Contents

Acknowledgments
Preface
Introduction
The Harm
Relativity—Symbol of the Demise of Science
Public Confounding of Science
More on How Disregarding Absolute Truths Can Affect Society
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 Science
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 Science Committee
Letter to Ursula von der Leyen, President of European Commission
Open Letter to the EU Chief Prosecutor Laura Kodruta Kovesi
Epilogue

Acknowledgments

Acknowledgments

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 everything 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 of 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 had 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 up 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 invaluable camaraderie.




Preface

Preface

his 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 as science.

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 political intervention. Therefore, even if this book somehow experiences unlikely market success, even if it brings millions of dollars in sales, 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. The author will consider the book a failure 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 has been more than one worthy argument against relativity, although none of them directly piercing its very heart, as is done here, 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 having substance, presented for all to see, however, know better even today.

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 superficial reason. 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 anyone 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 anyone.

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 totalitarian control.

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 avoided.

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, however, 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.




Introduction

Introduction

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. We would 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 the notion 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 then 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, the centerfold of critique in this book, 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 error.

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 properly report this discovery to society. To make matters worse, society appears to be very disinterested in finding a flaw in a question in which it has been conditioned to be exceedingly 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 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 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 epitome 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 have 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 been enslaved.

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, no matter how absurd, are considered completely settled. These sheer absurdities, believe it or not, 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 it 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.




The Harm

The Harm

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 not possible 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 thinking.

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 science.

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 that 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 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 up 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. 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 heroin from an 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; it is akin to rest. 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 resulting from application of the Lorentz transformations), 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, containing velocity (right-side system of equations referred to coordinate system K ), and at the same time another law, not containing velocity (left-side system of equations referred to the same coordinate system K ). Nothing more need be said. Relativity must be rejected, removed from science and all public funding and support of relativity must be cancelled.

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 , in 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 the defining principle of relativity—written 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 (rest and uniform translatory motion) 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 (cf. ) 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 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.

Furthermore, and this should be said most emphatically, it can clearly be seen above, the absurdity of said “theory” of relativity arrives from the application of the non-physical Lorentz transformations. Therefore, this disgrace, which needs the immediate attention of the funding agencies for freezing their support, has even more general repercussions and includes every other possible Lorentz transformations contaminated activity, wrongly presented as science.

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 Euclidean space is the only real physical space and that time runs at the same rate, independent of the coordinate system in which it is measured, marks its unquestionable, final triumph.

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 dramatic discovery.

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 and progeny.

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 insidiously 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 wildfire.

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 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 right there, outright rejecting 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. On 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 velocity , 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 velocity , the other not a function of velocity (cf. 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 VERY DEFINITION OF THE “THEORY” OF RELATIVITY—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. 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. It is crucial, because the principle of relativity (a.k.a. the first postulate) is the very definition of the “theory” of relativity. Notice, that there are three equivalent terms expressing the basis of the “theory” of relativity; namely, principle of relativity, first postulate or definition of the “theory” of relativity. These three terms can be used interchangeably. 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, misinterpreting it.

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 . This 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 symbol 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 respective coordinates.

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 . Therefore, 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 Derivation
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 the 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 money.

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 billions of 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.

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. 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 law, 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.

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 it. 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 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 its entirety.

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 already discussed.

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 incorrect.

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 “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 bizarrely 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.

It is too bad that, especially those easy to amaze fellows who like to dip themselves into the fantasies of an esoteric world and show interest in secrets which purportedly the government deliberately hides from us, all should become disappointed reading this book. Relativity, which was the stimulant of so much gaping wonderment because it was persistently advertised to hold so much promise to bring some new insight into the secrets of the world or unveil some sort of secret knowledge, turns out to be plain and simple, boring as boring can be, nonsense. I think, however, that these fine innocents will survive. There are so many other abundantly available avenues to seek fun from, that they undoubtedly will easily forego that tralatitious non sequitur, which they were only contrived to pay attention to, just because propaganda so forcefully shoved it down their throats.

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 science. 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. The buyer, the one who pays, is made to give his or her money for the tomato even though the tomato is rotten.

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. 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 NONSENSENotably, 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.

CONFOUNDING OF SCIENCE WITH TECHNOLOGY—ONE GENERATOR OF THE PROBLEMS IN 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 badly that it not only damages the national security but is a threat to the existence of the entire Western civilization. Before discussing that, we will turn 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, 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 what they aspire to. 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 practical use.

The utilitarianism 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 and progeny.

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 on 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 a 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 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. Also, the reason was not in the least 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 to find.

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 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 using it to milk 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 immediately 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. They must not wait to see collapsing bridges, crumbling buildings and 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 being 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. This is the prerequisite to drawing 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, 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. I. 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, showing that there is no “ultraviolet catastrophe” in classical physics, when classical physics is correctly applied. 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 to society.

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. Allowing 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 contradictory “theory”? 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. Yell as much as you want in a room full of the deaf that the building is on fire—your only listeners will be the bugs in the cracks of the floor.

THE SAD LUCK OF THE WORLD—A poor consolation of sorts is, if an intellectual person can bear such a thought, that science itself does not have much of a status in our consumer society. Such status is devastating in the long run, as discussed. However, paradoxically, the neglect of what is foisted as 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 by continuing to pour in colossal amounts of public money?

OTHER IDEAS WRONGLY PUSHED TO APPEAR AS “CRYSTAL CLEAR SCIENCE”Undoubtedly, 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 of 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, migration or most of medicine, 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, on the contrary, only seeks to understand the essence, as its primary occupation.

PEER-REVIEW—THE SYMBOL OF WEAKNESS OF SCIENCE—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. 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, 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 high prominence. This is an absolute truth which spreads over anything else having any connection with that absolutely overthrown theory. This discovery 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, that are products of genuine, high-quality science. Only such properly made conclusions 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 is massively 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 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 engineering.

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. They began, timidly in the nineteen sixties but later quite openly, advocating complete unruliness in science. And yet, they imposed the unbreakable rule that quantum mechanics and especially relativity must be unconditionally obeyed. These two exceptions, quantum mechanics and especially relativity, were installed 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 matter 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 here, 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 dangerous to 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 denying method, 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 domestic terrorism.

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 fashion.

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 other 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 the 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 it wanes.

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. A truth in science, other that an absolute truth, always carries the luggage of the conditions under which it remains true.

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 of application.

In a book to follow, there will be more thought given to the extent of truth in various human activities. Truth is established only through the methods of science. Faith, which is based on dogma, occupies one extreme of the scale. At that extreme, the question of truth is beyond discussion. Dogma is an infinite truth within the faith, the way a constant is considered to have infinite significant figures in a calculation involving also other numbers of different precision. At the other extreme of the scale is art. At different periods of art there have been standards imposed on it. Iconography has had one sort of standards, academism quite different and one may argue that, loosely, these standards may be considered criteria of truth when it comes to art of the period. In the modern understanding of art, there are no limits. The concept of truth is non-existent in art today. Truth cannot be the subject of any modern artistic discourse. This, as noted earlier, may serve as an outlet to those who feel suffocated by the dictate of truth, which science obeys. In-between these two extremes is science, which contains absolute truths, on the one hand, and on the other are the temporary, relative truths, which are the subject of study by science. Absolute truths in science, however, are not dogmas but are expressions of firm natural relations and immutable facts which characterize reality.

Science, studying nature, inevitably comprises a mixture of absolute and relative truths. This makes the person who has not devoted himself or herself to science, a person who is psychologically unprepared and not ready to face and comprehend the inevitability that absolute and relative truths form a mix in science. Such individual, who is away from the complexity of science, needs certainty. He or she needs something to lean on and science does not provide it fully. This probably explains why so many people relegate instead, to the absolute certainty of the faith-based dogmas and appropriate these dogmas as part of their system. This is all well and good, so long as it does not interfere as a substitute for science with the proper comprehension and description of physical reality. As discussed, distortion of reality, including through destroyed science, as is today's science, can be very dangerous, even fatal for the civilization we live in. In this respect, replacement of the hallucinations of today's science fundamentals, turning them conveniently into an ersatz-supportive belief system, with the solid ground of discoveries such as those described in this book and providing unequivocal knowledge, not faith, is invaluable. It helps even in finding the needed psychological balance but, now, based on truthful and realistic premises, in harmony with the natural world.

ONCE AGAIN, ON THE SHINING EXAMPLE OF ABSOLUTE TRUTH IN SCIENCE—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

be-violated-and-not-be-violated

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 have, 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 and space, alternative to classical understanding. This purportedly new view, presented as a new alternative to time and space, 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 government and its finances. At that, such falsity, as the ridiculous claiming the truthfulness of some new, esoteric understanding of time and space, 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 a presence in physics.

THE FALL OF RELATIVITY IS NOT THE FALL OF SCIENCE—As a rehash of what was already discussed, it may be useful to point out again in this connection, 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-obsolete-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 those who are feeble in mind and character. Quite the contrary, 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 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 to 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. Some obviously enjoy them, as well as some may enjoy relativity. However, all these parties must rest assured that their enjoyment of these topics is their private business, and that the public is not bothered to pay for their whimsical inclinations for entertainment.

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. Due to the importance of these points, they will be summarized below—

  • Internally-contradictory “theory”, 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 fake news”.

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.

Having said all that, it is in no way limiting curious desires and any restless spirit and a rolling stone to roam freely through the expanses of the mind. Despite the fact that the unequivocal arguments and proof presented here that relativity and progeny are absurdities, and 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 crowd 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, in large part, 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 Lorentz-transformations-based “theories”, 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.

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, although “big” science is used here as a reserve phrase for the bogus Lorentz-transformations-based 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 of 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. This authority is not expected to deceive society by presenting absurdities as science, as it does today, but to serve as a true signpost for society, providing guidance as to how to correctly comprehend reality so that society 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 centered 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 monstrosities, 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 the 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.

(yes, 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, and ?).

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 deliberately.

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.

An example of how the judgment of one's scientific standing may take place when applying for an academic position at a university, would be to have the individual members of the select committee 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 a 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, although unmatched in its absurdity in the history of science, overtaking science to such an extent, 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, to say nothing of a need, 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 science works.

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.

THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS—ANOTHER PLAYER IN THE STYMYING GAME—A discussion follows of another element of the impenetrable barrier which the unequivocal truth about the absurdity of relativity and progeny revealed in this book faces on its road to enlightening society. The system banning society from knowing anything else, right or wrong, especially the truth about what means the system has decided to use to brainwash society, is extremely robust and its robustness continually undergoes further development. One may observe this development, for example, in the practices of the Library of Congress. The following will explain why this book need not have a publisher, nor be part of any suppressive game played by the system.

One way for society to know about the existence of the unequivocal proof debunking relativity and progeny is to have the text of a book on the subject become part of the Library of Congress catalog system.

