Relativity is the Mother of All Fake News

Part I. Relativity is Harming Public Interest

by

Vesselin C. Noninski


Contents

Preface
Introduction
The Harm
Demise of Science—Threat to Survival of Western Civilization
Public Confounding and Distrust of Science—Danger to National Security
More on How Disregarding Absolute Truths Can Affect Society
Abuse of Necessary Conservatism
Taxpayer Money—Overwhelmingly Used to Fund Bad Science
Why Hasn't It Been Pinpointed and Corrected?
Some Further Societal Considerations
Crucial Criterion of Social Change
If Science is So Wrong Why are We On the Moon?
Practicality of America
Harm to Education
How is This Damage to Society to be Amended?
Reform in Physics
Usual Arguments Which Can Be Heard to Squander Criticism
Results from A Book Such as This One
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
Final Thought in One Sentence

Preface

his book is not written to serve as the usual market product for which a book is put together, aiming at earning money for its publisher and its author. 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 sayig 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 an unlikely market success, even if it brings millions of dollars in sales to the author, while at the same time billions of tax dollars still continue to pour in for sustaining the gluttonous heralds of absurdities presented as science, this would be a miserable failure of the book and its author, in view of his inability to get across the completely unmatched unequivocal arguments and proof it presents for the occupation of science by absurdities harming society and public interest. If the author did not manage to invoke the political will needed to stop the funding by not being able to succeed in getting across this unmatched crystal clear proof to society, he would consider this the failure of his life.

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 possibilites 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 usurpassable 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 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 any more that he or she had not seen this singular catastrophe of modern science. A paper book is naturally deficient in this respect and even a magnifying glass can hardly help.

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. And, 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 someone continuing to foist absurdities as science. The whole world now will have available at once the unequivocal proof, discovered by this author, about the catastrophic absurdities defining contemporary theoretical physics, unlike the times when one had to beg the powers-that-be to publish his or her ideas, which was the only way for these ideas to be heard by 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 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 alreay 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.

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, relegating to putting forth on the internet of substantial, crucial scientific findings of most general impact on the entire science, as well as society, so far reserved exclusively for academic publishing, preempts the times when this type of direct internet dissemination, even of important scientific knowledge, bypassing the corrupt practices governing today's academic publishing, will become the required dominating way of dissemination of information which matters.

No illusion is harbored that this text will make any dent today, as well as in the foreseeable future, unless it is taken up by some strong political will, which would stop public funding of absurdities. So long as absurdities are funded at the scale at which they are funded today, there is absolutely no hope for any change, no matter how many correct books one publishes, even in this new media, internet.


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 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 as a substitute for real science, the theory of relativity being the prime example.

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. 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 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 mechnics and relativity, or electrodynamics, to give two more examples. There is the legitimate discipline of astronomy, which may include the study of the chemical and physical aspects of planets in addition to studying their position in the univers. However, astrophysics, as understood today, as part of astronomy, in many ways is also associated with the absurd Lorentz transformations and, thereofore, is itself absurd and better not be mentioned in a scientific context. The tragedy is that the imposed absurdity 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 is 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.

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 th absurdities 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 has begun with the destruction of the highest authority society has, known as science, by deliberate imposition of sheer lunacy as exceptional scientific achievement. To impose lunacy as the opposite of what it really 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 in a major way the cognitive aspects of society, 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, no affiliation or clout, which 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. 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. This, in particular, includes complete removal from science of relativity and its progeny. After much experience over the years, this author has come to the conclusion that the only instrument for such removal is by forming political will to cancel the public funding for this mockery of science based on the Lorentz transformations.

The hard work and sacrifices made, while sifting through the complexities, however, turned out to be very intellectually rewarding because not only is the question of motion, time and space of fundamental importance for humanity, and correcting the current confusion a must, despite any challenge of technical nature that may come along, but, to his great surprise, if not delight, this author has found that there are straightforward ways to make the current fumbling of these notions understandable to a wider audience. Indeed, in addition to putting special effort to make it extremely easy for anyone to understand it conclusively and with rigor, it turned out that, fortunately, relativity is very prone to such effort. The solution turned out to be just around the corner. How can such clearly fatally defective thinking and absurdity stay undetected for so long is beyond me. I will try not to speculate too much on the reasons for allowing such a mess in physics, although I will say a word or two on the matter later in the text.

It turned out further, however, that a challenge, greater than any challenge which the technical side of the question may pose, is the impossibility to report properly this discovery to society. Society appears to be most disinterested in finding a flaw in a question in which it has been conditioned to be most interested. Mainstream academic dissemination, expectedly but by no means justified by any standard of integrity, is out of the question. Therefore, other ways for dissemination were to be sought. Aside from the inconsequential and flooded internet, whereby the flood acts as the most efficient censorship there could ever be, one of the more promising avenues I tried, among many other ways, which may in the future be assembled in a separate very instructive book, the result of vast experience, was to announce the discovery at press-conferences. Ideally, why should it matter at all how 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, the correction of the aggressively adopted distortion of fundamental notions such as motion, time and space, far exceeds the common norms of academic publishing. The matters are so twistedly arranged by those in whose interest it is to keep science in discord, that there is even no place in academia where such criticism, albeit mandatory, can find a home. Dwelling into fundamentals is never encouraged in academia, never mind how sound the argument. 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 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, such resistance is even more expected, because, since the times of Galileo, which marks the beginning of modern science, humanity has never been under such massive occupation and assault by absurdity, when it comes to basic notions of physics. While Aristotle can be excused as someone trying to make sense of things during the dawn of science, current times are considered advanced, and therefore, messing up basic notions, especially at the modern level of information exchange, should be unforgivable. Moreover, the fact that major sections of physics, are building their object of study, in effect, on the premise that one equals two, would not have withstood scrutiny during the times of Aristotle either.

When speaking about occupation of society by inanities, here is the place to note that there is a significant difference between the absurdity passing as academic science and the conspiracy-theorist activity and clairvoyance TV shows. Aside from the fact that the latter, although being incorrect, at least are consistent in their incorrectness, the academic nonsense is an inconsistent internally contradictory nonsense. Nevertheless, paradoxically, unlike astrology, voodoo and clairvoyance, the academic absurdity is state-sponsored. Billions of taxpayer dollars and euro are squandered on academic absurdities, comprising activities involving Lorentz-transformation-based theories. Conversely, state-sponsorship of astrology, palm reading or removing of spells by an imam, is strictly denied. The denial to fund the latter with taxpayer money is fully justified, as is even more justified to deny such funding to the absurd science of today.


The Harm

Before presenting any technical arguments, it is very imposrtant 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. Therefore, some time will be spent on analyzing this devastating effect on society.

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 directly the scientific method in the most blatant way. It pretends to be a theory in need of experimental confirmation, but such experiments are impossible to exist—the alleged theory, relativity, is internally contradictory. It is an absurdity and therefore can give rise to nothing experimentally testable. 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 and 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 fanfares. 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 intellectually degrading it 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 in ostensibly 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. 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 “Glass Bead Game” with no basis in reality nor of any sense or use to anyone, even to itself, except for the participants in that dishonest game 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.

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 said to have found in their labs, not even realizing that such made-up fun, in fact, takes away from them the real joy of life. The more extraordinary and unlikely, the more catching it is to the public attention. Science turned into Hollywood make-believe, not only desensitized, as viewing real war as a computer game, but going even further, smashing all logical connections delineating the possible from the fantastic.

Even the movies in the later years began crossing the line of the viewable by losing the measure when it comes to the extent of imagination they rely on. Although movies, as a popular hybrid art form, are expected to be freer in choosing wider contrivances for artistic expression than the restrictions the natural world demands, they began crossing the line of the viewable. Now, assisted by the new computer technology in filmmaking, the plot as a whole and the individual actions began to allow the characters to defy all possible constraints. This already leaves the territories of the aesthetic and is progressively making the movies uninteresting to watch. When anything possible 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 to anyone. In order to keep the interest, the viewer needs to feel that there is at least some resistance from the impossible, a resistance by at least some natural barriers which cannot be overcome. Without such resistance there is no plot. Otherwise, the unbridled imagination, permitting any outcome at all, 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 the 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 constrains of its absolute truths, the laws of nature, logic and reason, all of which are gathered under the term scientific method. If that is not understood, scientific research has to do with science only in words. Science, which has forgotten its goals and responsibilities, is converted into lenten, jejune entertainment and a job scheme for slyboots, especially through utilizing corrupt peer-review for that purpose. Relativity, with its impossible claims that do not even follow from it, enslaves the by-now-poisoned imagination of the wide-eyed enthusiasts and soon they cannot get enough of it, just like a heroin addict needs the fix. Try to be rational and the withdrawal syndrome kicks in as powerfully as when trying to take away the heroin from the addict.

A society inhabited by messed up individuals, perceiving nature not by the laws that govern it, but by imposed cartoon superhero characters, such as the author of relativity, has no future. The national interest of such a society is damaged irreparably.

One can only imagine what danger to the very existence of the nation it would be if the irrational, hallucinatory ideas of “theories”, such as relativity, penetrate into the military, the intelligence and all that binds the nation together. So far, it is only a lucky circumstance 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 key 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 to even cheapen 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 on 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 on 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, at that on such a massive scale, can exist in a vacuum, unaffecting, leaving alone, society. It seems that one does not need spectacles to see that such a connection exists.



Demise of Science—Threat to Survival of Western Civilization

To further perceive the threat, 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, even if the guidance of science is proper and technology does benefit from it. Science and technology are two distinct human activities. Science is not just another name for technology, as is the usual insinuation imposed by the media on public opinion. They are different. Science and technology differ in their goals. Science does not seek direct practical application of its achievements, as technology does, but sets the stage for the general understanding of how nature works. Without such understanding, 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. 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, 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 to fund 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 pure 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, lowering its quality, as a rule.

This is the breeding ground for bad science, born out of despair, in its striving for survival, to present 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 of absurdities in science through vast public financing.

It is true also that, aside from technology being immune to the destruction of the fundamentals of science, the scientific activities themselves may never be affected by the wrong understanding of, say, motion, time and space. Likewise, one notes that whether or not it is wrongly understood that the earth is the center of the universe also has no bearing on most of the everyday scientific activity, to say nothing of its bearing on the advances in technology, which, as was mentioned, could be immune from the influences of science in their daily routine.

Technology occasionally benefits from a scientific achievement—technology looks around for practically beneficial outcomes, including if they come from science, although science itself never has such goal. Below, when talking about the practicality of America, it will be noted how the social climate of America, conducive to technical innovations, brought into mind-boggling prominence obscure dry academic ideas, created by the academic thought of Europe.

One thing, however, technology would never appropriate are absurdities, even if they come from something 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 plunder 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 a non-intuitive approach of a genius.

On the other hand, 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 is affected when basic scientific notions are confused. Therefore, even pragmatically speaking, given that practicality is attributed as a goal only to technology, which can develop full well without a trace of new knowledge production, in the territory of science, in the long run, wrong science as a factor affecting society is not as innocuous as it might be thought of for the life of society. A scientist is not alone in this world and developments of the world do not end with his or her own studies. 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 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.

Here lies the answer to the question asking, 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 feel the harm 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 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 by itself, allows the individual to be more efficient even in his or her utilitarian needs and pursuit of happiness. Generation of new scientific knowledge is not something tangible which 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. Thus, 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 way of thinking and comprehending 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 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 it is only that, there would be only emptiness all around. Imagine a beautiful resort with no people around, only robots which serve you. Would not that be a bland existence? 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.

Thus, 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 the fundamental science of today, has bad repercussions on the general life of society. 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 all so-called social sciences. How can one expect a society to function well when its guiding ideas are occupied by confusion? One cannot.

By the way, the real generator of insanity known as quantum mechanics, its beginning flawed birthmark, was uncovered by C. l. Noninski in his crucial 1964 paper, analyzing Planck's 1901 founding paper. C. I. Noninski uncovered the physical nature of the flaws, which led to the introduction in 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 and this is where quantum mechanics must return to. C. I. Noninski also provided a derivation of the blackbody radiation formula by correctly applying classical physics. Later on, V. C. Noninski, the author of this book, was able to pinpoint the formal mathematical inadequacy of quantum mechanics, especially the mathematical, respectively physical inconsistency of the main postulates of quantum mechanics. However, the easiest, most categorical and in-your-face demonstration of the absurdity, when it comes to the fundamentals of contemporary physics, this author was able to show in the case of relativity.

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 its 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, promoted as scientific authorities, foist notion on society as truths, contradicting even absolute truths. Promoting as scientifically sound a “theory”, which derives, in effect, that one equals two, as relativity does, and, furthermore, falsely claiming that there exists experimental proof for the validity of such “theory”, demoralizes society. “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.

Paradoxically, in view of the poor state of science, leading the world into the hopeless abyss of the irrational, the contemporary world, in a way, is saved by not having science directly connected to its development. Technology has been delegated by society to serve as the indirect link and the avatar for science in the matters of societal advance. The surrogate science of today, however, may not survive for long. 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 anyone can, at this very moment, unequivocally establish at once that relativity is absurdity and oust it from science?

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. Recall, uniform translatory motion is motion at constant velocity; motion without acceleration; it is the state of an inertial system. Again, never forget that coordinate systems k and K are in uniform translatory motion.

2) On the contrary, the same law of motion referred to coordinate system K (left-side system of equations) becomes, instead, a different law of motion (right-side system of equations), again referred to the same system K, after the Lorentz transformations are applied. These two different laws of motion pertain to one and the same body, which, absurdly, is to obey two different laws of motion at the same time.

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 inconspicuously 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 holds together the whole insidious edifice of contemporary physics. This hard to notice problem, let alone pay attention to 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 “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, the 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 conesquences not only for science but also for society as a whole.

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 and freeing science from it is of singular significance to the world, on par, if not greater, than the establishment of heliocentrism. The shown calamitous clash of the Lorentz transformations with physical reality, provides a final answer to the destruction of the most basic notions of science—time and space. The Lorentz transformations and nothing else gives rise to the insanity, occupying science for over a century, claiming that space can be curved and time can have different rate, depending on the coordinate system in which it is measured. Now, with the above catastrophic proof that the application of the Lorentz transformations leads to fatal disagreement with reality, the correct understanding that only the Cartesian space is the real physical space and that time runs at the same rate, independent of the coordinate system in which it is measured, marks its unquestionable, 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, deciding the fate of the 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 tenous but actually singularly dramatic discovery.

Relativity in effect derives that one equals two, 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.

To repeat, what is shown here, is one of the most brazen absurdities science has ever seen in its history. At that, it has been promulgated to incredible prominence as the work of genius, stimulating further barren activities, which, on 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 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.

