Public interest has already been harmed irreparably.
In the first place, it has been harmed by the unprecedented use of propaganda
to install in the worldwide public mind a creation, such as relativity, which directly contradicts the scientific
method in most blatant way.
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?
Obviously, 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 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. Therefore, it
directly damages society's scientific health, destroying its only scientific
immunity system, which can 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 space and time, 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 stringent standards of the scientific method. That neglect of the
scientific method causes immeasurable harm to society. We will
give some more attention to that harm below.
Public interest is harmed by relativity
through authoritatively using brute force to instill on society a wrong
worldview. The very fact that the mere discussion of said “theory''
is proclaimed off limits by the so-called mainstream media, is an undeniable
proof for the brutal coaxing of one-sided views; views which, unfortunately,
also happen to be wrong.
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 governing it.
Of course, technology can progress 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.
If science is to aid 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 or of any sense or use to anyone 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 like, can
extort from the governments, purely politically, in complete disregard
of the scientific method.
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. This allows conditions for widespread
irrationality, knack for sensationalism and 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 "scientists" 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 interest. Science turned into Hollywood
make-believe, not only desensitized, as viewing real war as a computer game,
but going further, smashing all logical connections delineating the possible
from the fantastic. Science, which has forgotten its goals and responsibilities,
converted into lenten, jejune entertainment and a job scheme for slyboots,
especially through utilizing peer-review for that purpose.
Relativity, with its impossible claims that
do not even follow from it, catches the already 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 really 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, really penetrate into the military, the intelligence
and all that keeps the nation together. It is only a lucky circumstance
so far that currently this kind of irrationality is only confined within
Academia and the job-schemers therein, no matter how profusely funded
by the US Congress. Despite the fact that Academia is the primary governmental
advisor, the practicality of America has prevailed thus far and the funding
of scientific inadequacies has not gone further than just substantial
waste. However, things, may change 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 US,
weakening it. The danger is quite real.
Because in this text there will be references to the so-called powers-that-be,
it would probably be wise to give a hint as to what this author understands
under that term. Powers-that-be is a loosely used term 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 (conspiracy theorists notwithstanding), many feel intuitively their
presence. Some of these, probably more alert, members of our society
would often stop and wonder‒‒where did all of these dramatic
changes in the social order come from? Who installed a given political
order and who then took it out? The 20th century has more
than one such example of installment and then abandoning social orders
throughout the world.
Of course, 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, neither is the author an expert in those
sciences, nor is this the place to get into greater depth, regarding their
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 it is a matter of personal opinion, the writing in this section
is of far less importance than the scientific arguments, presented herein,
which are definitive and which the author is ready to defend vigorously.
Hence, reading this section can be skipped if one is only interested in
the scientific arguments and wishes to neglect the author's sociological
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 the honest pursuit, mentioned
above as its desired state, and, unlike what we see 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 in the media. 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 and not just the stone hammers and tools
of the cave man.
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 claims that, although very important
to science, his or her findings have no foreseeable direct practical application,
vowing prompt return on investment. 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, natural for real science,
non-practically applicable, studies, even when there is none. Important
scientific research usually has no commercial application and twisting
it to squeeze out of it marketable products, only causes severe deformations
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 really is not. There are also
other factors, discussed later in the text, which are the architects of the
dark edifice of bad science.
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 similar effect but they are
banned by the Government. Science has a special influential position in
society, which relies on its findings to judge for the state of the matters
in nature. Religion, as opposed to science, does not have this role. Religion
represents beliefs which people hold and 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 on society as truths, notions contradicting even absolute truths.
Promoting as scientifically sound a “theory'', which derives that
1 = 2, as relativity does, and, furthermore, 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 the Western society than to have it demoralized,
to have it lost its way, sunk into irrational fear and paranoia. No enemy
actions can compare to the self-inflicted harm a society would incur upon
itself by allowing bad science, 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, 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. This surrogate science, however, may not survive
for long. It may be around for the foreseeable future but further on in
the future it most certainly will fade away, as even lesser confusions
in the history of science have inevitably found their demise. Understanding
as to whether or not sun rotates around earth or vice versa had
not had even slightest effect on the lives of the individual people in
a society, confused about the issue, and the wrong view held on for many
centuries. Eventually, after categorical proof for the heliocentricity
was found, the wrong idea about the center of the world was found to stand
in the way of the philosophical and ideological progress of humanity and
was shed from science. The reason was utilitarian‒‒wrong astronomy
did not serve well the expanding empires, using naval navigation. The
tragedy for humanity was that practicality had to require correcting the
astronomical views and 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. As is discussed elsewhere
in this text, relativity does not have this excuse, it is not historically
innocent‒‒its untruth can be detected on the spot, it invalidates
itself and no experiments with any, 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 it can exist in the
body of science undisturbed and wasting society's resources for as long
as needed for those milking society through it.
Aside from the practical harm, the irrational, the unreasonable,
spreads like plague and when that deterioration reaches a tipping point,
that may be the point of no return, which the 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
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, however, are 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.
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.
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 society. There are well-known examples of whole
empires disappearing from the map of history, not in the least, as a result
of neglecting science in favor of studies only 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. 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 trivial 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 already
closed subjects of discussion. Infinity, distant worlds,
non-scientific hallucinations such as cosmology, astrology,
clairvoyance are more engulfing the public mind, stimulating the
publishing of innumerable books and staging inane number of Hollywood-style
productions. In this dangerous ideological state of affairs everything
else but the solid scientific foundations is the center of attentions.
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 scientific method‒‒the protector of truth. At stake is
nothing less than the very survival of our civilization.
Public Distrust of Science‒‒Danger
to National Security
Destruction of the finest fabric of public perception
by widely imposed bogus “theories”, such as relativity,
is far more harmful to society than the popularly promoted but prone to challenge
dangers, such as those of, say, human effect on climate change. Instilling
falsities, such as the discussed bogus “theories”, and deeply
placing them in society's mind as a substitute for true science, is the real
generator of the problems which ultimately lead to distrust in science.
Undoubtedly, the inappropriate passing as science of widely advertised ideas, such as those of
global warming, also impairs and in some cases really destroys the understanding of what
scientific theory or a scientific fact. That deepens the confusion about the essence of
scientific findings, a confusion, exemplified by the deplorable evolution denial.
Existence and further
stimulation of that confusion through instilling inconsistencies as truths, as relativity does, adds unnecessary
difficulties to the already difficult pursuit of scientific truth. It wastes serious time and resources
in unproductive banter, instead of applying these resources and time for benefit and progress.
The destructive effect of the bogus “theories”, imposed on
science and deeply ingrained in it, is agnate to intellectual
terrorism‒‒much more subtle and invisible to society but
even more efficient in its destruction of the essence of innocent people,
specifically their mindset, for the purposes of political agendas, such
as dominance and social engineering.
After 9/11, American society has become more alert towards the outward
expressions of terrorism. Unfortunately, in contrast, the subtle, intellectual terrorism
is soaking deeper into society, evidenced by the massive propaganda of
bad science, shoving it down the throat of the unsuspecting public as
true science, through flooding the magazines with propaganda-articles
and bookstores with best-selling books, reciting covert hallucinations
as a substitute for decent books about true 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 specially set 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.
