific
publishing is one of the most important elements of governance in science,
shaping up the national science policies, nurtured by taxpayer money.
Because of imperviousness of the mentioned privately held companies, such
purchase is completely impossible. It is out of the question, even if
one has the funds. This is how the system works. The powerful privately
owned companies, as opposed to publicly traded companies,
are the pivotal instruments for the system to stay together
and be what it really is. These privately held companies entirely
control the minds of the world, while the world has absolutely no
control over them.
Since the change of ownership of the speaking trumpets of academia,
the powerful private publishing companies,
controlling science as conduits of the interests of the powers-that-be,
is completely unrealistic and it is impossible for these companies to fall into the hands
of the honest, then there is no hope for truth and honesty to prevail
in the world along the traditional channels of scientific discourse
and dissemination. Official science will propagate whatever concepts
it is being ordered to promote, true or not true, in harmony with reality
or without any basis in reality whatsoever. Hence, the categorical conclusion
near the beginning of this chapter. The situation is hopeless.
Parallel creation of competing truthful companies, devoted to
scientific publishing, will not help either.
It will be inefficient because these parallel publishing companies (notice
the exceptional emphasis on publishing companies, as opposed to all
other companies) will always be trumped by the finance and the powerful
political positions of the existing corrupt
ones. The latter avoid at all cost
addressing the real “mother of all fake news”, relativity,
while at the same time
hypocritically expressing great concern about dissemination of “fake news”
concerning all kinds of other news in the media, most of the time completely
inconsequential, let alone partisan.
Clearly, even in the case of taking control through purchase, the danger
remains that society will be conditioned by devious ways the powers-that-be
practice, to distrust the new owners. After all, publishers are only
conduits of what the powers-that-be order, and
the publishers must comply,
not express dissent. Advertisers will hold back from
using the services of these disobedient publishers,
causing the publishers to financially fail miserably
and, most importantly, the clout and the trustworthiness
of these publishers
will be slanderously destroyed. The battle for the truth in science
is a bitter political battle of the highest order.
Intellectuals in many a small country often wonder why none of their
citizens is ever awarded, say, the Nobel prize, in anything. The simple,
ugly but true answer is, that none of their local achievements, no matter
how worthy, ever fall onto the radar of the Nobel committee, because
none of the citizens of these countries owns any influential media or
holds any position of real world influence, let alone that those
parochial intellectuals capable of doing science, are forced, out of the need for survival, to
be sycophants to the governing world ideologies and doctrines, therefore
are typically opportunists.
The weakness of the country, not the strength of the argument, is what matters
when the world of the powers-that-be decides whether or not to consider it.
It is not the quality of the discoveries, writings or compositions, or their importance
for the world that matters. The only reason for their ignoring is the
need for exposure blackout, shunning them from
the powerful Maecenas and patrons
who could propel them to the world. The major information
agencies look for is scandalous dirt to report from small, powerless countries, and
will never decide to report on worthy science, let alone a crisis of fundamentals
discovered in these small countries.
Even the oligarchs, who seemingly have all the money in the world, prefer
to waste their money on soccer teams and yachts, or in the best case,
to buy a French tabloid. Neither of these billionaires have the brains
to figure out that, say, Macmillan Publishing, one of the main dictators
in science, should be the target of purchase in order to improve the
quality of the world science and disable publishing of absurdities,
nor would these oligarchs be able to purchase
such a confined territory, if some
flash of thought suddenly happens to occur to them. To say nothing of
the fact that these oligarchs, for the most part, have no clue about science
and the need to reform it. What a strange proposal, some may say. Why
should moguls have anything to do with how science functions? The only
reason to mention moguls is that, other than convincing the major political
powers that change of world science policies is mandatory through stopping
public funding of absurdities, the only other, although obviously less
direct, if even viable, way to make a change, is to engage finances of
the magnitude oligarchs have, should they care to do some good for the
intellectual well-being of the world, among their worries about yachts
and private jets, as well as image-creating charities.
Sadly, there is no other way. However, for setting oneself
to become an oligarch for the purpose stated, it is not only too late, but
there is also no textbook to teach you how to become one. Besides, there
is no evidence that the oligarchs have become what they are by being
the most honest and uncorrupt in the world. So, who is to say that they
would become so concerned about
getting rid of corruption, especially in something about which they have no clue.
It is unfortunate
that a man of positive science, such as this author, should get involved
in the speculative matter of second-guessing the origins of the discussed
tragic phenomenon of intellectual suppression and
dictatorial governance of absurdities
over reason. However, someone has to begin searching for
the truth, not only regarding the essence of the problem, but also what
brought about this destructive discomfort to the world, and
keeps it going, in order to
help possibly avoiding it in the future. To see the problem, but be
blocked from attempts to solve it because that would lead to massive
damage to the whole adopted system of knowledge, causes major frustration
in the scholar, who falls into the stupor of disbelief. It is paralyzing
to witness such travesty, along with its inexplicable endurance and destructive
determination, and not be able to do one thing to expose it publicly.
Installing and entrenching falsities, such as the fundamentals of today's
theoretical physics, is nothing short of ambushing science by the mentioned
intellectual terrorism. No one,
no matter how powerless, who is concerned with restoring truth and reason
in science, should stay away from the noble effort to oppose such an
intricate societal menace.
RESTORING REASON IN SCIENCE IS NEITHER A “PARADIGM SHIFT”
NOR A “SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION”—When
waging the battle to restore reason in
science by removing from it non-scientific nonsense such as relativity
through discouraging of its massive public funding, one has to consider the
very essence of circumstances in which that battle takes place. These
circumstances make the process of acceptance of corrective ideas even
more difficult than the discovery itself of the ideas mandating correction.
First, it should be realized that this is a true action of change and
not a “paradigm shift”, the latter only allowing for changes
within a strictly established main frame of ideas, theories and laws,
adopted by consensus by a collective, independent of their validity.
Changes of the paradigm, called paradigm shift, are officially
allowed, as long as the consensually adopted frame of collectivist dogmas,
true or false, which this paradigm signifies, stay untouched. Such palliative
changes are even cynically called by some “scientific revolutions”.
Bringing science back to reason is not a “scientific revolution”.
It is like
waking up from a bad dream, sobering after the hallucinations
due to vicious manipulation and imposition of “theories”
having nothing to do with science.
The true battle for science, however, is about restoring truth and reason
in all of science's elements, not allowing protected territories,
in which there is no concern for truth and reason, territories with
frivolously pronounced “closed questions”. More discussion
on the pejorative essence of the collectivist term “paradigm”
and the anti-scientific concept of “scientific revolutions”
will be found in a follow-up book.
It is understandable that the approach proposed
here will not be welcomed by those who,
in their infinite appetite for public
funding, promote that type of funding as a one-way
street—the philosophy being, scientists know what they are doing,
and when they say they need certain funding from the public, the funding
should be provided unconditionally, no questions asked.
The demand for such unconditional and unidirectional supply of funds,
from the government to the scientific establishment, peeps clearly
through the veil of many a writing on public funding.
So, what is one supposed to do, punch the air and give up, even when
the absurdities which are to be funded are in-your-face for everyone
to see? What are the ordinary salaried bright folk,
trying to do science in academia, supposed to do, being
very far-removed from the discussed ownership and influence, entirely at
the mercy of the corrupt publishing enterprises? The very stance of these devoted scholars
in the university system is determined by what they will publish, otherwise
they will perish, as the saying “publish or perish” goes.
Most academics, having no other choice,
just cowardly play along, within the established rules, no matter how
corrupt, knowing full well the adverse consequences if they do not.
It would clearly be foolish, no matter how honorable and courageous,
to confront the system head on. It is not only unwise, but suicidal,
to try stopping a moving train by just popping up in front of it with
one's bare hands.
This book confronts the system head on. The author can afford this now,
because he is already past his active years in an institutionalized scientific
environment. Career goals are behind him. Also, he is detached from the everyday
family and other duties of the earlier years. The timing, however, was just
a fortuitous circumstance. Had this author had the luck to find the
here shown catastrophic
facts earlier in life, he would not have been silent, and that would have been
devastating on a personal level. Openly challenging such doctrines is the shortest
road to becoming an existential outcast.
The easiest thing for those who cannot put up with the current system,
would be to put in writing whatever arguments they have and leave them
in a sepulcher, as was my own mother's advice (cf. naïveté),
in the hope that one day reason may prevail and someone may get excited
about their thoughts. To bring that problem home, the reader of this
book is witnessing the application of that advice. Of course, it is
anyone's guess whether or not that, in fact, will be the fate of this
OBSTRUCTION BY ILLEGITIMATE CRITICS—One unexpected problem,
which also needs mentioning and which may pose
an even greater danger to the efforts to restore reason in science, is
the behavior of those who are expected to be on your side, people
who have designated themselves as the critics of the corrupt status
quo, as yourself.
Many of these so-called “critics” are people, otherwise
honest, who have not had proper training in science and have pronounced themselves
as critics, some very aggressively, at that, following the
deeply rooted American culture of distrust
in the government and official matters. Unfortunately, those pseudo-critics cause more harm
than good to the efforts to restore truth and reason in science. The
adversaries, the corrupt supporters of the status quo,
will never miss a chance to rub it in (justifiable at that in those
unfortunate instances) how incompetent and how lowly the critics of
the currently established system of knowledge are. These adversaries,
however, always forget to add that it is these concrete pseudo-critics
that are incompetent, not all of the critics. Said adversaries will
always do anything possible to avoid legitimate critique,
as discussed below.
OBSTRUCTION BY LEGITIMATE CRITICS—However, even legitimate critics
of today's theoretical physics are prone
to human frailties and ill-perceived competition; that is, incorrectly seeing themselves as
competitors, instead of joining together in common efforts. Paradoxically, it
is these worthy critics who will be the only ones who will notice you and
will vigorously fight the idea that it should be you and not them who gets the credit.