The culprit for the above catastrophe is the Lorentz transformations. 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 later in the chapter), which makes them also mathematically incorrect, in addition to their lack of physical meaning. Relativity, however, is the easiest in-your-face way to demonstrate the non-physicality of the Lorentz transformations.

The willingness of the author of relativity to capitalize on the clear absurdity brought about by the Lorentz transformations is stunning. Thus, some may like to entertain themselves a little more with this incredibly low-quality thinking, elevated to the skies as the ultimate creation of a genius. In pages 52 and 53 the author will not blink an eye when he derives exactly the opposite of what he pontificates.

Indeed “[e]vidently the two systems of equations found for system k must express exactly the same thing”, says the author of relativity. However, it is seen most clearly that the two systems of equations found by the author of relativity for system k unambiguously do not express the same thing at all—the most glaring difference is that the left-side system of equations found for system k contains velocity , while the right-side system of equations also written in 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 Maxwel-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 contain velocity , while the “the Maxwel-Hertz equations for system K” do not contain velocity .

The author minds not these clear facts and goes ahead with what he has conivingly pronounced as equal. As a result, he makes equal two unequal quantities—one function of velocity , the other not function of velocity —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?

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. 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 that illegitimate affecting of the law, the reader does not even need to know what exact law that is. Count the physical parameters. Looking at page 62 one sees that in the first line of the system of equations referring to k, the number of parameters is five, while the number of parameters in the first line of the system of equations referring to K is six, if we count the coefficient as one parameter—the second expression is affected due to the Lorentz transformations, in contradiction with the principle of relativity, adopted as the definition, as the first postulate, of relativity. This blatant discrepancy can be seen by anyone. No need to be a scientist or some great sage, to be able to see with one's own eyes this difference, in violation of the definition of the theory.

A Benign Exercise, Not Requiring Great Effort
Although overexplaining sometimes may cause more harm than good, especially in the case presented here, whereby what has already been shown suffices for a categorical unequivocal overthrowing of relativity and all Lorentz-transformations-based theories, never to be heard from again, some may find more explanation useful. Here is an exercise to further convince oneself, in even more concrete technical terms, of the outrageously brazen presenting of relativity as something other than sheer nonsense. This exercise is geared specifically toward those more inquisitive readers who have not had the chance to study maths in slightly more depth, especially those who have not taken calculus. Clearly, this detailed explanation could be skipped. It is obvious to those who have had some exposure to maths.

Let us begin. The crucial criterion for relativity to make sense is for it to abide by its first postulate, a.k.a. the principle of relativity. The principle of relativity, as also explained in another part of the book, reflects the crucial discovery by Galileo that, contrary to what Aristotle thought, there is one special type of motion, which, curiously, is not motion at all. This special type of motion is called uniform translatory motion (motion at constant velocity; motion without acceleration; the state of an inertial system). Therefore, most notably, uniform translatory motion is akin to rest, despite the word “motion”, present in its name. This type of motion is not operative; that is, it cannot be felt, neither can it be detected by any physical experiment. Thus, if two coordinate systems are in uniform translatory motion, any physical law referred to (written in; seen from) one of the systems is not affected if this same physical law is referred to (written in; seen from) the other of these two systems in uniform translatory motion—when a coordinate system is in uniform translatory motion with respect to another coordinate system; that is, when the coordinate system is an inertial system, there is, as said, no physical experiment that can be performed that would indicate if that system is moving or is at rest with respect to the other coordinate system. These two coordinate systems, being in that particular state of motion with respect to each other, behave as if they are at rest with each other. Hence, the principle of relativity—what is in one of these systems is exactly the same in the other system. Thus, relativity is oneness, identicalness, and does not depend on the point of view; that is, 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 and when referred to (seen from, written in) the other 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, 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 much 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 resective 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 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 parts 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. The Lorentz transformations have illegitimately affected the physical law when it is referred to coordinate system K. This 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 k and K; that is, the principle of relativity mandates that at least the number of the physical quantities should stay the same.

As we see, 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 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 diffrence in law referring to K in these two different states of K would seem justified—the electron in K would then seem to be in two different states and, therefore, would obey two different laws of motion. However, according to the principle of relativity, K at rest with k, and K in relative translatory motion with respect to k, is in exactly the same state. According to the principle of relativity, uniform translatory motion is akin to rest. No physical law referred to (written in, seen from) k is affected when this same law is referred to (written in, seen from) K, independent of whether K is at rest with k or K is in uniform translatory motion with respect to k.

Doing science by deception 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. I have specially drawn double arrows, showing right away that what is one single system of equations referring to (corresponding to; written in) the coordinate system denoted by lower case k, becomes two different equations referring to (corresponding to; written in) 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.

The above, which I suddenly discovered, by the way, gives me the unquestionable authority, more than any official recognition whatsoever, to write this book posing these unusual, unheard of claims, that today's science is pummeled by nonsense. This now is clear as a sunny day. However, many will 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 postulate, when it derives absurdities, that theory is no more, ergo nothing can ever follow from it, let alone a great achievement. Anything that has relativity at its basis and, more specifically, anything that has the Lorentz transformations at its basis, is absurdity and nothing other than that. It has no place in science, claims that great achievements have come from it being brazen lies, and funding any research based on it with billions of taxpayer dollars or euro is a crime against humanity.

Digging deeper into the real heart of the problem, trying to pinpoint that singular real generator so hard to pinpoint, the real kernel of the trouble in physics, artificially mired in complexities, one astonishingly discovers that the culprit 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. Here goes:

The main problem in that so-called “theory”, referred to here 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 that, unlike Aristotle, considering all motion to be operative; i.e., to be felt, 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 have motion, a body must experience also 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.

There is no wonder that Newton's first law talks about rest on par with the 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, calling these three laws, laws of motion, puts the second and the third in contradiction with the first law—the first law excludes motion if the force is compensated, as it is in the third, which is illustrated by the second law. The three Newton's laws in question are correct laws but they are laws of rest, not laws of motion, as usually presented. Discussing this is not the subject of the current text. It is mentioned in passing, and its further analysis will be postponed for some future time. Only as a heads-up, it would probably be worth mentioning here also that Newton's second law only describes the temporal characteristic of the force, and that is its static aspect. Force also has a spatial characteristic which must be added to the temporal characteristic of the force for a full description of the concept of force. The spatial characteristic is connected with the change of velocity of the free body under the action of the force, thus signifying that the free body at hand is in motion.

Some sort of a 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, although rigorous enough, for everyone to understand, 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 is that simple when they have been told all their lives that it is so complex that only a few people in the world are able to comprehend. Students at the beginning of the course seem to hardly believe the instructor, even when the instructor tells them that, say, chemistry is difficult because it is simple. There is always a feeling in the student, building an unjustified barrier to smoother comprehension, that the professor is not telling him or her everything, having digested the material to fit within the academic hour. Diligent student grasps eventually, upon the completion of the course, that such perception in most cases is deceptive 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 notion of motion when incepting the theory of relativity, has confused the author of relativity to use 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) 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.

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.

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 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.

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. Therefore said moving clocks are 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 the absurdity stemming from the Lorentz transformations, that the magnitude of a coordinate in a given coordinate system should depend, according to these transformations, on the motion of a coordinate system external to the 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 coordinate system he resides in, and that external coordinate system is in notion, then 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, 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 moving coordinate systems. If we are deprived from having such knowledge, then the observed body will have one only length. It is the Lorentz transformations to blame for arriving at such insanity.

It should be noted that the above a\example was given for a little intertainment. The Lorentz transformators 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 is an overwhelming number of similar thought gymnastics examples stimulated by something so inconsequential, as relativity is. One can practically never be able to encounter in science opportunities such as the one provided by relativity that could offer this kind of mild, albeit silly, fun.

What was said so far is more than enough for the theory of relativity to never be mentioned again in any scientific context and discourse.

Over and above that violation of the principle of relativity by using the Lorentz transformations, which in itself is enough to invalidate relativity, is the incredible mockery by the relativity author of the reader's intelligence by having the nerve to equate two clearly non-equal quantities, 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 and the most stunning thing is that the world approves of it, loves it, and gladly showers it with unheard of amounts of money, incomparable to any money spent on any decent scientific pursuit.

Thus, a major societal problem, allowing for such travesty of science to persist unobstructed, is that no one feels having any use for uncovering that sort of damaged thinking. No political party, no ideological center, let alone entertainment industry, has any interest whatsoever in denouncing this type of outrageous falsity. To the latter group it sounds more like destroying their fun. Destroying their fun they perceive as the worst offense, worse than any lie or manipulation of which they can be the victim.

Paradoxically, even the fact that billions of dollars are being wasted on nonsense, has no effect on them, even on the politicians, responsible for distributing the wealth of the country amassed by taxing the population. Thus, while entertainers reflect only what they have been told, politicians are in on this deceptive presentation of absurdity as science. They are funding it, lest they are ready to part with the comfortable life of a politician and the feeling of power that goes with it. What will 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, comprehending themselves as scientists and the “day” the boy is having, costs the taxpayer many billions of dollars.

Enclosed in their bubble, formed by tricking the taxpayer, it is made so that it is for these sinister participants in that activity, deceptively called science, to decide what they will do or will not do, what they would ascribe to or would reject, no matter whether or not it makes sense and no matter whether or not the thinking of those outside the bubble, who sponsor it and keep it alive, is of higher quality.

Notably, destruction of science occurs in some specific ways of deliberately instilling senselessness. Not just any senselessness qualifies for adoption by the world of science, controlled by the powers-that-be. To corner the market of ideas, these powers need a particular streamlining of the unreasonable. Anything else illogical, unreasonable is pronounced a creation of sick minds, a creation of crackpots. The pot calling the kettle black.

At this moment, it happened so that this type of lunacy, admitting sheer absurdity to be called science, is what those in the bubble consider legitimate with which to occupy themselves. However, it may happen so that at some other time some other asininity may appear to them to be more attractive to be called science, with which to spend their life. This new puerile decision will not make the sponsor blink. The bubble called science is a dedicated place where wasting money is presumed as taken for granted by the sponsor. It is perceived as mostly charity. Does anyone ask the homeless what the money handed out will he or she use it for? The American taxpayer, however, is not told that the tax money would be disbursed under such a presumption. Now, after this book, the taxpayer should know better ... dream on.

By the way, and that deserves to be repeated, the theory of relativity is supposed to mean 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. Thus, relativity ensures sameness when the physical law is seen from different points of view. In other words, nothing is relative, in a 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 its realm, 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, theory of relativity is an absurdity and therefore it does not prove anything anyway).

The significance of the discovery that relativity is absurdity, presented here, even if it is finally comprehended that it leads to rejection of relativity in its entirety, will still leave some with a sense of unease regarding its impact on society at large, since there are other instances in history, whereby society has been moving along, despite confusion in the fundamental matters of science. For example, even 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. Until, eventually, after categorical proof for the heliocentricity was discovered, the wrong idea about the earth being the center around which the planets revolve was found to stand in the way of the philosophical and ideological progress of humanity and was shed from science. The reason was not the least also utilitarian—wrong astronomy did not serve well the expanding empires, 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. As is discussed elsewhere in this text, relativity does not have this excuse, it is not historically innocent—its untruth, to say it mildly, can be detected on the spot, as unequivocally shown above. It invalidates itself and no experiments with any, be it primitive or advanced instruments, are needed to know that. The tragedy for society with relativity is that neither science nor practice has any need for it and that allows relativity to keep debasing science undisturbed and to waste society's resources for as long as needed by those milking society through it. In other words, if a party manages to install in society's mind that an absurdity such as relativity is worth spending taxpayer money on, then its politicians have no other choice but to follow suit and readily deplete the wealth of the nations on matters, which a sober society would be appaled to consider spending money on. This outpouring of waste can continue as long and as abundantly, as the managers of this evil spending can achieve.

Furthermore, aside from the practical harm, the irrational, the unreasonable, authoritatively promoted as something elevated as 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.

The impact of what is pronounced as science in the long run is enormous. The ideological background, the way people think about themselves and the world around and 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 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. To leave society in a quandary about such evident falsities is the greatest disservice there can be.

Hopefully, the above gives clarity to the mentioned sense of unease when it looks apparent to some that the confusion about science fundamentals does not affect the regular everyday life.

While, not long ago, before the information age, it was possible to maintain a state whereby the population is consoled by scientific bliss, feeling blasé, immaterial of whether something is true or false. Nowadays, vast sections of the population have access to alternative information sources and the clash between what is being presented to them as real and the actual, real truth, may happen sooner rather than later. Such clash, causing crashing of ideals and deeply ingrained perceptions due to indoctrination, is fatal for the societal integrity. It is a sure basis for its demise.

No future awaits society taken over by broken thinking. Therefore, a destruction of the finest fabric of public perception by widely imposed bogus “theories”, such as relativity, destroying the basis of thinking, is far more harmful to society, hence, to our existence on earth, than the popularly promoted dangers, such as those of, say, the human effect on climate change, the need for clean environment notwithstanding. Moreover, the human effect on climate change is prone to challenge because of inherent uncertainties characterizing the study of climate change. In general, speaking of climate, it is manipulative, serving only political purposes, to portray that unequivocal conclusions can be reached as a result of studies of the world's climate, which are studies mired in so much innate characteristic uncertainties.

In contrast, if one is really determined to prevent the demise of humanity, by preventing a fatal disturbance of its defining characteristic; namely, its intellect, and seeks a really unequivocal way for such prevention, one must look no further than the unequivocal proof shown here that relativity and its progeny are absurdities and have no place in science, which 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, if not greater, than the impact on the world of the perceived human effect of climate change, but its presence is the real imminent danger for survival of the world. Its destructive effect on thinking has become more and more evident in the past decade or so, plunging society into the nightmare of the unthinkable, and even implemented into the legislation of incredible ruinous lunacy, which, otherwise, without of the bizarre academic approval of the absurd, would belong only to mental institutions. Especially dangerous is the directing of the deteriorated thinking, lowered to 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 wider variety of biological issues, beyond the pure racism characterizing the original Nazi ideology.

Moreover, the resolution of that danger through the removal of relativity and progeny from science in its entirety, is accomplishable really conclusively by relying on the unequivocal proof presented in this book. This unequivocal proof must make authorities close their coffers for relativity and progeny, and “stimulate” that absurdity by funding it no more. Thus, once again, emphatically, healing from that menace is also clear-cut. It can be provided at once by a strong political will, determined to sever the source of the installed absurdities, relativity and progeny, from their vast public financial support. There is no other reason or agenda which causes such a call for severing public financial support, than the ultimate abuse of science by relativity and progeny, than the abuse of logic and reason by relativity and progeny, proved unequivocally here.