When health and wellness issues are involved, the distrust of science
grows in the population, with the constant change of opinion regarding
the various 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 corporate battles, reflected in
the ever-changing opinions, is, in the long run, less of a harm than the
creation in the common person 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 a wrong
impression the public can get when it meets with criticism of ostensibly
steadily established “theories''. It may occur, as a result, to some
in such cases 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 true 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. Today, unlike the views we had in
the past, we know that earth is not flat 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 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, compared even to the advance science made from the geocentric
to the heliocentric view.
In this connection, it should be clear, that relativity is
not a 20th century invention, as propaganda has widely distributed,
but is contained in the foundations of science several centuries old.
Relativity is just some misguided interpretation of known facts in
classical physics, combined with internal contradictions‒‒a pretty 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 20th century travesty.
In its quest for the never reachable objective truth, science advances
through relative truths, some of which turn into absolute truths. 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.
Science never challenges absolute truths. 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 ones will undoubtedly undergo
further development and many of their notions will be abandoned. That
is the natural process of building knowledge in science.
It may deceitfully appear that also the critique herewith of relativity
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, as said, such overthrowing and replacement, again, i natural
for science. However, such a parallel is far from justified.
In this context of discussing development and abandoning of existing ideas due to the
developments of science, we must very strongly point out that scientific
thought has never encountered a “theory'' of such low quality, as
relativity. It does not require at all, for
the methods of science to be applied to it. 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 it is incorrect and must be abandoned. Neither does it require
that the technology of experiment, the methods and
instrumentation should get advanced, in order to detect its flawed nature. It
is also not true that it is so superb and complicated but true, that only a few people
in the world can understand it. Quite the contrary, relativity is incorrect on a very primitive and comprehensible level, with
its simplistically fallacious claims, whose confused nature is understandable 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. It could 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.
Science, in its entire history, has never
experienced such an aberration, such ambush, 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 in the case of the discussed “theory''. 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 then. It is really unfathomable
how today, with all the technology for information exchange we have, the
aberration called relativity still sees the light of day, big time, 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, deserves a special sociological study.
Alchemy, astrology, phrenology, numerology have all been abandoned
as pseudoscience but the propaganda machine pounces on the population
every day that there is something new, alternative to classical understanding,
counterintuitive view of time, space, gravity and the like. This purportedly new view,
presented as a new alternative to time, space and gravity, is as bogus as
astrology but is nevertheless carefully guarded to appear legitimately in place in the public scientific
agenda. At that, such falsity, as claiming 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
really boggles the mind what made it so durable as a presence in physics.
It is significant to point out also, when in the context of this
writing, one may conclude that science
is dead, it does not mean that society has somehow advanced to a state
to realize that science is already obsolete, that science is gone forever
and no corrections of the bad science of today are possible in order to
restore its integrity. Quite the contrary. It is not science itself, the
good, the honest science, that must be under attack. Rather, it is the
meaninglessness, which some pass for science but is actually abuse of
science, that must be criticized vigorously and the bending of science
be removed, freeing the path for true science. By removing it I mean
taking it away from science without substitution with anything else.
It should be removed the
way weed is removed from a wheat field, without substituting it with anything
else. 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 the bad science, such as relativity, as legitimate,
push it 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.
However, the healing of science, the necessary removal of that “theory'',
is not a simple matter. In a way, such healing is similar to that of a
cancer patient with multiple methastases, 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 will such removal of deeply ingrained erroneous
notions would comprise. The shadow of the “theory'' in question
is cast everywhere over the natural sciences. Dirac has used formally
the Lorentz transformations construct to derive what is known as
the spin number of the electron. Electrodynamics is wrought with applications
of Lorentz transformations. Particle physics draws conclusions
using Lorentz transformations. Abandoning the “theory'' in
question cannot occur without cosmology and string theories
experiencing complete demise and falling into oblivion. However, how can
the non-existence of the Higgs boson‒‒ be explained
to the general population? This is a particle whose reality does not follow
from any physically viable theory and whose experimental evidence is as
flimsy as only a huge bureaucratic superstructure without accountability,
such as CERN, is in a position to create. 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 creations
will result in, makes one really 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
Of course, shaking the public trust in science by
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'' must be removed from physics.
Systematically bombarding society with irrationality,
perfidiously wrapped as a seminal theory which 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 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. It must be obeyed, no matter what crucial, legitimate arguments
there may be against it. The demoralizing effect of such a suppressive atmosphere
is really devastating not only to Academia but also to society at large.
The persistence for over a century of such gross contradiction to the
scientific method, a persistence unchecked even by academics, who are obligated
by their very call to unconditionally obey the scientific method, needs
once again to be addressed, with great indignation at that. It is especially
necessary to emphasize the scientific method's most important
No further pursuits make any sense, least of which carrying out experiments,
should the candidate-theory be found to be illogical, internally contradictory
or in defiance of absolute truths. Such candidate-theory invalidates itself.
An internally contradictory “theory'' leads to no experimentally
testable conclusions whatsoever and should be rejected out of hand, prior
to carrying out any experiments. Claims for experimental verification
and confirmation of internally contradictory “theories”, such
as relativity, are either a result of experimental
error or are a deliberate manipulation. Claims that there have been or
can be experiments proving the validity of an internally contradictory
theory, such relativity, must be ignored
out of hand as false claims.
Take, for example, the CERN experiments, claiming to show proof of the
validity of “theory'' of relativity and of its perceived consequences,
such as time-dilation and length-contraction, not to speak
about the purported existence of Higgs boson and the like. These
experiments and their follow-up claims must be ignored outright not only
based on their own lack of merits, inadequate details and claims, following
from predominantly questionable approximations, involving the unlikely
cooperation of thousands of co-authors. Such experiments, aimed at proving
validity of relativity, must be ignored outright mainly due to the fact
that there is no scientific foundation for carrying out experiments
to begin with, let alone, even in principle, expecting anything whatsoever
scientific from them. The “theory'' behind them is, as said, invalidating
its own self, prior to any further activity with regard to it. This 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 fundamentals,
starting from relativity, are to be immediately rejected as bad science.
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.
Bad science as a fundament of anything further, including experiments,
defines nothing short of vapidity and waste of time and resources.
Experiments based on flawed fundamentals must never be carried out, no
matter how magnificent the infrastructures are that have been prepared
to perform them. The unsustainable cannot ever be sustained. Claims which
are unprovable in principle can never be proven, no matter how many billions
are 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 1 = 2, as relativity
in effect does (yes, it really does; what else
does it mean to derive, as said “theory'' derives, that one body
in one system K obeys at the same time two different laws of motion; namely,
There can never be an experiment proving that 1 = 2, no matter how some
may insist that modern science can be counterintuitive. The same applies
to other experiments, claiming confirmation of perceived effects following
from that “theory'', such as the experiments with μ-mesons,
Cesium clocks and so on. As noted, said “theory'' leads to no
sensible outcome whatsoever. There are no real effects following from
it, despite the vigorous propaganda to the contrary. As a result, said
“theory'' can never, not only find but even suggest, 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.
Once again, it 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.
Remove the out-of-place relativity and the whole magnificent edifice of
CERN, NASA and the like 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, NASA, US National Laboratories and the like.