The Library of Congress, however, has recently instituted two distinct, incompatible ways (directly labeled as such by the Library of Congress itself) for admitting the text of a book to become a part of its catalog, after the library staff reviews the submission.

The first way, a way akin to direct governmental endorsement of the book, is by adopting it as a part of the so-called LC-CIP (Library of Congress Cataloging-in-publication) program, prepared at no cost by the Library of Congress itself. The acronym LC-CIP may be obscure for most readers. However, the cataloging departments at the various libraries know its significance. The presence of that stamp of approval by the largest library in the world, the Library of Congress, makes the book adorned with such insignia an unquestionable candidate for inclusion in the catalog system of any library.

The second way, which automatically puts a stigma on any book, disqualifying the book outright from inclusion in the culture of the nation, affiancing it to obscurity, even if it has been approved for inclusion in the Library of Congress catalog, is the so-called PCN (Preassigned Control Number) program, allowing for the so-called P-CIP block, properly identifying the book in the Library of Congress, to be created by an external party.

On the face of it, the P-CIP data block also ensures presence in the Library of Congress catalog. Unlike LC-CIP, the P-CIP data block, as said, is to be created by an external party. However, not only is the creation of the P-CIP data block not free of charge, as is the LC-CIP, but it carries the indelible stigma, already institutionalized by such a marking, of a self-publication, thus, stripping from the book any governmental backing of its seriousness, even if the matter treated in the book concerns vital national interests. The spirit of the message is that if the government is not supporting the ideas of the book, then there is nothing of importance in it.

Significantly LC-CIP program, unlike the PCN/P-CIP program, ensures that “[t]he Library of Congress also distributes these records weekly in machine readable form to large libraries, bibliographic services, and book vendors around the world. Many of these organizations redistribute these records in products and services designed to alert the library community to forthcoming publications and to facilitate acquisition.” (link)

As is seen, there is a major difference—the LC-CIP record ensures that the information about approving the lucky book's inclusion into the Library of Congress catalog system, in effect having that stamp of endorsement, will be distributed to large libraries and wholesalers. On the other hand, if you have been imprudent, while cognizant of the importance for the nation of the ideas in your book, to allow the inclusion of your book in the PCN/P-CIP program, you are on your own. The redoubling privilege which the LC-CIP gives your book is lacking, in addition to your book being officially labeled a second-class book, unworthy of notice, hence, unworthy for the endorsement of the Library of Congress. Thus, one who cares about the standing of one's book, but is excluded from the LC-CIP program, would be much better off not having anything to do whatsoever with the Library of Congress.

Naturally, one should expect that a system of separating wheat from the chaff must exist when it comes to the nation acquiring in its repository the continuous additions to its culture. Evidently, not everything written on paper can qualify as worthy to call the Library of Congress home. Otherwise, one can only imagine what galimatias the Library of Congress would get filled with if free-for-all were its policy. Indeed, certain level of vetting is needed in order to sieve out outright gibberish. However, relativity is exactly the type of gibberish that needs to be vetted out, and it is not. On the contrary, it thrives.

Thus, here is the place to state clearly that a book such as "Relativity is the Mother of All Fake News" should be one of those books that should, by their very essence, be most welcome as a proper part of the treasuries of the most important library of the nation—the Library of Congress. The place of the book entitled " Relativity is the Mother of All Fake News" should be secure in these treasuries because it presents succinctly, yet rigorously, for practically anyone to understand, the unequivocal proof for the absurdity of one of the most promoted and generously paid for by the nation's wealth, pathological creations, foisted as science—the "theory" of relativity and progeny. Alas, the book "Relativity is the Mother of All Fake News" does not qualify for the LC-CIP program because it lacks marketability, which is the singular criterion the Library of Congress puts before a book to be included in the LC-CIP program.

Once again, Library of Congress serves two incompatible worlds, and it is admitted openly. One is the prestigious world of the LC-CIP, providing the stamp of approval and endorsement to the world. The other is the lowly world of PCN/P-CIP, providing the indelible stamp of a stigma and the deceptive cloak of false democracy, of surrogate, seeming freedom of expression.

Playing the fake game of freedom of expression through instituting PCN/P-CIP surrogate stigmatizing program, the Library of Congress in effect controls the dissemination, disallowing the world to hear about it, efficiently separating the unworthy book by only applying marketability as a criterion, as uncouth as it is, albeit non-endorsement being only presumed, censoring it from becoming part of the national culture.

Distinguishing LC-CIP from P-CIP/PCN program, whereby one, in addition, pays for being stigmatized, stimulates doing business. Business, however, is not the only activity which keeps the nation together, let alone responds to its basic national interest. By instituting this distinction, the Library of Congress denies otherwise worthy, let alone crucial but unmarketable creations, becoming part of the mainstream. Only Library of Congress decides what is worthy as culture and civilization, basing it on an extraneous, formal criterion, despite the essence, crucial for the nation, crying out loud and clear.

Here is a complication in a purely practical sense, however. There must be a filter, as said. There has to be a way to separate the wheat from the chaff. Who is to do that and according to what criteria? The criteria being the more complicated issue, it is predominantly the shortness of library staff which is presented as an excuse, that is no less of a problem—library staff which is supposed to review and evaluate every submission, basing these judgments on the merit of the book or material submitted, in much the same way as a Patent Office examiner does.

Library of Congress has taken the easy way out. Excusing itself with the lack of staff, the judgment of the book's merits is relegated to entities existing outside of the Library of Congress; namely, to established business entities—something is worthy culturally if it is backed by an entity which has proved itself in the marketplace; that is, it already has at least three books by different authors published and acquired by at least 1000 US libraries each. Marketplace is rendered by the Library of Congress the ultimate judge of art and culture. Thus, this rendering comprises the ultimate retraction of government from being the stalwart of quality, let alone protector of the core interests of society.

Such a formal approach, disburdening its shoulders from the weight of responsibility to society, relegating it to external institutions, is especially hurtful when it comes to a book such as “Relativity if the Mother of All Fake News”, which by its very essence is foreign to market judgment. Furthermore, this is not a book that has some local significance. The ideas and the change it calls for concern and apply to the entire nation and the world as a whole, costing any library nothing to acquire it in its collection. In a world governed by markets the “charge-free” status of a book may pose a problem but the interests of the nation cannot be sacrificed only to satisfy mere market success.

I may repeat as many times as I wish, that the quality and significance of human ideas cannot be judged by their marketability but I will not be heard, especially in America. Therefore, the only role the above writing has is to fulfill the obligation which any responsible member of society should act on; namely, to have on public record something which is an essential alert, albeit lacking any relation to the market whatsoever.

OUTRIGHT DEMONSTRABLE CULTURAL DISCRIMINATION ON AN EVEN LARGER SCALE—What else is the following statement for ineligible for CIP material: “Books in non-Western European languages”? link

The English language, although not legally the official language in the USA, is practically the language spoken and used in all matters in the USA. Therefore, does it not stand to reason that only the English language should be eligible for books to be part of the Library of Congress holdings? This limitation, if there should be language eligibility at all, would be quite understandable. However, if that language eligibility rule is to be expanded for some reason, as it obviously is, and books in some other European languages, such as, say, the German language, are also to be considered eligible, why, then, should, say, books in the Polish language not be included, limiting the eligibility only to Western European languages? Why should, for instance, books in the Romanian language, also using Latin alphabet, not be included? It does not seem possible that the basis for this demonstrable language discrimination can be uttered explicitly, let alone find reasonable justification. The bias in question is one more indication for the silent cultural war taking place, about which society at large is nonchalant. One really wonders if there has been any official notice by representatives of the excluded cultures, objecting to such bigotry.

POSSIBLE PROPOSAL FOR A CHANGE IN THE LIBRARY OF CONGRESS PROCEDURES—This proposal concerns a very rare exemption to the rules for a book to be included in the LC-CIP program of the Library of Congress. The exemption, which must be applicable only in exceptional cases such as the one at hand, comprises the following:

1. The book need not be submitted in a printed form but can be submitted only as a webpage containing the LC-CIP block on the internet.

2. The text of the book, together with the LC-CIP block as part of its text, resides on the server of the Library of Congress and is immediately accessible by anyone in the world because the link to it is part of the catalog entry.

3. Any library or other archival organization can likewise make as an entry in its own catalog system the text of the Library of Congress entry.

4. Making the book available throughout the LC-CIP program will cut down enormously the cost of acquisition of the book, both by the Library of Congress and any other library that wishes to acquire the book.

The above exemption is requested in this very special case in view of the exceptional, albeit markedly non-commercial, significance of the findings in the book for the USA and the world. Of course, this exemption requested, if approved, would establish a rare precedent due to the fact that scientific findings of such significance, let alone unequivocality, are very rare exceptions in the world of science. Therefore, while in the future, anyone could apply for such an exemption, its granting would not at all be an everyday event. It is true that it is practically impossible for just any scientific finding in science to be judged conclusively solely by the library staff, excluding any outside intervention by parties designated as external experts because they always serve vested interests. Nevertheless, the intervention of external experts is unfortunately inevitable in most cases. On the contrary, as extraordinary as it is, the book at hand can be judged by the library staff itself, on their own, without any such external intervention. The scientific part of the book is designed so as to be fully understood by anyone of basic saneness. I strongly emphasize this point, which is the main basis, together with the significance of the topic, for the exemption request I am making in this proposal.

Therefore, this book, entitled "Relativity is the Mother of All Fake News" unquestionably deserves inclusion in the LC-CIP program (not the PCN/P-CIP) based on its merits discernable by practically anyone. While it is true that inclusion in the PCN/P-CIP program, if approved for this program, ensures the same presence as the LC-CIP program in the Library of Congress catalog, making it "available to each library that acquires a copy of the book", PCN/P-CIP program lacks the most important characteristic of the LC-CIP program, its prestige and approval for dissemination. Any book adorned with the LC-CIP stamp of approval immediately is considered a trustworthy item, respectable enough to be given a place by any institution in the archival world of learning. Conversely, while the PCN/P-CIP stamp also makes the book available (if approved) as part of the Library of Congress catalog, this type of approval carries the stigma of some self-initiative, as a rule looked down upon, for lacking the full official backing. This has no potential to convince anyone of its worthiness, therefore, books carrying other than the LC-CIP "stamp" of approval are largely ignored. To say nothing of the fact that no individual has the muscle for distribution, especially when marketing is not the goal, as it is not in the case at hand, which the government, through its LC-CIP program, has. In some very lucky circumstance, it may have an unintended market potential. However, even if it so happens, the lack of its real intellectual impact on the world is distinctly pre-determined.