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. To do this, it cannot be repeated too many times, a very strong political will 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.


Public Confounding and Distrust of Science—Danger to National Security

Instilling falsities, 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 falseties also ultimately lead to distrust in science.

Undoubtedly, the inappropriate passing as solid science of widely advertised ideas, 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.

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 experiment in climate change studies is impossible, let alone repeating these experiments under controlled conditions, in order to establish their reproducibility and therefore 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 categorical 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 artefacts 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 artefact. Some of these alleged sciences are on their way to approach 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 this 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 secience per se. Such is the science of climate change as well, as mentioned.

There is, however, an important 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 cannot be snubbed in order to serve political purposes, if integrity of what comprises science is to be preserved.

In this regard, it is not to be forgotten that there are academics who also subscribe to the absulte validity of relativity and are competely blind to the dramatic falsity of relativity and progeny. This book shows that the academics who are blind to the absurdity of relativity and progeny, are wrong. Therefore, subscription to a view by an academic, or by no matter how many more academics and sage authorities, is not one bit of a measure or proof for the veracity of a claim.

Furthermore, 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. What is shown here is the ultimate scientific proof there could ever be, when it comes to a discovery in science. It happened so 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 be of such great magnitude of impact, engaging the entire humanity as a defrauded client.

To reinstate, the ultimate scientific proof of a claimed fact is when that fact can be seen directly in the pages of a paper, published in the archival scientific literature. This is the case presented in this book, establishing the catastrophic discrepancy between two derived formulae, a discrepancy, which contradicts the very definition of the theory and therefore invalidates relativity in its entirety. This is not only an extremely rare case of successful deductive reasoning in science, when it comes to making a decisive conclusion about a theory, mandating its overthrowing, fortunate for the process of scientific research (although unfortunate for the analyzed theory), but it also concerns a question of major world significance.

The mentioned destroyed understanding of what science and its attributes are, the confusion about the essence of scientific findings, is rampant. It affects all the public debates concerning not only the topic of 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. These conclusions may further turn into scientific laws characterizing the discipline, which delineate it from all other disciplines.

One discipline that is left alone in such public debates 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 the head. This book, however, dispels that toxic misunderstanding, and reveals that theoretical physics 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 can only be repaired, provided there is far-sighted political will for canceling such funding damaging society.

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 is, very fortunately, 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 unproductive banter, dimming, misdirecting and muddling armies of capable young minds, instead of applying these resources and time for benefit and progress. Youth massively is losing its ability to think. That degradation has its roots in the degradation of basic science, garbling such basic notions as time and space, induced by the beloved child of the propaganda, the absurd relativity.

The destructive effect of bogus “theories”, especially 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. Those, who might think that it is a stretch to perceive such 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 academics in the social sciences, who began, timidly in the nineteen sixties but later quite openly, advocating complete unruliness in science, with two exceptions, quantum mechanics and especially relativity, as the stalwarts of the unchanging collective consensual madness, coining the term paradigm, as the signifier of that misguided, out of place collective consensus in science. Thus, despite the advocated utter unruliness in science, the absurdity heralded by relativity was pronounced as a topic closed for criticism. It has become a hard and fast, unbreakabke 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, 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, 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.

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, if being the first to announce the perversion, if one decides to mimics in science what happened earlier in the visual arts, brought into the prominence of no less than the herald of the modern age; namely, the adopted end of the visual arts? 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 aesthetical 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.

Especially dangerous to society's health is the symbiotic entanglement of what appears as elements of scientific methodology, using besides a scientific lingo, also approaches such as, at times, advanced statistics or data-fitting, which, on the one hand, obviously are allowed to persist, despite method being besmirched and denied a place in science by the same manipulator who are using method to appear scientific, and, on the other hand, the manipulative political needs of certain elites. 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, beginning to exist alongside the other big mess; namely, the mentioned, already established as “proper”, absurd Lorentz-transformations-based “big” science. Popular science such as anthropogenic climate change, pronounced as science for public consumption, now exists together 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 inauspiciously looking little glitch in the pages of the paper that started that insanity.

When speaking about the violent side of this widely instilled 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, led also 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 manifestos of real-life terrorists, calling for revolutions 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 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 deal 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.

After nine-eleven 2001, the American society has become more alert toward 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 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.

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, when health and wellness issues are involved, 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.

The financial harm to society by these covert corporate battles, 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 helplessness in his or her natural tendency to seek the support of science. 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.

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, that all of yesterday's truths in science are disproved by some new truths of today; i.e., that science is no more.

Those who promote real science and are genuinely concerned about its proper standing in society should take every effort to make it clear that, on the contrary, there is firmly established knowledge in science and not every scientific truth is relative, doomed to be disposed of one day. Today, unlike the views held in the past, it is known that earth is not flat, resting on the backs of elephants, and that truthfully established scientific fact will never change, no matter how advanced the 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 that water in a puddle is wet and the Sun rises from the East. 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 encountered. 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 the scientific method requires it. 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 fact 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 has been also found incorrect 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 these disciplines rest on. 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. What is described in this paragraph briefly outlines the natural process of building knowledge in science.

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. Arrhenius' theory is not invalid because it defines bases in a limited fashion, only as species releasing hydroxide anion, while Bronsted-Lowry theory gives a wider definition of a base as a species capable of accepting a proton. Both thories are valid and lead to true conclusions, the latter being defined over a broader domain of application.

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 violated at the same time, as relativity absurdly does. 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. Relativity put forth in the twentieth century 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—a lowest of thes low class attempt to do physics. 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.

It may deceitfully appear that also the critique of relativity presented here, should fall under the same rubric of that 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.

In this context of discussing development and abandoning of existing ideas due to the developments of science, it again must be pointed out very strongly, that scientific thought has never encountered a “theory” of such low quality, as relativity. The methods of science need not at all be applied to relativity, because relativity disqualifies itself as having anything to do with science, prior to becoming a subject of scientific inquiry. Likewise, it does not require at all that there should be some special development of scientific thought, some special advancement of science or society, to understand that relativity is less than incorrect, that it is absurd, and must be abandoned. Neither does it require that the technology of experiment, the methods and instrumentation which science employs, must become more advanced, to detect its flawed nature. It is also not true that relativity is so superb and complicated but true, that only a few people in the world can understand it. Quite the contrary, as shown, relativity is absurdly incorrect on a very primitive and comprehensible level, with its simplistically fallacious claims, whose confused nature can be comprehended at once by any average person of sound mind.

Unlike the rest of science, where definitive overthrowing of wrong theories comes about as a result of the natural process of amassing more knowledge and perfecting the methods of acquiring that knowledge, relativity can be debunked on the spot, as unequivocally demonstrated above. It could, and must, have been debunked the minute it had been put forth because it is based on internal contradictions, easy to detect without any instrumentation or laboratory studies and experiments whatsoever.

Let us say it again. Science, in its entire history, has never experienced such an aberration, such an ambush by mediocre thinking, overtaking it on such a large scale, with such a negative impact on society, both financial and ideological, and at the same time so determinately protected, as relativity. This overtaking of society by plain meaninglessness is, in a way, worse than the Middle Ages, whose scientific underdevelopment had justification; it went along with the general primitivism of the entire society at that time. However, it is unfathomable how it came about today, with all the technology for information exchange in existence, the aberration called relativity is still allowed to see the light of day, overwhelmingly, at that. The methods of sustaining such a bogus creation in the new information age, an age, expected to free the mind and bring the truth more easily to the masses, deserve a special sociological study.

Alchemy, astrology, phrenology, numerology and eugenics have all been abandoned as pseudoscience but, in quite stark and hard to explain contrast, the propaganda machine continues to pounce on the population every day the absurd idea that there is some new counterintuitive view of time, space and gravity, alternative to classical understanding. This purportedly new view, presented as a new alternative to time, space and gravity, is as bogus as astrology, even worse, because astrology being wrong, is not at least self-contradictory. However, once again, unlike astrology, relativity, in contrast, is nevertheless very carefully guarded to appear legitimately in place in the public scientific agenda. At that, such falsity, as the ridiculous claiming the truthfulness of some new, esoteric understanding of time and space, respectively, the bogusness of the new gravity idea, is something which is so easy to spot and debunk as untrue, as shown here, that it boggles the mind what made it so durable as presence in physics.

It is significant to point out also, that it is ludicrous to conclude from the context of this writing that, because relativity is a disaster and must be removed from physics, therefore, since now-defunct-relativity was earlier proclaimed as the greatest science there is, science as such is dead. Relativity is not synonymous with science. Relativity is only a gross, never seen before aberration of science, from which science has to clean itself immediately. From the criticism expressed here, it does not at all follow that society has somehow advanced to a state to realize that science is obsolete, that science is gone forever and no corrections of bad science of today are possible, to restore its integrity. Quite the contrary. It is not science itself, the relevant, the honest science, that must be under attack. Rather, it is the meaninglessness, which some pass for science, but, in reality, is abuse of science, that must be criticized vigorously, and the bending of science be removed, freeing the path for real science. By removing it, I mean taking it away from science without substitution with anything else, at the same time allowing for those who like to deal with inanities of that kind to freely do so, but not call that science and make society pay for it. The bad science in question must be removed the way weed is removed from a wheat field, without substituting it with anything else. If someone finds use for the weed, he or she is welcome to enjoy it, but not confound it with the wheat, the metaphor used here for real, fundable science. Science has no use for any part of an internally contradictory theory, a prime example of which is relativity.

The problem, which those willing to correct matters face, is that the powers-that-be, which are foisting as legitimate the bad science such as relativity, 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 shadow of the “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 postuates of quantum mechanics and therefore there should be no characteristics of the so-called quantum world that cannot be derived from it. 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 and maintain its models. Abandoning the “theory” in question, referred to here by the sobriquet relativity, cannot occur without cosmology, string theories and the parts of astrophysics based on the absurd Lorentz transformations, experiencing complete demise and falling into oblivion.

Standing firm against the travesty of science brought in by the infestation of science by the bogus Lorentz transformations is not a simple matter and an occupation for the feeble in mind and character. However, this is the real test for the real scientist. The real scientist is recognized not by being docile and able to withstand the pressures of the wrong ideas, continuing to carry on studies as if these wrongs are invisible, but by actively opposing their perpetration.

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 particle whose reality does not follow from any physically viable theory and 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 annouce 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 text 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 to be still around. They do not have the wings of their own to fly and assert naturally their scientific character.

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 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 by 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 legitimate contribution in science and 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 are denied public funding as well.

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 call 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. Those are not matters of consensus among scientists. Real science does not work by consensus and voting. One may be right, while millions wrong. To obey the scientific method is not a matter of personal desire or personal taste of a scientist. Especially, when the scientist is to recognize unequivocal proof, such as the proof shown, that relativity is absurdity and must be removed from science without a trace.

No further pursuits make any sense, the least of which 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 wrong understanding that relativity can be experimentally confirmed, let alone that it has already been experimentally confirmed, are chronically popping-up in the mass media. Therefore, it must constantly be reminded until it sinks that—

  • 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 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 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”.

Take, for example, the CERN experiments, claiming to show proof of the validity of “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. It is these experiments, which should never have been performed and their follow-up bogus claims, as well as any reports on them printed in the so-called peer-reviewed archival press, that must be ignored outright and not the in-your-face unequivocal proof shown that relativity is absurdity, demonstrable at once. The situation today is exactly the opposite to what it must be and I prove it unequivocally with the arguments shown in this book.

This ignoring of the bad science in the centers such as CERN doing pseudoscience is justified not only based on the poor quality of the reported research, of their own lack of merits, inadequate details and claims, following from predominantly questionable approximations, as well as because of involving the unlikely cooperation of thousands of co-authors. Such experiments, aimed at proving validity of relativity and alleged progeny, must be ignored outright to begin with, mainly due to the fact that there is no scientific foundation for carrying out the experiments in question, let alone, even in principle, expecting anything whatsoever scientific from them. It is proved in this book that the “theory” behind them, relativity, invalidates its own self, prior to any further activity with regard to it. This conceptual inadequacy of CERN experiments is established by unwinding back to the fundamentals. This unwinding will inevitably lead to the bogus relativity and the non-physical Lorentz transformations, which accompany it. These fumbled fundamentals, especially exemplified by relativity, are to be immediately rejected as bad science instead. Relativity is bad science because it is not even non-physical; it is internally contradictory, as shown, which is akin to pure senselessness; that is, something out of the question to have anything to do with real science and scientific research. Bad science is a bad fundament of anything further, including uncalled for experiments. It defines nothing short of vapidity and waste of time and resources. This is an epidemic of nonsense engulfing the allegedly learned world and it is sustained only as a result of the public funding, which the forces destroying science are managing to deceptively extract from the unsuspecting taxpayer.

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 to shed 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, that one body in one system K obeys at the same time two different laws of motion; namely, and , as is clearly seen in the first figure shown above?).

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 and 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 relativity, being absurdity, cannot even derive. 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.

It also cannot be emphasized too strongly, that none of the other “big” science projects, such as the Human Genome Project, Human Brain Project or human effect on climate change, can compete with 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. Remove 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 resources on relativity and alleged progeny super-creations, will collapse under the weight of their own inadequacy. David, clothed in the form of inauspicious but crucial arguments, will crush mortally the glamorous Goliath of power, politics, vanity and everything else but science, embodied in CERN, the relativity-oriented projects of NASA or the US National Laboratories.

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, requires at least that absolute truths are recognized. Such absolute truths are, for example, the uniqueness of one single, unique body, an absolute truth most brazenly ignored in the so-called relativity, further ranging to 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).

Obeying logic, avoiding conflict with absolute truths, is so commonplace and fundamental to the scientific method, and its violation is so unfathomable, that it is always taken for granted and is never even discussed in the usual university science courses. Indeed, the first step when introducing the scientific method in a science course is always said to be the experimental verification of hypotheses, implying mindlessly that even gibberish is eligible to be the subject of experimentation. Taking advantage of that understandable lack of attention to what goes without saying, has allowed charlatans to foist subversively major absurdities, one of them discussed here, to insidiously penetrate physics.

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. 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 only has to 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 misled to think that scince amounts to solving problems. Thus, the student plugs in numbers in 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 for ever oblivious of 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, the verification of the logicality of what is to be ruminated upon, the student is deliberately prevented from promptly determining that such experiments are not even necessary, because 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 schools and universities, as well as in society at large. This is a never ending vicious cycle which needs to be interrupted because it brings society into a downward spiral of intellectual destruction.

Therefore, considering the sacrifice made by the precious heroes fighting for the scientific method throughout centuries, it would not be an exaggeration to consider the deliberate destruction of that method as akin to a crime against humanity.

To propose 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.