The scientific method, which is one of the greatest achievements
of humanity and which the civilized world has adopted through centuries
of vigorous, sometimes deadly, confrontations with the enemies of reason,
requires at least that absolute truths are recognized. Such absolute truths
are, for example, the uniqueness of one single, unique body, an absolute
truth most brazenly ignored in the so-called relativity, to nothing of
avoiding 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 trivial and fundamental
to the scientific method, and its violation is so unfathomable,
that it is always taken for granted and is never even discussed.
Thus, instead of starting from the beginning, from testing for logicality
and coherence with absolute truths, that beginning part 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, 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. The student has no way of checking that experiment himself
or herself and only has to
rely on the authority of the instructor, who
has also been conditioned earlier in exactly the same way. Furthermore, by skipping
the beginning, the student is deliberately prevented from
promptly determining that such experiments are not even necessary because
there is actually nothing to verify. The theory 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 the society into a downward spiral of intellectual destruction.
Therefore, in memory of the precious heroes who fell fighting for the
scientific method throughout centuries, it will not be an exaggeration
to consider the deliberate destruction of that method as akin to a crime
To propose a “theory'', 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 flaws, is to
be recognized immediately and abandoned without a second thought rather
than be shot into a century of prominence and celebration, as is the case
An internally contradictory “theory'', such as relativity, cannot arrive at any conclusions whatsoever, as shown.
Propaganda, however, can make up anything out of thin air, as is well
known, and that is all the more true for the “theory'' in question,
assisted by a plethora of prominent advocates, spreading less than deserved
theatrical accolades across the worldwide media and vigorously preventing
justified criticism. This document shows clearly that none of the fantastic
“conclusions'' of relativity not only
have no basis in reality but are inconsistent even within the framework
of the “theory'' itself, as is the unfortunate characteristics of every
internally contradictory “theory''.
It cannot be repeated too many times that the only criterion for the quality
of scientific work must be the scientific method. This method 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 there will be truth and discoveries coming out of it,
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‒‒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 real scientific contributions and not by where it has
been published or how many times it has been cited. Very often, even as
an epidemic, perpetrators of quasi-scientific theories and writings form
“invisible colleges'', are self-servingly incessantly citing
each other, thus promulgating falsities, passing them as 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. As is
usual in science, when progress is made, one is right and millions are
wrong. Community standards of consensus do not apply when truth is sought
in science. On the contrary, truth in science prevails only through overcoming
serious resistance. The more important the truth is for science, the greater
Those who seek truth are brought to their knees, humiliated and suppressed. Some,
like Boltzmann, committing suicide because of the mocking and ridiculing their views.
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 publishing, which have real
impact on society, are protected by the boys with the intellectual baseball
bats. The excuse 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, 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 then is 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 great responsibility of Academia, as the authority,
comes into place 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 that much impossible for the uninitiated
to discern these inadequacies. They concern common truths, whose violation
can be recognized by anyone, even without education and special instructions.
So, many a bright individuals, powerless as they are otherwise, are 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 looks for 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 that's what it finds served
on the kiosks or commercial bookstores, be it physics, baseball or a reality
Of course, 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 his 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, detached from society, authority,
sitting somewhere in its ivory tower, which society knows exists but cannot
usually pinpoint exactly where. 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. Theater, some may say. Yes, theater but in
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 undertaking ephemeral, 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. Hitler
could not interfere. Stalin could not, despite the Lysenko charade, made
up to prove to the naïve what dictator also of science he was. He was
a dictator, all right, but nowhere near as crucial and severe as those
who have imposed the likes of relativity on everybody on earth, on countries
with every social order thinkable, for historical period far outreaching
any period any thinkable dictator had ever ruled through. Representative
Dingell could not. Nobody could. Nobody. No one outside of the removed,
reticent, ever reproducing through history, powers-that-be.
The word of the authority, wherever it resides, is nevertheless, law for
most of the population. Population cannot see lifting of this much weight
or scoring of a goal but is somehow convinced that what the authority
decides is as truthful and legitimate, as anything else one can see with
his or her own eyes. Sheepishly trusting the
authority is in the human nature. This is well known by those who manipulate
and is efficiently exploited by them, especially by them sparing no expense
to become the authority themselves by all lawful and unlawful means and
preventing competition, especially reasonable competition.
Let us add here also that getting science back to reason is not a scientific
revolution. It is waking up from a bad dream,
sobering after the hallucinations due to vicious manipulation and imposition
of “theories” having nothing to do with science.
Notably, destruction of science occurs in
some specific ways of deliberate instilling senselessness. Not just any
senselessness, however, qualifies for adoption by the world of the powers-that-be
controlled science. 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.
Pot calling the kettle black.
One is so perplexed once finding out the senselessness of the so-much
celebrated “theory'' in question, that he or she can hardly find
explanation as to how and why it found place in science at all, a quite
prominent place, at that.
In trying to rationalize in most accommodating way, one may suggest that
allowing such laxity of thought, demonstrated by that “theory'',
might have come about due to the severe times Europe experienced as a
result of World War I and especially World War II‒‒the deadliest
and the most devastating war in the whole history of humanity. The harshness
of seeking absolute truths in society had probably caused more pain and
suffering than it 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. The advent of reason had probably come about too soon,
too abruptly for the humanity to handle, giving birth to ill-begotten,
distorted attempts to restore reason, such as fascism and communism. 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
by their essence to reason, otherwise the unprepared humanity would have
continued its suffering.
Healing of the trauma from the merciless political doctrines was sought
in partial, controlled, opening up to the irrational, as a substitute
for the rigid, dictatorial plainness of the truth.
A common objection to the criticism of the fundamentals is that continuously
criticizing these fundamentals will leave no time for the fruitful bringing
scientific thought forward, unable 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 done. Healthy criticism, even
of the fundamentals of science, if it is justified, is a core requirement
in science and its substantial part. What fundamentals are these that
cannot withstand criticism? The answer is clear‒‒such fundamentals
are a recipe for disaster and crisis in physics, just as the crisis observed
Why Hasn't It
Been Pinpointed and Corrected Already?
Such deliberate destruction of science by nothing
less than defiance of most elementary requirements of logic, as in relativity, is, as already
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 hermetic essence of Academia and its ruling
organ‒‒the American Academy of Sciences, in the USA‒‒isolated
from society in its lofty airy castle of, perceived as esoteric, intellectual
pursuit. Academia reigns over society. Society has no control over Academia.
Savvy politicians know to not ostracize Academia, especially by trying
to reform it, because, although subtle, the political pain the will suffer
is inevitable and tangible sooner rather than later. Thus, malfunctioning
Academia is practically irreparable. A change could only come around due
to the fading away of its ruling structures as a result of natural causes.
Such hope for change is rather slim because measures are taken 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 we see 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 are extremely unlikely and the honest
have to figure out how to carry on with their love for science. This author
does not have much to offer as a mechanism to deal with the corruption
in Academia and is of the opinion that everything is entirely in the hands
of the individual, his or her personal ideals and means. Probably, 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 then
powers-that-be's interests, causing him to be shot into historical prominence.
The right man, at the right time, in the right place, is the saying. This
is how Galileos and Newtons have found their place in textbooks. Obviously,
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'', of intellectual standards below anything known so far.