Marketability is not the sought after merit of the book proposed, as can also be clearly seen from the text of the book. Unfortunately, however, in the acquiring of LC-CIP status, market is placed as the filtering mechanism between pure human thought, of great significance for the nation and the world, at that, and its public distribution. However, to repeat once again, it is explicitly and at length explained in the book that its subject, which otherwise is of major importance to the USA and the world, neither has the character of a marketable product, nor would any commercial publishing company have any incentive to include it as part of its publishing plans. Therefore, it is intrinsically impossible for this book to satisfy the requirements for the LC-CIP eligibility, for a book which has as its goal the non-commercial major impact on the thinking of society, as well as mandating a major change of society's science policy.

Again, it may be suggested that avoiding the market, when it comes to “Relativity is the Mother of All Fake News”, can be accomplished by applying for a PCN/P-CIP, because the PCN/P-CIP also allows, as does LC-CIP that: "[t]he CIP data is thereby available to each library that acquires a copy of the book." (link)

However, in the context of discussing the dissemination fate of this book, it may again be stated that this provision for PCN/P-CIP is not enough, since it lacks the following crucial characteristics of the LC-CIP program: “[t]he Library of Congress also distributes these records weekly in machine readable form to large libraries, bibliographic services, and book vendors around the world. Many of these organizations redistribute these records in products and services designed to alert the library community to forthcoming publications and to facilitate acquisition.”

Only with the characteristics PCN/P-CIP, lacking the above LC-CIP characteristics, the book, even if it becomes part of the Library of Congress catalog, would be stigmatized. It will not have the official sanction of the main US Government repository. Significantly, as said, similar obstacles for the proper dissemination of the book are an element of discussion in the book itself. The book in question cannot enjoy proper dissemination (ensured through LC-CIP) exactly because of the reasons explained at length in the book itself. Therefore, there should be an exemption for materials of exceptional importance to the USA and the world. This is especially true when it will result in no expenses to any library—the record in the catalog of the Library of Congress as well as any other library will contain its LC-CIP block only in the link to timeisabsolute.org, or to the Library of Congress server, to which it would be uploaded. Under these circumstances (need of no payment as well as endorsement by the largest library in the world—the Library of Congress), the book at hand certainly would become “likely to be widely acquired by U.S. libraries” as well as by any library in the world.

It cannot be repeated too much that, although the book concerns a topic of major scientific and societal significance, it is by design so crafted as to be understandable, yet preserving the rigor, by anyone who would care to read it. Hence, it is entirely within the reach of the Library of Congress staff to understand the travesty of science revealed therein, intellectually harming the USA to an unprecedented level. Furthermore, although the scientific proof is rigorously unequivocal, constituting an objective undeniable fact beyond reproach, not the opinion of the author, the Library of Congress staff may also see where the sociology of science ruminations of the author come from.

Moreover, it should not be left unnoticed that none of the major world science policy questions can be any match to the unequivocal rigor and immediacy of demonstrability of the presented arguments and proof for the absurdity of relativity and progeny given in the book. Indeed, it may be claimed that 99% of experts support the view that climate change is the result of human activity. However, none of these experts can present directly demonstrable, let alone unequivocal, evidence about the reality of anthropogenic climate change, as the debunking of relativity and progeny can, as shown here. All that is relied upon when speaking about anthropogenic climate change is the opinion of so-called experts, without entities such as the Library of Congress being in a position to challenge or decide, one way or another, about the veracity of their claims, relying on their word only. There are other problems of world importance, which also rely entirely on the opinion of experts, which the experts themselves cannot agree on, not the least of which is the claim for a pandemic caused by COVID-19.

On the contrary, and that is an exceptionally fortunate circumstance, unmatched in history, while 99% of the so-called experts also have the imprudence to vouch for the veracity of relativity and progeny, government agencies such as the Library of Congress staff, armed with the direct unequivocal rigorous proof provided by the book at hand, can at once, entirely on their own, debunk any claim that relativity and progeny have any scientific merit.

Thus, all the genuine conditions for a wholehearted reception of the proposed book by the Library of Congress are uniquely and unquestionably present.

What remains is the readiness of the Library of Congress to stand behind the need for such an obvious exemption. Standing behind such an exemption will also be a test for the readiness of society at large to allow such crucially needed reform of its intellectual condition.

In considering whether or not to include the book in question in the LC-CIP program of the Library of Congress (as opposed to PCN/P-CIP), it should also be kept in mind that, independent of whether or not my proposal for exemption would meet with a favorable response, the argument unequivocally proving the absurdity of relativity and progeny, an absurdity comprising a major waste to society, harming its core interests, will not go away. It will remain and will hang as the sword of Damocles on society and will find other natural ways of penetration, which will always be juxtaposed to the reaction of the Library of Congress and other governmental agencies. This unequivocally proven absurdity, causing the central damage to society, even if denied and prevented from proper dissemination, will remain a testimony of one of the darkest periods of the intellectual history of humanity, its jealously protected continuous stay demonstrating the weakness of society to deal away with the real dangers and threats it faces.

I am not going to fight for this or convince anyone. If the need for wide dissemination is not seen at once, on the face of it, or other considerations, irrelevant to the topic at hand get in the way, so be it. With this proposal I am just fulfilling my duty to let Library of Congress as well as other governmental agencies know that such a book exists and that because its goals are higher than pure marketability, there must be a change in the eligibility requirement for the LC-CIP program, thus allowing that program to be the home of the book at hand, which concerns the common good of the country, rather than to satisfy the narrow market-oriented criteria and restrictions imposed by the LC-CIP eligibility criteria.

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 visibly using 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 as well.

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 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 ABSURDITYLOVING 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 by 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 thought, let alone 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). Remove relativity, 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 nonsensical.

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 human effect on 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 in common.

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 claimed universality of God, its being everything, 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, at their word, those who have had access to the claimed factual evidence. 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 compete, in any way, with the unequivocal proof seen here to obliterate relativity.

THE DISCOURSE WITH UNEQUIVOCAL END—Infinite debates regarding relativity are out of the question. In relativity, as seen, the unequivocal facts are directly and fully immediately accessible to anyone willing to observe them critically and directly convince himself or herself of the catastrophic failure of relativity.

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, on the one hand, and, on the other, those who express well-intentioned desire to see the evidence personally. The difference is that the stalemate between the believers in the absurdity-based physics who also have a resolute vested agenda, and the honest inquirers is resolved at once. The corrupt physicists, acting on faith and, most importantly, having the evil agenda to preserve at any rate their career, fame and money based on promoting absurdities, are at once silenced by the unequivocal arguments shown here.

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 hallucinated to follow 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, a transfer which I will explain below, 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 fundamental cognitive level, mangling 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 here shown 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, is only in its 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 the broken science of today. 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 figuring 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 of them.

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, 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 in the very pages of the paper.

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 facilities 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, so threatening to the eye of the uninitiated, should not be there to begin with.

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 be.

The corrupt relativity-enslaved physicists, supporting at-once-provable outright absurdities, fraudulently calling them science, do not realize that they are in an inescapable trap with regard to this here-discussed set of claims.

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” is the attitude. Society should mature enough sooner rather than later to disallow such an attitude that harms it.

AGAIN, THE PIVOTAL, MOST FAMOUS EQUATION OF PHYSICS—MASS-ENERGY RELATIONSHIP E = mc2 AND THE BOMB HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH RELATIVITY—As an important illustration of outright propagandistic inadequacy, embedded as if indelibly in people's minds and causing concocted exuberant public fascination, but intrinsically incapable of surviving the test of time, it is worth mentioning once again 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 and this book makes this fact crystal clear. 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 on climate change, which 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.

Honoring scientific truth is crucial for the life of society because if the scientific truth, especially the absolute truths in science, are not recognized, let alone if they are ignored, , when it is allowed for absurdities such as relativity to take over, this leads to shakiness in recognizing any other truths, including societal truths and judicial truths. This leads to shakiness in the social postulate that everyone must be equal before the law because it would be uncertain as to what it means, what is the truth about whether or not one is abiding by the law. If the truths establishable by the most rigorous method known for the establishment of truth, the method of science, are not honored, what remains for the truths society has adopted in the courts and in its mutual relations?

Relativity Induced Low Quality Thinking—Danger to National Security

Relativity 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, adoption of the Lorentz transformations, and treating them as if they yield 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, without entirely resolving it in favor of truth, 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 someone's feelings. 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. However, although invisible, they have clear, visible horrifying effects. However, the pandemic of intellectual destruction, destruction of thinking by destroyed fundamentals of science, the agents causing it being also tangibly invisible, produces, in contrast, apparently invisible, yet devastating 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. Furthermore, today's 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. At that point, it is very difficult to restore a state whereby simple truths, such as that one does not equal two, would not be allowed to comprise fundamentals of science. Such disallowing further penetrates into society as damaged and muddled thinking.

More than 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; namely, the war to overcome destruction of the mind by bad science imposed on society, this is a war against the assault by an enemy armed with an invisible double edged sword—both the agent and the effects on the victim are invisible to the naked eye. 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, this allows guileful manipulators to enjoy a free pass at any dastardly maneuver that may serve them well. Society relies on science to be the solid rock, the defining factor determining the quality of society's thinking. Therefore, destruction of science is fatal for society. This destruction must be amended promptly and the culprits held accountable. Unfortunately, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to corner these manipulators and catch them red-handed in the process of resorting to their dastard social manipulations.

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.

To sum it up, 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 characteristically 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, directly 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 the unavoidable delays 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 in the right direction, leading to true advancement, Western civilization, 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 honoring the fact that there is 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 for intellectual protection 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 huge centers of authority such as CERN and US National Labs, and maintaining the integrity of a nation. Any nation engulfed in the delirium of believing that absurdity comprises science, as avidly promoted by such major centers of authority, let alone providing financial support for such inanity, embraced by its main public funding authority, is a goner. If society allows this to take control, speaking of national security would make no sense, independent of whether or not the direct connection between destroyed science and the national problems may not be apparent. Soon there will be no nation to be concerned about, let alone 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. To say nothing of relativity violating the absolute truth which comprises its very definition. A further example of brazen violations of basic sanity reaches 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, the violation of the scientific method by disobeying logic, is feigningly considered so unfathomable, that it is always taken for granted. Thus, alongside the factual allowing of absurdity to be thought of as science in university courses across the country, 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 courses, that it is not even noticed. 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 experimentally, and worse yet, has put it forth and legitimized it only on the power of his own authority. 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. There is nothing to verify due to the fact that the “theory”, 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 fund-canceling panacea) because it brings society into a downward spiral of intellectual destruction.

DESTROYING SCIENTIFIC METHOD—CRIME AGAINST HUMANITY—Therefore, in honor of 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 might be.