Although it would not matter how many times it is repeated that no conclusions at all, let alone any conclusions at all that can be tested experimentally, can follow from relativity because relativity is internally contradictory, it is an absurdity, and absurdity cannot give rise to any sensible outcome whatsoever, this will never sink in some people's minds. They will keep on ranting that there are innumerable confirmations. We nevertheless will keep that forlorn attempt to impel sanity, which I, for one, will continue till my last breath. Here goes:

An internally contradictory “theory”, such as relativity, cannot arrive at any conclusions whatsoever, although 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. How can it be emphasized more that through this document here, which proves clearly that none of the fantastic “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. Holler as much as you want in a room full of deaf and dumb that the building is set on fire, your only listeners will be the bugs in the cracks of the floor.

The scientific method, which is the only criterion for the quality of scientific work, and is the epitome of what constitutes civilization, cannot be substituted merely by pronouncements coming out from politically installed superstructures, 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 very 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.

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. Anyone's work must be judged on the basis of its own real scientific contributions and not by where it has been published or how many times it has been cited. 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.

Interesting in this connection, is the immediate expectation imposed on society that texts such as this have to 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. To repeat, as is usual in science, when progress occurs, when discoveries are made, one is right and millions are wrong. Community standards of consensus do not apply when truth is sought in science. Collectivist, paradigm-based science is science's demise. More on that paradigm-based science, which should be thought of only in pejorative sense, will be found in a separate book containing some notes on the general theory of science as well. On the contrary, truth in science prevails only through overcoming serious resistance most often against the will of the collective, sheepishly bound around a paradigm, symbolizing non-scientific opportunism. The more important the truth is for science, the greater the resistance by the collective and its pragmatic, job-scheme-driven interests.

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 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, which in the future will surely backfire, is that it 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.

How is, then, the everyday person to recognize what is worthy? There is also 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, as the authority, should be, and this is exactly where academia is committing the most unforgivable and sacrilegious crime against society—its irresponsible adoption of conceptual inadequacies and passing them as science. Furthermore, it is not even so impossible for the uninitiated to discern these inadequacies, provided they are translated for him or her into a form they can understand. This is what I have attempted to do in this book. 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, provided, as said, they allow to be properly translated in plain language. Fortunately, relativity provides ample room for such translation, because its ridiculous essence is less than childish. 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.

No wonder why society at large dismisses science as boring and 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 and this is what it finds served on the shelves of the kiosks or commercial bookstores, be it physics, baseball or a reality show.

Clearly, every genre in the tabloid culture has its peculiar ways of cooking and serving its menu of celebrities to the entertainment-hungry masses. Some are more honest, some are less. A baseball star at least is using visibly his muscles, a tennis star must climb the ladder of wins. Everyone sees the high-jump athlete overcoming a height the competitors fail to do. A little more obscure is the elevations of movie stars, rock-musicians and most of all, reality-show stars. Of all this panopticum of 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.

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 also of science he was. They were dictators, all right, but nowhere near as crucial and severe as those who have imposed the likes of 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 representative Dingell 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 of this much weight or scoring such a difficult goal, and therefore it is somehow convinced that it is what the authority decides; that is, 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. 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 and preventing competition, most of all the reasonable competition.

Let us also add here that 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.

A common objection to the 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 the 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

Society will not be affected by the disregarding of absolute truths, let alone by violating logic and admitting absurdities, especially labelling 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 soon on earth, but that joy of theirs, unscientific as it is, must not be funded with public money and, having no foundation in the natural reality, should be left solely to their own devices, as is in fact the practice of the government. That has always been the case with fortune-telling, chasing sprites and voodoo. No governmental funds are allocated for their support.

In stark contrast to this justified governmental refusal to fund with taxpayer money rigmarole, it has not been recognized as unacceptable for the government to fund not less of a rigmarole in the face of the absurd relativity and all Lorentz-transformations-based intellectually poisonous outgrowths, officially passing for theoretical physics. Abundant funding with taxpayer money of the theoretical physics travesty, tragically poisoned with inanities and absurd gibberish, is considered fully in the order of things, which it should not. 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 has not.

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 for absurdities to substitute genuine science, as the bad science discussed here does, 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.

It may occur to some tender poetic soul, uninitiated in questions scientific, and yet trying to lean on science and even pontificate, feeling secure by reading “what is in the paper” presented as science, that the faith in afterlife is as absurd and incredible as the 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 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 allegedly 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.

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. Let alone that the shown here succinct yet rigorous unequivocal arguments 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 only due to their publishing on the internet, there can be no excuse that the powers-that-be did not know about these arguments and proof.

Notice, it is not discussed here whether or not there is afterlife, leaving that question for pondering to theologians and people discussing faith, but is emphasized that now, knowing that relativity and progeny are absurdities; that is, that they cannot qualify as science, relativity and progeny also cannot serve as scientific justification for any other absurdity that happens to float in the world outside science.

The vice in such false analogies is that it obscures the fact that, while, for instance, the question for the reality of afterlife may be pondered and its proponents as well as its deniers can never conclusively prove to the other party their point of view, solely based on faith, the falsity of relativity and any of its progeny, is demonstrated unequivocally, without delay. This last fact must be restated as clearly as possible. These bogus theories, borne out of 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 by using an unequivocal inescapable direct visual way, conclusively in this text 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, must be removed from physics.

No need to mention even that relativity, over and above appropriating the non-physical Lorentz transformations, leading to a result which violates it own definition, but 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. Remove relativity and 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.

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 can be categorically debunked as bad science, 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.

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 the leaning on rational arguments, based on absolute truths and the scientific method with its logic and reason.

Debates such as those regarding climate change or even Darwin's evolution are 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. 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, 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 the 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 ubiquitousness of God, which also includes God's nonexistence, let alone that the creation itself of the creator-God, as said, will be forever wanting in its potential to be established scientifically. Thus, proponents of creation versus evolution may face even logical inconsistency arguments from the evolutionists opposing it. Again, the solution of the stalemate can only be that accepting God is only a matter of faith and once accepted, there can be no rational, logical arguments to accept the reality of God, but it is only a matter of faith. Success in finding arguments which can revert the believer and make him or her become a non-believer, is out of the question. Thus, the debate acquires a non-scientific hue, which is of no interest to a scientist and, therefore, ends right there without any advance whatsoever. Therefore, again, let faith be faith and science be science. They are incompatible and are completely unrelated human activities.

Furthermore, if still some debate is 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, artefacts or even to archives and some libraries, are inaccessible to just anyone willing to critically observe the data, and the only thing remaining for the general population is to take those who have had access to the factual evidence by their word. To say nothing of the fact that there is no reason to vow that what was found in the excavations is all there was during the pre-historic times of the world or even times that are close to the times we live in.

This is not the case with relativity, where, as seen, the unequivocal facts are directly and fully immediately accessible to anyone willing to observe them critically.

This stalemate between believers and non-believers much resembles the conflict between the airy assertions which the corrupt physicists present to the public; namely, that they have proved experimentally time-dilation, length-contraction, relativity of simultaneity, the Higgs boson, gravitational waves, black holes, dark matter and curvature of space, and those who express even well-intentioned desire to see the evidence personally. After the arguments and proof prsented 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 studyig these absurdities, some may be 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 would look like.

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. Can you imagine the extent of the damage by relativity, reaching the highest levels of government due to instilling falsities through relativity, which physics has never ever proved and which can never be proved at all, to begin with, as clearly seen by the argument shown above? Can you imagine the harm and damage the world has experienced having been led for eight years by someone so confused in his worldview at such a fundamental conceptual level? This accusation of confusion at the fundamental cognitive mangling of fundamental concepts, such as time and space, should be leveled also at the current world leaders. No sobering in recognition of the true nature of these fundamental concepts is anywhere to be seen at all, although the above arguments have been publicly available for over a decade and 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. 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, 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, must straighten out their thinking regarding the basic notions of cognition such as time, space and motion.

There is no better opportunity for this intellectual healing to occur but 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 cancelling the humungous public funding of the destroyed theoretical physics.

As a general conclusion, it is to be strongly emphasized that, beyond any rational objection, in no debate, especially regarding any of the widely promoted global science policies, can anyone ever produce direct evidence of the quality and unequivocality of the arguments shown above, mandating removal from science of relativity and progeny.

Aside from the fact that, as said, the assertions that the Lorentz-transformations-based physics is not only science, but is a science of extraordinary level of achievement, can be proven immediately to be false; at that, definitively, solely by analyzing their background, by just inspecting the founding 1905 relativity paper, published in Annalen der Physik and clearly pinpointing the exact catastrophic error, as is done in this book, without even doing any experiments in facilities where, on top, access is denied. Denying of access to facilities cannot save any of the Lotentz-transformation-based theories from unequivocal debunking, from being unequivocally determined as bogus. The general public, even most of the experts, the same way as the above-mentioned students, do not have access to the multibillion dollar infrastructures, claimed to have produced experimental results sustaining those airy claims. Such access, although not even necessary for the unequivocal observation made, that the Lorentz-transformations-based physics is absurdity, would additionally further reveal the incredibly low quality of the scientific research conducted at these intellectually empty facilities. The establishment of this low quality research will be left to the respective authorities, who must inspect in concrete terms and figures for what the billions in taxpayer money is being wasted. This writing 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.

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 physicists in question, 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. Although the corrupt physicists will do anything to maintain constancy of funding for their falsities, these falsities inherently lack the natural potential allowing for 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 and it is only the engineering aspects that remain to be sorted out. 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 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, humanity is always stalling.

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 and they will vanish, collapsing under the weight of the phony 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 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, the “Après moi, le déluge” (“After me, the deluge”) is the attitude. Society should mature enough sooner rather than later to disallow such attitude harming it.

Clearly, as mentioned, there is also a problem with unjustified prolonging of viable mega-projects such as hot fusion, to keep funding from dispersing. However, despite the fact that dealing with their deliberate holding back is far more complicated, that question, as already stated, 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 principle 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. To say nothing of the fact that the mass-energy relationship E = mc2 has nothing to do with relativity, despite the vigorous propaganda that it does (the mass-energy relationship E = mc2 is found in classical physics; Ampere's law expresses that relationship, as well as the expanded Newton's second law; this is discussed elsewhere). Said mass-energy relationship cannot even be derived by relativity. This is the crucial difference between the current science wars regarding climate change, evolution vs. creationism, effect of GMO, alternative medicine and vaccination controversy on the one hand and the critique of the waste, connected with relativity. 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 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.


Abuse of Necessary Conservatism

The necessary conservatism in science is severely abused by certain governing forces in society, thus leading scientific thought astray for over a century, causing irreparable harm to society. This harm is so serious 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 science, in favor of pursuits devoted to spiritual matters. 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 funtioning, 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 society in the right direction, leading to true advancement, society, aided by technology, found itself as the winner amongst the alternative civilizations. Notice, technology alone, without the guiding hand of science, ensuring correct worldview, would not have been able to lead civilization to this shining victorious path.

Nowadays, Western societies have fallen into the dead-end of complacency and factual neglect of the real scientific truth, ensured by the scientific method. Governing forces of society have given in to the paltry needs of the population at large to seek entertainment, to seek the fantastic, the outlandish, esoteric in every piece of information, especially concerning science. Fundamentals of science are neglected as not interesting, and are presented as a closed subject of discussion. Infinity, distant worlds, non-scientific hallucinations such as cosmology, the absurd Lorentz-transformations-based parts of astrophysics, astrology and clairvoyance are more engulfing the public mind, stimulating the publishing of innumerable books and staging an inane number of Hollywood-style productions. In this dangerous ideological state of affairs, 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.


Taxpayer Money—Overwhelmingly Used to Fund Bad Science

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 in the funding governmental bodies of the world. Nowadays, the organized effort to extract money for sustaining quasi-scientific infrastructures, dealing with outright absurd projects, has reached near perfection.

For instance, as has already been mentioned 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.

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, if, according to them, it is to be thought of as relevant science, as having some inevitable practical side to these achievements, and in that case it should inevitably appear to the public as a scientific enterprise and not only as a lofty intellectual pursuit. This is what they are paid to do, along with such an approach being, to many of them, also their misguided personal understanding, to please the public and to condition it so that it will not resist spending for what it is told is science. Thus, anything written in the mass media about science has the hidden agenda to justify spending, primarily taxpayer money, and to guarantee primarily to the US Congress, as the leading sponsor controlling the taxpayer money, as well as to the private investors, reassured by that leading sponsor, that whatever is talked about in the text is worthy of funding. The internal logic of science does not matter. The real discoveries, neither made to satisfy some utilitarian goal, nor, in the general case, having anything practical to them, may stay moot for the sponsor, if they do not serve the hidden agenda. Unless, the science writers and journalists manage to twist matters in such a way that even an 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 of “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 anything else made up and put on paper. Science is beyond the control of anyone outside of its territories now protecting absurdities, in addition to what is the natural protection of logic and reason, which science is called to upkeep.

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 concerns also from the point of view of a society, which on the other hand 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.

Thus, it is not that there is, or should ever be, a ban in principle for funding of projects on pure science. The legitimate, real pure science, honoring scientific method, must be supported by society with all its heart and material potential. The whole problem is that the multibillion dollar and euro amounts, shed on whatever the recipients call science, is, in fact, no science at all but is deceit disguised as science. It is corruptly hermetic to scrutiny, solely determined to contain science in certain self-serving limits, delineated by forces foreign to science and scientific method, aimed at only serving their extra-scientific goals.

The excuse sometimes is that, some of these projects are directed by private institutions and foundations and interference by the government in what they fund is not proper, even if the object of funding are absurdities. However, these private organizations would not be able to fund multibillion dollar and euro projects purely on their own and they resort to private-pubic 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 magic key, relativity, which they all are said to arrive from.

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. Firstly, 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 has, no matter how far-reaching, practical application in mind, contrary to what real science sets as its goal—only production of knowledge with no practical, applied ends.

Not to say that these corporate labs will never set themselves to challenge basic doctrines of what is officially proclaimed as science, such as conservation of energy, relativity or quantum mechanics, even if these doctrines deserve challenging. Rather, these R&D facilities are occupied with studying what they themselves perceive as fundamental in areas such as solid state physics or new energy sources, to name a few. By limiting themselves to the mentioned established basic doctrines, this research is not always of the highest scientific quality either. Such narrow-mindedness dooms them to only menial advances, if not guaranteed failures, if they ever conduct anything resembling real fundamental research, given that the accepted fundamental doctrines are flawed, as they are. Furthermore, if the corporations do not follow the “party line”, these corporations risk ostracizing and severe punishment by the zealous competitors, giving these competitors one more argument against in the market battle. Thus, even the corporations with most progressive tendencies find themselves in a box, stuck with what has been known, stuck almost exclusively in technology. Challenging the status quo, even if justified, is the direct way even for the large corporations to become small and then disappear.