A curious attribute in the US, 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 along as such even to the majority of faculty, if they have ever
heard of its ruling organ, The national Academy of Sciences (NAS), thinking
of it as some 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 private-public partnerships,
NAS is ostensibly a private enterprise but it has the decisive impact
on the Government on matters scientific, the Government, as already said,
having no control whatsoever, once money is manipulatively extracted from
it, to make NAS accountable. NAS accounts only before itself, totalitarian,
dictatorship style, a dictatorship of the worst kind‒‒intellectual
Ideally, Academia and its center of power‒‒national
Academy of Sciences (not to be confused with other academies (in name only) of sciences,
such as American Academy of Sciences or New York Academy of Sciences and
the like, which have no impact whatsoever on ruling science)‒‒is supposed
to police itself in order 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, which created it and which keep maintaining it, to have that most
important element of their might ensure their unabated stay at the helm.
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 earthquakes and hurricanes of commerce and other lowly non-intellectual
wordly pursuits and attacks. Those royal powers were told that good science
leads to efficient technology (a connection otherwise quite questionable,
if carried out too far) in the form of better
ships, artillery and such. 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. Of course, as mentioned below, if merely the utilitarianism
should be the stimulus for the powers-that-be to support a similar pursuit,
technology will do and not a penny will leave the pockets of the powerful
to support science, no matter how truly significant science is for the
integrity of society by maintaining, through using its stringent methods,
Therefore, on its part, science establishment has developed a whole arsenal
of weapons to drum into the 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 approach is to their interests and now we have a symbiotic concert
of crooked, backed by politicians and various 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. 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. Rumanian
let alone Mongolian 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 labeling such defining as
politically incorrect 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 of various 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 quite similar
to the involvement of CIA in the drug distribution in the US, as the recently
leaked information indicates. Try to undo what powers have decided to
have in place just by reasoning with them, by providing even the finest
and most convincing arguments. Should it be said that you will end up
Why would the powers-that-be have the interest to cause such destruction
of the fine fabric of Academia by instilling specific irrationalities,
provided by an irrelevant “theory'', 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 live in and a parallel existence of a clean structure lacking
it, is not only a foreign body to such society but threatens its very
existence by actively undermining it with its potentially open demonstration
of displeasure with the existing order. Honesty, scientific method,
truth are not to the liking of the secretive and manipulative money-makers,
not to speak of those who obtain their powerful aristocratic positions
as the right of birth. 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, food etc. 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
actually be reserved for science. It is enough to mention the Nobel prizes‒‒over
ten‒‒awarded to work, connected with certain technical aspects
of chromatography. And all that taking place while real science is in
need of profound reform. The usual intertwining of the 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 of the US over competing powers but
in fact are barren projects based on void ideas such as the ones discussed.
Explanation as to why bad science, such as relativity, may be allowed to exist at all in Academia, not to speak,
have such an important role in the so-called “big science”,
can certainly 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 it has occurred
nowadays, then “anything goes” can be claimed to have scientific
basis and the “anything-goes” governing society already acquires
Muddling the minds of the elites, forcing them to accept internally contradictory
absurdities as if they are a true expression of some new, unknown so far,
reality, allows the powers-that-be to manipulate society through those
elites more efficiently in powers' own interest.
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
the politicians, whose main actions, of all of them, are determined by
the desires of their constituents. Politicians will never do anything,
even if it is truthful and demands honest action, against the general
attitudes of people who vote for them, otherwise they 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, various activists, helped by secret societies and royal structures,
have established these certain, already mentioned, recognizable passwords
for politicians to open their coffers. They are 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. Decades of special efforts have been applied
to have it appear to the politicians that relativity is the ultimate guarantee
for quality and advance in science, its ultimate, unquestionable authority.
What a tragic state of affairs, constituting deceit of global proportions.
Of course, science should not be a pursuit that should bore everybody
when its results are presented. Scientists, however, should not hide from
everybody the fact that in terms of 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 already said, today more than ever,
people are not taking what is being passed to them as science seriously
because they intuitively feel how corrupt it really is. Therefore, promoting
of funding is in desperate need to be done over
the heads of the unsuspecting public, despite, even contrary, to the vital
interests of that public.
The situation for public funding being so flimsy,
it is the last thing those secret powers need for one to come out and
instill doubts about the veracity of these passwords.
To these secret powers, the maintenance of the existing structures mimicking
science and the upkeep of the passwords opening
the sesame gates 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, is dependent
on politicians who neglect the truth for the purposes of maintaining public
funding for a surrogate that passes for science.
It is amazing how facts shown in black and white can be ignored and, as
already said, people still sheepishly continue
to stick 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''. This intellectual slavery is self-induced and it is helping
the corrupt establishment and furthering the wrong ideas.
The powers-that-be know about these sheepish attitudes, and, what is more,
they specially breed them in the population and then reap the “benefits”.
Thus, society experiences a self-perpetrating, self-inflicted bout of
mediocrity, a mediocrity feedback loop.
How Can Disregarding
Absolute Truths Affect Society?
Society will not be affected by the disregarding of
absolute truths if the refusal to honor certain truths as absolute is
kept enclosed in its own sphere of influence and is financed independent
of the 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 various forms of
fiction novels, to say nothing of the various religions, cults 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
national Endowment for the Arts (NEA) is lagging far behind the funding
of even the national Science Foundation (NSF), let alone 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 should be left solely to their own devices. That has
always been the case with fortune-telling but has not been recognized,
which it most definitely should, for what officially passes today as theoretical
physics. Today's theoretical physics is an even greater nuisance and even
threat to society than the benign silliness of clairvoyance.
Brainwashing the world with the incorrect science, in stark disregard
of absolute truths, as the bad science discussed here, notably exemplified
by defective thinking of the author of relativity, may lead to massive misconceptions among
the population, which may begin confusing faith and science, seeking inadequate
parallels between them.
It may occur to the otherwise good poetic souls, 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,
the faith in afterlife is as absurd and incredible
as the string theory and the existence of seven parallel worlds.
the faith that there is another world existing,
a world beyond the visible material world, is as absurd and incredible
as the scientific hypothesis that it is possible to travel back and
forth in time and that there are many parallel worlds existing.
A responsible, honest scientist must respond with
a resounding “NO'' to these parallels. It is categorically clear,
and it is shown conclusively in this text, that string theory and parallel
worlds, the travel back and forth in time and everything else 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.
The poet who has fallen into the trap of the above pseudo-analogies, as
the ones shown above, is a victim of a prevalent methodological problem
in today's society, which harms it‒‒the firm pronouncement
of the unreal as science. What is a poet supposed to do when he is reading
what authorities, positioning themselves as sage scientists, are widely
promoting? Is not that authoritative promotion of senselessness a mean,
underhanded playing with the soul of the poet? 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.
The vice in such false analogies is 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 the string theory can be demonstrated
without delay‒‒the string theory (or theories) are based on
the wrong acceptance that the otherwise mathematically consistent Lorentz
transformations, have physical meaning. These transformations, however,
do not have physical meaning and must be removed from physics with the
same decisiveness with which the “theory'' which has appropriated
them; namely, relativity must be removed
from physics. Remove relativity from physics
and the string theory will also automatically vanish from physics as a
Thus, if we are to follow the confused logic of the mentioned poets and
the amateur lovers of science but otherwise firm believers in faith, then
the fact that the false notions of string theory can be categorically
debunked as bad science should lead to the conclusion that the belief
in afterlife is equally as false and nonsensical.
In this tumbling in the dark of the untenable, the only ray of hope for
the poet and even more for the aspiring scientist, is the leaning on rational
arguments, based on absolute truths. Debates such as those regarding global
warming or even Darwin's evolution are never ending debates. They are
never ending because there are no truths in these debates, established
as absolute to the agreement of all parties involved.