Remember, the contemporary instinct of the powers-that-be is to have you ignored,
which is the most elaborate and cunning act this type
of enemy could commit, although sparing the
critic the medieval stakes. Sending one to the stakes always backfires (no pun
intended), launching the victim into prominence, which the powers-that-be
fear the most.
Being noticed by the powers-that-be makes you the focus of attention,
the least those powers want—the proof shown here is unequivocal. That
would inevitably open a can of worms in society.
On the contrary, fellow critics would be the only
ones who would at least notice you, their adversity being a needless
Clearly, one's reaction must be to stay away from such parties, the
way a music writer better not call a fellow music
writer for an opinion. He may. However, the experience may not be very pleasant
BACK TO THE PANACEA—Having in mind the
crucial role public financing plays for preserving
absurdity as the controlling factor of the global public science
policy, there should be no wonder why this author puts so much emphasis
on stopping that ill financing. Once again, stop public financing of
the discussed absurdities, and they will evaporate through the roof,
at least when it comes to the territory of science.
Absurdities cannot exist, nether can they
have such control over humanity on their
own without financing, as any falsity cannot. There would hardly
be any private enterprise willing to support it, at least not to the
extent of the public support it has today. Let the insanity lose the billions
of tax dollars and euro with which it is funded today, and then see how
it will withstand the pressure of the arguments presented here.
Its fading away is inevitable.
NO INTERACTION WITH THE ADHERENTS BEFORE THE PANACEA IS APPLIED—As a matter
of fact, only when such unjustified public funding is lost, would it make
sense for the critic to meet face to face with the proponent of absurdity.
Canceling the public financing of absurdities is the only way to ensure
a level playing field. Otherwise, with the billions of dollars and euro
under their belt, it would be suicidal for anyone, no matter how honest
and correct, to enter into any interaction with those elements that
have lost all integrity and shame. The way to interact with such elements,
under today's circumstances, is only through intermediaries, the best
of which are the political representatives of the sponsor, the taxpayer.
Confronting these elements makes sense only under circumstances which matter, such
as during hearings under oath in the US Congress. Otherwise, these
despicable elements feel secure,
comfortably protected by billions
stolen from the taxpayer, they feel in
charge and go on a rampage of incredible blather, stopping at nothing to utter
insanities, assaults and ridicule at the honest critic.
The daunting task is to convince these public representatives that it is
insanity to continue funding the discussed absurdities. There is nothing
more coercive when dealing with a corrupt crowd, such as that which is
in the business of foisting absurdities such as relativity to emulate science, than
canceling their public funding. This is the only language the charlatan
understands, and this is the only circumstance when these negative heroes
would begin to pay attention. Otherwise, supported by the billions of
dollars and euro to pursue their absurd game, they are invincible and
conceited, easily taking advantage of their strongest, albeit mean weapon;
i.e., ignoring. Ignoring is the modern, more perfidious and efficient,
version of the stakes used in medieval times to silence the critics.
TO SUM UP—WHAT IS TO BE DONE?—When pondering how anyone who cares about the
integrity of science is to behave under these circumstances, it is
especially important to observe how such a person of integrity manages to reach
those who hold the keys to the public coffers. The first thing that
stands in the way, is that these people, the people who hold the key to the
public coffers, are an emanation of the same
population, which overwhelmingly uncritically believes stories about
fairy tales and readily falls for hallucinations. To say nothing of
the fact that these public factors, controlling the wealth of the nations,
are already surrounded by a thick, insurmountable layer of determined
sycophants, preventing the truth from penetrating this deep moat.
Nevertheless, one must find the way to reach out to these public factors and make
them aware that they are the conduit of enormous waste of taxpayer money,
deviously protected under the guise of good intentions of supporting
science. There is no other efficient democratic way of stopping the
insanity presented as science, other than canceling the state financing
of it with taxpayer money, the way no state money is disbursed for all
kinds of other vacuities, which, otherwise, people are fully free to
enjoy on their own. These vacuities must be privately sponsored, not paid for
with taxpayer money.
Reform in Physics
Reform in Physics
As this text clearly demonstrates, theoretical
physics, the most important fundamental science, is in need of serious
The first and foremost goal is to promptly free itself, mandatorily
assisted by society refusing its financial support, from theories
containing internal contradictions, as well as of theories, not
yet discussed here, containing other logical inconsistencies. As mentioned
more than once, based on ample and unequivocal argumentation, a prime
candidate for such freeing is disposing of relativity and of all of
its Lorentz-transformations-based progeny,
as well as any infestation with these transformations
in any quarters of science. Remove flawed
relativity and there will be no contemporary cosmology,
absurd Lorentz-transformation-based sections of astrophysics,
string theories, big bang, dark matter and black holes, as was
also emphasized earlier.
RELATIVITY—QUESTIONABLE EVEN AS AN EDUCATIONAL
EXAMPLE OF BAD SCIENCE—As part of the reform
young people, especially, should not waste one minute
of their precious time on that bad science, other than to use it marginally
as an educational facility, to study where wrong things in science mays
have their origin, although, the use of such
facility as an educational aid, may also be questioned. Does any
college instructor use clairvoyance or astrology to illustrate non-science?
Using relativity as an example of non-science is even less appropriate than
using astrology and voodoo for the purpose.
UNDERSTAND THAT OVEREMPHASIS OF EVEN CONSISTENT
MATHEMATICS IMPAIRS PHYSICS—The next
important action for physics is to free itself from formal
mathematical constructs having no physical meaning, but falsely presented
as pertaining to some deep physics. It should be made perfectly clear
to every student that even mathematical rigor, not even overthrowing
of mathematically wrong constructs, such as the Lorentz transformations,
is still not enough for a formal construct to be useful for physics.
A mathematical construct is useful for physics only when, in addition
to being mathematically consistent, it also has physical meaning; when
it does not go contrary to the absolute truths on which physics is based.
Mathematical correctness does not always mean correct physics. In the natural
sciences, such as physics, physics makes mathematics, not vice versa.
EQUATING RIGHT AND WRONG IS BEYOND DISCUSSION—In saying the above, it is
not even a consideration to address the unheard
of travesty of science, committed by the author of relativity, grotesquely
foisting reconciliation between a correct outcome and an outright incorrect
outcome, the latter brought about by both mathematically and physically
wrong Lorentz transformations. Such an exceptional travesty of science,
forcedly foisted so massively on the world, at that,
must have a special place in the curriculum of any history of science
course, isolating it in its own category when mentioning defunct
theories of physics. Its badness is one of a kind, a result of extra-scientific
factors, rather than factors that have brought about the common honest
mistakes science makes along its natural development.
COUNERINTUITIVE—THE BUZZWORD TO EXCUSE NONSENSE—One
can often hear, as already pointed out, that
contemporary physics is counterintuitive;
that is, that it is right on some higher level, which defies common
sense, let alone logic and reason. Calling it counterintuitive is a
devious attempt to advocate its plain wrong conclusions. Deriving that one
equals two, as relativity in effect derives, is not counterintuitive.
It is wrong. Deriving that time at a given moment in a given place of
a given system can have two different values, depending on whether it
is measured by a stationary clock, sitting at rest in that place, as
opposed to measuring that same time by
a moving clock, which happened to
be in that place at that moment, is wrong. It is not at all what the advocates
of the absurd relativity proclaimed; namely, counterintuitive, let
alone correct. Being at odds with the absolute truths is not some higher
category of truth, but is plain and simple incorrect and must be rejected
at once, without hesitation.
TO-DO LIST FOR THE REFORM—To sum
it up, the reform in physics requires three types of change regarding
Concepts (internally contradictory), which
must be removed from physics in their entirety.
Concepts (not internally contradictory),
which must be abandoned because of theoretical arguments and conflict
with experimental evidence.
Concepts, correct but incomplete, which
must undergo development.
HOUSECLEANING, NOT A REVOLUTION—These
changes are clearly not attended to,
when it comes to theories and ideas having the greatest impact on physics.
That is why they have to be spelled out again. The immediate reform in physics
will constitute, obviously, not so much the establishment of a new theory
of physics, as much as the weeding out of deeply ingrained mangled notions,
suffocating it, and properly directing physics to account for the actual,
real physical world.
As said, it will be more like awakening from
a nightmare, rather than some radical revolution or turmoil. Radical,
in the worst sense, is what is taking place today in science, while
the reform in question is the return to normalcy.
PLEDGE—This author will do his best to ensure that even the
negligible finances he has, after his passing, will go toward the efforts
to achieve the noble goal of restoring reason and scientific method
in science. To promote these ideals,
a dedicated Science Foundation
in his name having the goals stated will be established in due time, having
in mind the concerns expressed.
Usual Arguments that Can be Heard to Squander Criticism
Usual Arguments Which
Can Be Heard to Squander Criticism
What is said below concerns times past. In
recent years, the absurdists cannot even be seen publicly delivering
lectures to the lay audiences. They no longer feel
the need for propaganda because people have been brainwashed
enough to believe that absurdities are science, so no more efforts and
resources are to be spent on preaching to the converted.
Manipulators achieve greater efficiency
with much less effort, when targeting like a laser beam
those who are directly involved in keeping their evil, bad-science empires
ticking; that is, the target being specifically those who are instrumental
in providing the taxpayer funds. Other than posting pro forma videos on the net,
manipulators are confining their activity to the politicians, “quietly
advising” behind closed doors, the need for the funding of their
insanities to go on. None of these absurdists is one bit worried about
the lack of scientificity in what they expect funding for.
Of course, in the case of the absurd relativity,
any attempts to defy the unequivocal arguments given here, are hopeless. Thus, the absurdists
try to avoid any exposure to these arguments, especially where it matters, beginning with
disallowing these crucial arguments
to appear in the scientific archival literature and ending in running away from
facing, under oath, the US Congress.
Those who desperately have set themselves to jealously protect the destructive
status quo, are relentless in their fraudulent activity to grab funds.
They are indiscriminate in their arsenal of offensive
instruments. These underhanded tactics are usual when solid scientific
argumentation is lacking.