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 doesn't 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 on with 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 fake creations, falsely attributed as an achievement of 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 of society in intellectual matters. 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 of conspiracy theories and 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 establishing 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 determines 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 with proper vaccines, 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 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 to that neglecting the dangers destroyed fundamentals of science incur on society, borders on crimes 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 public 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. Moreover, emphatically, this act of liberating humanity from the oppression of absurdities requires no spending but asks for the opposite—canceling spending, as was already noted. This mandatory action, aimed at improving the quality of thinking, 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

Why Hasn't 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 may 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 supporting relativity and progeny. 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 can hope 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 simplistically obvious 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 must 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 that it is to their advantage to bring into prominence a creation, a “theory” such as relativity, of intellectual standards below anything known so far.

Propaganda has an enormous power over societies. The mainstream media, the fourth power, can make an elephant out of a fly. This is the way the entertainment industry works. Once something is targeted by that industry for a launch and it takes over the airwaves, the individual cannot do anything else, if he or she does not like the imposition, but turn off the knob of the radio or cancel whatever else is used to impound the unpleasantry.

The use of propaganda for imposing political ideas on society is well known in modern history. A dark leader of the past cynically pontificated that a lie hollered a hundred times becomes truth in society's eye. Today's society is a victim of massive propaganda, more perfidious than ever. Should those in control of the propaganda machine decide, they can change the road of society overnight, for no other reason than making it bespoke to their own political needs.

Relativity is probably the most prominent brainchild of such brainwashing, whereby, in addition, the fly to be made into an elephant is not even real, it is not even imaginary, it is absurd, but there is no knob the individual can turn off to embargo that poppycock thing from assaulting his or her intellectual life, even if the individual is lucky enough to realize what a codswallop it is. Products of the entertainment industry come and go, but mindless relativity is propagandistically made to sneak in so deeply and overtake so firmly major aspects, not only of science, but also of societal life at large, that it has endured for more than a century, usurping the status of a governing doctrine, leaving no avenues for a well-deserved eradication.

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 dictatorship.

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, such as the Nobel prize, so as to ensure 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 stringent methods.

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.

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 quo.

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 promoted by its Academy 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 comparatively 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, at that. 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 second 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 and honest intellectual forces, constantly monitoring and permanently criticizing it. As said, corruption is the essence of the system we all live in. 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. 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. Organizations notwithstanding, 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 see this?

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, and the nugatory race goes on ...

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 proportions.

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 that such wasteful funding is 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 tailored 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, “quietly advising” 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 science.

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 ability to find 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 about 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 insignificant to be paid attention to, may turn out fatal for the world.

Some Further Societal Consideration

Some Further Societal Considerations

THE HUMAN BEING IS NOT ONLY DEFINED BY ITS LEAST SUBSTANTIAL PART—ITS BIOLOGY—Society 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.

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 and politics, 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 potential disasters.

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.

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 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.

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 a 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. The hoaxters know very well how to push 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 us.

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.

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, thus deepening further and further the crisis in science, which was already grafted into it over a century ago.

DOOMED DESPERATE ATTEMPT TO SALVAGE ABSURD SCIENCE BY MAKING IT HERMETIC—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.

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 ubiquity and 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 imposing the absurd relativity as a legitimate topic of consideration in science, 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 but evil 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.

SOCIAL CHANGES THROUGH NEGOTIATION—Speaking of social changes, some consider that living a lie but negotiating with the liars, considering a system based on lies and corruption as something natural and inevitable, has brought about great advancement to society, ravaged in times past by deadly famine and despair for most people. Now, due to preserving the essence of the system but coming to terms with it, mitigating it through the introduction of various kinds of social security measures, pension system, welfare, healthcare and education machinations, has brought about beauty and enlightenment to the formerly ugly and desolate masses.

The above dichotomy of the inevitable “haves” vs. the negotiating “have nots” is signified within the existing system today by the political right and political left, respectively. Alternatively, some speak of conservatives and liberals. Today, however, although not calling for complete overhaul of the system, the above dichotomy does not express itself by a battle between two opponents, but has metastasized into a war within the same system between bitter enemies who will choose any weapons to achieve victory.

Paradoxically, also, while the characteristics of the one side of that struggle; namely, the “haves” is quite expected, as it has been throughout centuries, of course, now fashioned accordingly by the new times, the other side, the “have nots” has experienced significant modification. The latter now includes also “haves” who are much more elaborate, albeit as greedy as ever and globalized compared to the traditional old-fashioned “haves”, the latter content to grab wealth, limited within the confines of their own fiefdoms, countries, estates or what have you. That new globalized, greedy side, taking part in the struggle now is much more sophisticated and it has attracted to its side the world majority comprising the “have nots” by propagandistically presenting itself as the good side, as the side for the people, while portraying the opponent side; that is, the traditional, the genuine “haves”, as the selfish, all for itself, anti-people, side.

The mimicry of these splinter “haves”, posturing as people's friends, goes to incredible lengths and to incredible heights of contorted inventions for political struggle, which would have never occurred to anyone's mind even a decade ago.

Therefore, it is crucial to be able to recognize on a deeper level the manipulation and its vendor's elevation, not only of the marginalized, but also of the abnormal, irregular and anomalous, as the norm and as the focus of governing policies, all in the name, not of compassion but as a novel weapon of war of the new, modified “haves” against the traditional “haves”.

Especially interesting is to understand the transformation of the labor vs. capital confrontation, presented by the old school as the root of all evil, into the new unheard of dimensions of dreamed up confrontations, the calembours and the play with words and the postmodernist gibberish presented as profound philosophical talk. All that, done to conceal power, control, governance over the world, which they need to shape up according to their own pattern of uniformity, designed for easy governance.

AGAIN ON CENTRALITY OF RECOGNIZING THAT TRUTH IS REAL—These forces push uniformity so desperately that they are not even afraid that the cover using reserved words becomes raggedy, revealing its real meaning and intentions. We are all the same because all of us have bodies, they say. However, the fact that we all have bodies cannot hide the fact that each one of us is a separate universe, starting with his or her own thoughts and going down to the most intimate mechanisms of our biology and individual consistence and content. Humans and animals also share the fact of having bodies but it is the intellect that distinguishes us from the animals. The fact that all mammals have four limbs, that unifying fact is of pronouncedly lesser importance than the fact that we can reason and other mammals cannot. This is an absolute fact evidencing an absolute truth. Fiddling with the reality of truth is central to these manipulative forces, in their unfair, if not vicious, trying to win their battle with the traditional “haves” who at least do not doubt the obvious, the fact that there is truth and that sometimes that truth is absolute. Just for the sake of argument, suppose these forces symbolized by the new and elaborate “haves” accomplish a final victory. Then, one is curious to know, will they perceive their victory as only a metaphor, as only an invention of the mind, as just a social construct and not as an expression of the truth that the victory is theirs? How are they going to react if one tries to take away from them their victory, agreeing with them that nothing wrong is being done but just replacing one hallucination of a metaphor, which some happen to call truth, with another one, which excludes them? Are they not going to defend the truth of their victory as real, but would they consider it too ephemeral to deserve attention, let alone defense? I think, ultimately, they are not fools. They only pretend to be fools as a war camouflage, trying to turn everyone else into a fool as a deception, commonly used as a weapon of war.

DIFFERENT APPROACHES TO SLAVERY—The early elites of today's political pretend-do-gooders, the wolves in sheep's clothing, a.k.a. liberals, labor as currently understood or what have you, promptly understood that owning slaves, as does any other property owned, requires upkeep and that is more expensive than to physically disown that human property and convert it into a much larger, homogenous human mass of free-roaming slaves, attached to their inevitable consumption, reproduction, entertainment and taking pleasure in the little joys of life. The enormous additional social problems which this new type of enslavement would bring was of no concern to them because, recall, to them all are equal. With the advent of the physical ways of transportation as well as sophistication of communications, a new stage of enslavement came to the fore—the physical separation of the slave owners from their slaves manufacturing the products, residing in lands tens of thousands of miles away and producing goods to be turned into wealth without physically bothering the masters.

High hopes have been directed to deeper penetration of slavery of the mind by the successors of the old brainwashing instruments such as newspapers, radio and television, from which the feedback can only be barely noticeable and predominantly indirect. With the digital technologies, it appears superficially that there can be massive feedback which will not only parse the shopping habits of large massifs of population, but would also reveal the most intimate details of their lives, allowing for an ultimately efficient spurring of the entire society in the desired direction. It remains to be seen whether such hope is justified because, no matter what information can be gathered about every citizen on earth by means of internet, no matter how it is crunched and what elaborate statistics applied, no more knowledge can be gained than the superficial predictable behaviors already shaped by the mainstream media in the old-fashioned way—even on the internet the cluster of the official sources of information behaves as a herd, copying what to write from the orders of a central command. Read one official website and the rest, lockstepping to the marching order, would only cause boredom. Information “served” by alternative sources is not even modified. The talk about foreign interference in election processes by foreign countries has quite questionable legitimacy and is by and by only a propaganda device. Therefore, the expectation that some magical key to command the brains of the billions has been found may be in vain.

SYSTEM'S FUTURE—What are the prospects regarding the system's future? In all likelihood, despite the seemingly elaborate methods aimed at inducing change, involving massive public trials, televised for hours on end, even harnessing the specter of pandemics, the system will keep its known hike, with no profound changes in sight, despite the ever perfecting attempts to achieve greater efficiency in manipulation. The system basically will remain the same, provided some serendipity does not occur, which would change society's comprehension of the concept of truth. All the fears and stagnation, are only temporary events. The stream of life will clear them sooner than expected. Consumed entities will go down the drain, opening room for new consumption. All these characteristics of society's motion are trivial. Embracing the intricacies of the existence of truth are not and that will remain to be the continual problem of society, as it has been throughout all the modern days of the world, constantly driving it into dead-ends.

SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT AND ENGINEERED STABILITY—The enlightenment, the Renaissance provoked an enormous boost to the development of humanity and its individual members. Despite the always existing forces of backwardness, inevitably aroused from innate human nature, stalling that development, it is now unthinkable to forego the advancements, for example, in the only two genuine sciences—physics and chemistry—no matter how much mangled they found their basic notions to be during the twentieth century and no matter the destructive social turmoils that occurred, similar to those in the nineteen sixties.

This development cannot be squandered even through the dramatic social manipulations in the nineteen nineties, whereby the population of the civilized world was “petty bourgeoised” (the substitute, a less loaded term used today is “middle class”), turning it into an aggregation of docile consumers and needy hedonists. This is the type of society which those in charge need—stable, confined to its urban human stables, an allegory of the urban apartment buildings, devoid of any sparks of dissent, turmoil or, God forbid, revolutions. Cattle chewing its cud does not like to be disturbed. An owner of property, now as a “petty bourgeois” owning more than the two hands it used to possess before, has something to protect, no matter how small that owned property is. The least such a settled down protective owner needs is turmoil and destruction. This is the modern formula for social peace.