The known historical data of the temperature variations on some limited
locations on Earth are obviously insufficient to allow proper generalizations.
Therefore, no matter what arguments the proponents of human effect on
climate present, the opponent will always pull out of his or her sleeve
that just mentioned deficiency in historical data argument.
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 remains basically 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.
Proponents of evolution as an infinite chain of events in the 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 is also unclear. Thus, proponents
of creation versus evolution may face even logical inconsistency arguments
from the creationists opposing it. The solution of the stalemate can
only be that accepting God is only a matter of faith and once accepted
that there are no rational, logical arguments to accept the reality of
God but it is only a matter of faith, 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.
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 or other
remnants, are inaccessible to just anyone willing to observe critically
the data and the only thing remaining for the general population is to
take those who have had access to the factual evidence by their word.
This stalemate much resembles the airy assertions which the corrupt physicists
present before the public; namely, that they have proved experimentally
time-dilation, length-contraction, relativity of simultaneity,
the Higgs boson and so on. Aside from the fact that, as said,
the falsity of such assertions
can be proven definitively, solely by analyzing their background, by just
inspecting the single founding 1905 relativity paper, published in Annalen
der Physik, without even doing any experiments, 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.
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, definitive proof of falsity, regarding the bogus notions of relativity,
analyzed herewith, at that, using the exact terms and notion of the “theory'' itself and
not relegating to external examples, no matter how correct (and there are indeed such)
they may be.
The corrupt physicists in question, do not realize that they are in an
inescapable trap with regard to these 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 with another 60 years,
as is the case currently with hot nuclear fusion TOKAMAK reactors‒‒it
is undeniable that the phenomenon of nuclear fusion is real and it is
only the engineering aspects that have to be sorted out. Sorting out of
engineering problems, accompanying the otherwise viable nuclear fusion,
so that it can find practical application, is a subject of a different
conversation and study, where one may find that the viable solution, which
undeniably exists, is constantly pushed forward in time with another 60
years for every new generation to tackle. This pushing forward in time
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 king of energy freedom for the people. Furthermore,
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.
What the corrupt physicists of today 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 fake structures built around the vapid
ideas they espouse. Of course, being currently in charge of inane funding
and infrastructure, 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'', 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, obviously,
the “Après moi, le déluge'' (“After me, the deluge'') is the
attitude. Society should mature enough sooner to disallow such attitude
Of course, 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 problem 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 texts demonstrates,
anyone interested in 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,
relativity of simultaneity and so on, let alone to demonstrate it experimentally.
This is the crucial difference between the current science wars regarding
global warming, evolution vs. creationism, effect of GMO, alternative
medicine etc. 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 controversy
fully scientifically mandating its removal from science, is where a final,
categorical solution can really be reached. This 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 proportion,
where that waste can really be curbed with full justification. Instead,
society is being avidly directed towards issues which can hardly find
definitive scientific solutions, such as environmental issues. Environmental
issues, although to sound politically correct are called science, can
only be curbed politically, which is inevitably accompanied by justified
scientific dissent and that causes unnecessary tensions in society, which
an additional kind of waste.
How is This Damage to Society
to be Amended?
Probably, there is no way. At least, there is no straightforward
way. Unless the factors causing it are removed. Any attempt to get into
a rational discourse with the gatekeepers of the faith‒‒the
currently installed theoretical physics‒‒will result in your
receiving polite form letters of refusal to involve into exchange. The
most you can hear, other than receiving the polite form letter, is the
current theories have been shown correct in everything so far and
that already observed correctness proves their viability in anything else
to come in the future. Never mind that scientific method excludes such
foretelling. If one persists, damage to the reputation is in order as
well as ostracizing.
For the society to notice the problems and demand change, the problems
in science must not appear subtle to society, no matter how dramatic these
ostensibly subtle problems could really be for science itself. For society
to notice the problems of science, these problems must cause a major 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 it cannot appreciate
and therefore demand correction of even major flaws in science itself.
This is where the responsibility of Academia comes into play and this
is where Academia is not up to its standards nowadays; in fact, failing
One hears advice, when seen being so adamant about harm to society by
a certain scientific theory, to call one's Representative. Unfortunately,
the typical politician will approach any such call not by its merit 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
that he or she will vow for. The good of the nation almost always goes
only through his or her own political agenda. This had to be had in mind
first and foremost, to avoid vain expectations when waging the good fight
for restoring sanity in science through calling authorities.
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 that
really conspire to keep the damaging “theory'' afloat, themselves
accuse the concerned honest critics of succumbing to conspiracy theories.
It also deserves mentioning that despite the numerous correct critiques,
especially of relativity, the one presented herewith is the
shortest of those 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 his own notions and definitions.
After this critique relativity must be removed
Unfortunately, no matter how decisive the arguments for abandoning deeply
entrenched flawed “theories'', 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
a difference. Arguments themselves do not bring in the influence to be
heard. Arguments can only be heard when the party
presenting them is already 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, however, is not knowledge in the sense used in science.
Scientific knowledge acquires power only when it is promoted by the powers-that-be.
Even important technological breakthroughs, not even scientific discoveries,
may be crushed, if the powers-that-be do not allow their perpetration.
Consider in thus respect the brewing battles when breakthrough energy-related
technologies are to pass through the needle eye of the powers-that-be.
Changes in science, 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 of the common societal consciousness.
Acquiring a position of influence, a position which will make you 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
Thus, for those dedicated to honesty and to the scientific method, as
far as science is concerned, 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, the
takeover is completely impossible. It is out of the question. This is
how the system works. The powerful privately owned companies are the
pivotal mechanism for the system to stay together and to be what it really
Since the takeover of the powerful private companies, controlling science,
is completely impossible, then there is no hope for the truth and honesty
to prevail in the world. Official science will propagate whatever concepts
it is being ordered to promote, true or not true, in harmony with the
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.
Of course, even in case of takeover, the danger remains that society will
be conditioned by various 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 countries often wonder why none of their
citizens is ever awarded, say, 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. It is not
the quality and the importance for the world of their discoveries, writings
or compositions. 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 Russian billionaire-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 Russian billionaires
have the brains to figure out that one, say, Macmillan Publishing should
be the target of purchase, nor they would be able to purchase such a confined
territory, if suddenly some flash of thought happens to occur in their
It is unfortunate that a man of positive science, such as
this author, should get involved with speculative matter of second-guessing
the origins of the discussed tragic phenomenon of intellectual suppression
and dictatorial governance over the reason but someone has to initiate
search for the truth as to what brought about that destructive discomfort
to the world‒‒to see the problem and to be blocked from solving
because that would lead to massive damage to the whole system of knowledge.
Installing and entrenching falsities, as are the fundamentals of today's
theoretical physics, is nothing short of ambushing science with the already
mentioned intellectual terrorism
and no one, no matter how powerless, concerned about restoring truth and
reason in science should stay away from the effort to oppose such intricate
When waging our battle to restore reason in science
by removing from science nonsense such as the relativity, we have to consider the very essence of circumstances in
which that battle takes place. These circumstances make the process of
acceptance of ideas even more difficult than the very discovering of these
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. Changes
of the paradigm, called paradigm shift are officially allowed,
as long as the frame of dogmas, false or true, within which this paradigm
exists, are untouched. Such palliative changes are even cynically called
“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''
to be discussed.