The offensive verbal instruments, used as surrogate-arguments, can
sometimes be very curious, aside from being inadequate, constituting
a solid structure of flawed defense, which persists throughout cultures
and geographic locations.
These offensive verbal instruments can be quite
hideously crafted, and one does not know what to expect next,
sometimes being astoundingly, yet wastefully, creative. It is real fun to watch
how the helpless absurdist is gasping for breath in his trying to defend the indefensible.
Clearly, more effort has been applied to create
the artificial defense of relativity, rather than to honestly examine
its validity and, as a result, concede their error.
This is just about as low as an absurdist
can stoop when arguments are wanting and the absurdist has nothing of substance to say. Here goes:
Fallacy—Argument from authority
(Argumentum ad verecundiam).
The person putting forth the “theory” at hand, is a
genius and therefore untouchable, especially by lowly, random, anonymous
critics. Well, absurdists gladly accept the brazen violation of logic
in the absurd relativity or the petitio principii fallacy
of quantum mechanics, as long as a purported genius has uttered them.
What is to stop the absurdist from relegating to other fallacies?
Unjustified accusation of incompetence
and misunderstanding. This “argument” immediately fails
if those using it can be brought to the discussion table having
consequences, something they fear the most.
This is to be emphasized, and therefore it will be stated again.
Many of the verbal instruments,
mentioned here, are aimed exactly at avoiding such discussion, especially
if it has consequences, which will inevitably expose, beyond doubt,
the poverty of any attempt of advocates to forge counterarguments.
Those that serve the powers-that-be enthusiastically
trivialize the criticism, claiming that no one is one bit interested
in the subject, and how dare-you-waste-their-precious-time-with-such-mundane-topic
ludicrous complaint is easily slapped by them
as something self-evident.
These “servants” trivialize the criticism because, as seen, even a brief look
at the argument is damning and conclusive, mandating removal
from science without a trace of
bogus “theories”, such as relativity and progeny. At the very same
time, all the mass media pounces news on the listener about big
breakthroughs at CERN and elsewhere, with foundations exactly residing
in this bogus relativity. Instead of presenting the subject as trivial,
as those that serve the powers-that-be do when hearing criticism,
this topic is presented by the media as just about the most interesting
and important topic in science there could
ever be. Have no doubt, the servant
of the powers-that-be would have pronounced his or her
own findings rejecting relativity as the most
interesting discovery of all time, worthy of the greatest attention,
if he or she had discovered a catastrophe such
as the one presented in this book.
Conversely, if it becomes obvious that
the subject matter is in fact of very great interest, at that, not
only in the narrow circles of academia, but widely at large, then,
the attack would be, yes, the subject is important,
and finding a fatal flaw in such a major theory
would be dumbfounding. However, because it is you pointing it out,
it has no importance.
The latter being said (or implied, without openly saying it)
without even taking a minute to look into the critical argument at hand. Arrogance
in defending relativity has no bounds.
Claiming that criticism, valid
or not, has at its “bottom-line” only a pursuit of some
personal agenda and, in fact, it is not addressing a genuine problem.
As said more than once, ad hominem attacks, such as this
one, especially portraying the critique as some sort of personal
issue, approaches the lowest level an advocate can stoop to, short
of outright cursing with expletives. Unfortunately, part of the
unsuspecting public, having no technical background to understand
the actual issue, may fall prey to this tactic of character assassination
as a substitute for a real scientific argument. The advocate knows
that, and this is why ad hominem attacks are the most common
tactic against someone who dares to criticize, let alone outright
reject, relativity. The bad news for such activists, but good news
for science, is that these particular arguments presented here, concerning
the scientific poverty of relativity, catastrophic and
devastating as they are, can be understood by practically
anyone of sound mind. Denying it, especially at
forums where it matters, cannot stand up to scrutiny.
Claim that the critic is a disgruntled
person who wants to make a name for himself on the back of a great
man. This attack is a combination of the ad hominem attack
just mentioned and the argument from authority (Argumentum
ad verecundiam) mentioned at
the beginning. The preposterousness of such attacks is obvious and
can only fly because of the deep entrenchment in the public mind
of the worthiness of relativity. Under normal circumstances, when
the scientific method rules, such attacks would be immediately laughed
out of town, if anyone has the audacity to express them.
Claim that if there were a mistake, then
it would have already been discovered by the millions of experts
using relativity. This has never been the case, nor will it ever
be when millions have been subscribing to a theory, but which eventually
is found wrong. It is not applicable in this case either. This is
the nature of discovery. Such an opinion can only be expressed
by someone with no education in science or by someone who knows
that anything goes when it pertains to defending relativity. Frivolousness
and unaccountability, this is what breeds an asinine
opinion of this type.
Claim that the “theory” must
be right because there have been numerous experiments confirming
it. Such experiments, however, are impossible, in principle, because
relativity and all other Lorentz-transformations-based theories
are absurdities. There is nothing at all that can follow from
absurdities, let alone anything experimentally testable, as repeatedly
emphasized in this book.
Unjustified claim that everything around
us is a confirmation of the “theory”. Such a ludicrous
assertion is shot down at once: relativity, as shown, derives in effect that,
one equals two, but one apple is not equal to two apples. That should
suffice to reject said “theory” of relativity.
Accusation that some political or social
agenda is causing the urge to criticize the
The unequivocal arguments presented shoot down such ludicrous claim
Insistence that only peer-reviewed critique
is worthy of consideration. Then, relativity itself is not worthy
of considering because it has not been peer-reviewed either. Why
is it, then, still poisoning science?
When pointing out that the “theory”
at hand itself has not been peer-reviewed, the advocate grabs at
the argument that it has been observed during the course of over
one hundred years, which is the peer-review. And why, then, is not
such an approach applied to this writing—let it be published
in the same venues where the “theory” at hand was published
and see what happens? Why such a double standard—the non-peer-reviewed
relativity has been discussed but the non-peer-reviewed critique
of relativity is denied discussion? The answer is obvious—because
if such discussion in the same venues of relativity is allowed,
removal of relativity from physics is inevitable.
Ad hominem attacks aiming
at destroying the credibility of the person criticizing, rather than
addressing the flaws of the “theory”. Such character
assassination is a parochial way of dealing with the opponent. A tactic
as old as the world.
Another trick is to further formalize
mathematical expressions containing elementary physical errors,
but physical errors, which although elementary,
catastrophically invalidating the theory,
so that these errors can be obscured and sunk into
the notation. For instance, instead of writing Newton's second
law the way the author of relativity writes it; that is, as
force being equal to mass times acceleration, or, as is usually found in
the standard literature
is the force acting on a body, m is the mass of the body and
the acceleration of the body, the relativity advocate requires that
Newton's second law be written in the form
is the momentum of the body.
The advocate does this rearranging of the observed law
in the hope to obscure
the fact that the Lorentz transformations he intends to use,
absurdly contort mass, which actually is m in coordinate system K, as a different
in that same coordinate system K. Quite demonstrably, this absurdly means that one body in one
system, system K, has two different masses at the same time. The advocate
thinks that he or she has found a way, not only to hide this in-plain-sight absurdity, but
to pretend it has somehow, at least visibly, disappeared, thus seemingly
transforming relativity into a fully legitimate, if not great, theory. No
need to mention that such absurdity also contradicts the fact that
the first postulate of relativity presents mass m in K as the same mass
m in k. However, even written in a new form, Newton's second law is again affected by
application of the Lorentz transformations. That is in catastrophic contradiction
with the definition of that so-called “theory” of relativity—a definition
known as the principle of relativity.
Now, observe how that deception takes place (those who do not
like formulae may skip the part that follows):
DECEPTION THROUGH REFORMING THE FORMULA OF THE PHYSICAL LAW
The beginning step of the deception is expected. Nothing
there is a harbinger of what is to come. This first step is trivial, even if the
observed law has a new guise. It was
discovered several centuries before, by Galileo. It is the only way
the observed law can be referred to k and K. The author of relativity
should have ended his endeavor right here, concluding that he has created
no new theory and nothing further can be done with respect to referring a given
physical law to two coordinate systems in uniform translatory motion.
Thus, the advocate writes the newly
minted law (in fact the same observed law
but rewritten to appear different), referring it first to
coordinate system K as
and then referring it to coordinate system k as
and everything is OK—. The principle of relativity is obeyed, as it
should be; the observed
law, never mind that it is dressed up in different attire, is not affected when referred
to the two coordinate systems k and K, which
are in uniform translatory motion.
Call it invariance, call it covariance;
that is, preservation of the form of the equations by a change
of coordinate system, the sameness of the law in the two systems,
required by the principle of relativity, has been realized.
Recall—the principle of relativity
is the very definition of the so-called “theory”
of relativity, which was put forth.
Now, however, comes the second step, a step the author of relativity should
never have made, because it plunges his “theory” right into
violating the definition he himself has designated as the foundation of
his own unfortunate “theory”, even if the observed law is
rewritten to appear different. To say nothing of the fact that, even in the new appearance
of the observed law,
this second step applied to this redressed law still
jettisons his so-called “theory” right into the abyss of absurdity.
The wrong law concerning the motion of the same body in the same system at
the same time; namely, the wrong law resulting from the derivation using the
non-physical Lorentz transformations, is ridiculously considered to be as true as
the above correct, although trivial, derivation of the law of motion obeyed by this given
body, in this given system, at this given moment.
But, wait, was it not that the advocate relegated to a special disguise and
reshaping, in order to conceal
this difference and to make it appear that the two ways are indistinguishable?
Not exactly. Indeed, see what came out of this redressing in a new garment of
the law under discussion:
In the second way of referring the observed law to k and K (not through
principle of relativity but by applying the absurd Lorentz transformation),
the author of relativity
picks up the law, in its rewritten form, already referred to k
and refers it to K, but this time, instead of the principle of relativity, he uses the
Lorentz transformations for the purposes of this referring to K
But, wait a minute, why did you write the momentum in K this time in capital letter P?
Was it not denoted by a lower case p above?