That is a clever way to have the populace under wraps, one must admit. However, that is not enough to erase the intellectual undercurrents which have been amassed and set in motion due to the development of humanity. They exist. They are there, no matter how suppressed or made to look insignificant in the choking ocean of consumerism and apathy. In this respect, it is not the loud revolutions that mark the development of humanity but the quiet digging into the secrets of nature that really determine the development, the progress of humanity, including its social progress. Therefore, mangling of this quiet process, through instilling absurdities, is the real spanner in the works, rather than what the visible destructions may appear to be. Therefore, the simplistic and quite crude taking a grip over society through turning it into consumer society will do little for the real curbing of the quiet intellectual tendencies silently working their way. It is this gravity of the quiet processes of intellectual pulsating of society that need the most attention if one is concerned about the future of the world. It is exactly the destruction of these invisible silent processes that comprises the utmost danger to the smooth creative transition into the future.

REVOLUTIONS, FREEDOM, EQUALITY AND SILENT TUMULT OF IDEAS—Thus, the big words of a social revolution for freedom and equality, so much enthusiastically embraced by the rising people because these words seem recognizable and directly touch their heart, can be mangled if that same society allows itself to be undermined by quiet forces, invisibly mangling basic notions on which the thinking of these masses is grounded. In the revolutionary élan, as well as in the post-revolutionary period, mangling of these notions superficially appears small, insubstantial, compared to the magnificent overhaul of the old institutions of power. This is their mistake, the way the rulers are mistaken by considering that turning everyone into a consumer sets in stone their eternal power.

Thus, some of these zealous rulers, even at this point of history, sense the depth of the problem and one can hear them denigrating Enlightenment and Renaissance, wishing they never occurred. However, as said, they have occurred and wishes and casting spells will not make them go away. The same way ignoring of the discovery reported here of the absurdity of relativity and progeny will never go away, as invisible to society today as it may be.

That quiet and invisible life of ideas, an out-of-sight poppling, actually, determines the real conceptual battle, making the primacy of freedom with respect to physical, biological life and vice versa, seen on the surface, only as a slightly entertaining pantomime for the philosophers to tackle and make a living from, by selling it in the marketplace of ideas. Politicians, for their part, are in no delay to use in their brainwashing “presumed altruistic left vs. the egotistic right” games, of selling the romantic dream (to their own benefit, of course), by playing with those incompatible notions of life and freedom, implying that sacrificing (not just the intention of sacrificing) one's life in exchange for freedom makes one the master, while the opposite makes one a slave.

Ignoring the physical and biological aspects of the question, denial of freedom of thought and expression is no less than intellectual death and these two states are so indelible that the concept of master and slave loses any basis. This is the major struggle of a creative individual. That is one of the main subjects of discussion in this book, along with presenting the hard evidence for the catastrophe in physics incurred by relativity and its progeny.

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, a virus of sorts, 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 a 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 decide to look at the simple but rigorous proof shown here, becomes resolved to act after seeing the inevitable; namely, that such travesty must lose its public support.

Crucial Criterion of Social Change

Crucial Criterion 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 differences in these social orders and political systems are superficial, when it comes to the ultimate essence of humanity, its thinking. These apparent differences and changes in 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 unfree societies.

A truly reformed 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 liberate 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 liberation?

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 educational, healthcare and political problems of society. These, however, are the central problems people complain about, not understanding where they actually come from. People are, in general, oblivious to the fact that the mentioned problems ultimately come from the massively destroyed quality of thinking, caused to no small extent by the forceful installment, in the past century, in science and in the wider society as a household idea, of absurdities such as relativity, 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 an integral part of 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 brainless 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 today.

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 real social change, a guarantor 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.

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 jumping the gun, expecting political and other dividends for his or her comments. Neither those who foist that climate change has anthropogenic character, nor the ones who deny it, can ever have categorical proof for their theses, in contrast to the way the debunking of relativity unequivocally has, because 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. 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, as well as entirely barren, territory of its own, different from anything else in public science policy. The clear-cut argument shown here, 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. It cannot be compared to anything else for that matter, both in significance, in rigor of argument and promptness of resolution. 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, whereby even their scientific basis is not clear to this day.

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, although its utilitarian use, being foreign to the subject of strictly scientific interest, nevertheless would be indispensable for medicine as a guide for practical eradication of the virus. Medicine, as any undertaking with clear directly practical goals, is ready to utilize any help from any direction. Sadly, even help from science is not forthcoming. Today, all the solutions to these even scientifically not-well understood global threats come about by extra-scientific, let alone 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, provided, of course, that the announced threat is real.

This is the point when those who doubt the role of science in society, as detached as science is from direct practicality, should stop and reconsider how important it is for science, in addition, to be based on fundamentals free of absurdities and to function as real science; that is, science in the true meaning of the word. The reaching of this breaking point, when humanity requires real clarity and supremacy of correct thinking to bring forward solutions concerning life and death beyond their primitive, antediluvian threshold, should open their eyes and see how dangerous it is for the fundamentals of science, underlying all else intellectual, to be destroyed, as they are today. Moreover, it should make really clear to those who have been nonchalant on the matter, whether or not they should keep ignoring conclusively resolvable issues regarding the public support of absurd science, especially that represented by relativity and progeny, defecting the very basis of thinking.

It is regrettable that this alert to the messed up fundamentals of science should come about by entangling it with direct talk concerning calamities and disasters, and that truth should not speak for itself, before hope for awareness is raised about such obvious matters as the ones discussed in this book. The lame excuse is that such state of affairs, hampering truth from finding its deserved place in the world, is the result of very complex social circumstances and only drastic occurrences would give incentive for society to pay attention. 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 IN MEDICINE, 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, such as a pandemic, and acquire a feeling for manipulation by elements of “fake news”, used for certain political goals, is in the hands of everyone, expert and layman alike, provided one is open to inspecting readily available data presented as facts. There is an indelible caveat, however. 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 to follow 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 and can be resolved today, provided there is political will and determination to actively eradicate it, not simply allow it to wane anyway 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, where there are areas of outbreaks, as is the case every year with any seasonal flu.

INFORMATIONAL TERRORISM—Prior to that, the first thing to be assessed, actually, is whether or not there really is a problem; that is, whether or not there is really a pandemic or 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, if there actually is no pandemic, then stoking fear 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. The cowards responsible for such a horrible act deserve nothing less than to face the international court of the peoples of the world. 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 can do is to intuitively feel, comparing it to 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.

CATASTROPHIC SCENARIO—THE EASY WAY OUT—The dastardness lies also in the fact that once stoked, no one can tell any more what exactly it is all about and, therefore, what exact measures are to be undertaken. 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, when it comes to pandemics, in actuality, there can be no such experts fully equipped to be listened to by those who are in power. As a result, those in power act intuitively, abiding by some loose world consensus mixed with the remembrance of what followed from past terrible occurrences and what measures were taken then to curb them.

The above zugzwang is a result of the fact that 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 trustworthy 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, as a genuine science would do. In its practical handling of a pandemic, society still resorts to primitive methods of preventing pandemics, such as physical separation and other elements of quarantine, let alone imposing these by governmental repression. We have not moved one bit from medieval times when it comes to solving the problems of controlling a pandemic.

Thus, science, with all the conditions when applying that term for the disciplines at hand, 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 pandemic prevention, other than the simplistic brute force of government intervention. 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 or reach a practical goal, unless, the study of nature itself is considered a goal. 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.

On the other hand, 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 and heal 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.

The scientists and their object of study, signified by the one sharp edge of the scissors, may speculate that the virus molecule sometimes has a lipid sheath with protein hooks to attach to the protein receptors of the cells, which assist in damaging these cells by the virus, a view that may presumably provide the road to a practical cure of interest to the medic, 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. The second, medical sharp edge of the scissors is away from the first, embodying science, edge. Therefore, in the emergency of a potential pandemic, the solution of the problem is not set to emerge from medicine either.

UNEQUIVOCAL CONCLUSION, WHICH EVEN A LAYPERSON CAN DRAW ABOUT A GLOBAL ISSUE, USING THE DEFINITIVE PROOF SHOWN IN THIS BOOK—Because the above discussed scissors cannot close, neither the medical establishment, nor the political decision makers, let alone the lay public can be in any position of certainty regarding the resolution of a pandemic crisis, other than the mentioned palliative, centuries-old low-technology measures of physical distancing, often endorsed by the muscle of the government.

Compare the desperate conclusion, regarding an alleged pandemic, whereby the above inevitably old-fashioned blanket measures are the only measures that can efficiently work, to the absolute, unequivocal conclusion that relativity is absurdity, an unequivocal conclusion also concerning a major unquestionably real global issue. 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 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 deeply in society 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 doesn't take much to look around and see that intellectual degradation has actually been taking place for some years now. That should cause something much more than just worry.

The above pandemics-based illustration shows 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 convenient 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 accomplished 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.

THE SAFE HAVEN FOR THE MIND—This uncertainty-laden pandemics-based 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, resolutely 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 is now at a tipping point, appears to be losing its guidance, allowing for even small disturbances to tip 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, in view of its undeterminable nature, can easily become a generator of “fake news”, regarding a potentially life-threatening disaster. Unfortunately, it is difficult, if not impossible, to exactly unpack it. In the case of relativity, on the contrary, unpacking the absurd nature of relativity is crystal clear and unequivocal. Anything connected with relativity is “fake news” beyond the shadow of a doubt, although concerning something which does not appear, on the face of it, directly threatening to the life of the planet.

CONCLUSIONS 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. Social science and humanities have a long way to go until they can even come close, if at all, to generating unequivocal conclusions.

Worse yet, although the rest of the elements of the purported pandemic are not yet clear, at least the culprit for a pandemic, namely, the virus, can be identified and well-understood. Conversely, in the claims for anthropogenic character of climate change, even the purported culprit, human activity, rests on claims for proof which are far from categorical.

On the contrary, a conclusion you can bet your life on, 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.

SOCIAL SIGNIFICANCE OF LOW-QUALITY THINKING—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, as a whole, 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.

ON THE CONNECTION: FLAWED SCIENCE-LOW QUALITY THINKING-BAD DECISIONS—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 is quite intricate. In today's busy life 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 clearly apparent connections. The connections alluded to here as being the cause of societal trouble, 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 implied. Although, at the very least, what needs to be done is to put together readily available data and honestly analyze it, remembering, 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 is not perceived that it should 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 pool of 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, support of absurdities presented as science notwithstanding. Usually this mix-up has distinct political overtones. This substitution can be very dangerous, especially during real societal crises.