It is understandable that the approach proposed
here will not be welcomed by those who, in their appetite for public funding,
promote that funding as a one-way street‒‒the philosophy being,
scientists know what they are doing and when they say they need public
funding it 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 writings on public funding.
So, what are we supposed to do, grab air and give up? What is 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 play along, within the established
rules, no matter how corrupt, knowing full well the adverse consequences
if they do not.
It will obviously 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.
The easiest thing for those, who cannot put up with the current system
should be to put in writing whatever arguments they have and put it in
a sepulcher, in the hope that one day reason may prevail and someone
may get interested in their thoughts (cf. naïveté).
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 just 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 (quite justifiable at that) 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. Said adversaries will always do anything
possible to avoid discussing the legitimate critique, as
However, even worthy critics are prone to human frailties, envy 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 an enemy would commit. The
fellow critics would at least notice you, their adversity being only a
Of course, 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.
Used to Fund Bad Science
Competition for public funding is severe and that
competition knows no limits in the invention of manipulative methods to
reach into the pocketbook of the US Congress. Nowadays, the organized
effort to extract money for sustaining quasi-scientific infrastructures
has reached near perfection.
For instance, certain names, although in fact representing really bad
science, have been elevated through propaganda so much that their mere
mentioning, serves as a key and a passwords to
funding by the US Congress.
That situation is assisted by the more than willing journalists and self-proclaimed
science writers, who always feel the obligation to present the practical
application of the scientific enterprise in order to please the public
and to condition it so that it will not resist spending. Thus, anything
written in mass media about science has hidden agenda to justify spending
money and to guarantee to the private investors as well as to Congress
that whatever is mentioned in the text is worthy of funding. The internal
logic of science does not matter. The real discoveries may stay hidden
if they do not serve that hidden agenda.
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 the bad science for milking US Congress.
Waste is the least of the troubles. Funding inadequate projects steals
money from viable science areas so much important for the overall development
Thus, it is not that multimillion dollar projects, some directed by private
institutions and foundations, are not engaged with pure science. The whole
problem is that their engagement is overly hermetic, solely determined
to contain science in certain limits delineated by forces foreign to science
and scientific method, aimed at serving their extra-scientific goals.
The deliberate muddling of science so that science can be used as a money-extractor,
rather than a tool for the search of truth had started in the modern times
with the Solvay conferences in Belgium at the beginning of the 20th
century. These were secretly held meetings, only by invitation, with the
goal to round the edges of sometimes opposing scientific thought in the
governing empires of the time and serve the world a unified strong science
doctrine, which would withstand the centrifugal forces of the individual
nations' interests. Thus, the strength of the doctrine, not its truthfulness
qualified as the leading reason for its adoption.
It 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. Thus,
a point has been reached, whereby over 20 countries are contributing with
funds never seen before to sustain multibillion dollar projects, which
are nothing more than magnificent underhanded job schemes set up by unscrupulous
individuals, whose least concern is true science, no matter how much they
advertise it as science, in their effort to please the public.
The battle for Government funding is especially intense because it is
unmatched as a resource. Firstly, aside from the financing, incomparable
to that ensured by Government, private corporations, no matter how big,
are reluctant to dedicate funds for really 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, another way of saying direct practical application and ultimately,
It is true, huge 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
on mind. Not to say that these corporate labs will never set themselves
to challenge basic doctrines of science such as conservation of energy,
relativity or quantum mechanics, even if
these doctrines deserve challenging. Rather, they are occupied with studying
what they themselves perceive as fundamentals in areas such as solid state
physics or new energy sources, by limiting themselves to the mentioned
established basic doctrines. Such narrow-mindedness dooms them to only
menial advances if not guaranteed failures, provided the accepted fundamental
doctrines are flawed, as they are. If the corporations, however, do not
follow the “party line”, no matter how big they are, these
corporations risk ostracizing and severe punishment by the zealous competitors,
giving these competitors one more argument against in the market battle.
Challenging the status quo, even if justified, is the direct
way even for the big corporations to become small and then disappear.
While, unlike private corporations, Government is willing to back up financially
the efforts of really pure science, that financial backup has fallen a
victim of sly streamlining in such a way so as to support, seemingly idealistically
(without the need to prove the practical aspect of the studies), exactly
the bad science, 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
and that should be dwelled into.
The United States national Academy of Sciences (NAS) is the primary culprit
to take the blame for allowing such sorry state of affairs, in view of
its worldwide impact, incomparable to any other ruling force in science.
It is an example of a hermetical, unidirectional entities, 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
US Congress only to fund it but never to exert any control of its scientific
activity and decisions. The common understanding is that US Congress is
not competent to assess the scientific merits because of lack of expertise.
I submit, however, that no expertise is needed but only an average basic
school education or less, to know that 1 can never be equal to 2 and therefore
any “theory'', especially exemplified, as seen, by relativity, deriving such 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 scientists and
their peer-review. Dream on.
The taxpayers should object to NSF, DoE and DoD spending money on projects
and propaganda of wrong theories. 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 spending public money, to explore clairvoyance,
astrology or UFO. 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 a “theory'', deriving
that 1 = 7, as relativity does. There is an ongoing stream of substantial
funding, probably the highest of any science project, going towards studies
based on the bad science of that “theory“ and its non-existing
consequences; although no scientist's opinion, no expert's opinion, is
required to know that such “theory'' is wrong and deserves no public
It has to be established that US Congress can act on proposals violating
absolute truths and deny funding of such proposals. Global warming and
theory of evolution can be disputed, the reasons for their funding may
be discussed but doubting absolute truths cannot and must not be put out
for discussion and this is where the US Congress can act decisively and
US Congress today is completely isolated from any say, when funding of
fundamental research is concerned and its role is reduced to being mere
cash cow. This is the case even if there is clear understanding (unfortunately,
such clear understanding is not always observed) that the nature of fundamental
studies excludes, in principle, the expectation for the practical application
of their results.
I remember how disappointed my colleague was when the Superconductor Supercollider
around Washington, DC collider was cancelled by the US Congress, telling
me that he prefers US Congress to spend money on science rather than wasting
it on other projects. I was not aware at the time of the problems in science
I am writing about now. Now, however, I see how wise the then 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 will be worse than not funding science at all.
It will 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, detrimental in many different ways to society, as
is explained here.
The usual arguments for this one-sidedness‒‒Academia with
its peer-review unilaterally decides what is scientifically worthy, which
then Congress funds, no questions asked‒‒are that US Congress
is incompetent to judge for the inherently complex scientific merits of
the proposals, for the understanding of which, equipment with specialized
knowledge is crucial. However, is that really always the case? I maintain
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, jargon notwithstanding. Therefore, there should be a mechanism
for the Congresspersons to be made aware of the real problems and we should
expect them to prevent the existing large-scale travesty after becoming
Additional outside layer of accountability is necessary. Academia should
not feel above truth and should be held accountable for disregarding reason.
At present, especially in physics, the peer-review system is self-serving
and it cannot be expected to undermine its own comfort without some external
help from the provider of the grant. In physics today “peer-review”
is another way of saying “corruption”.
So far, such additional layer of accountability, which would require that
Academia fulfills 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 it is simple
to explain even to an outsider to understand 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
that 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.