This difference in p and P reveals the gist
of the deception committed with this manipulation through redressing of Newton's
second law, schemingly expressing Newton's second law in terms of momentum.
The manipulator insidiously, as
fast-talkers do, flies over this seemingly minor difference between the two
in fact, pretending the difference in these two formulae is invisible, pushing the idea that in
K the same law is expressed in terms of momentum. Well, he conjures, on the left side
of the equation we see force
F in both ways of referring the law to K (by relativity principle and by Lorentz
transformations). Likewise, the advocate manipulatively conjures, on the right side of
the equality we see the first time derivative of momentum achieved by the
two methods of referring the law to K, ergo, the two methods of
referring the law to K must produce the same result.
However, the results are not the same. This is seen immediately if we write what these momenta
really mean: and
obtained after applying the Lorentz transformations.
We can see the difference, whereby p is not velocity
P is velocity
dependent, even clearer if we crack the
shell of deception and look
Do you see what happened here?
One may even further crack the shell of deception by showing the explicit formula for
the coefficient beta; namely,
, which contains
explicitly the trouble-making velocity
, and we get
The difference is seen clearly when
the content of momenta p and P
is revealed. Even when Newton's second law is written in K in the forms the
advocate manipulates, even then relativity still absurdly derives that
one body in one system should obey two different laws of
Obviously, the momentum denoted by lower case p differs from the momentum denoted by
upper case P. Momentum denoted by upper case P
is a function of the velocity
of an external
coordinate system. In opposition, momentum denoted by lower case p is not dependent on
of an external coordinate system. Thus, the two equations shown,
despite what may appear to some as preserving their form, obviously
express two different laws of motion which one and the same body in one and the same system
must obey at the same time. This is absurd.
The advocate also cannot escape from the fact that,
as noted, the author of relativity himself used Newton's second
law in the form
and not .
Thus, the author of relativity himself has laid the trap for the
advocate, who tries to be too smart—after the application
of the Lorentz transformations, the law in K
which, in contradiction with the principle of relativity, differs
in this same K, and, thus, the deception, attempted by the advocate,
is revealed. The claimed invariance (covariance) of the results
from the Lorentz transformations, the culprit for the absurdity
of relativity, is not only non-existent, but this catastrophic contradiction
with the principle of relativity makes that so-called “theory”
of relativity less than invalid. It is absurd, which mandates its
immediate removal from physics,
accompanied by immediate canceling of any public
funds in support of that absurdity.
Similarly, the students are usually tricked
into believing the physical validity of the Lorentz transformations,
especially, that relativity is not internally contradictory.
First, these transformations are applied and then what has
been applied is undone by
using the reverse Lorentz transformations, claiming that,
voila, relativity is not internally contradictory.
Showing that, by
calculating forward and then backward
using Lorentz transformations, restores the form
of the studied equation on which these
transformations were applied,
system, does not change the fact that the physical law under Lorentz transformations
changes in the other system. This is a grave, catastrophic violation
of the principle of relativity.
Let alone that in the other system, the student sees that the author of relativity
has presented another, completely different physical law, describing
the same motion in the same system of the
same body at the very same moment. That is, the author of relativity
“derives” the absurdity that one body in one system obeys two
different laws of motion at the same time.
This dramatic, catastrophic conflict is never pointed out by the instructors
in the universities today. Intellectual
damage to students by applying such underhanded methods of
instruction, in addition
to deliberately making the students forget that there is also the
principle of relativity, which must be obeyed, but the Lorentz transformations
fail to obey, is discussed more than once in this text.
This is a cynical abuse of science, unforgivably brazen
disregarding of scientific method, which must stop
Clearly, claiming that the “scientific method is wrong”
is done to sustain insanities such as that
one equals two, which relativity in effect, derives. Such mindlessness
is only possible to pass as science by destroying real science and
its scientific method.
Allowing faking of results to justify a conclusion.
Resorting to hopeless blabber, saying obviously
unsupported things like claiming that the, in fact, unequivocal
argument, given here, mandating the removal of relativity from physics
in its entirety, “is not even wrong”. This the advocate
deems original and funny, for the lack of anything better to say.
In this way, trying to flip the script and avoid condemning the
real culprit is disingenuous. It is relativity that is “not even wrong”.
It is absurd. The relativity adherent cannot dispute the argument, cannot counter it,
and instead of pointing the finger where it belongs; namely, at relativity,
he pokes fun at the discoverer of the absurdity.
Undeserved ridicule, rather becoming to the absurdist instead,
is another color in the palette of despair, radiating from the absurdist.
Thus, he tries to divert attention
from the fact that he has nothing at all of substance to say.
Ignoring the catastrophic argument outright
by saying “We have already heard it”, without at all
bothering to support such a saying with a reference. However, guess
what? Surprise, surprise, no such reference exists.
Sending the critic of relativity a standard
polite form-letter of rejection, without even bothering to give
the critique to referees. Arrogance and passive aggressive tone have always
been the tools of weak debaters, of those lacking arguments,
who are the losers in a debate.
A favorite label deniers use, is “pet
theory”, ignoring the fact that criticism of relativity is
not a new theory at all. How can mandatory entire removal of relativity,
without substituting it with anything else, be considered a “pet
theory”? It cannot.
To stun the population and gain theatrical
respect, proponents slyly present the “theory” in question
as so complex and sophisticated, that it is up to only a few people
in the whole world to understand it. As seen above, that is not the case
at all. Any person of sound mind, even if he or she is not practicing
science, can understand at once that one body can obey only one
law of motion at any given time, contrary to what relativity derives.
Indeed, the truth,
as evidenced by the categorical arguments here, is that relativity
is not only not at all complex and sophisticated, but is inadequate
at such an elementary level that even a child may have a more colorful
and vivid imagination for absurdity. All that so-called relativity
resides in, is in §1 and §2 of the 1905 manuscript and invalidates
itself at once right there. Everything else in that manuscript is
a brainless, student-style exercise in applying the non-physical Lorentz
transformations. Relativity has nothing to do with creating and putting
forth these transformations, despite the false claim, which deserves no discussion
at all, that they have been derived in §3. Relativity's
use of these transformations only results in immediately
exposing them as non-physical, as seen. This violation in most blatant
fashion, which violates
the principle of relativity anyway, a principle adopted as its first postulate, is further
aggravated by the insanity that this clearly wrong outcome can be combined with a
correct outcome. The wrong outcome from the Lorentz transformations is absurdly considered
the same as the correct outcome resulting from the correct application of
the principle of relativity.
In this way, by ludicrously adopting that what is wrong is true,
the so-called “theory” of relativity
finds itself in a still bigger mess by equating a wrong with a right
outcome. This is sheer absurdity of a kind science has never seen
in its entire history, especially at the level of spreading and infiltration
into society, as relativity has reached. Relativity is the symbol
of the lowest level of general institutionalized mindlessness that
has ever engulfed humanity.
The question of apparent but fake complexity seeps into the world.
Those who are technically savvy in otherwise standard and simple computer
matters, are pronounced as computer geniuses. Some manage to earn substantial
financial reward by cornering this psychological conditioning of society.
They create magnificent edifices, entire empires, out of elementary
things that trivially work. What can be said about the elementary
things that are simply incorrect? Look at what happened with clearly
less than childish mistakes made by relativity. The “theory”
based on them was promoted to the skies. Similarly, the clearly
impossible quantum computers were also promoted to the skies
(the non-scientificity of quantum mechanics
to be discussed elsewhere).
Specially creating and boosting into prominence
toothless opposition such as the likes of Nikola Tesla or outright
and easily demonstrable inadequacies, with the goal to compromise
any attempt of criticism, by associating it with such low-quality
What are your credentials?
Do you have a degree in physics? Where has this
argument been published in peer-reviewed literature? It is obvious that all
such questions serve only as a distraction, in order to avoid conceding that
the shown in-your-face unequivocal arguments are devastating.
Resorting to such questions is
the immediate defeat of the advocate of relativity. Besides, think about it,
if peer-review were so crucial in fending off scientific misery, where was it
all these years to fend off probably the largest misery of science
promulgated to such prominence, relativity?
Relativity must be wrong, in order to
be right, says a relativity proponent. This was left last on the
list, for desert. The insidious equilibristics of the proponent
reaches so low that such a determined proponent would even admit
that relativity is wrong but still, like a cat, does not fall on
his back and tries to excuse the wrong theory.
Clearly, any of these flawed arguments, preemptively
cited here, as well as many other bogus ones, cunningly crafted by the
tireless advocates, may be repeated by critics of the current text,
but using such daft arguments will only reconfirm what was just said—all
of these arguments beat around the bush, to say the least,
instead of honestly admitting that relativity is absurdity, and therefore
are no good at all to counteract the well-founded, unequivocal
debunking of relativity presented here.
EXISTENCE OF VIABLE COUNTER-ARGUMENTS IS OUT OF THE QUESTION—Real
counter-arguments, not those cited above,
would address the concrete scientific points and would not attempt to
bring down criticism through the underhanded ways of psychological attacks,
diverting the issue, or using any other non-scientific and dishonest means.
Clearly, such counter-arguments are not only wanting, but it is out
of the question that there could ever be any counter-arguments at all, in view
of the unequivocality of the proof shown here, rejecting relativity. This
is the reason why advocates of relativity would catch at a straw, resorting
to the above-cited sort of extra-scientific attacks. Most emphatically, as expected, experience
so far confirms the lack of any arguments whatsoever, which counter the unequivocal
proof shown here to debunk relativity and its progeny, as well as the
complete failure to defend that non-scientific so-called “theory”
of relativity in any way, shape or form. Indeed, how can the indefensible be defended? How can
the derivation by relativity that, in effect, one equals two, be defended?
It cannot. The way no meaningless derivation can.