EVEN MAINSTREAM SCIENCE IS POWERLESS AT TIMES AND NEEDS EXTERNAL HELP TO BE RECOGNZED BY WIDER SOCIETY—Science has no power of its own to directly exert societal impact for shaping practical policies regarding its dissemination in many an important instance. An example of a debatable case whereby science lacks societal 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 government to institute that evolution, not intelligent design, must be taught in schools.

Furthermore, quite tragically, real science, which the current mainstream despises, lacks power, not only in resolving matters which are prone to debate, but it lacks power in its ability to have even brazen absurdities such as relativity, seen at once with the naked eye, removed from public support. The public, the sponsor, is to this day fooled to perceive the absurd relativity and progeny as the quintessence of science. Science, by itself, lacks the might to make visible to the taxpayer-sponsor the false presenting of relativity as legitimate science, thus, allowing its damage to the intelligence of the world, unmatched compared to other notorious cases, to stay on and thrive. This problem will stay invisible to the public unless singular political and financial powers take it up and assist in construing it as a major societal problem, requiring immediate action.

“SCIENCE STRONG”—Despite what was said above, ultimately, with the in-your-face proof regarding the absurdity of relativity, presented in this book, the heart of science has acquired unmatched strength. The help of extra-scientific outside societal factors, such as the US Supreme Court, is not needed to rule on the central issue; namely, on the unequivocal veracity of the conclusion, although that unquestionable ultimate strength of science in the long run, is still not enough, in itself, to have that truth become automatically socialized in the visible horizons of what concerns contemporary society purely pragmatically.

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 and appropriated by the population at large, not to mention the politicians representing that society, that discovery must be comprehended as an agent, used by manipulators, causing panic and chaos, turning it further into psychosis and paranoia. To put it mildly, this is a pretty peculiar condition for the truth to triumph socially, lest one agrees that the mere existence of the discovered catastrophic truth of relativity being absurdity is enough and the acquisition by the wider society of that absolute truth is immaterial.

THE ROLE OF ANALOGY—We, however, consider that the socializing of the discovered absolute truth consisting in the absurdity of relativity and progeny is important and, therefore, more thoughts will be shared below, relegating to another 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 expected reaction of the senator 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 can be seen without consultation with an expert. Imagine someone approaches you, as a factor in charge of spending billions of dollars, and asks for a billion dollar grant to prove the unprovable, to prove something that cannot be true, 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 ridiculously 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 irrationality in the form of Lorentz-transformations-based folly and all that purportedly follows from it, 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. However, anything Lorentz-transformations-based is outright senselessness. Senselessness must never ever be given a chance, especially by squandering the hard-earned tax dollar to support it. It is worse than clairvoyance, voodoo and witchcraft together, but some purposive 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 and promoting it to the congressperson in the above-mentioned “password” terms, makes the congressperson widely open the coffers of the US Congress. This, the congressperson does with the full, but actually falsely premised, conviction of doing the best for the American people. The manipulator, glibly 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 by public financial support of pathological science, such as relativity, promoted as proper science, 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 and internationally under the thralldom of the absurdity called relativity, unwittingly supported by the US Congress, followed up by other world funding agencies, with billions of tax dollars and euro.

This has everything to do with natural disasters such as pandemics, with seeking resolution of economic crises and with everything else that vitally concerns the nation and its national security. It is about the thinking of the nation. The basis of thinking is science. Thus, if science is disturbed, the thinking of the nation is also disturbed. It cannot think straight and is doomed to fail. A conglomerate of such nations obsessed by disturbed thinking promises nothing good to the world as a whole.

Regrettably, major multibillion dollar projects which the US Congress supports are based on broken science. This, which cannot be repeated too many times, deteriorates the thinking of the nation, and that leads to low quality of solutions. The country, engulfed by destroyed thinking, in addition, easily falls into the abyss of unjustified panic, irrational fears and confusion.

GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED ABSURDITY—It is especially noteworthy that the 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, magic and many other more elaborate and modern figments of the New Age mind. 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—As noted in the previous chapter, 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 the absurd relativity as the epitome of legitimate mainstream science. Thus, the distinctions are blurred between the various political systems at the highest level of human thought and all these seemingly different political systems and ideologies are in bed with absurdity. 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 of the mafia-like induction of absurdity in society, 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 reside in governmental labs, ruled mercilessly by a small insidious elite, dedicated to maintaining the frivolous master doctrine at any rate, for their masters' 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, the symbol of the incredible consensual laxity pounced on science, 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 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 and power is what determines what is to be perceived as true, then a worthy person will not bother with such purchased and imposed appearance of 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 real 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 also 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, despite its invincible clarity. 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.

AUTHOR'S CREDENTIALS REST ENTIRELY WITH THE ARGUMENTS PRESENTED—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 provides. 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 more than a solemn celebration of the irrational and the 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 deserving 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 in the name of ideas. In actuality, idealists are the best friends of progress.

WHEN A BOOK IS DENIED PROPER PUBLISHING, THERE IS
NO BOOK TO BURN
—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, incurring harm to the core interests of society.

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, to become 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, while 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 invisibly robbed. It 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 scientists, let alone prestigious scientists, 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. Intellectually killed during one's lifetime, who can doubt that after one's passing, everything one has done, every discovery, every finding, will certainly fade away? Everything will be lost as if one has never been. The ignoring spoken above will have reached its ultimate summit.

Only a century will roll out after one passes away and even a writing such as this will disappear purely physically 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 dissemination through 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. The low-technology curbing of pandemics was also mentioned. 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 powers.

A shorter-term solution was suggested above, in the form of a non-profit foundation to be established, which purportedly would 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 wrong 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.

The question in the title contains a wrong presumption that the moon landing, computers and other technological achievements, must be the product of science.

Having wrongly accepted this presumption; namely, that there is such an inevitable science-technology 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 should be around, so reasons the naïve proponent of the technology-science connection sanctity.

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.

THE KNOWN PROFIT-DRIVEN ATMOSPHERE DOES NOT SPARE SCIENCE—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.

Science in the United States, by and large, 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” 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.

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 hallucinations 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 MAIN PLAYERS WHO INTRODUCED ABSURDITY DID NOT EVEN BENEFIT FROM IT—From the 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 that foisting.

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, blind to the absence of even an inkling of practicality whatsoever, absurdity notwithstanding. 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 United States.

Not a lesser example of the role of the United States in 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, certain achievements of science, totally unintended by science to have a 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 right.

Neither is the system more forthcoming if one decides individually to go against the grain. When it pertains to veracity in pure science and one goes against the grain, 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 decisions regarding veracity of any claim are delegated by the system only to business. The system excludes individuals from such a decision.

Of course, nothing can compete with business in establishing the veracity of scientific claims which are a candidate to be turned into a marketable product. However, 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 American soil. The reason for this uncalled for, rather unsuspected tragedy, is the nonchalant negligence, the disregard for 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.

Private business 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 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).

OVERMUCH PRACTICALITY—Practicality 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 anti-intellectual ideology.

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, especially when it comes to assuming that the fundamentals of what is presented to them as science are proper. 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, especially when the crucial problems have been translated for them succinctly, yet with sufficient rigor, 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 what hypocritically is presented as a human right, but is, in fact, 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 honest, 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, 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 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 science courses 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

Taxpayer Money—Overwhelmingly Used to Fund Bad Science

THE DISGRACEFUL ART OF EASY EXTRACTION OF UNDESERVED 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 a quite significant part of the public money allocated for science, squandering it 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 imminent 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 mentioned 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.

THE PLIGHT OF A JOURNALIST—A few more words follow, regarding my experience with journalists I have encountered. Journalists, including the freelance and investigative journalists, are streamlined by special assignments, which they are very careful not to cross, especially not to show self-initiative and volunteer to attend meetings or pay attention to topics which are not along the official agenda and are outside the installed mainstream topics of society. The fear of overstepping the mainstream topical ruts is staggering. Loss of a job, loss of salary, getting one's family into financial jeopardy, let alone becoming ostracized by society as an outcast, are just about the greatest mortal danger practically any journalist fears. Heroic journalists who would venture to step out of the circle drawn by the mainstream are far from abundant. Even the small number venturing attempts at dissent know well that such dissent will be officially silenced, if not worse. Some of those heroes may attempt expressing their views along independent venues, but all they will meet there is a desert and a societal dead-end.

Those who command the individual mainstream media are also part of a herd, whose members fear straying away from the mainstream agenda. Straying for them is akin to outright asking to be ostracized. Therefore, no editor-in-chief would venture to assign his or her subordinates tasks that would go outside of the accepted mainstream themes. Along these lines, if someone, presenting himself or herself as an expert in public relations, promises to help gather journalists (asking to be compensated, of course) who would cover your public presentation in major media, that would sound too good to be true, because of what was explained earlier. If he, quite unlikely, happens to be the owner of some major venue and shows interest, that would be a different story. It would certainly avoid details which would make him or her look like a “news shark”, much the same way there are “song sharks” or “print-on-demand sharks”, which too many of those who have creative urges meet along the way. Don't hold your breath, however. Even if this purported owner of some major venue shows interest (even doing it for free), he himself will soon find out that there are much stronger forces that would not make the intended help too easy. This is what those who would like to follow the groundbreaking research of Yves Couder soon find out, even if affiliated with influential universities—reluctance of the scientific journals to publish the results of their studies. For a young professor, aspiring to find his or her way in academia, preventing his or her research from being published is fatal.

THE CONFORMIST AND THE ANGRY PERSON—The above described behavior of one group of society, the journalists, is not foreign to any other group, although other groups may not be such efficient soldiers obeying the orders of those who engineer society to their liking. All these groups suffer from the same non-medicinal kind of disease; namely, conformism, at the same time, while disregarding their conformism, constantly being concerned about freedom—freedom of the press, freedom of expression. Intellectual slaves, comfortably accepting their slavery by perceiving it as freedom.

The conformist is, metaphorically speaking, both free and unfree. He or she is free when it comes to livelihood and security but is unfree in defending higher ideas he or she might wish to espouse. This is the trade-off of the conformist. The true conformist is comfortable with such compromise. The conformist pressed by life to appear as such, suppressing his or her rebelliousness deep down inside, remains forever an angry person. Other elements, such as education or not relegating more time to thinking about the deeper essence of things, aggravates the anger.

An angry person can also be a raw idealist, but it is to the benefit of society that the acting conformism of such an individual suppresses such unconscious, actually destructive, idealism, which, if showing itself as an active agent, may cause more harm than good to society. True idealism does not show itself at the spur of the moment. It is an expression of a thoughtful responsibility acquired systematically throughout the decades of one's life.