While, unlike private corporations, government is willing to back up financially the efforts in pure science, that financial backup has fallen a 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 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 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 control over NAS' claimed scientific activity and decisions. The common understanding is that the US Congress is not competent to assess the scientific merits because of lack of expertise. Thus, NAS is in effect more powerful than the US Congress itself, telling it what to do. This, however, must change when it comes to major scientific issues of national and world importance, especially, when these issues can be translated so that anyone, even people who are not practicing science, can understand rigorously, as is the case with the issues presented here, unequivocally proving the absurdity of relativity and its Lorentz-transformations-based progeny. Any occupation with such absurdities is clearly ineligible for public funding. This book has presented a glaring example of such a major area of science, unjustifiably exuberantly funded by the US Congress, which 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.

As a matter of fact, such additional layer of accountability, to use the term coined by the former US Representative Lamar Smith, must become a part of the Science Integrity Act, now under consideration in the US Congress, especially 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, and even more so, when the argument against such major funding is digested and reduced without losing rigor, to a form understandable with minimal effort by anyone of sound mind, independent of whether or not he or she practices science. Getting ahead in our society in no way means that it should use as a basis encapsulated nonsense, deviously pronounced as science.

We should move ahead and not dwell into what has already been done, one may occasionally hear in the corridors of the US Congress, echoing the very active defenders of the status quo, favoring the 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. Armed with the easy to comprehend argument provided here, congresspersons need not have such fear; on the contrary, the proponents of absurdities should dread embarrassment due to being exposed. Do not touch what is being funded, is the devious message. Look ahead and do not turn back, rendering everything that has already been pronounced as science untouchable and a matter closed for discussion, even if it is a catastrophic absurdity. Such 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 Aristotle's worldview encapsulated to disallow the appearance of Copernicus and Galileo, nor was Proust's view ossified 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.

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 and therefore any “theory”, especially exemplified, as seen, by relativity, deriving in effect such an equality, and everything else based on such “theory”, must not receive public funding. It should be recognized that there are truths which do not need the approval of proclaimed scientists and their corrupt peer-review. Is what I said 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?

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 and not giving science a chance.

There is an ongoing stream of substantial funding, the highest of any other funded science project, going towards studies based on the bad science of relativity and its absurd Lorentz-transformations-based falsely alleged progeny; although, as seen above, no scientist's opinion, no expert's opinion, is required to know that relativity is beyond wrong and deserves no public funding. As made clear elsewhere in this text, the US Congress, through cancelling 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, would play right into the hands of these well-endowed charlatans, and would contribute to their further entrenchment in the body of science, deepening their ill control and destruction of the nation's intellect.

It has to be established that the US Congress can act on its own on proposals violating absolute truths and deny funding of such proposals. Climate change and theory of evolution can be disputed endlessly, the reasons for their funding may be discussed but doubting absolute truths, let alone the outright violating of absolute truths, as relativity does, cannot and must not be put out for discussion and this is where the US Congress can act decisively and categorically.

Let me repeat, the US Congress today is completely isolated from having any say, when funding of fundamental research is concerned, and its role is reduced to being a mere cash cow. There, however, is a caveat to this. It may appear that this is the case even when there is clear and unequivocal proof that the nature of fundamental studies, although entirely scientifically viable (and not absurd, as is relativity), excludes, in principle, the expectation for the practical application of their results. This is OK, 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 in a form so simple, yet rigorous, which the US Congress can fully understand on its own, requiring calling no external experts, who are without exception corrupt, that what it is funding with billions of dollars is sheer absurdity, the US Congress must act to stop such funding. Especially when the matter is of major national and international importance, as is relativity, unequivocally uncovered here to be nothing else but absurdity. It is not unusual for the US Congress to deny funding. There are such limits set. As was said, the US Congress does not fund, for instance, astrology, alchemy, phrenology or numerology, to name a few of the non-scientific occupations, despite the fact that there are people who like them. The same denial for funding, at that with even greater justification, 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.

I remember how disappointed my colleague was when the building of the Superconductor Supercollider in the Texas desert was cancelled by the US Congress, 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. I see now that funding bad science, such as the “science” behind the collider in question, 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 and that is an even more worthy humanistic goal.

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 text, 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 brainwashing, which has occurred amongst the congresspersons and their staff, that the scientific issue raised should have an external corroboration, is a ruse of the protectors of the absurd status quo. As repeatedly said, the congresspersons themselves are fully capable, without the intrusion of external so-called experts, who are without exception corrupt, to see with their own eyes and judge on their own, personally, that such absurd pseudoscience as the one now funded by the US Congress with billions of dollars, must be funded no more. Cancelling public funding is the most, if not the only, efficient way to extract the sting from the entity, claimed to be science, fooling everyone today, torturing and intellectually destroying our society.

It cannot be repeated too many times that, when it comes to public funding of science, an additional layer of accountability, instituted in the US Congress, is mandatory, using the terminology of former Congressman Lamar Smith. The way academia should not consider itself above law, the same way academia should not consider itelf abofe truth and should be held accountable for disregarding reason. Academia is only a servant of truth and not a truth-creator. At present, especially in physics, the peer-review system adacemia 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 andthe way it is reached, relying on logic and reason, using the scientific method. In physics today “peer-review” is another way of saying “corruption”. Therefore, it 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.

So far, such additional layer of accountability, which would ensure that academia fulfill its obligations to sustain reason and truth, are 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 no money and effort should be spent to follow that road. So far, the possibility to explain this properly to society, is completely blocked. Funding of projects merely based on models which do not represent reality but are self-serving, falsely presented as models of physical reality, 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 of 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 cancelling the funding of absurdities, and in this way helping it to rid itself of the pseudoscientific menace discussed above, is not destruction of science but, on the contrary, it is helping to restore real science.

Notably, it is not that funding should only go for clear cut outcomes and 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 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 funding projects having nothing to do with real science. Society should feel no regret if this type of funding is eliminated altogether. Every sensible concerned scientist should strive for the increase of funding for scientifically sound fundamental research, while at the same time this same concerned scientist should apply every effort for the elimination of funding for obvious bad science, such as relativity, evident from the outset to be absurd, but which is protected by corrupt peer-review.


Why Hasn't It Been Pinpointed and Corrected?

Such deliberate destruction of science by nothing less than its very core; namely, the defiance of most elementary requirements of logic, as in relativity, is, as said, without analog in the history of science. Then, how could such an absurdity ever remain unnoticed and not be promptly dealt with?

Firstly, this is due to the alredy hinted deliberately enhanced additional hermeticity to the otherwise natural hermetic essence of academia and its ruling organ—the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)—additionally isolated from society in its lofty, airy castle of pursuit, which is perceived as highly intellectual and correct only because it takes place in the Academy, independent of how, in fact, anti-intellectual and absurd it might really be. Thus, academia reigns entirely over society intellectually. Society outside academia has no control over the frivolous dictate of the corrupt academia. The selfish politicians know not to ostracize academia, especially by trying to reform how society interracts with academia, because, although subtle, the political pain they will suffer is inevitable and tangible sooner rather than later. To deal with the rogue science is not like dealing with any rogue. The retaliation the quasi-scientific hoaxters inflict on their perceived enemies are subtle but deep and sometimes untraceably mean and once one 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.

Real 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. Thus, malfunctioning academia is practically irreparable both from within and from without. Change, other than through direct canceling externally 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 its ruling structures as a result of natural causes. Such hope for change is slim because 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, and for the foreseeable future the world will not change much in this respect. Internal coup d'états in academia to be taken over by the forces of reason and genuine science are extremely unlikely, and the honest have to figure out by themselves how to carry on with their love and devotion to real science. 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. One may speculate that this had been the case in all of history, when, occasionally, someone's curiosity, talents and foresight had happened to fall into the focus of the interests of the existing powers-that-be, causing him or her to be shot into historical prominence. The right person, in the right place, at the right time, as the saying goes. This is how the Galileos and the Newtons of the world have found their place in textbooks. Clearly, unfortunately, history has not always been so lucky—the powers-that-be of today have found it important to bring into prominence a creation, a “theory” such as relativity, of intellectual standards below anything known so far.

A curious attribute in the USA, installed to protect it 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 role of its ruling organ, the National Academy of Sciences, thinking of it as one of those common types of a learned society in which members pay membership fees and is more of a professional or trade organization rather than a center of power in the sciences, despite its name.

It is notable, that in the very American spirit of public-private partnerships, the National Academy of Sciences is ostensibly a private enterprise but it has the decisive impact on the government on matters scientific, the government, as said, having 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 (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)—is supposed to police itself, to maintain the highest integrity. At the same time, it is a vulnerable monarchical creation, depending on the will, determined by the interests of the 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, the intellectual control.

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 wordly 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 the real dominance is the dominance in the intellectual matters and some monarchies took it to heart and even introduced prizes in science, so that they would be the ones who would put the intellectual borderlines by delineating what is notable achievement in science, abstracting it from all else which is not a notable achievement. This subtle control of the international matters of the world has also pragmatic ends as every dominance has. Clearly, as mentioned below, if merely the 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. 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 anout 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 unsuspectedly to them seem to sign their own demise or there is something more, which this author fails to inderstand 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 or 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.

Add to it also 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 the staunchly holding onto what has alrady been promoted, good or bad, becomes even stickier. The more powerful the nation, the more likely for a theory to become entrenched into the body of world consciousness. The same, true for a nation, applies also to a powerful group of worldwide influence. Romanian, let alone Mongolian (choosing these two countries randomly), science is completely unlikely to become governing. 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 are the ones who, in fact, enjoy the exact opposite—only the blind will not see that nations and groups dominating the modern world also dominate science. 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 different 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 the drug distribution, as recently leaked information indicates. Try to undo what the powers have decided to have 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.

It should be clear that seeking the truth is not beneficial to the powers. It is hardly possible to maintain a structure devoid of corruption in a society whose other name is corruption. One cannot expect in a society, based on institutionalized corruption (consider, for example, the entirely legal existence and aggressive functioning of lobbyists in the US Congress) to allow competing sane intellectual forces, constantly monitoring and permanently criticizing it. As said, corruption is the essence of the system we all live in and a parallel existence of a clean structure lacking corruption, is not only a foreign body to such a society, but threatens its very existence by actively undermining it with its potentially open demonstration of displeasure with the existing order. Freedom of speech is allowed on an individual level about everyday things and a dissent on a personal level is considered OK and the country takes a great pride for being so free, when it comes to such appearance of fredom. However, dissent organized in a structure such as academia is a big threat to the existing order and is discouraged in every way. No individual can bring in any arguments, no matter how true and urgent for society's sake their adoption is, when already decided matters of general public interest are targeted. Let alone that honesty, scientific method and truth, least of all brought up 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?

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 inordinate stance of major achievements, passed as scientific achievements, awarded with 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 usual intertwining of big business with government and 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 the 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.

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 it as implausible.

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.

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 to it 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 not 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 relativity, is enough for a politician to melt and be ready to fund any proposed daftness. 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 its growing passivity, let alone being contrary to the vital interests of this same public. Therefore, this promotion is done away from the public eyes, by “quietly advising” the decision-makers what self-servingly is and is not in science, taylored according to the needs of the manipulators and charlatans.

The situation for public funding being so flimsy, it is the last thing those secretively acting charlatans need is someone to come out and instill doubts about the veracity of these already deviously promoted passwords. To these secretive 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 made to neglect the truth for the purposes of maintaining public funding for a surrogate that passes for science, defying truth.

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 in 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.

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.

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.


Some Further Societal Considerations

Society has changed a lot these past few decades. The biological side of humanity as major point of political emphasis has become more and more pronounced and diverse, along with various faith-based movements and ideologies, which in the past had no demonstable political tint. Some of these are projects of monied 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.

None of these ideologies and religions, however, 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 iron-fist control over the entire mainstream world of learning.

Notice, what is discussed here is not the worthiness of the message carried by these movements and ideologies, but what is noted 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 deliberate muddling of science so that science, no matter correct or wrong, can be used as a money-extractor and tool of ideology, rather than a tool for the search of truth, is a child of the 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, qualified as the leading reason for its adoption.

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 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 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 coup d'état of planetary proportions in science, which has occurred at the beginning of the twentieth century, primarily in physics. As mentioned, the main governing colonial powers of that time—Great Britain, France and Germany—have secretly rounded the intellectual corners of their elites, creating the monster of 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 hold itself alive long time ago, if it were not for the unscrupulous propaganda and deceit, including through politicking at the highest levels of government. Notably, it is exactly these who pstulate that science must be apolitical and have specifically created intolerance to political intervention in science, are the 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 feel embarrassed and their ignorance in science would show, if these politicians do not comply. The fear of embarrassment is very strong, especially with people of strong ego and the hoaxter how very well how to depress that psychological button to their advantage.

It is a recurring topic, when it comes to critique of something portrayed as so well-established, as relativity is, for some to wonder how, then, the world became so advanced by the begining 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. All 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 collapse of technology and, as a result, to a 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. 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, which theoretical physics is in 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 payer, juggling with the charge card balances, all of the 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 and adjustment has gone a long way and in great depth, and nowadays it is made so hermetic that it is even beyond most experts' reach. It is made hermetic deliberately, because otherwise, as seen, it will immediately collapse under the weight of its own absurdity. A couple thousand and more collective of co-authors, (the paper in Physical Review Letter claiming 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. The 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.

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 have begun since the times of Galileo.

One is so perplexed once finding out the senselessness of the so-much celebrated relativity, that he or she can hardly find 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 in a most accommodating way, one may suggest that allowing such laxity of thought, demonstrated by relativity, might have come about due to the severe times Europe experienced as a result of the big two-part war in Europe—World War I and especially World War II—the deadliest and the most devastating war in the entire history of humanity. The harshness of seeking absolute truths in society had caused more pain and suffering than would have happened if reason were to be ignored outright. 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. 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 was badly needed, especially in areas devoted to reason by their essence, otherwise the unprepared humanity would have continued its suffering.

Healing the trauma from the merciless political doctrines was sought by partial, controlled, opening up to the irrational, as a substitute for the rigid, dictatorial plainness of the truth. If alleviating the suffering of humanity were the reason for relaxing the standards of science, then it has been a dangerous play with fire, which in the long run would cause more suffering. Let alone that outlets for soothing its frustration humanity has in arts and faith. Science should stay untouched by the social conditions exactly for the reasons of being the ultimate stalwart and calibration of what is truthful and good also for society. If society loses the integrity of that guide, it is in jeopardy.

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, farms were demolished. Visible scars of this war are still seen in some cities of Europe.