INNOVATIVE METHODS OF DISCOURAGEMENT—In
the age of internet, powers-that-be can discourage bright minds from
correcting errors in topics these powers consider established and closed
for discussion, not to speak about stifling the exploring of even promising
non-orthodox scientific areas, only by applying subtle new methods
of discouragement. Burning at the stakes, imprisonment in concentration
camps and other similar formerly efficient drastic methods will not
do any good today. Such methods will only create heroes or, at least,
underdogs, which the population always sides with. Although the unruly
curious researcher, treading on forbidden territory, can be labeled
insane (ad hominem attacks were already mentioned), it is much
more difficult today to put him or her in a psychiatric asylum, as totalitarian
regimes did in the past to deal with their critics. Thus, the method of physical,
psychological and mental draining is applied through specially appointed
(paid, although not always directly) trolls and haters, who are
instructed to lead the unsuspecting enthusiast along the garden path
to a theoretical and practical abyss.
ANOTHER USUAL TOOL WHEN ARGUMENTS ARE SHORT—Ignoring,
preventing from proper dissemination, which
is the dissemination in archival scientific journals that have impact today,
is the primary tool of the powers-that-be
to fend off critics. As said, internet is not considered a proper disseminating tool at this
time, but in the near future, it may become one. Public ridicule
by these keepers of absurdity who control the mass media altogether,
is a next level of defense, if for some reason correct ideas have penetrated
through the barrage of mass media servitude. To some, IgNoble
prizes may be funny and amusing, but those who deserve them the most
are exactly the ones maintaining the status quo in contemporary theoretical
physics, the organizers of these IgNoble
prizes, sometimes mildly funny but failing to
accomplish their main goal—the defense of absurdity, especially in the face of the
unequivocal proof shown here. Those elements are
many of the awarders of these prizes.
THE HONORED KNIGHTS OF SCIENCE—There are more than a few scientists
who think they are honest, who consider
it a moral duty to protect the educated territory of science from random
imposters, who have not spent
the years of systematic study and work needed, and yet, have the audacity to express criticism.
Experience shows that incompetent criticism is, more often than not, the case. These defenders of
what they perceive as purity of science, have a real disdain for amateurs, and refuse to even take
a look at the arguments coming from such a party. This author, during
his active years as a professor and researcher in institutionalized academia, has also been a part of
that crowd, completely unwilling to discuss matters of science
with incompetents and dabblers. In a wider sense,
this author undoubtedly belongs to academia as it should be; that is, honest and devoted to truth. The
feeling, when encountering the mentioned perceived outsiders, is that nothing new can be heard from
a stranger who has no credentials, and such interaction would only be a waste of time. The many
spent to educate yourself and master precious knowledge are too valuable to be preyed upon and
trivialized by a stranger. This psychological barrier also works efficiently as an element in the
palette forming the mechanism that helped to implement and preserve the absurd science. Once the
charlatan manages to establish internally, within academia, his rotten tomato, removing it would
inevitably meet with the resistance of such stalwarts of academia, which were also the home to this
author. I know, however, that if I stumbled upon the absurdity of relativity in my active academic years,
I would not have been silent. That would certainly have been a death sentence to my activity there.
That would have expelled me, on the spot, from the academic ranks. Thus, I would have found myself
half way through the road which led me to these current discoveries. Probably, I would not have
even made these discoveries.
This is a paradox and some may ask, then, what is your advice?
To be silent, although knowing it is not right, when you see the injustice, avoids getting yourself
into trouble, is that what you recommend? Speaking out is right, let alone noble,
but that isolates you and prevents your development when young. In my student years, I will not miss
catching the golden words coming from the mouths of my professors. There is a period of grooming
in the post-graduate years, when one also has to be be certain that he or she has acquired and
understood well the taught knowledge of the day. Be sure not to miss these years. After them, the
sky is the limit in your disagreement with anything you have learned and happen to encounter as
you go along, as long as you have good reasons for such distrust. You have a whole lifetime to do
If we, however, get down to the concreteness of the moment and not seek general
advice, then, what must be done, now that the problem is clear-cut, is to strive for the removal
of the discussed absurdities from science, especially by cutting the umbilical cord connecting
them to the taxpayer money supply. This is as much as this author can categorically say at this time
regarding the matter at hand. As to what the advice would be when life choices are
concerned in principle, this is a completely different, although important as well
as a complicated conversation. I mentioned something to that effect in the previous paragraph.
I may add that one thing I have learned is that everything has its time. I have been very fortunate
to make these discoveries in my later years, but maybe that is the natural way of things.
Can Truth in Science Prevail Today?
Can Truth in Science
From all said so far, the answer sounds like
a resounding, no, under the current circumstances, where absurdities
are favored and rule, when it comes to public support and financing
of science. It seems unrealistic, even impossible, to expect that relativity
senselessness can be removed, even when one is convinced of the power
of science. Science, when correctly functioning, due to a strong immune
system disallowing absurdities such as relativity, is indeed the only
guarantor of truth. A strong immune system, rejecting lunacy and absurdities
in science, however, cannot be expected to build itself, when the public
financing of science, the way it functions today, stimulates the opposite.
Strong immune system in science cannot come about when billions of taxpayer
dollars and euro are squandered to support activities and build centers
having unheard of might, which are the breeding ground of blatant falsities
Therefore, unless a major political intervention takes place, putting
a barrier to the taxpayer billion dollar and euro funding of the absurdities
in the major branches of theoretical physics, truth in science and in
society has no chance. This book provides the sharpest possible tool for repair of
this stagnant absurdity-laden status quo in science, especially its
public funding, should there be real political will to induce that mandatory cancellation
of funds, doomed to be squandered on absurdities.
Enough was said in the book on the fact that truth, particularly regarding fundamental conceptual
issues of science, comprising major world science policies entangled
in absurdities at the highest levels of governance, cannot prevail in
today's society, especially, if one, while having no political support,
relies only on rational, correct argument, about which society is either
nonchalant, or worse yet, complacent, or is conditioned to outright dislike
rational, correct argument. This is especially tragic when it comes
to the ultimate destroyer of sanity in science, relativity. If the mentioned
decisive major political force does not appear and decide to act, the
harm to society by the discussed discordant “theory”, confounded
in the public mind as science, will deepen further in the foreseeable
future, more and more encrusting its own elite in parasitic relationship
with the rest of society, draining its resources. Sadly, that harm will
still remain invisible for society, blinded by the reassurance and the
glory of promises for otherworldly grandiose, in fact fake, intellectual
If political factors responsible for public funding of science stay
idle and do not sever the tentacles allowing for the toxic waste of
tax money to keep pouring in, supporting absurdities, theoretical physics,
symbolized by hyper-structures too big to fail, but devoid of reason
and favoring absurdities, extending tentacles to all countries and societies,
unfortunately, will continue to stay with us in its present sorry shape.
It will continue wasting resources, because it is entrenched out there,
almost the way psychiatric diseases exist and society has to spend resources
to inevitably sustain asylums. Even hospitals may be seen as a waste,
but diseases exist and their attending to,
let alone curing them when possible, is inevitable.
The difference with curing in hospitals is that, in the case at hand,
the intellectual disease is curable right away, provided there is political
determination to deny and officially abjure absurdities to be thought
of as science, let alone funded as science.
Society is giving up on other overwhelming social matters, to the
extent of not being able to deal with them. Alcohol, tobacco, to say
nothing of legalizing marijuana, are all examples of known harmful agents,
which have steadily made their way into society, under the weight of becoming
too widespread to control. There are other examples in history when
empires have given up on attempts to contain unwanted consumption. There
are not enough jails to contain a nation rebelling through consuming
the forbidden. What can one say about the harm of fast-food chains,
known not to be the best places to have a bite to eat, capitalizing
on natural nutrition needs, in fact abusing these needs? These menacing
realities are out there, many are known as such but society is incapable
of eradicating them or even partially phasing them out—they are
massively out there. There is no other choice but to let them go as
they are. That war is lost.
As said above, if these and other social ills are to be
first area in which to consider overhaul, believe it or not, is theoretical
physics. It is hoped that the ample arguments given above will be sufficient
to one day convince society of the centrality of such need.
Nowadays, however, there is an impenetrable barrier installed
to fend off attempts for change.
Prevalence of truth in science can only occur if truth is adopted in the
recognized science media, such as the archival so-called peer-reviewed
science journals and, finally, in the standard textbooks.
Knowing that, those who benefit from the absurd state of science,
have been very efficient in disallowing in various elaborate ways
the penetration of truth exactly in these media,
especially when it comes to the fundamentals of science. It is in the interest of those
dark forces of the irrational to keep these fundamentals disheveled and in disarray,
especially by taking intentional measures to ban critics from the territories of
archival science publishing, using a corrupt system labeled “peer-review”.
A traditional scientist that has gone through college and has diligently
fulfilled his or her doctoral course, defending in the end a PhD thesis,
is brought up with the idea that the scientific method and arguments
abiding by that method, rule in science—give a correct argument
and that argument will inevitably open the gates of truth, which science
is destined to adopt, we are told.
Nothing can be further from what
happens in reality in science nowadays,
enjoying the elaborately hypocritical make-believe-democratic
procedures, such as, giving the appearance of appealing a decision against
publishing a discovery, only to be told that the appeal is provided
solely to ensure that the procedure has been followed correctly as an administrative
formality, without having to do with the substance of the disputed matter.
This is an outright fraud, a product of the “anything goes”
mentality in the scientific world of today. What this really means is
that, in essence, their decision on the substance cannot be questioned,
only the procedure can. This is really a strong example of how the powers-that-be
exercise, through their minions, control of freedom of scientific thought
and expression, only allowing to publish their agenda, and not the truth,
to be published.
This toxic atmosphere, which staunchly protects the absurdity as
a substitute for science, turns really into a joke the serious, well-established
methods and instruments, which turn the results of scientific research into worthy
The usual requirements, which any decent educator in
science well knows, as a trivial substance of proper science pedagogy,
are now emasculated and turned into mere instruments of propagating
false doctrine, unless the pedagogy is ready to lose his or her job.