UNIVERSITY TOURS—For completeness, we will recall, as pointed out elsewhere, that touring around universities on a lecture circuit to spread the uncommon word will also accomplish exactly nothing. What are professors there to do even if they see the catastrophic problem, which is part of the official curriculum established by forces way over their heads? Fight that curriculum? Hardly. The failed outcome from such a fight is foretold. The only way to save face, if these professors allow themselves to witness the truth, is to leave their positions and go out in the cold world. There are not too many heroes who would, or could, let themselves enjoy such privilege. Therefore, their best strategy is to run away from even witnessing the hot topic, saving themselves the trouble of a guilty conscience, by hiding their heads in the sand like ostriches.

THE FOURTH POWER—Therefore, if one needs to comprehend who governs the mainstream in question when trying to get out of the general discombobulation which engulfs the world today, one must not overlook the global concentration of the information stream, not only in the sciences but in general, into the hands of a few private individuals—the formidable “fourth power”. This is the condition for one to conclude truthfully cui bono.

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 emphasized here 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 inevitably 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 apparently far-reaching, has practical application in mind, contrary to only production of knowledge with no practical, applied ends, which constitutes the occupation of real science.

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, as they actually do. 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 “against” argument 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 for even the large corporations to become small and then disappear.

THE SPONSOR, THE US CONGRESS, MUST TAKE CONTROL OF WHETHER OR NOT TO FUND PIVOTAL SCIENCE ISSUES—Only the government provides 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 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, particularly when it comes to major scientific issues of national and world importance, especially when these issues are translated, as it is done here, 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 deliberate surreptitious manipulation of Congress into serving as just a tool in the hands of the corrupt so-called experts.

MISSING “ADDITIONAL LAYER OF ACCOUNTABILITY”—So far, such a barrier, which former Congressman Lamar Smith calls “additional layer of accountability”, that 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 and waste. No money and effort should be spent to follow that road. So far, the possibility to explain this properly to society is completely blocked. There should be no wonder why society is deprived of knowing that it is led along the garden path and in the process made to squander its hard-earned tax dollar on absurdities presented as science. All the power of telling society what must be funded in science currently is entirely in the hands of those who insidiously benefit from maintaining absurdities as science. Thus society, through its representative, the US Congress, is deprived of having a say in stopping this travesty. 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, is helping to restore real science. It should never be forgotten that academia is only a servant of truth, 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”, in the same way academia must not consider itself “above truth”, and should be held accountable, rather than 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 “SCIENTIFIC 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, must become an integral part of the Scientific 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. This is true even more so, when the argument against such major funding is unequivocal and is digested and reduced without losing rigor, as is done here, to a form understandable, with minimal effort, by anyone of sound mind, independent of whether or not he or she practices science.

THE SCIENTIFIC INTEGRITY ACT AND QUALITY OF THINKING—When it comes to the Scientific Integrity Act, which is being considered by the US Congress as we speak, the first thing is to understand what is integrity in science? Currently the spirit of the Scientific Integrity Act is aimed at ensuring better access to the public, the taxpayer and society at large, of what government-sponsored science produces. However, integrity in science does not only comprise integrity in dissemination and easier access to what is considered science, but also must not include absurdity, as does the elite of government-sponsored programs today. On the contrary, such enhanced access to absurdity being presented as science will certainly do more harm than good to the American people and to science itself. It is like telling people to breathe in polluted air deeper, and widely disseminate it, pronouncing the polluted air as being as fresh as the air of a mountain breeze. Easier access to nonsense and absurdities, infesting today's physics, would not accomplish one bit of good. The act of the US Congress ensuring integrity in science must go deeper than only bettering dissemination. It should reach deeper into the problem and, most significantly, address the essence of science that it is funding, explicitly banning the funding of absurdities such as relativity and its Lorentz-transformations-based progeny.

The inevitable explicit ban of funding with tax money of absurdities falsely presented as science, must comprise the main focus of the Scientific Integrity Act, because of the unequivocal proof based on the catastrophic arguments shown here, whose ignoring is impossible. Refusal to ban funding of absurdities would only mean weakness and cowardly succumbing to forces which, knowingly or unknowingly (the latter being excluded after the publishing of this book), inexorably harms the interests of the United States.

Funding absurdities does not mean funding science. Funding absurdities does not symbolize freedom in science, nor is spending tax money on absurdities “giving science a chance”. A Scientific Integrity Act allowing funding of absurdities presented as science, achieves the opposite of maintaining integrity in science. Funding absurdities through an act of Congress is, in fact, eliminating integrity in science. It is the opposite of integrity in science. 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, with an even greater reason, tax money support. Not even one taxpayer penny should go for support of that absurdity known by the name “theory” of relativity and its numerous daffy, hence wasteful, Lorentz-transformations-based outgrowths.

The harm of absurdity, funded by the US Congress, goes deeper than what the administrative measures, the focus of the Scientific Integrity Act in its current form, aim at. It harms the thinking of the American people because it allows strategically positioning and 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 Scientific 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 is indeed facing an economic or human related climate change 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 Scientific Integrity Act, concerns about ensuring quality of thinking must come first, over and above concerns about how science is being disseminated. We will ask again—what is the use of disseminating crooked science? The clear answer is, none whatsoever. To say nothing that crooked science is subversively damaging. It damages the most subtle and characteristic feature of humanity—its thinking.

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.

EXPLOITING THE FEAR OF EMBARRASSMENT TO RETAIN PRESENTING ABSURDITY AS SCIENCE—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.

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.

ENTRENCHING OF NONSENSE IS NO ALIBI FOR NONSENSE TO STAY PUT IN SCIENCE—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 is the wrong attitude of some on Capitol Hill.

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, consisting in finding of unequivocal proof for absurdity of a theory, such as relativity, aggressively promoted as fundamental, 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”, widely pronounced as scientific, but, in fact, having nothing to do, not only with proper science, but even with the defunct scientific theories of yesterday. None of the other abandoned former major theories of science has been rejected on the grounds that it is absurd, as relativity is.

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. It is not “giving science a chance”. Funding absurdities such as relativity and progeny does exactly the opposite—it does not give real science a chance, by wasting on absurdities the money and support the real science needs.

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.

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 added 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 current 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 without delay 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 humanistic goal.

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 root. 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 pernicious goals.

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 our society.

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. Consequently, the US Congress should by no means rely on the ruse known as “peer-review”, but must act singularly, armed with the arguments and proof presented in this book.

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 of projects having nothing to do with real science. The US Congress must establish where science has gone astray to the point of becoming absurd, and act on its own, without the toxic help of present day corrupt academia. This book provides the clear, rigorous translation which will help for such a historic act of liberation. 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 ill faith—the currently installed actors doing the absurd theoretical physics—will result, if the critic is exceptionally fortunate, in the receipt of a polite form letter of refusal to involve themselves in exchange. The most one can hear, other than receiving the polite form letter, is the falsity that 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 or mass tragedies, sadly, involving loss of life. Society must perceive the problems in science as a visible 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.

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, underlying the scientific discipline known as classical thermodynamics, a theory that came after that technological achievement. However, in correcting the understanding of especially basic scientific notions such as time and space, even which planet is the center of our solar system, 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, let alone in its most essential building blocks. 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 public support. 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 just as efficient when saving society from this major menace.

ONCE AGAIN—THE MISSING ROLE OF ACADEMIA—This is where the responsibility of academia, in particular, 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 the call for 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, it is being 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 robbery.

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 at its core, using its own notions and definitions.

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 have the potential and be so processed as to concern and express 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 considering that by many, information is chosen 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 the data through reproducible experiments under controlled conditions. In this way 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, which the powers do not allow to be beyond their control.

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 would be the agency 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, the primary agents of scientific dissemination which society considers trusted. It is the only way the honest and the decent can set the tone of integrity throughout the world as to what really is and 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 cash. 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.

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. It is impossible for these companies to fall into the hands of the honest. Therefore, there is no hope for truth and honesty to prevail in the world along the traditional channels of scientific discourse and dissemination. How the even more complex problem and illusory acquisition of science publishing outlets occurs, controlled by quasi-private non-profit organizations, cannot even be discussed here. 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 of integrity, 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 the critical addressing of the real “mother of all fake news”, relativity, while at the same time hypocritically expressing great concern about dissemination of “fake news” that deals with all kinds of other news in the media, most of the time completely inconsequential, let alone partisanly made up to look as if fake but, in all actuality, quite in the norm.

Clearly, even in the case of taking control through purchase, the danger remains that society will be conditioned to distrust the new owners by devious ways the powers-that-be practice. 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 (as well as the mainstream intelligentsia in some big countries comprising intellectual dominions) 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 really influential media of world impact or holds any position of real world influence. Let alone that those intellectuals, treated as parochial, despite their being capable of doing quality 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 the argument. 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 because of their humble beginnings, shunning them from the powerful Maecenas and patrons who could propel them to the world. The major information agencies would rather look for scandalous dirt to report from small, powerless countries, and will never brace to report on worthy science, let alone a crisis of fundamentals discovered by scholars 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 avenues to solve it because that would lead to what powers perceive as 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, 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 incorrect 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, thoughts which concern the common good rather than some private matter or “pet peeve”, as some may incorrectly construe the effort in this book to be about. 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 book.

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, but, nevertheless, 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 effort. 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 haughty 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 public attention, the least those powers want—the proof shown here is unequivocal and once publicly honed in and shed light on, the powers-that-be lose control of their power to squander the argument. That would inevitably open a can of worms in society, undesired by these powers.

On the contrary, fellow critics would be the only ones who would at least notice you, their adversity being a needless “bonus”.

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 at times.

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, neither 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.

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 key 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 government financing of it with taxpayer money, the way no government 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 overhaul.

The first and foremost need physics faces 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, spacetime drivel 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, probably, to use it marginally as an educational facility, a sort of prop, to get a feel where wrong things in science may 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? Never. 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 ultimately also has physical meaning, when it does not go contrary to the absolute truths on which physics is based. Notions such as imaginary numbers or negative volumes in physical chemistry are used only as intermediary devices. Mathematical correctness does not always mean correct physics. In the natural sciences, such as physics, physics makes mathematics, not vice versa. This maxim should be a leading thought when trying to find refuge in maths when facing the difficult questions of physics. In science, mathematics can only be a tool, a helping hand, which should not take the place of focusing on the physical reality of the studied problem. The same applies to the use of computers, which in their essence are technological expression of applied mathematics. The use of computers in scientific research and in science education can only be as a helping hand. A computer calculation can never substitute a real life physical experiment, as some people confusingly are given the impression by today's over-computerized but superficial world.

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 of absurdity, not even to be considered as a defunct theory when discussing superseded 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, whereby superseding theories leave behind defunct theories.

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 in 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 proclaim; namely, counterintuitive, let alone correct. Being at odds with the absolute truths is not some higher category of truth, but is incorrect, plain and simple, and must be rejected at once, without hesitation.

