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
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).
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
directly damages society's scientific health, destroying its only
immune system, which could protect it from the asinine—the scientific
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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,
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,
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,
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
is not a physical quantity but is a mathematical symbol, indicating a
mathematical operation. Without going much into calculus, because the
argument at hand can be understood without having the slightest clue
about calculus, it will be mentioned that in this case the mathematical
is a part of the second derivative of x over t. What is
of concern to us here is that the number of physical quantities in the
equation observed, is five.
As is seen on top of page 62, five is also the number of the physical quantities in the first row—the
equation also circled in ellipse—of the system of equations referred to (written in; viewed from) k. The
only difference is that some of the five physical quantities are denoted by a different letter. Thus, while mass
m and charge of the electron ε have retained the same
notation (mass and charge are not coordinates, subject to transformation when referring a physical law
to one or another of the two coordinate systems in uniform translatory motion),
the position x
has become ξ, time t has become
τ and the x-axis component of the electric field X has become X'. This
change of notation, however, is to be expected, because the physical law is not referred to system K but this time
is referred to coordinate system denoted by lower case k—the coordinates in different coordinate systems
are named (denoted) differently, but they retain their meaning of spatial and temporal coordinates. Therefore,
the two equations are not affected due to the change of coordinates. These two equations comprise the same
equation written in different coordinate systems with their 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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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,
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,
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
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
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,
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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,
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
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.
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
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 ...
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
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,
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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.
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
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
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.
without practical outcome, tampering with general concepts, such as the essence of time and space,
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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,
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
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.
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
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
Concepts, correct but incomplete, which must undergo
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
and not . Thus, the
author of relativity himself has laid the trap for the advocate, who tries to be
too smart—after the application of the Lorentz transformations, the law in K
which, in contradiction with the principle of relativity,
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 methodis 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.
Claiming that the, in fact, unequivocal argument, given here,
mandating the removal of relativity from physics in its entirety
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
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
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
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,
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
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
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 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
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.
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:
Letter to Ursula von der Leyen,
President of European Commission
An Important Science Issue
14 December, 2019
Ursula von der Leyen, President
Dear Mrs. Von der Leyen,
The European Commission makes a — mistake by ignoring the argument I have been presenting to it for some time now,
unequivocally proving the deceptively advancing of absurdities as science of prime quality. This leads to wasteful
spending of billions of taxpayer euro, which, instead, should be directed to supporting genuine science.
Furthermore, instead of paying attention to unequivocal arguments proving that absurdities are being funded,
thus squandering billions of euro which must go for real science as well as for other pressing needs of the Union,
the European Commission accentuates marginal problems, in comparison, elevating them as the central theme of
scientific discussion in the European Union. The real problems in science, allowing absurdities disguised as
science to thrive, heftily endowed through elaborate deceit, are not even discussed, considering them all well
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
Vesselin C. Noninski, PhD
Open Letter to the EU Chief Prosecutor
Laura Kodruta Kovesi
The problem about which I am sending a signal to the EU Chief Prosecutor Kovesi concerns massive misspending of
European public funds on absurdities falsely presented as science, which deprives real science and other needs of
the European Union from funding. This problem has been the subject of my numerous publications publicly available
for over a decade, as well as a number of my press conferences. Letters on the matter, addressed directly to the
European Union, were also sent. Unfortunately, the European Union has entirely ignored my concern, based on the
arguments I am presenting, and did not even answer my letters. I am resorting to sending the signal to the EU
Chief Prosecutor Kovesi in the form of an open letter because there does not appear to be a direct way of contacting
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
As a first step to amend this disastrous situation, whereby the fraud is portrayed as science, is to stop the
public financing by the European Union of this so-called science, fraudulently portraying absurdities and nonsense
as great achievements of the human mind.
Laura Kodruta Kovesi,
Chief Prosecutor of the European Union
Dear EU Chief Prosecutor Kovesi,
This letter is a signal to you as the Head of the Public Prosecutor's Office of the European Union, requesting an
independent investigation (excluding the corrupt peer-review by the so-called experts appointed by academia,
which should itself be the subject of this investigation) into the wasteful spending of billions of taxpayer euro
on absurdities falsely and fraudulently presented as science. This problem is directly connected with ill-spending
and outright misappropriation of euro-funds and therefore seems should be of interest to you as the Chief Public
In sending this request, I should note immediately that the establishment of the truth in this concrete investigation
is impossible if those who undertake it do not make the personal effort to understand at the very beginning of the
investigation that anything connected with the so-called Lorentz transformations is an absurdity. I am available to
assist in this understanding (for your information, I held on 29 October, 2019, a press conference at the Press Club
Brussels Europe on this topic, 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
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.