It is now considered old-fashioned that science textbooks are used
to instruct the young generations in
the system of established structure of thought, how the understanding
of cause and effect leads to exactness of conclusions and what turns
general information into scientific
knowledge, obeying logic and is a product
of experiments that can be carried out under controlled conditions and
are reproducible. Properly applied, it is this approach, falsely
proclaimed as old-fashioned, which
makes such newly acquired knowledge worthy
of belonging to the rest of the scientific knowledge base. This is what
science and science education are expected to maintain in theory.
Unfortunately, the result of what really
takes place in the making of a scientist and
his or her follow-up activity in science,
as unequivocally revealed here, takes place amidst
the devastation of core notions such as time, space and motion.
These devastated basic doctrines that one sees nowadays in
the textbooks, propagate further into the research and published accounts
of this research in the periodic scientific literature, have found their way
by complicated means, due to the already
talked about insidious consensus between the leading empires of the
world. In the process, billions of dollars or respective currencies are being
squandered, rounding intellectual corners with no attention to logic,
reason, and truth, finagling to
find the common ground for these empires' interests. This process has
nothing at all to do with the establishment of truth, the primary goal
of science. Once again, truth in science is not established by consensus. These
empires only support, through words but not through actions, the idea
that establishment of truth is the goal, but in reality are ready to
violate the most elementary requirements of the scientific method, its requirement
that theses in science must obey logic and reason. The powers in question
are ready to violate anything, only to reach the mentioned consensus.
Therefore, it is absolutely out of the question for a concerned scientist
to bypass that corrupt process of world forces,
seeking solely common ground even in science,
independent of whether their promoted science is wrong. One must not be blind
to the fact that such world forces exist, and pretend that these forces do not exist.
As repeatedly stated, relying only on truth and reason, and basing the discourse
only on sensible arguments and logic, is not enough. Tragically, without
involving major sources of public power and finances in restoring the
ravaged physics, such reliance only on correct argument
and logic to induce change will lead to a guaranteed disappointment. The sea
of corruption in science cannot be scooped out with the spoon of truth.
Thus, the situation regarding the prevalence of truth
in science is absolutely hopeless and doomed for a scientist working
in isolation, or for any scientist whatsoever, for that matter, if he
or she cares about integrity, but functions outside the levers of power
which sustain financially what is proclaimed as science.
Although the situation is hopeless, and removal of absurdities, occupying
the main part of governmentally-funded activity passing as science,
is nowhere to be seen, I have and will devote every waking hour of my
life to this quixotic pursuit of restoring truth and reason. Thus, I
have contacted, and will contact, a number of authorities,
mass media outlets, foundations,
and all kinds of organizations, many of which have made statements that
truth is their goal, that they are fighting the “fake news”,
and that fact-checking is the essential part of their reporting. Now,
after I have alerted them about “the mother of all fake news”,
relativity, only to hear silence and neglect from them,
in defiance of facts which fly in their face, I cannot but
conclude that everything they are talking about when they mention truth and
facts, is not what they mean. They only support truth and facts through
words, not through actions. In the future, I may gather in a book
all these letters, emails, alerts and other texts sent both in the USA
and in Europe, to serve as a somewhat more detailed document about what
trouble one may go through when honestly presenting to the world an
unequivocal truth, which may alleviate a lot of financial and, more
importantly, intellectual menace, harming these same people I am now alerting,
but receiving only their complete lack of interest.
Below, four examples are given of my recent activity, concerning the
discussed problem, which suffocates science in the European Union as
well, and badly damages its intellectual well-being, to say nothing
of the financial waste it causes.
Press-Conference in Press Club Brussels Europe on 29 October, 2019
in Press Club Brussels Europe on 29 October, 2019
Fake news presented as science garners
additional funding from the European Commission
Prof. Vesselin Noninski
This author has shown unequivocally that much of today's “big”
science is based on absurdities, and every mention in the mass media
of the progeny of that so-called “big” science, is nothing
other that fake news. Nothing else in the major science policies of
the European Union member states can be resolved as categorically and
unequivocally as the fact, discovered by this author, that absurdities
are presented as “big” science, squandering in the process
billions of taxpayer euro.
It is a momentous scandal that such obvious absurdity should be manipulatively
tolerated for over a century to begin with, let alone experience malignant
growth of cunningly contrived public support, such as never seen before.
The dissemination of critique of such obvious absurdity is being stymied
by the most elaborate means, including by special legislation defending
ill-perceived freedom of constraint in science. This state of affairs
stamps out reason and scientific method which is the basis of European
civilization and European way of life. The insanity in the hard sciences
is amplified and promulgated profusely to create an incredibly toxic
intellectual atmosphere in the current European Union, thus moving it
away from solving all the rest of its social and political problems.
Abolishing this fake news must lead the agenda of society not only regarding
its science policies. This abolishing must head the agenda of society
instead of other currently held politically motivated agendas, falsely
presented as crystal clear science. Straightening out the suppression
of pseudoscience currently governing Europe and the world would be liberating,
not only for clearing up other science policies, but would free society
in many other ways, not the least rescuing it from intellectual demise
This discovery which has been made public for a number of years has
not been acknowledged at all to this day and, in fact, although the
European Union was specially alerted to it, even more money than before
is planned to be spent on absurd science by the new European Commission.
Because of that I have decided to undertake some additional steps, which
I will talk about during the press-conference, along with demonstrating
once again that the European legislation must include the sentence:
“No science project, which is a candidate for public funding,
shall contain Lorentz transformations in any way, shape or form”,
to save billions of wasted taxpayer euro deceptively disguised as “big”
Letter to the Members of the European Parliament Science Committee
Letter to the Members of the European Parliament Science Committee
6 December, 2019
An Important Science Issue
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy
Dear Member of the European Parliament,
I've been trying for some time to alert the community about the main
danger dumped upon society by the continuous and on a large scale deceptive
presentation of absurdities as “big” science and the European
Commission falling for this deception by funding it generously with
most of the money of the European taxpayer which is dedicated to funding
science (cf. my recent press-conference at the Press Club Brussels Europe
on the 29 October (link;
link in this text). Furthermore,
the detriment of this travesty of presenting absurdities as “big”
science does not consist only in squandering billions of taxpayer dollars
and euro under the false pretense that this hard earned tax money has
been spent to support science. In addition, it is irreparably damaging
society intellectually. Most importantly, the real direct threat to
our very existence on the planet earth is the insidious distortion of
basic scientific notions and allowing for absurdities to govern intellectually,
resulting in conditioning of the world to thinking that truth is only
an invention, ergo, tolerating extreme and dangerous views, which can
easily find extensions such as, for example, nonchalantly accepting
that anything, say, a nuclear war, is only a metaphor and therefore
should be of no concern.
This pernicious state of society is directly determined by said severe
crisis in fundamental science amply aided financially by the European
Union, unknowingly presenting it as funding science. Fundamental science
is in crisis because of the gross pathological distortion of that funding,
severely slanted toward funding of the parts based on absurdities. The
disproportionate funding of the absurd part of physics, building of
ever growing monstrous infrastructures to serve it, has not only created
its own culture with an atavistic sense of self-preservation and gluttony
for further expansion, thus robbing real science of societal resources,
but is serving as a model for the rest of society to become numb to
nonsense, allowing itself to be led down the garden path of ideas it
would otherwise never think of adopting.
With this intellectual pathology governing, the world will not even
have a chance to solve its problems, if it does not correct its understanding
of the basic scientific notions destroyed by institutionalized absurdities,
let alone if it keeps funding activities aimed at maintaining on a massive
scale that damaged erroneous understanding of basic scientific notions.
This flawed thinking, which the European Union is tricked into justifying
by massive spending to sustain it, allowing for nonsense and absurdities
to be called science, is reflected in distortions in major political
thinking regarding scientific issues, presenting non-directly-confirmable
claims, such as “crystal clear science”. This leads to wasteful
redirecting of the world's resources, limited to begin with, under more
than questionable grounds.
For these claims there is no direct scientific proof for anyone to see
with his or her own eyes, but only relies on propaganda-based opinion
of external parties called “97% of the scientists” or presented
as “consensus of experts”, forgetting that truth in science
is not determined by voting. These groups proclaimed as “scientists”
are nothing else but dedicated opportunists who will never be able to
produce for direct inspection conclusions which are 100% certain, but
are very vocal in protecting their source of livelihood and equivocal
On the contrary, 100% certain direct proof can be presented at once
for anyone's inspection regarding the absurdity of the main segments
of today's “big” science, for the funding of which the European
Commission wastes most of its taxpayer money dedicated to science. I
have made available these discoveries of mine in the public domain for
over a decade, which, sadly, have been ignored altogether. That's too
bad because this irresponsibility, to put it mildly, of ignoring unequivocal
facts, badly stifles a precious opportunity to liberate the European
taxpayer from being an intellectual slave to insanity, and would have
released these funds to support real science, as well as to cover so
may other real needs of the European Union.
The debased thinking, caused by presenting absurdities as science, which
clearly finds its ultimate justification in the existing pseudoscience,
which the European Union most avidly advocates and funds, is dangerously
implemented even in the European Union legislation, as evidenced by
Article 13 in the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European
Union, reading: “The arts and scientific research shall be free
of constraint. Academic freedom shall be respected.” Clearly,
as one sees in this case, flawed science does matter here, at that in
a most degrading way, even when legislation is concerned. There is nothing
beyond what is considered as governing science, which today is pseudoscience
when it comes to its basics, which can serve as the ultimate scientific
justification of any important legislation and Article 13 is the worst
case scenario in this respect.
Said Article 13 itself is a gross violation of the fundamental right
the European peoples have, to be governed by truth and not by the frivolousness
Not only is tolerating absurdity, to which Article 13 has no objection,
not respecting academic freedom, but to legislate that academic freedom
is respected, while at the same time not constraining absurdity, as
implied in Article 13, is a gross abuse of academic freedom. To say
nothing of spending billions of dollars and euro on incoherent activities,
cynically calling these absurdities “scientific research”.
All my warnings so far have been ignored because my alert does not reflect
the agenda of the day. In addition to staunchly preserving the status
quo of science funding, independent of how poor the quality of supported
science is, the political will is insidiously swayed toward an ever-growing,
now overcrowded, gathering of opportunists and political tightrope balancers,
at the expense of the real problems of the planet.