TO-DO LIST FOR THE REFORM IN PHYSICS—To sum it up, the reform in physics requires three types of change regarding its concepts:

  • Concepts (internally contradictory), which must be removed from physics in their entirety. This change, unique for contemporary science, is exemplified exclusively by relativity.

  • Concepts (not internally contradictory), which must be abandoned because of theoretical arguments and conflict with experimental evidence. This is the usual change taking place in the course of science development.

  • Concepts, correct but incomplete, which must undergo development. An example for the need of such development are the three Newton's laws. Quantum mechanics may also fall in this category, in view of the fact that the quantum behavior is not foreign to classical physics. It is its essence. Therefore, what is now known as quantum mechanics must go back to its classical roots, together with shedding its illogical character.

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. As noted earlier, 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 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 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, and publishing questionably entertaining popular books to keep up the fantasy fueled by the falsities discussed here, 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, as being the representative of their sponsor, the taxpayer.

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, but they are especially vigorous and vicious when their darling absurdity embodied in relativity is to be desperately defended.

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 these offensive verbal instruments are astoundingly, yet wastefully, creative. It is real fun to watch how the helpless absurdist is gasping for breath, 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, if such concession can at all ever be expected from devoted defenders of daftness and lunacy. 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 a lowly, random, anonymous critic. 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, provided this discovery was also sanctioned by the powers-that-be.


  • 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 (especially prior to having exposure to the unequivocal proof for the absurdity of relativity, resulting from the catastrophic argument presented here), 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 and the unequivocal proof for the absurdity of relativity would find free dissemination in the academic press, 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, denying that only a single individual can actually make the discovery, no matter how many scientists have looked at it but have not seen it, 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 at any rate. 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 such lame “defense” of the obviously absurd “theory” of relativity.


  • Accusation that some political or social agenda is causing the urge to criticize the good “theory”. The unequivocal arguments presented shoot down such ludicrous claim at once.


  • 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 properly 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 in proper publications in science but the non-peer-reviewed critique of relativity is denied discussion in these proper publications? The answer is obvious—because if such discussion in the same venues of relativity is allowed, the immediate 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, which has no chance at all when the proof is unequivocal, as is the case here.


  • 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

    ,

    where is the force acting on a body, m is the mass of the body and is the acceleration of the body, the relativity advocate requires that Newton's second law be written in the form

    ,

    where is the momentum of the body and t is time.

    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, into a different mass in that same coordinate system K.

    Obviously, quite demonstrably, this absurdly means that one body in one system, system K, has two different masses at the same time. This absurdity the advocate cannot allow to be in plain sight. 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. However, even written in a new form, Newton's second law is again affected by application of the Lorentz transformations. Said affecting of the law 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 the correct principle of relativity but by applying the absurd Lorentz transformations), 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 expressions, and , 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 at all the same, contrary to what the advocate wants us to believe. This is seen immediately if we write what these momenta really mean: and formula obtained after applying the Lorentz transformations.

    We can see the difference, whereby p is not velocity dependent, while P is velocity dependent, even clearer if we crack the shell of deception and look inside: and .

    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 and .

    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 motion: and . 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 the velocity 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 is , which, in contradiction with the principle of relativity, differs from 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. This 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, by not allowing the students to analyze the physical validity of the Lorentz transformations by comparing their outcome with what physical reality requires as an outcome, but by falsely claiming non-contradiction of relativity by deceptively playing with the Lorentz transformations themselves. Thus, 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, in one system, does not change the fact that the physical law under Lorentz transformations changes in the other system. This change, this affecting, of the equation after the Lorentz transformations are applied, and to which the devious instructor deliberately turns a blind eye, jealously protecting the students from seeing it, is the very pivot of the dastard deception. That affecting of the physical law by application of the Lorentz transformations is a grave, catastrophic violation of the principle of relativity, a principle explicitly requiring that the physical law is not affected after such intervention. Let alone that in the other system, the alert 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 glossing over the fact that application of the Lorentz transformations leads to a result contradicting the principle of relativity, the defining principle in the alleged “theory”, is a cynical abuse of science, unforgivably brazen disregarding of scientific method, which must stop immediately.


  • Clearly, claiming that the “scientific method is wrong”, something one can hear now more often than not in physics circles, is done to sustain, as acceptable, 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, the advocate disingenuously flips the script and avoids condemning the real culprit. In fact, 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, having 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 and in this way prove that they indeed have already seen the argument. 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, of those 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 from physics 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). It may be surmised that it is relativity that opened the gates for pulling the wool over society's eyes, by using the complexity argument, notwithstanding even its viability, for bamboozling society into extracting from it amounts of money never heard of before in history.



  • 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 critique.


  • 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 straws, 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. Again, 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 LACKING—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; namely, the organizers of these IgNoble prizes. These prizes can sometimes be mildly funny but they can never succeed in accomplishing their main goal—the defense of absurdity embodied in relativity and progeny, especially in the face of the unequivocal proof shown here. Those elements, who are many of the awarders of these prizes and who apparently amuse themselves with awarding these silly prizes, will do better if they look at themselves instead.

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 impostors, 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 haughty crowd, completely unwilling to discuss matters of science with incompetents and dabblers. In a wider sense, however, this author undoubtedly still 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 grueling years spent to educate yourself and master precious knowledge are too valuable to be preyed upon and trivialized by a stranger. Ironically, 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 would 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 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 that.

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 Prevail Today?

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. A 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 and deceit.

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 belonging to 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 achievements.

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 its intellectual contamination 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 not inevitable. It is curable right away, armed with the unequivocal proof presented in this book, provided there is political determination to deny and officially abjure absurdities 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 reversed, the first area in which to consider overhaul, believe it or not, is theoretical physics—the basic formative agent of thinking. Damage physics, as it is damaged today and the correct thinking is gone. Correct thinking gone gives carte blanche to all other societal wrongs. It is hoped that the ample arguments given above will be sufficient to one day convince society of the centrality of such need of correcting the broken theoretical physics of today, primarily through denying it public support.

Nowadays, however, there is an impenetrable barrier installed to fend off attempts for change. The prospect for change is aggravated by the fact that 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 their agenda, 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 convert the results of scientific research into worthy, scientific knowledge. The usual requirements, which any decent educator in science well knows, as a trivial substance of proper science pedagogy, are now crumbled and turned into mere propaganda instruments of false doctrine, unless the pedagogue 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, which obeys logic and is a product of experiments that can be carried out under controlled conditions, yielding reproducible results. 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, in actuality, 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, propagated 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 never 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, so-called science, is wrong. One must not be blind to the fact that such world forces exist, and pretend and behave as if these forces do not exist.

Furthermore, as repeatedly stated, if one does decide to do the right thing and take action, one must realize that 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 and failure. 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 (although, for real science, arguments are what matters, not the status of the individual), or for any scientist whatsoever, for that matter, if he or she cares about integrity, but functions outside the levers of power which financially sustain 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, for one, 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

Press-Conference in Press Club Brussels Europe on 29 October, 2019

Fake news presented as science garners additional funding from the European Commission

A conference

by

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 and destruction.

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” science.




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

European Parliament
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 prestige.

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 of absurdities.

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.

Sincerely,

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

Letter to Ursula von der Leyen, President of European Commission

An Important Science Issue

14 December, 2019

European Commission
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 (cf. link; 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.

Best regards.

Sincerely,

Vesselin C. Noninski, PhD

Open Letter to the EU Chief Prosecutor Laura Kodruta Kovesi

Open Letter to the EU Chief Prosecutor Laura Kodruta Kovesi

Introduction



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 contacting her.

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.



Open Letter

to

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 Prosecutor.

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, cf. link; 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 century.

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 taxpayer.

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 from absurdities.

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 destruction.

Sincerely,

Vesselin C. Noninski, PhD

Epilogue

Epilogue

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 relativity from devastating critique, and imposing it on society. Ironically, this takes place in a 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. This translation has been accomplished without diminishing the needed scientific rigor.

The understanding of these problems by the wider society, hopefully would stimulate politicians to notice them and take action, 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, nonchalantly continuing to do work in science, as if all is well in its fundamentals, not even giving a thought to voicing, 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 has been awarded or how respectable he or she is perceived by society.

This book begins its journey in the world carrying the message for a new wind that needs to blow around the world and change the climate of science, the wind bound to make science free of absurdities, devoted to truth and real discoveries. This will be a new world in which bright youth will not waste its talents for scientific dead-ends but will unleash its ability for real creative work.

This book inspires the world, not only to abjure absurd science, but also to free itself from the shackles of locked down untouchable basics when these basics deserve correction and change. Directions in science unexplored so far, such as the search for principally new technologies for energy production, are an example of the imminent but mostly banned advancement in that field. Today, the propagandistic drive for alternative energy sources almost in all cases considers technical solutions relying on foreseeable energy reservoirs. Nothing beyond that is allowed to be even pondered. Another significant push is formed around another technical idea with foreseeable outcome—the information society, to give another example of what is considered as futuristic today, despite its banal essence. Nothing fundamentally new can be expected in the widely officially advertised information society movement, although technicalities of the information society are becoming ever more convoluted for an outsider to grasp, let alone reproduce. One who is not in the know and is deprived of the machinery cannot make a sports car either, although its making does not comprise anything new for anyone who decides to deepen his or her knowledge and even partake in its making.

Information society, which may lead to artificial intelligence, is not enough as the central goal of the future. Ultimately, there must be some tangible progress made around newly discovered phenomena which go against anything known so far, in order to really have, not only something to inform the world about, but to really have our knowledge about the natural world advance and often use parts of that advanced knowledge to create marvelous technologies which the world could not have imagined before.

Therefore, we have to sober up and address honestly, with no fear, the laws of the physical world and direct attempts to discover them. This is the road to the real liberation of humanity and a prerequisite for its real unpredictable technical progress as well.

Thus, this book encourages, in addition to renouncing absurdities, taking seriously the newly discovered scientific laws in hitherto completely unsuspected directions and allow their penetration into the mainstream, forbidden today only because they appear to go against the grain. This will make the new scientific laws, already discovered but which have not yet been allowed to penetrate into society, also be the basis of new technologies, as is the nature of engineering, the creator of new technologies. Principally new directions in science often bring about principally new technologies.

Now that this book is taking off for its flight out into the world, it harbors the hope that its message will be heard and will open the path for new developments, not only regurgitating known ideas, relying only on innovations in marketing, the only innovations the world seriously considers today, awarding them generously. I would wish to say more on the matter but will leave if for future writings. Let this epilogue be a bridge to these future writings. Let this thirst for freedom from the manacles of absurdities and yearning for discoveries beyond imagination be the take away for the reader who “closes the pages” of this book.




email the author