And we are talking about million, if not billion, dollar projects.. Prompt
avoidance of taking such non-productive roads by including additional
layer of accountability, outside of the conflict of interest, epitomized
by peer-review. Only within academia, is not destruction of science but,
on the contrary, it is helping it.
Understand, it is not that funding should only go for clear cut outcomes
and no provisions for the usual mistakes and negative outcomes in research
should be made. The word is about 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. It is impossible to improve or correct this
internally, within Academia itself, because Academia has specially created
a brick wall, allowing for over-funding let alone funding of projects
having nothing to do with real science. I do not think society should
feel any regret if this kind of funding goes altogether. I think every
sensible concerned scientist should strive for the increase of funding
for scientifically sound fundamental research and for the elimination
of funding for obvious bad science, evident from the outset but protected
by corrupt peer-review.
If Science is So Wrong Why
are We On the Moon? Why do We have Computers Around?
The answer to that question was already given earlier,
pointing out that society uses technology as an avatar
for science. It is exactly that popular but misleading substitution,
which we see once again demonstrated in the question serving as a title
of this section. It is an example of the
already discussed complete
mixup, due to presenting of politically charged issues passing them as science,
It is an example of the confusion in the societal understanding as to what
science is as opposed to engineering and technology, a confusion as to what is
scientific theory and how it relates to scientific facts and so on.
This question contains a presumption that the moon landing, computers
and other technological achievement must be the product of science.
Having accepted that presumption; namely, that there is such 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 computers and other technological
wonders around, reasons the naïve proponent of technology-science connection
The problem, when asking the question used above as a title, is that the
assumption for 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. Technological advances in today's society have come around practically
unassociated with what has been passed for science. This, as already noted,
is a paradoxical 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 to mention in this context
the 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 brings direct profit. Announcements of scientific discoveries are
always accompanied by an explanation 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 (from individual's) personal advantage will
Science in the United States is not perceived as ideology, providing realistic
worldview and correct structure of thinking, but is only thought of as
some practical means to do successful business. This is how it is sold
to the public in 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 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.
Worthy achievements of science are considered only such, impacting the
society as a whole in a directly practical way, and especially serving
big business. Achievements as diverse as game theory, conservative side
of climate change debate, input-output analysis, chromatography, nuclear
bomb etc. are celebrated mainly because of their practical usefulness.
Tampering with general ideas such as the essence of time and space, leading
further to fantasies about dark matter, standard model and whatnot, theorizing
without practical outcome about energy and so on, are the cream of the
crop and are only delegated to the astral personnas, well-endowed by the
society and yet untouchable by that same society for even the most deserving
The former perception of science, the practical one, serves to enhance
the sustenance of basically two sides of society‒‒producers
and consumers. The latter perception of science, the more important, although
entirely impractical, serves to sustain the particular needed ideology
of society, needed to drive it in a particular direction and not allowing
it to stray from it, even if reason requires such diversion.
This intellectual atmosphere, regarding the sought for and imposed practicality
of science, very much resembles the attitude toward science in the former
communist countries, where science that was worthy discussing publicly,
was portrayed and reduced to a direct productive force in a sense of producing
goods for the market. Interestingly, however, even being communist, those
countries were going quite obediently along the second, the lofty, impractical,
part of the imposed all over the civilized world doctrine. In this respect
the world was one even under communism.
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 remind that genuine
science being, in its very essence, anything but practical in a business
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 overwhelms
Academia nowadays. As discussed, that influence may be subtle, it may not be obvious but
it actually can have effect literally on the very existence of today's society. As explained,
there is a real such danger, 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 painting. It does not put
food on the table, you will hear them say, you cannot feed the farm animals
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, 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, they feel,
is only to aid the dissemination of knowledge, established and approved
somewhere by someone.
The said so far maintains that nothing can be further from the truth.
The parallel society, professing the dishonest system of science, a parallel
society, unaccountable before the mainstream society, does more damage
than good to the young souls by indoctrinating them from early age with
notions, which are removed from reality as much as possible. Some of these
notions, for instance those about space and time or the probabilistic
nature of the method describing the microworld, are presented as so advanced
that no effort is expected from the youth to understand them‒‒just
learn them and use them, that is the mantra. Defiance of logic is unimportant
because, see, sophisticated science defies common sense and that should
not worry you, the student, the mantra goes on. That vicious mind game
is begun on the impressionable minds in their formative years but that
goes unheeded to their parents and educators, themselves conditioned to
play the game.
Thus, the starting point of the zealous politicians and concerned-about-education
citizens, who feel content to have found an easy and seemingly noble mission
in life, 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 already 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 did 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. How can they, their
response will be? 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 unaccountability to those “some'' unidentified out there,
to have science function as a one-way street,
is the biggest mistake politicians make with regard to the presence of
science, respectively, its function‒‒education, in society.
However, even if this somehow magically changes and the politicians shed their timidity
to look more carefully what is really taught in natural sciences to find the definitive
arguments (not arguments regarding evolution or other debatable stuff) that it 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 business necessity.
As a result, practically no student would consider paying for taking classes in General
Chemistry, if that would not lead directly to earning money as a result
of finishing that course. The understanding that taking a science course
has other purposes, other than the utilitarian use, such as enhancing
the quality of thinking, improving the worldview etc., 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 in 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 centers of power are one's parents. Later in life,
aside from the workplace, there are various 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 details 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 and
discussing education in the framework of the existing system can only bring
palliative changes, not worth discussing in a more general context.
Reform in Physics
Theoretical physics, being the most important fundamental
science, is in need of very serious overhaul.
The first and foremost goal is to rummage its theories, especially its
flagship theories, for internal contradictions and promptly get rid of
such theories. As mentioned more than once, based on ample argumentation,
a prime candidate for such removal is relativity.
Remove flawed relativity and there will
be no cosmology, string theories and the like. Especially young
people should not waste one minute of their precious time on that bad
science, even as an educational facility to study where wrong thing might
have their origin.
(This site contains for completeness study guides for
those, curious to see the roots of the irrational. Skipping these study
guides will do no harm to even the most inquisitive mind because the
blatant flaws of relativity are readily obvious without
dwelling into details.)
Next important action for physics is to rid itself of 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
mathematical rigor is not enough for a formal construct to be useful for
physics. A mathematical construct is useful for physics when, in addition
to being mathematically consistent (and not at all lead to deriving that 1 = 2,
as relativity does), it also has
physical meaning; when it does not go contrary to the absolute truths
physics is based on.
As mentioned more than once, an immediate example of such non-physical albeit
mathematically consistent proposal, is the mathematical construct called
Lorentz transformations, for the reasons discussed herewith.
One can often hear that contemporary physics is counterintuitive;
that is, it is right on some higher level, which defies the common sense.
Calling it counterintuitive is in the attempt to advocate its plain wrong
conclusions. Deriving that 1 = 2 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 present in that place as opposed to measuring that
time by a moving clock, which happened to be in that place at that moment,
is plain wrong and not at all counterintuitive-albeit-correct. Being at
odds with the absolute truths is not some higher kind of truth but is
outright incorrect and is to be rejected at once without hesitation.
To sum it up, the reform in physics requires three types of change:
Concepts (internally contradictory) which have
to 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 obviously not attended to, 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 notions, suffocating it and
properly directing it to account for the actual, real physical world.