For the same reason, it would not be a surprise to me that this follow-up
alert of mine will also be ignored, although it must be given full attention
and put on top of every priority of the European Union.
Nevertheless, to make the story short and without much ado, I've come
to realize that I must propose for those who would listen and really
care about the future of Europe and the world, not some burdensome program
but just one beginning, albeit, surprisingly, quite sufficient, step
of a solution, consisting in the inclusion of the following sentence
in the legislation of the European Union:
“No science project, which is a candidate for public funding,
shall contain the Lorentz transformations in any way, shape or form.”
The sentence above may sound a bit complicated, let alone that it may
not be immediately clear how this sentence is connected with such highly
endowed and so seemingly well-looked into research (after all, billions
of dollars and euro have been spent on it, Nobel prizes have been awarded)
but it in actuality really does. I have applied special efforts to concentrate
and define in one sentence the apparent complexity of the problem, so
that it can find a prompt and efficient solution. In fact, the sentence
is easy to understand after some insignificant effort for which I am
available to aid the European Parliament, but its leverage and potential
is so powerful that it would allow the solving of a large part of the
momentous problems the funding of the so-called “big” science
poses today. As a first step, it fixes, once and for all, the damage
done to the fundamental notions of science, especially, to the concept
of time and space. The inclusion of this sentence in the EU legislation
removes any remnant of a basic absurdity contaminating physics, essentially
amounting to something similar to the ridiculous nonsense that one equals
two. As it is very clear that no one would ever think of spending public
money on research openly trying to prove that one might be equal to
two, the same way no public money must be spent on any concealed way
to do research on such insanity. With the introduction of the above
sentence into its legislation, the European Union will no longer be
funding nonsense and absurdities leading to non-physical hallucinations
of curved space and changing of time rate and these notions will regain
their real physical meaning. Besides, the term “relativity”
will be understood correctly and it will never be perverted to mean
that “everything is relative”; that is, different, depending
on the point of view (which is used by conscienceless doctrinaires to
their evil ends), because it has never meant that in physics.
To understand the connection between the botched basic notions such
as time and space on one hand and the political problems driving the
main agenda of the European Union, consider first that the allowing
of absurdities, destroying the correct meaning of time and space to
pose as legitimate science, means to destroy the scientific method.
Without the guidance of the scientific method society turns into an
uncritical entity ready to fall prey to all kinds of manipulations and
“fake news”, as long as enough corrupt individuals are gathered
to serve as advocates to the absurdity, presenting it as the utmost
high knowledge. Such conditioned society is ready to adopt indoctrinations
having any level of uncertainty and perceive them instead as “crystal
clear science”, and even get scared, falling into panic when someone
manipulatively sets an alarm that their newly adopted ideals, no matter
how false, are crushing. Cock-and-bull stories, false heroes, may easily
overtake their imagination and even distract their normal mode of life
and work. When a critical number of these indoctrinated individuals
is reached, they may even be organized in mass movements, just due to
mass psychosis, perceiving their battle scientifically justified, but
in fact having nothing to do with science. Politicians may be riding
on their wave, using them for their political ends. This is not only
a waste, along with the tremendous waste these unfortunate victims support
with their tax euro or dollars, only to sustain their own financial
damage. Such state of society, as the state of our society is today,
where logic, reason, scientific method do not matter, is an intellectual
disaster. It is intellectual suppression, an intellectual yoke, with
many further unforeseen destructive consequences, to say nothing of
the resistance to correction. Intellectual damage is one of the hardest,
if not impossible, to address. It may stay for life.
I hope that this alert would not fall entirely on deaf ears and will
curb the charlatans calling themselves “scientists” from
further enjoying their field day while damaging the minds and the pocketbook
of the taxpayer and jeopardizing the world with extinction. Even if
the extinction of the world caused by self-entanglement with absurdities,
is postponed, the bungling of fundamental notion such as time, space
and motion, which exists today in contemporary collective mind of the
world due to the botched state of physics, is the evil kernel of all
the rest of the social and political troubles of today's world. There
will be no end to these troubles, and all efforts at solving them will
be in vain or just palliative, if the thinking is allowed to be based
on the destroyed fundamentals and basic notions. For instance, no real
answer to the question of anthropogenic climate change can be expected
if the basics of science themselves are flawed. Those who think that
climate change can find proper scientific solution while the fundamental
notions of science such as time, space and motion remain flawed, are
badly mistaken because climate and its scientific study do not exist
outside of time and space, and when space is wrongly perceived as curved,
the scientific analysis of climate will inevitably also be distorted.
Is the distorted analysis of climate going to provide viable solutions
to the questions regarding the world's climate? I think not. No sane
person would disagree with this. In any event, it should be clear that
it cannot be expected that a hybrid science such as the science of climate
would develop correctly if the fundamentals of the exact sciences are
not only disturbed but are outright wrong and absurd, as they are today.
If that sorry state of intellectual affairs in the European Union and
the rest of the world is not promptly corrected and the current “garden
path” of insanity is not abandoned and logic, reason and scientific
method is not restored in the taxpayer-funded science, our common future
will not be sunny.
In conclusion, I urge you to support the inclusion in the European legislation
the above sentence, which I will repeat once again:
“No science project, which is a candidate for public funding,
shall contain the Lorentz transformations in any way, shape or form.”
By including this sentence you will liberate the European Union and
the world from the tyranny of one of the most intellectually suppressive
and destructive mimicry of ideas which have invaded the world, and thus,
will ensure a brighter future for your children for generations to come.
Vesselin C. Noninski, PhD
P.S. Questions addressing peer-review and other matters may be seen
in my Open Letter to Laura Kodruta Kovesi, Chief Prosecutor of the European
Union by following the link
(link in this text).
Letter to Ursula von der Leyen, President of the European Commission
Ursula von der Leyen, President of European Commission
An Important Science Issue
14 December, 2019
Ursula von der Leyen, President
Dear Mrs. Von der Leyen,
The European Commission makes a — mistake by ignoring the argument
I have been presenting to it for some time now, unequivocally proving
the deceptively advancing of absurdities as science of prime quality.
This leads to wasteful spending of billions of taxpayer euro, which,
instead, should be directed to supporting genuine science. Furthermore,
instead of paying attention to unequivocal arguments proving that absurdities
are being funded, thus squandering billions of euro which must go for
real science as well as for other pressing needs of the Union, the European
Commission accentuates marginal problems, in comparison, elevating them
as the central theme of scientific discussion in the European Union.
The real problems in science, allowing absurdities disguised as science
to thrive, heftily endowed through elaborate deceit, are not even discussed,
considering them all well and good.
Of course, the greed of the corporations must be curbed, but that must
not be done by presenting uncertain findings as if they are “crystal
clear science” and, based on such uncertainty, scaring little
children that the world will soon end. As unacceptable as that misrepresentation
is, it is even more unacceptable to tolerate and stimulate with billions
of taxpayer euro absurd science proven by really crystal clear unequivocal
arguments. Funding with billions of taxpayer euro of projects which
evolve from absurdly, deriving that one body in one coordinate system
obeys two different laws of motion at the same time, leads to intellectual
genocide of the peoples of Europe and the world, in addition to the
financial disaster of squandering these billions of taxpayer euro that
must go for real science. To say nothing of the fact that when unequivocally
provable science is neglected by the European Union, any talk concerning
science, coming from the European Union, loses all credibility.
I have made the uncovering of this travesty of science, abundantly supported
by the European Commission, publicly available for over a decade, and
most recently I have presented it at a press-conference in the Press
Club Brussels Europe on
29 October (link;
link in this text). I would
be most happy to show it to you personally. Such meeting would allow
you to see with your own eyes that the total ignoring of this catastrophic
argument is not because it has no substance. Seeing the argument with
your own eyes will prove to you personally that the total ignoring of
said argument is not because it is not fatal for the continuation of
the massive upkeep of the pathological science ambushing most of the
science funding of the European Union, thus, destroying the fabric of
thinking when it comes to science in the European Union.
When ruminating over what might be the reason for such mighty resistance
to truth, as I am experiencing for quite some time, one cannot help
but think that, in addition to the vested interests, which are ready
to go to great lengths, even at the expense of morals and integrity,
in defense of the status quo at any rate, at play is also the unscrupulous
propaganda-conditioning of society, not only that what is pronounced
as science nowadays is already settled, but that it is otherworldly.
Thus, those who symbolize that surrogate, ill-pronounced as science,
are held in a special, separate league from all the rest of the scientists.
Almost everyone has heard about Einstein, Bohr, Heisenberg, Planck.
They are put in some special category of genius, turned into household
names, which separates them from the rest of the discoverers. Discoverers
such as Ohm, Faraday, Ampere are perceived as also good but they are
not thought of as outstanding, as exceptional.
The standing of the first group is made so fixed and invincible that
any criticism of their work is perceived as nothing less than nuttiness.
If one puts on a balance the first group and the second group, the former
group wins hands down the competition for the societal perception of
firmness of their place in science. The common discoverers, outside
of those dealing with the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics,
are allowed in the societal mind to be potentially wrong, and no one
would object if one is willing to give legitimate arguments proving
that. The former group, however, is immune to such liberty. It is turned
into a marble monument that cannot be changed. This must change.
Absurdity, nonsense, must be given no chance by the European Union,
the way the European Union gives no chance to astrology and clairvoyance,
never considering or calling them science, let alone dedicate funding
for their upkeep. Governing Europe with integrity mandates that every
single European be informed about the existing mockery of their intelligence
and the ways to deal away with it. Continuing to keep the truth about
the travesty of science controlling Europe away from the peoples of
Europe, preventing the taxpayer of Europe from knowing it, is nothing
short of intellectual crime, committed by those who rule Europe. I have
prepared a signal to the Chief Prosecutor of the European Union Laura
Kodruta Kovesi, regarding also the misappropriation of European taxpayer
funds, which accompanies the intellectual damage this pathology, falsely
called science, incurs to Europe. The signal to the EU Prosecutor General
is in the form of an open letter
link in this text)
for the lack of contact information.