Alongside with 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 nineteen sixties, when the intellectuals of Europe began to come to their senses, their breathing becoming easier in this post-war period, some started 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 have already occupied science and were determined to persist with that occupation. That made the latter invent a powerful retort in the form of a collectivist doctrine, calling that way of collectivist governance of thought “paradigm”, whereby all that matters is the opinion, which they call consensus, of the collective, independent of whether or not that 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 totalitarian states, which ravaged Europe and allowed absurdity to occupy science as the hermit crab occupies the 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 so thinly veiled rejection of the scientific method, which 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 the 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.

Those who are inclined to use political terminology and think in those terms may exclaim that this resembles state of society with blind faith and loyalty to a ruling state ideology and the 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.

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 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 to exist and govern, then there is no hope to expect that there will be solutions to the real complexities and meanderings of the societal ills.

Relativity is the epitome of how a subtle factor, practically unnoticeable in the everyday rhythm of life, amongst the barrage of news stories about politicians, disasters and entertainment, can efficiently destroy the finest intellectual fabric of society. It always stays somewhere in 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, desperately passed for a scientific theory. At that, presented as theory so great, that no amount of supportive public spending would seem too great. Never mind that one does not even need to demolish it because it contains its own demolition, unable to protect itself should someone with impact on society and with strong enough political will and determination decides to look at the simple but rigorous proof shown here and decides to act after seeing the inevitable; namely, that such travesty must lose its public support.

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 powerful impact on the highest levels of the humanistic essence of mankind, as is the foister of relativity. Aristotle's teachings have survived for many centuries, until more precise measurement methods and developments had to come about to reveal the wrongfulness of his claims. The same applies to every wrong and eventually rejected theory in science. A wrong theory is historically innocent, as it were. The world, however, has never seen imposition on such a large 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 them. 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 has no role in the clear, prompt debunkability 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.

Although 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, by all accepting unquestionably relativity, thus blurring the distinctions between the various political systems at the highest level of human thought, relativity and progeny have gained especially deep social roots nowadays. The firm entrenchment of relativity is reducing the individual scientist to becoming a screw and a co-conspirator, under the pain of being otherwise ostracised and thrown out in the conld, in a 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, unaccountable to anyone but their monarchical masters, setting the tone in what passes as science but is, in fact, sheer lunacy. Hundreds even thousands of voiceless working bees in governmental labs, governed mercilessly by a small insidious elite, dedicated to maintain the frivolous master doctrine at any rate. 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, spawning nazism, which is fascism endowed with biological overtones, accentuating on biological traits ranging from simple racism to the further flowering of sexual peculiarities, is here to stay, more perfidious and elaborate than ever. At the bottom of this is the laxity, deliberately imperially installed in the central area defining humanity and civilization, science. Loyalty and obedience to a paradigm is the new fascism, more efficient and multifaceted than its simple old initial variant. Many think that using the term paradigm makes them sound elevated an learned, and the use of that term has acquired citizenship beyond the confines of science, proudly uttered in most unexpected context. However, the term paradogm actually symbolizes suppression, uniformity and totalitarian mind control, worse because of its greater subtlety, than any mind control known in the modern times. Therefore, anyone who values freedom shoud be repulsed by it and will despise using the term paradigm in any context.




Crucial Criterion of Social Change

The permanency of such an outrightly fatuous occupant of intellectual territories, as relativity, ambushing the highest levels of human activity throughout every social and political order thinkable, indicates that the changes in these social orders and political systems are superficial, when it comes to the ultimate basis of humanity, its thinking, and 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 new society should not be a slave to the currently common excuse that, see, these matters are very complicated. They can only be sorted out by experts. These so-called experts are without exception corrupt, opportunistically protecting the status quo. The proof is in the pudding—the world of science cannot clean itself for over a century from the tyranny of, as seen, immediately detectable absurdity. Where were the experts all this time to aid in that mandatory cleaning? Clearly, no experts are needed to tell anyone halfway sane, that when one single object is placed on an empty table, there are not two objects placed on that formerly 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 for an independent confirmation of that directly observable fact, is intellectual dishonesty, if not slavery, of the worst kind. Such an intellectual slave, putting up with obvious vapidity, should not, then, complain about the state of the educational, healthcare and political problems of society. These, however, are the central problems people complain about, not understanding from where they all arise, oblivious to the fact that they arrive from massively destroyed quality of thinking, caused in the past century to a great extent by the forceful installment in science and as a household name, of the absurd relativity. For, how can the quality of thinking of a society be high, when the thinking of what is pronounced as the highest crust of intellect; i.e., science, is occupied by the lowest of the low quality of thinking, allowing for absurdities to be insolently pronounced as science? Need one say that it cannot? The low quality of academic thinking, especially when pronounced as an otherworldly achievement of human intellect, cannot result in anything other than a bad state of cognition for the rest of society.

In view of the singular importance for the future of civilization, no democracy, no class struggle or dictatorial regime, should be of any importance, if these political conditions of society preserve the current state of affairs in science—the culture of not only putting up with, but even encouraging and celebrating an absurdity as a great intellectual achievement—and protect the removal of the mentioned corrupt and dishonest parody of science. Anything undertaken to fix the ills of society will 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.

The above, the getting exact science back to its honest, truthful path of reason and logic, should be elevated as the crucial criterion for the survival of our civilization, not the wrongly elevating to the false status of “crystal clear science”, the ambiguous, mired in inherent uncertainties, hybrid sciences, such as climate change, which are inevitably finding themselves anyway 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, expecting dividends for his or her comments. This is true especially before making efforts to prevent the funding of the absurd physics, which must go because of undeniable, unequivocal arguments. Neither those who foist that climate change has anthropogenic character, nor the ones who deny it, have categorical proof for their theses, the way the debunking of relativity unequivocally has, because the knowledge concerning 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. All these conclusions are nothing other than pseudoscientific banter.

Furthermore, it is cynical to occupy the world's attention and finances with inherent uncertainties, obscuring what are to be clear conclusions, calling them science, when at the same time there are pressing scientific problems of the same, if not greater, magnitude, 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 public support of 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 league from anything else in public science policy. The clear cut argument, debunking relativity and all progeny comprising Lorentz-transformations-based “big” science, is unmatched in the history of science in its clarity and unequivocality, especially pertaining to questions of such magnitude of entrenchment and impact. The debunking of relativity, respectively, the Lorentz-transformations-based “big” science, cannot be compared to anything else for that matter, both in significance and in rigor of argument. No political discourse or disagreement can come anywhere near the staggering, unique rigor and absoluteness of conclusion, compared to the unequivocal debunking of relativity.

The absurdity of these Lorentz-transformations-based “big” science exercises is a state-sponsored absurdity of a special kind, which makes difficult the crafting of the tactics and strategy for its necessary removal. 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 science of the conspiracy theorists, loved by some mavericks, surrounded by clouds of fans of witchcraft, voodoo, spirits and magic. Academia, being itself diseased by its firmly adopted insanity, is paralyzed as an agent of change in these wider areas of lunacy. Conversely, one cannot rely on the reasonableness and the 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.

How is one who cares about integrity of science to behave in these circumstances? Especially important is how such a person of integrity manages to reach those who hold the keys to the public coffers. The first thing that stands in the way, is that these people 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 wealthe of the nations, are already surrounded by a thick, insurmountable layer of determine sycophants, preventing the truth to penetrate 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 cancelling the state financing of it with taxpayer money, the way no state money is disbursed for all kinds of other vacuities, which, otherwise, people are fully free to enjoy on their own, as well as privately sponsored.


Results from A Book Such as This One

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, unless they come from individuals of substantial wealth (a.k.a. well-established individuals) or influential organized forces, also backed by substantial wealth, showing itself also as political power. In these significant matters, such as the ones discussed here, power makes the truth and not vice versa. As pointed out repeatedly in the text, truth does not pay, neither does truth by itself have any power.

This, without a doubt, begs the question, why is this author bothering to write this text at all, then? Firstly, this author should state clearly that, if money is what determines what is to be perceived as true, then a worthy person will not bother with such purchased truth. Although there may be considerations in the name of the higher ideals of science, in the name of restoring reason, logic and the scientific method of science, for admitting affirmative corruption in striving to achieve these noble goals. An army with tanks cannot be defeated with bows and arrows.

To correct the perception that money determines what is to be thought of as true and seeking the real truth, is, unfortunately, also connected with money of an amount that hardly anyone has. So, there must be the naïveté that one day things may change and the real criteria for truth will be restored. That naïveté is the drive, which would make someone, such as this author, sit down and put into words his thoughts regarding the discussed problem and its resolution, made to be so complex socially. These are the times, this is that mentioned “one day”, when a written document has to be available with honest, truthful analysis, ready for dissemination, that has been waiting for the right moment to arrive. The above answers the question as to why this author decided to write this book.

One strength of the current writing lies in the fact that it is not aimed opportunistically at pleasing the powers-that-be, with the goal to profit or get some questionable standing in society. This book is concerned solely with the truth, without hidden agendas.

In addition to the above strength, the unequivocal scientific arguments given are succinct but rigorous and definitive and they, like nothing else, ensure the real credentials and authority of the author, as pointed out earlier. Thus, the seemingly infinite, widely publicized debates and controversies of today, are flatly avoided. None of these widely publicized debates on public science policies can provide answers with the definitiveness that the catastrophic scientific arguments put forth here 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 other than a solemn celebration of the irrational and irrelevant.

Also, as pointed out earlier, the arguments are based on relativity's own concepts, thought experiments and notions, rather than debunking it through additional examples, outside of what has been presented in the 1905 manuscript.

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, ignoring them, is the main weapon the powers-that-be use to fight ideas they do not like, a denial every critic of the substantial fundamentals of theoretical physics meets today. Clearly, there is again a grain of naïveté and idealism also regarding such optimism of mitigated difficulty in today's dissemination of ideas, as has been explained elsewhere in this book. Progress, however, is not a stranger to idealists, to those who defy personal advancement and progress in the name of ideas. In actuality, dealists are the best friends of progress.

It is noteworthy that certain groups complain that during certain regimes their books were burned. However, even worse than burning books, is to deny these books the light of day to begin with, by blocking their proper publishing (not self-publishing), as it happens today. As noted, bringing ideas into oblivion by denying their proper dissemination through the trusted territories of publishing (as opposed to self-publishing them), is one of the most important weapons of the powers-that-be to repel unwanted, albeit correct, ideas that threaten to diminish their dominance, a dominance which is in opposition to the core interests 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, “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. The idealistic concerns for the common good, when it comes to intellect, are denigrated as elitist, elevating the lowest common denominator to be the standard. Stupefying a large number of people, unification and standardization of taste, is good for business as well. After all, business is a numbers game, not an enlightening pursuit.

The population is stupefied to the extent as to nonchalantly allow frank and blanket irrationality to be taken as most rational science. Society demonstrates that it likes to be lied to, as well as to be 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 other options than calling the police. When, however, groups who have tricked society to be perceived as prestigious, rob society by lying through their teeth, everyone remains complacent and nonchalant. We did not know, would be the answer. Now you know, and if you keep your 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 honest and truthful terms. Only profit determines what is honest and what is truthful.

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 to the creative individual. Thus, everything one has done, every discovery, every finding, will fade away after one passes away. Everything will be lost as if one has never been. The ignoring spoken above, will have reached its ultimate goal.

Only a century will roll out after one passes away and even a writing such as this will disappear from the face of the earth. Computer technology changes and 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 through the archival intellectual channels of the world for it to induce change, nothing can survive the blizzard of time, including human thought.

An age-old, low-technology fact is also that no matter what developments technology might undergo, the fundamentals of life such as the need for air, water and food will remain eternal. Even the sophistication of the computer today cannot express itself without the common low-technology need for power to have it running. It may happen so that the millennia-old Egyptian pyramids will be a more grandiose symbol of civilization than today's ephemeral, butterfly computer civilization.

Although capable of keeping it longer, the powers-that-be have the same problem themselves, of preserving what they consider worthy, in the long run, 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 will carry on some of one's legacies after one's passing. However, these ideas will hardly be preserved and protected by even 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.


If Science is So Wrong Why are We On the Moon?

The answer to this question was given earlier, where it was pointing 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 passing of politically charged issues as science. It is an example of the confusion in societal understanding as to what science is, as opposed to engineering and technology, a confusion as to what scientific theory is and how it relates to scientific facts. As mentioned, this mixup, thinking of technology as science, has incurred not only internal damage to the nation, but has also led to real acts of terrorism.

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

Having accepted this presumption; namely, that there is such an inevitable connection, the asker uses it as an argument against the criticism of contemporary science—landing on The Moon is a fact and, therefore, the asker reasons, the state of today's science is just fine. Otherwise, there would have been no such landing, no computers and no other technological wonders around, so reasons the naïve proponent of 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. Technological advances in today's society have come around practically unassociated with what has been passed for science. This, as noted, is a paradoxically lucky circumstance, because if, indeed, science had anything to do with the progress of society, then the dead-end in which its important part—theoretical physics—finds itself today, would have caused nothing else but a complete catastrophe of the world as we know it.


Practicality of America

It is worthwhile repeating in this context the already alluded to well-known fact that the ultimate foundation of America is practicality. This is expressed by instant gratification, youth, strength of the body, anti-intellectualism and anti-elitism. Science is only approved by society if it is perceived that it brings direct profit. Announcements of scientific discoveries are always accompanied by an explanation of what concrete technical benefits they will bring to the individual, since anything spoken of, whatsoever, is necessarily filtered through what I, the concrete individual, will gain from it, from what my personal advantage will be.

Science in the United States is not perceived as ideology, providing a realistic worldview and correct structure of thinking, but is only thought of as some practical means to do successful business, arming one with the advantage, which would allow outperforming the competition in the marketplace. This is how it 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 whatsoever, which has arisen solely from the logic of science, without special agendas, mainly of financial character accompanying the announcement explicitly or implicitly.

From this profit perspective, those who foisted relativity on the world, are tragic personalities, because they were only used. They remained largely middle class. Others reap the huge “benefits” from that foisting.

Only such achievements of science are considered worthy that are perceived as impacting society as a whole in a directly practical way, and especially serving big business. Achievements as diverse as game theory, input-output analysis, chromatography and nuclear energy are celebrated because of their practical usefulness. Theorizing without practical outcome, tampering with general concepts, such as the essence of time and space, leading further to other fantasies such as dark matter and the standard model, are only allowed for “the cream of the crop”, as it were, and are only delegated to astral personas, well-endowed by society, and yet untouchable by that same society. Even the most deserving critique is forbidden, although in actuality, the astral occupations of these personas are not only devoid of practicality, but also make no scientific sense either, given their birth-connection with the non-physical, contradicting reality, Lorentz transformations.