As a first step, to solve the sticky problem of nonsense, controlling
intellectually the European Union, I have put some effort to define,
as succinctly and rigorously as possible, a sentence which the European
Union must include in its legislation. The sentence reads:
“No science project, which is a candidate for public funding,
shall contain the Lorentz transformations in any way, shape or form.”
Maybe the above is not exactly what you want to hear but this is the
scientific truth and before the scientific truth even the gods are silent,
as the saying goes.
Therefore, I urge you to do your best, so the above sentence is included
in the legislation of the European Union.
Vesselin C. Noninski, PhD
Open Letter to the EU Chief Prosecutor Laura Kodruta Kovesi
Letter to the EU Chief Prosecutor Laura Kodruta Kovesi
The problem about which I am sending a signal to the EU Chief Prosecutor
Kovesi concerns massive misspending of European public funds on absurdities
falsely presented as science, which deprives real science and other
needs of the European Union from funding. This problem has been the
subject of my numerous publications publicly available for over a decade,
as well as a number of my press conferences. Letters on the matter,
addressed directly to the European Union, were also sent. Unfortunately,
the European Union has entirely ignored my concern, based on the arguments
I am presenting, and did not even answer my letters. I am resorting
to sending the signal to the EU Chief Prosecutor Kovesi in the form
of an open letter because there does not appear to be a direct way of
The problem at hand urgently concerns every citizen of the European
Union, as well as anyone else in the world. It is a major threat not
only to our well-being but to our very existence. Aside from draining
and wasting billions of taxpayer euro on absurdities falsely portrayed
as science, the damage from the institutionalized confusion, on a large
scale, of basic notions such as time and space not only misdirects society
intellectually, plunging it into “scientifically” justified
inadequacy, already seen to appear even in the legislation of the European
Union, but also threatens the very existence of civilization by making
it academically acceptable to disregard the reality of truth and making
even a nuclear war unimportant as a fact, thus making it psychologically
and intellectually acceptable, if not insignificant. Such an intellectual
state of society is quite obviously more dangerous for the integrity
of the world than any perceived danger to the world by anthropogenic
climate change, if the uncertainties of its reality were at all non-existent.
Human civilization is based on maintaining reason, logic and the scientific
method, categorically disallowing absurdities and nonsense to portray
itself as science, as is the case today in the European Union. Violation
of reason, as seen in the pathological science, funded by the European
Union with billions of euro, is a threat to none other but the civilization
itself. Therefore, scientific research cannot be free of constraint,
as Article 13 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union
maintains. Article 13 is an example of the ruinous effect of the pathological
science sustained by the European Union, infiltrating adversely already
even its legislation.
As a first step to amend this disastrous situation, whereby the fraud
is portrayed as science, is to stop the public financing by the European
Union of this so-called science, fraudulently portraying absurdities
and nonsense as great achievements of the human mind.
Laura Kodruta Kovesi,
Chief Prosecutor of the European Union
Dear EU Chief Prosecutor Kovesi,
This letter is a signal to you as the Head of the Public Prosecutor's
Office of the European Union, requesting an independent investigation
(excluding the corrupt peer-review by the so-called experts appointed
by academia, which should itself be the subject of this investigation)
into the wasteful spending of billions of taxpayer euro on absurdities
falsely and fraudulently presented as science. This problem is directly
connected with ill-spending and outright misappropriation of euro-funds
and therefore seems should be of interest to you as the Chief Public
In sending this request, I should note immediately that the establishment
of the truth in this concrete investigation is impossible if those who
undertake it do not make the personal effort to understand at the very
beginning of the investigation that anything connected with the so-called
Lorentz transformations is an absurdity. I am available to assist in
this understanding (for your information, I held on 29 October, 2019,
a press conference at the Press Club Brussels Europe on this topic,
link in this text). The specialized
term “Lorentz transformations” may sound too unusual and
difficult at first glance, but in fact, it is not only easy to understand,
but is the gist of the major part of the massive funding fraud deviously
being passed as the funding of scientific research in the European Union.
Nevertheless, if it is felt that understanding that sorry state of public
funding of science in the European Union should pose an additional effort,
which one might feel hesitant to undertake, it must be pointed out that
such an effort is well worth it, given that billions of taxpayer euro
are at stake if this effort is not undertaken.
Refusal to understand the problem at hand personally, and delegating
the analysis in question to the corrupt peer-review of the so-called
“experts”, all of which, without exception, represent vested
interests, would mean to allow the fox to guard the chicken coop. Delegating
assessment of the problem to the intrinsically
bogus so-called “experts”,
instead of exerting personal effort to understand in what absurdity
the European Union is being entrapped to fund, which is being elevated
as a major public science policy, means to readily agree that the massive
squandering of taxpayer euro should continue unabated. Sparing a really
insignificant, although unusual, effort to understand the root of the
evil, is a small price to pay.
The myth that this staunchly entrenched trivial absurdity, presented
as science, which is actually easy to understand, although it is presented
as if having some incredible impenetrable depth, is used to scare off
critics. This deception has allowed this fraud to persist for over a
In this letter, I am not discussing the stymying of criticism, conveniently
disguised as peer-review. Peer-review is a more general topic, which
deserves special separate attention.
Furthermore, no matter whether or not peer-review is flawed as a system
of assessment in science, the assessment by the Chief Public Prosecutor
of the European Union as an independent arbiter, supersedes any possible
peer-review in this specific case, whereby the argument is both of substantial
social significance and has allowed itself to be translated into a form
understandable by parties who do not practice science, while retaining
the rigor required for conclusive determinations.
This letter is also not a complaint about curbing my personal freedom
of expression, although the harm I am suffering is unbearable. The falsity
of a negative peer-review regarding this issue, if at all available
because peer-review of this discovery is typically even denied, can
only be determined if a Public Prosecutor of the European Union himself
or herself determines personally the fact that everything connected
with the Lorentz transformations is absurdity. I have specially made
an effort to prepare a succinct yet rigorous argument, which may assist
the Public Prosecutor of the European Union in this effort.
Of course, scientific disputes in general should not be resolved outside
of academia. Most questions of science require years of systematic study
and analysis. However, there are major questions which not only affect
the fundamentals of thinking of everyone, but sometimes, although very
rarely, as in the case at hand, can be translated succinctly for a wider
audience to comprehend them rigorously, especially when it concerns
every taxpayer's pocketbook. It is crucial for society at large, also
in its capacity of being the sponsor of funding public science policies,
to have correct understanding of such basic notions as time, space and
motion. At present, these notions are botched at the professional scientific
level, and that allows an organized group of swindlers to extract undeservedly
billions of euro from the unsuspecting taxpayer under the guise of “big”
science, causing not only momentous financial, but also incalculable
intellectual damage to societies.
Understanding of this problem is the beginning of unraveling of the
absurd state of contemporary fake “big” science, used to
extract deceitfully billions of euro from the mentioned unsuspecting
I have been trying for quite some time to attract the attention both
of the European Union and the USA to the fact that easily and unequivocally
demonstrable absurdities have overtaken the funding potentialities of
the civilized world, and have replaced the sane comprehension of science
as a human activity, characterized in the first place by being free
Thus, although Article 13 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of
the European Union reads that “scientific research shall be free
of constraint”, it is out of the question that this should mean
that the funding agencies are free to spend billions of euro, as they
do at present, on scientific research exploring in effect whether or
not one can be equal to two, as well as all kinds of progeny stemming
from such absurdity.
Allowing the support of such travesty of science to persist, whereby
absurdities are ridiculously treated as some high achievements of the
human mind, is abuse of democracy and a threat to civilization itself.
European way of life has at its basis the scientific method, and destroying
it by allowing absurdities to govern publicly funded science is destroying
the European Union more than anything else, including the latest dissipative
political events, as well as any tumult industrialization or any other
anthropogenic effect might cause to the world. Importantly, fumbled
basic notions of science, as they are now, are the prerequisites of
further troubles in all major aspects which form the governing agenda
of the day. If basic tendencies in science funding are not straightened
out, especially ridding them of absurdities, there will be no end to
the problems, no matter what partial policies the European Union attempts
to implement. Therefore, correcting of the public science policies,
making them free of funding absurdities, must take priority and become
the main agenda of the societies in the European Union, replacing all
else as the current governing agenda, which is more or less derivative
from this main problem. This travesty of science can only persist due
to money spent for it. Therefore, stop the money and the taxpayer will
be saved from paying for his or her own financial waste and intellectual
Vesselin C. Noninski, PhD
Relativity marks one of the darkest intellectual periods in human history,
both in its context and in the harshly suppressive way its proponents use to extinguish
dissent, efficiently isolating it from critique, and imposing it on society. Ironically, this
takes place in society which on every occasion prides itself as being the most advanced
and open, which history has ever known.
Relativity as well as quantum mechanics have made science out of tune on a
most fundamental level, employing absurdities
to fumble such basic notions as time and space. That tragic state,
inevitably harming society, cannot be amended by reasoning with academia
and its accessories, such as academic publishing. The crucial way to deal with this
completely unacceptable situation is by engaging a strong political will to stop the
public funding of these absurdities, especially those connected with relativity and its
Lorentz-transformations-based progeny. This book provides a translation of the
problems perceived as high scientific narrative into common, everyday language,
which can be understood even by those who have not had a calling in science.
The understanding of these problems by the wider society, hopefully would stimulate politicians
to notice them and take actions, most importantly, by introducing legislation which would not
allow penetration of the mentioned science surrogates into publicly funded areas.
Also, now, with the evidence shown here, unequivocally proving that relativity is absurdity
and a sham, continuing to do nonchalantly work in science, as if all is well in its
fundamentals, not considering to voice, as a priority, strong opposition to such status
quo , puts into question the integrity of any scientist, no matter what high prizes he
or she was awarded with or how respectable he or she is presented to society.