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, sustains the particular needed ideology imposed on society to embrace, which the powers-that-be need to drive society in a particular direction, not allowing it to stray, even if reason requires such diversion.

This intellectual atmosphere, regarding the sought for and imposed perception of the practicality of science, 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. 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.

Practicality of the American society, discussed here, cannot be changed, however detrimental it may be with regard to science, if carried to the extreme—no need to recall that genuine science being, in its very essence, anything but practical in a business sense. Paradoxically, however, practicality of America is not a deterrent to bad science, to pseudo-science of the likes of relativity. America is endowing bad science generously. Go figure!?

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 science on matters which on the face of it promise absolutely nothing to those uninitiated in the American way of enterpreneurism, the results outperform any thinkable success that initially could not even be dreamed of. Especially brilliant example of how technology and then business spawned out of that mundane European science, is the phenomenal emerging of computers as a major world technological factor. Their fundamental theoretical principles, 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 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, had the US military and especially business not seen the incredible potential computers have as a new invaluable defense and intelligence as well as a new market-aiding phenomenon. The world would have never known about these theoretical discoveries had it not been for the Unites States.

Not a lesser example of the boost the military-industrial complex induced on a finding of pure science such as the discovery of nuclear fusion and fission, also a product of obscure European minds, brought into technological and military prominence only due to the enterpreurial spirit and far-sightedness of America.

All this is well and good, even when, atypically for science, it comes to turning into business of certain achievemens of science having unintended by science happenstance practical hue. 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 sceince 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. Nothing can compete with business in trying to understand the veracity of scientific claims candidate to turn into a marketable product. However, if one decides individually to go against the grain, when it pertains to veracity in pure science, he or she would soon find that all that is awaiting him or her is harm, no matter how correct the arguments presented are The system in the USA showed itself to be as incapable as the worn out system of Europe, of restraining the poisonous absurd science brought in from that effete, intellectually decadent Old Europe. Instead of fending off the absurdities of the vitiated Europe, that infestation of absurd science found fertile ground on the American soil. The reason for this uncalled for, rather unsuspected tragedy, is the nonchalant negligence, the disregard of the critical assessment of the intellectual essence of what is being offered. The superficial universal solution is this—if it is not business, the USA is not interested and, as long as a party manages to manipulate the 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 is not already been expreesly 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 its needle eye. The private business is hardly the target of such 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 be kept goimg. 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, government is giving in on marijuana. Why, then, should it be concerned about something as obscure as science, goes the common disposition?

Nevertheless, despite the foreignness of marketability (in plain business sense) to the essence of science, and the general loathing of abstract thinking by mainstream America, one must analyze the repercussions of bad science, which overwhelm academia nowadays. As discussed, that influence may be subtle, it may not be obvious, but it can have an effect on the very existence of today's society. As explained, such a danger is real, despite the complacency and general disinterest at large in that aspect of scientific influence. Analysis of the state of affairs regarding the devastating effects of bad science, focusing it on the US, suffices in this respect, because the US is unquestionably dominant in the world today. No change elsewhere will have such effect on science globally in comparison (except for, perhaps, if a working perpetuum mobile machine is demonstrated somewhere else in the world).

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 does not put food directly on the table, one would hear them say, one cannot feed the cows and the chickens with it. It is worthless, according to them, in any practical way. It appears to them as only satisfying the vanity and the snobbery of certain class of elite snobs, 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 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

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 said so far maintains that nothing can be further from the truth. The parallel society, designated socially as “big” science, professing the dishonest system of science, a parallel society unaccountable to the mainstream society, does more damage than good to the young souls by indoctrinating them from an early age with notions, which are as removed from reality as night and day. Some of these notions, for instance those about time and space, or the probabilistic, but lacking logic, nature 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 the 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 about education, but nothing will change and even will 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 and theirs is the responsibility for the core of the curriculum to be proper. Ours, politicians will retort, is the responsibility 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, respectively, of what ensues from science; namely, education, especially when it comes to major issues of science policy, which, along with the intellectual damage to the nation, are also the greatest wasteful spenders.

However, even if this somehow magically changes and the politicians shed their timidity and allow themselves to look more carefully into what is taught in natural sciences, in the process finding the definitive arguments (not arguments regarding evolution, climate change or other debatable matter) that what is taught is not scientific and therefore should not be there, even then education in America will still have chronic problems due to the essence of the overall social system.

A chronic, incurable ill of this society is that education is primarily business, the student is treated as a customer. Thus, educational inclusivity, as opposed to the natural exclusivity of higher education, is not a human right but a business necessity.

As a result, practically no student would consider paying for taking classes in general chemistry, if it would not lead directly to earning money as a result of finishing that course or, perhaps, as a stepping stone to medical school, which, ultimately is rarely only an idealistic desire. The understanding that taking a science course has other purposes, other than the utilitarian use, such as enhancing the quality of thinking and improving the worldview, is practically non-existent in the 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.

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 also it is where the moral and psychological foundation is. When young, the obvious center of power are 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.

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 it continues to dominate, there will be no stimulus for science not to keep playing out of tune.


How is This Damage to Society to be Amended?

There is no straightforward way today to amend the damage on society caused by the absurd relativity by relying on arguments alone. Unless the factors causing that damage are removed by cancelling their public funding. Any attempt to get into a rational discourse with the gatekeepers of the faith—the currently installed actors doing the absurd theoretical physics—will result, if the critic is exceptionally fortunate, in the receipt of polite form letters of refusal to involve themselves in exchange. The most one can hear, other than receiving the polite form letter, is that the current theories have been shown to be correct in everything so far and that observed correctness proves their viability in anything else to come in the future. Never mind that 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 the reputation is in order, as well as ostracizing. Thus, one is put in a position to call for his or her own harm when putting forth an unequivocal argument, just because he or she is right.

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. It is widely known, that it is the enhanced practicality due to the steam engine which caused a social revolution—the industrial revolution—and not the theory behind the steam engine. Society at large is not educated enough (education requires systematic pursuit of acquiring knowledge for many years on end), and, for the most part, it cannot appreciate and, therefore, demand correction of flaws in science itself. This is where the responsibility of academia comes into play and this is where academia is not up to its characteristic standards nowadays. In fact, it is failing miserably.

Thus, those who have come to realize that change in science is screaming out, are in a sticky wicket situation, whereby academia, whose call of duty is to stand firm against absurdities, is stuck in its corrupt ways, while the public, the unsuspecting sponsor of the exercise in absurdities, is complacent, not willing to do one thing to save itself from being exploited, and even worse, damaged both financially and intellectually by a huge machine favoring lunacy and insanity, calling it science.

One hears advice, when seen being so adamant about harm to society by a certain scientific theory, to call one's Congressional Representative. 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 and 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 through 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.

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. In the process, those who conspire to keep the damaging “theory” afloat, themselves accuse the concerned honest critics of succumbing to conspiracy theories. However, how can an unequivocal argument be a conspiracy theory? On the contrary, the unequivocal argument is undefeatable and is the opposite of a conspiracy theory.

It also deserves mentioning that, despite the numerous correct critiques, especially of relativity, the critique presented herewith is the shortest and the most pointed, using the concrete notions in the 1905 original, and not resorting to extraneous (although many of them correctly pointing the flaws) paradoxes and gedanken experiments. The critique presented here is not only the most succinct, but is also deep and definitive in overthrowing relativity using its own notions and definitions. Let alone that the critique at hand is so defined and formulated that it can be understood, without losing rigor, by practically anyone having a sane mind, as emphasized. After this critique, relativity and progeny must be removed from physics.

Unfortunately, no matter how decisive the arguments for abandoning deeply entrenched flawed “theories”, especially 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 whatnot. The illusion that knowledge is power is maintained to give such 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. Certain kinds of information may bring more power to those having access to it. Information alone, however, is not knowledge in the sense used in science. In order for information to become scientific knowledge, it must be so processed as to concern the essence of things in most general way. Knowledge is not just gathering of data, even if these data are sieved through to have only the useful information remaining. but is a result of a particular way of gathering these data and processing it through reproducible experiments under controlled conditions so that data can become scientific fact, or through further in depth analysis of the available facts and unearthing hitherto unknown facts and relations.

Furthermore, scientific knowledge that matters acquires power only when it is promoted and garners approval by the powers-that-be. Even important technological advances, not even scientific discoveries, may be crushed, if the powers-that-be do not allow their perpetration. Consider in this respect the brewing battles when principally new energy-related technologies are to pass through the needle eye of the powers-that-be. Changes in science, especially at a fundamental level, even the most obvious and expected, such as restoring truth and reason, are facing even fiercer opposition because, as said, they concern the very fabric, the very core of the common societal consciousness.

Acquiring a position of influence, a position which will make one heard, is what must be considered as the primary impossibility, in the context of this writing. It is not the quality of the arguments that will get them across to society. Other factors are in play when trying to socialize even the most correct and profound arguments, especiallt when they concern major questions of science of global proportions.

Thus, for those dedicated to honesty and to the scientific method, when it comes to science, the only possible way to oppose the distortion of truth and corruption and restore reason in science, is to personally acquire the ownership and control over the privately held pivotal companies, devoted to scientific publishing, and setting the tone throughout the world as to what is and what is not in science.

Because of hermeticity of the mentioned privately held companies, such purchase is completely impossible. It is out of the question even if one has the funds. This is how the system works. The powerful privately owned companies are the pivotal instruments for the system to stay together and to be what it really is. These privaely held companies entirely control the minds of the world, while the world having absolutely no control over them.

Since the change of ownership of the powerful private companies, controlling science, is completely unrealistic and impossible to fall in the hands of the honest, then there is no hope for the truth and honesty to prevail in the world along the traditional channels of scientific discourse and dissemination. Official science will propagate whatever concepts it is being ordered to promote, true or not true, in harmony with reality or without any basis in reality whatsoever. Hence, the categorical conclusion in the first sentence of this section. The situation is hopeless.

Parallel creation of competing truthful companies 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.

Clearly, even in case of taking control through purchase, the danger remains that society will be conditioned by devious ways the powers-that-be practice, to distrust the new owners. Advertisers will hold back from using their services and, most importantly, the clout and their trustworthiness will be slanderously destroyed. The battle for the truth in science is a bitter political battle of the highest order.

Intellectuals in many a small country often wonder why none of their citizens is ever awarded, say, the Nobel prize, in anything. The simple, ugly but true answer is, that none of their local achievements, no matter how worthy, ever falls into the radar of the Nobel committee, because none of the citizens of these countries owns any influential media or holds any position of real world influence. The weakness of the country and not the strength of the argument is what matters. 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 exposure blackout, shunning them from the powerful Maecenas and patrons who can produce them to the world.

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 they 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 even if viable, way to make a change is to engage finances of the magnitude oligarchs have, should they care to do some good to the intellectual well-being of the world, among their worries about yachts and private jets. Sadly, there is no other way and for setting oneself to become an oligarch for the purpose stated, 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 hones and uncorrupt in the world to become so concerned about getting rid of corruption 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 over reason by absurdities. However, someone has to begin search for the truth not only regarding the essence of the problem, but also what brought about this destructive discomfort to the world, in order to help possibly avoiding it in the future. To see the problem, but be blocked from attempts to solve it because that would lead to massive damage to the whole adopted system of knowledge, causes major frustration in the scholar, who falls in the stupor of disbelief. It is paralyzing to witness such travesty and 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 effort to oppose such an intricate societal menace.

When waging the battle to restore reason in science by removing from it non-scientific nonsense such as relativity through discouraging of its massive 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 these ideas mandating correction.

First, it should be realized that this is a true action of change and not a “paradigm shift”, the latter only allowing for changes within a strictly established main frame of ideas, theories and laws, adopted by consensus by a collective, independent of their validity. Changes of the paradigm, called paradigm shift, are officially allowed, as long as the consensually adopted frame of collectivist dogmas, true or false, which this paradigm signifies, stay untouched. Such palliative changes are even cynically called by some “scientific revolutions”. The true battle for science, however, is about restoring truth and reason in all of science's elements and 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 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 governments 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 supposed to do, being very far-removed from such ownership and influence, entirely being at the mercy of the corrupt publishing enterprises, determining their follow-up stance in the university systems? 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.

The easiest thing for those, who cannot put up with the current system should be to put in writing whatever arguments they have and leave them in a sepulcher, as was my own mother's advice (cf. naïveté), in the hope that one day reason may prevail and someone may get excited about their thoughts. To bring that problem home, the reader of this book is witnessing the application of that advice. Of course, it is anyone's guess whether or not that in fact will be the fate of this book.

One unexpected problem, which also needs mentioning and which may pose even greater danger to the efforts to restore reason in science, is the behavior of those who are expected to be on your side, people who have designated themselves as the critics of the corrupt status quo, as yourself.

Many of these so-called “critics” are people, otherwise honest, who have not had proper training in science and have found themselves as critics, following the deeply rooted American culture of distrust in the government. 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 and not all of the critics. Said adversaries will always do anything possible to avoid discussing the legitimate critique, as discussed below.

However, even worthy critics of today's theoretical physics are prone to human frailties and ill-perceived competition. Paradoxically, it is these worthy critics who will be the ones who will notice you and will vigorously fight your standing, as what they perceive, as, a competitor-critic. Remember, the instinct of the powers-that-be is to have you ignored, which is the worst act this type of an enemy could commit, sparing the critic the stakes. Sending one to the stakes always backfires (no pun intended), launching him or her into prominence, which the powers-that-be fear the most. On the contrary, the 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 for criticism from a fellow music writer. He may. However, the experience may not be very pleasant sometimes.

Having in mind the crucial role public financing plays for preserving of 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. Absurdities cannot exist and have such control over humanity on their own without financing, as any falsity cannot, and there will hardly be any private enterprise willing to support it, at least not to the extent of 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. As a matter of fact, only when such unjustified public funding is lost will it make sense for the critic to meet face to face with the proponent of absurdity. Cancelling 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 any 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. The daunting task is to convince these public representatives in the insanity of continuing to fund the discussed absurdities. There is nothing more coercive when dealing with a corrupt crowd such as that which is in the business of foisting of absurdities 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.


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 goal is to promptly free itself, mandatorily assisted by society refusing its financial support, from theories containing the internal contradictions shown here, 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 relativity and all of its Lorentz-transformations-based progeny.

Remove flawed relativity and there will be no cosmology, absurd Lorent-transformation-based sections of astrophysics, string theories, big bang, dark matter and black holes. Especially, young people should not waste one minute of their precious time on that bad science, other than use it marginally as an educational facility, to study where wrong things in science might have their origin.

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, still is not enough for a formal construct to be useful for physics. A mathematical construct is useful for physics only when, in addition to being mathematically consistent, it also has physical meaning; when it does not go contrary to the absolute truths on which physics is based.

In saying the above, it is not even had in mind 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 must have a special place in the curriculum of any history of science course, isolating it in its own category when mentioning the defunct theories of physics. Its badness is one of a kind, a result of extra-scientific factors, rather than factors that have brought about the common honest mistakes science makes along its natural development.

One can often hear 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 in the attempt to advocate its plain wrong conclusions. Deriving that one equals two, as relativity in effect derives, is not counterintuitive. It is wrong. Deriving that time at a given moment in a given place of a given system can have two different values, depending on whether it is measured by a stationary clock, sitting at rest in that place, as opposed to measuring that time by a moving clock, which happened to be in that place at that moment, is wrong and not at all what the advocates of the absurd relativity proclaim to be; namely, counterintuitive, let alone correct. Being at odds with the absolute truths is not some higher category of truth but is plain and simple incorrect and must be rejected at once, without hesitation.

To 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.

  • Concepts (not internally contradictory), which must be abandoned because of theoretical arguments and conflict with experimental evidence.

  • Concepts, correct but incomplete, which must undergo development.

These changes are clearly not attended to, when it comes to theories and ideas having the major impact on physics. That is why, they have to be spelled out again. The reform in physics will constitute, it seems, 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 waking up 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.

This author will do his best to ensure that even the negligible finances he has, after his passing, will go toward the efforts to achieve the noble goal of restoring reason and scientific method in science. To promote these ideals, a dedicated Science Foundation in his name with the goals stated will be established in due time, having in mind the concerns expressed.


Usual Arguments Which Can Be Heard to Squander Criticism

What is saod be;ow concerns times past. In the recent years the absurdists cannot even be seen publicly delivering lectures delivering lectures to the lay aidiences. They do not feel any more the need of propaganda because the 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. Much less efforts and greater efficiency is achieved when targeting like a laser beam whoever directly matters for keeping their evil bad-science empires ticking. Other than posting pro forma videos on the net they are confining their activity amongst the politicians, “quietly advising” behind closed doors of 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.

Those who desperately have set themselves to protect jealously the destructive status quo, are indiscriminate in their arsenal of offensive instruments. These underhanded tactics are used when solid scientific argumentation is lacking. Of course, in the case of the absurd relativity, any attempts to defy the unequivocal arguments given, are hopeless. These 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. Clearly, more effort has been applied to create the artificial defense of relativity rather than to honestly examine its validity and, as a result, reject it. Here goes:

  • Fallacy—Argument from authority (Argumentum ad auctoritatem; Argumentum ad verecundiam). The person, putting forth the “theory” at hand, is a genius and therefore untouchable, especially by lowly, random, anonymous critics.

  • Unjustified accusation in 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. 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 as something self-evident. They trivialize the criticism because, as seen, even a brief look at the argument is damning and conclusive, to mandate removal of bogus “theories”, such as relativity. At the very same time, all the mass media pounces news on the listener about big breakthroughs in 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 topic in science there could ever be. Have no doubt, the servant of the powers-that-be, clearly, would have pronounced his or her own findings rejecting relativity, if he or she has discovered such a catastrophe and would be allowed to speak about it, as the most interesting discovery of all time, worthy of the greatest attention.

  • 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 but your take on it, is not. The latter being said without even taking a minute to look into the critical argument at hand.

  • Claiming that criticism, never mind 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 a personal issue, approaches the lowest level an advocate can stoop to, short of outright cursing with expletives. Unfortunately, part of the unsuspecting public, having no technical background to understand the actual issue, may fall prey to this tactic of character assassination as a substitute for a real scientific argument. The advocate knows that, and this is why ad hominem attacks are the most common tactic against someone who dares to criticize, let alone outright reject relativity. The bad news for such activists but good news for science is that these particular arguments presented here, concerning the scientific poverty of relativity, can be understood by practically anyone of sound mind.

  • 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 auctoritatem; Argumentum ad verecundiam) mentioned at the beginning. The preposterousness of such attacks is obvious and can only fly because of the deep entrenchment in the public mind of the worthiness of relativity. Under normal circumstances, when the scientific method rules, such attacks would be immediately laughed out of town, if anyone has the audacity to express them.

  • Claim that if there were a mistake, then it would have already been discovered by the millions of experts using relativity. This has never been the case, nor will it ever be when millions have been subscribing to a theory but which eventually is found wrong. It is not applicable in this case either. This is the nature of discovery. Such an argument can only be expressed by someone with no education in science or by someone who knows that anything goes when it pertains to relativity. Frivolousness and unaccountability, this is what breeds such a type of asinine argument.

  • 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 Lorenta-transformations-based theories are absurdities and 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 ludicrous assertion is shot down at once: relativity derives in effect that one equals two but one apple is not equal to two apples. That should suffice to reject said “theory”.

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

  • Insistence that only peer-reviewed critique is worthy of considering. Then, relativity itself is not worthy of considering because it has not been peer-reviewed either. Why is it, then, still poisoning science?

  • When pointing out that the “theory” at hand itself has not been peer-reviewed, the advocate grabs at the argument that it has been observed during the course of over one hundred years, which is the peer-review. And why, then, is not such an approach applied to this writing—let it be published in the same venues where the “theory” at hand was published and see what happens? Why such a double standard—the non-peer-reviewed relativity has been discussed but the non-peer-reviewed critique of relativity is denied discussion? The answer is obvious—because if such discussion in the same venues of relativity is allowed, removal of relativity from physics is inevitable.

  • Ad hominem attacks aiming at destroying the credibility of the person criticizing rather than addressing the flaws of the “theory”. Such character assassination is a parochial way of dealing with the opponent. Tactic as old as the world.

  • Another trick is to further formalize mathematical expressions containing elementary physical errors, unnecessarily, 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 equals 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 a 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. In doing so the advocate hopes to obscure the fact that Lorentz transformations present mass m in system K also as mass in the same system K, which absurdly means that one body in one system, system K, has two different masses at the same time. No need to mention that such absurdity also contradicts the fact that first postulate of relativity presents mass m in K as the same mass m in k. Thus, the advocate writes

    in K

    as

    in k

    and everything seems OK—the claimed invariance (covariance, i.e. the form of the equations is claimed to be preserved by a change of coordinate system) of Newton's second law under Lorentz transformations is seemingly fulfilled. The form of the physical law is made to appear visibly the same in k and K. But it is not, if the content of is revealed. The advocate cannot escape also 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, which mandates its immediate removal from physics.

  • Similarly, the students are usually tricked to believe the physical validity of the Lorentz transformations and especially that relativity is not internally contradictory, by first applying them and then undoing what has been applied by using the reverse Lorentz transformations, claiming that, voila, relativity is not internally contradictory. Intellectual damage to students by applying such underhanded methods, 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.

  • Claiming that the “scientific method is wrong”. Clearly, this is done to sustain insanities such as the claim that, in effect, one equals two, which relativity 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.

  • Claiming that the, in fact, unequivocal argument, given here, mandating the removal of relativity from physics in its entirety “is not even wrong”, which the advocate deems original and funny, for the lack of anything better to say, in this way trying to flip the scipt and to avoid condemning the real culprit. It is relativity that is “not even wrong”, it is absurd. He cannot dispute the argument, cannot counter it, and insted of pointing the finger where it belongs; namely, at relativity, he pokes fun of the discoverer. Thus, he tries to divert attention from the fact that he has nothing of substance to say.

  • Ignoring the catastrophic argument outright by saying “We have already heard it”, without at all bothering to support such a saying with a reference. However, guess what? Surprise, surprise, no such reference exists.

  • Sending the critic of relativity a standard polite form-letter of rejection, without even bothering to give it to referees. Arrogance and passive aggressive tone have always been the tools of those lacking arguments.

  • A favorite label deniers use, is “pet theory”, ignoring the fact that criticism of relativity is not a new theory at all. How can mandatory entire removal of relativity, without substituting it with anything else, be considered a “pet theory”? It cannot.

  • To stun the population and gain theatrical respect, proponents slyly present the “theory” in question as so complex and sophisticated, that it is up to only a few people in the 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 herewith, 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, transformations, with whose creation and offering to the world relativity has, on top of it, nothing to do. Relativity uses these transformations only to expose them in the most blatant fashion, aggravating their clearly wrong outcome, which anyway violates the principle of relativity adopted as its first postulate, by combining that wrong outcome from the Lorentz transformations with a correct outcome resulting from the correct application of the principle of relativity. In this way the so-called “theory” of relativity finds itself in a still bigger mess by equating a wrong with a right outcome, which is sheer absurdity of a kind science has never seen in its whole 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, 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 but the “theory” based on them, instead, being promoted to the skies or with the clearly impossible quantum computers (non-scientificity of quantum mechanics to be discussed elsewhere).
  • Specially creating and boosting into prominence toothless opposition such as the likes of Nikola Tesla or outright and easily demonstrable inadequacies, with the goal to compromise any attempt of criticism, by associating it with such low-quality critique.

  • Relativity must be wrong, in order to be right, says a relativity proponent. This was left last in 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 the 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, and therefore are no good to counteract the presented here well-founded, unequivocal debunking of relativity. Real counter-arguments, not these 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 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, in view of the unequivocality of the proof shown, rejecting relativity. This is the reason why advocates of relativity would catch at straw, resorting to the above-cited sort of extra-scientific attacks. As expected, experience so far confirms that the lack of any arguments countering 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. 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.

In the age of internet, powers-that-be can discourage bright minds from correcting errors in what these powers consider established and closed for discussion, not to speak about stifling the exploring of even promising, non-orthodox scientific areas, only through applying subtle new methods of discouragament. Burning at the stakes, imprisonment in concentration camps and other similar formerly efficient drastic methods will not do any good today. Such methods will only create heroes or, at least, underdogs, which the population always sides with. Although the unruly curious researcher, treading on forbidden territory, can be labeled insane (ad hominem attacks were mentioned), it is much more difficult today to put him or her in a psychiatric asylum, as totalitarian regimes used to deal with their critics. Thus, the method of physical, psychological and mental draining is applied through specially appointed (and paid, although not always directly) trolls and haters, who are instructed to lead the unsuspected enthusiast along the garden path to a theoretical and practical abyss.

Ignoring, preventing from proper dissemination (not dissemination through internet), is the primary tool of the powers-that-be to fend off critics. Public ridicule, being in control of the mass media, 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 the ones maintaining the status quo in contemporary theoretical physics and those are many of the awarders of these prizes.


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 in 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. Stong 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. 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 dislike outright rational, correct argument. This is especially tragic when it comes to the ultimate destroyer of sanity in science, relativity. If the mentioned decisive major political force does not appear and decide to act, the harm to society by the discussed discordant “theory”, confounded in the public mind as science, will deepen further in the foreseeable future, more and more encrusting its own elite in parasitic relationship with the rest of society, draining its resources. Sadly, that harm will still remain invisible for society, blinded by the reassurance and the glory of the promises for an otherworldly grandiose, in fact fake, intellectual achievements.

By political factors responsible for public funding of science staying idle and not severing the tentacles allowing for the toxic waste of tax money to keep pouring in, supporting absurdities, theoretical physics, symbolized by hyper-structures too big to fail, but devoid of reason and favoring absurdities, extending tentacles to all countries and societies, unfortunately, will continue to stay with us in its present sorry shape and will continue to waste 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, is inevitable. The difference with curing in hospitals is that, in the case at hand the intellectual disease is curable right away, provided there is political determination to deny and officially abjure absurdities to be thought of as science, let alone funded as science.

Society is giving up on other social matters overwhelming it, 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 made their steady way in 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 and there is no other chance but let them go as they are. That war is lost.

As said above, if these and other social ills are to be tackled, the first area in which to consider overhaul, believe it or not, is theoretical physics. It is hoped that the ample arguments given above will be sufficient to one day convince society of the centrality of such need.

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 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 kept correctly as an administrative formality, without having to do with the substance of the disputed matter. This is an outright fraud, 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 how the powers-that-be exercise, through their minions, control of freedom of scientific thought and expression, only allowing to publish their agenda and not the truth.

Prevalence of truth in science can only occur if it is adopted in the recognized science media, such as the archival so-called peer-reviewed science journals and, finally, in the standard textbooks. It probably is worth repeating the common knowledge that any decent educator in science well knows as a trivial substance of proper science pedagogy, that science textbooks are used to instruct the young generations in the system of established structure of thought, how the understanding of cause and effect leads to exactness of conclusions and what turns general information into scientific knowledge, obeying logic and a product of experiments that can be carried out under controlled conditions and are reproducible. All of this makes such newly acquired knowledge worthy of belonging to the rest of the scientific knowledge base. This is what science and science education are expected to maintain in theory.

Unfortunately, as unequivocally revealed here to be the result, by demonstrating the devastation incurred on nothing less than the core notions such as time, space and motion, the basic doctrines one sees nowadays in the textbooks, have found their way by a complicated means of the already talked about insidious consensus between the leading empires of the world, squandering billions of dollars or respective currencies, rounding corners with no attention to logic, reason, and truth, finagling to find the common ground of these empires' interests. This process has nothing at all to do with the establishment of truth, the primary goal of science. Truth in science is not established by consensus. These empires only support through words but not through actions the idea that establishment of truth is the goal, but in reality are ready to violate 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 to bypass that corrupt process of world forces seeking common ground even in science, be blind to it, and pretend that it does not exist, rather than caring about truth and reason, relying only on sensible arguments and logic, without involving major sources of public power and finances in restoring the ravaged physics. Thus, the situation regarding the prevalence of truth in science is absolutely hopeless and doomed for a scientist working in isolation or for any scientist whatsoever, for that matter, if he or she cares about integrity, but functions outside the levers of power which sustain financially what is proclaimed as science.

Although the situation is hopeless and removal of absurdities, occupying the main part of the governmentally-funded activity passing as science, is nowhere to be seen, I have and will devote every waking hour of my life to this quixotic pursuit of restoring truth and reason. Thus, I have contacted 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, I cannot but conclude that all they are talking about when they mention truth and facts, is not what they mean. They only support truth and facts through words but 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 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

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

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


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) 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

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


Final Thought in One Sentence

Science is out of tune on a most fundamental level, employing absurdities to fumble such basic notions as time and space, but that tragic state, inevitably harming society, cannot be amended by reasoning with academia and its accessories, such as academic publishing, rather than by taking actions through translating the problems so that can be understood by the wider society, in order to prevent many billions of dollar and euro financing with taxpayer money of these absurdities, insidiously foisted as science.

Physicist Assaulting Scientific Method

Attempt to Legitimize Faking in Science