As said, it will be more like waking up from a
bad dream, rather than some radical revolution or turmoil.
This author will do his best to ensure that even the negligible finance
he has goes, after his passing, towards the efforts to achieve the noble goal
of restoring reason and scientific method in physics. 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
Those who desperately have set themselves to protect jealously the
destructive status quo, are indiscriminate in their arsenal of offensive instruments, which
they use instead of offering solid scientific argumentation (which obviously wanting for them).
These offensive verbal instruments, used as surrogate-arguments, can sometimes be very curious,
aside from being inadequate, and constitute a solid structure of flawed defense, which persists throughout
cultures and geographic location. Obviously, more effort has been applied
to create the artificial defense of the “theory'' in question 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 table of
discussion, something they fear the most. Many of the verbal instruments, mentioned here, are aimed
exactly at avoiding such discussion which will inevitably expose beyond doubt the poverty of advocates'
Because, even casual critique will be damning
and conclusive, to mandate removal of bogus “theories'', such
as relativity, those that serve the powers-that-be, enthusiastically
trivialize the criticism, claiming that no one is interested one bit
in the subject and how dare-you-waste-their-precious-time-with-such-mundane-topic
ludicrous complaint is easily slapped as something self-evident. At
the very same time, all the mass media pounces the listener with news
about big breakthroughs in CERN, with foundations exactly residing
in this sorry “theory''. In fact, on the contrary, the 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, of course, would have certainly pronounced his own
findings as the most interesting and worthy of attention discovery.
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 is that, 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 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 a portraying the
critique as some sort of a personal issue, is probably the lowest
level an advocate can stoop, 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 attack are the
most common when someone dares to criticize let alone reject outright
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 scientific method rules, such attacks will be immediately laughed out of
town if anybody has the audacity to express them.
Claim that if there were a mistake, then it would
have been discovered already by the millions of experts using the
“theory''. This has never been the case nor will it ever be
when millions are subscribing to a theory which eventually is found
wrong. It is not applicable in this case too. Such argument can only
be expressed by someone with no education in science of by someone
who knows that anything goes when it pertains to relativity. Frivolousness
and unaccountability, this is what breeds such kind of asinine argument.
Claim that the “theory'' must be right because there
have been numerous experiments confirming it. In addition to the fact that even
if the facts confirming a theory may be numerous, one only fact going against it
is enough to abolish it, in this case the following must be added:
As is perfectly clear and, as it was emphasized
more than once, internally contradictory “theory'' can never
have experimental confirmations and any claims for such are either
due to experimental errors or deliberate manipulation. Let alone, as said, that
even if a theory has had confirmations, that circumstance by no means
invalidates future genuine adverse experimental facts.
Unjustified claim that everything around us is
a confirmation of the “theory''. Such ludicrous assertion is
shot down at once: “theory'' derives the 1 = 2 but one apple
around us is not equal to two apples around us. That should suffice
to reject said “theory''.
Accusation that some political or social agenda
is causing the urge to criticize the “theory''.
Insistence that only peer-reviewed critique is
worthy of considering. Then, the “theory'' at hand itself is
not worthy of considering because it has not been peer-reviewed. 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 in the course of 100 years, which
is the peer-review. And why, then, such approach is not applied to
this writing‒‒let it be published in the same venues the
“theory'' at hand was published and see what happens? Why such
double standard‒‒the non-peer-reviewed relativity has
been discussed be 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''. Parochial way of dealing with the opponent.
Old as the world.
Another trick is to unnecessarily further formalize
mathematical expressions containing elementary physical errors, so
that these errors can be obscured, sunk into the notation. For instance,
instead of writing Newton's second law as
the force acting on a body, m is the mass of the body and a is the
acceleration of the body, the advocate requires that Newton's second
law be observed 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 as mass
in system k which contradicts the fact that first postulate of relativity presents mass m in K as the same mass
m in k. Thus, advocate writes
and everything seems OK‒‒the claimed invariance (covariance) of Newton's
second law under Lorentz transformations is seemingly fulfilled.
But it is not, if the content of
is revealed. As a matter of fact, the author of relativity himself used
and not .
Similarly, the students are usually tricked to
believe in the physical validity of Lorentz transformations
by first applying them and the undoing what has been applied by using
the reverse Lorentz transformations. Intellectual damage to
students by applying such underhanded methods is discussed more than
once in this text.
Claiming that “scientific methodis wrong''. Obviously, to
sustain that 1 = 2, which relativity derives is only
possible by destroying science and its scientific method.
Claiming that the proposed correction “is not
even wrong'' and all kinds of other ways, which the advocate deems
original and funny, for the lack of anything better to say and because of trying
to avoid deservedly saying it with respect to the object of criticism.
Ignoring it outright by saying “We have already heard
it'', without at all bothering to support such saying with a reference ... because no
such reference exists.
Sending you a standard letter of rejection, without
even bothering to give it to referees. Arrogance and passive aggression
have always be the tools of those lacking arguments.
A favorite label deniers use, is “pet theory'',
ignoring the fact that criticism of said “theory'' is not a
new theory at all. How can mandatory removal of said “theory''
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.
The truth is, however, as evidenced by the categorical
arguments herewith, that the “theory'' at
hand 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 imagination for absurdity. All that “theory'' resides
in §1 and §2 of the 1905 manuscript and invalidates itself
at once right there. Everything else in that manuscript is a flawed student-style exercise in
applying the Lorentz transformations, transformations (as non-physical,
although mathematically consistent, as they are), whose creation and
offering to the world relativity has nothing to do with.
The question of apparent but fake complexity seeps the world. Technically
savvy in otherwise standard and simple computer matters are pronounced
as computer geniuses. Some manage to earn substantial amounts by cornering
this psychological conditioning of society. They create magnificent
edifices, whole empires, out of elementary things that trivially work. What to say
about the elementary things that are simply incorrect? Look
what happened with obviously 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.
Of course, 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 the 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-deserved debunking of the "theory". 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. Obviously, such counter-arguments are clearly wanting.
This is the reason why advocates of the "theory" resort to the
above-cited sort of extra-scientific attacks.
As expected, experience so far confirms that wanting of counter-arguments
to the arguments used here to debunk the "theory" and the complete
failure to defend that non-scientific "theory". Indeed, how can the
indefensible be defended? How can the derivation by the "theory"
that 1 = 2 be defended? It cannot. The way no meaningless derivation can.
In the age of internet powers-that-be can discourage bright minds from
correcting errors in what these powers consider established and closed
for discussion, not to speak about exploring even promising non-orthodox
scientific areas only through applying subtle new methods. Burning at
the stakes, imprisonment in concentration camps and other similar formerly
efficient drastic methods will not do any good today. Such method will
only create heroes or, at least, underdogs, which the population always
sides with. Although the unruly curious researcher, treading forbidden
territory can be labeled insane (ad hominem attacks were
already mentioned), it is much more difficult today to put him or her
in a psychiatric asylum. 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 a garden path to a theoretical and practical
Ignoring, preventing from dissemination, is the primary
tool of the powers-that-be. 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.
Society has changed a lot these past few decades. Feminism has gained
ground at levels hard to foresee when it first began. Gay rights movement,
tea party movement, various other radical movements, some staunchly religious
are finding their vast territories of control overshadowing and modifying
former territories, occupied by marxism and the like. Some are more or less
ideology-driven movements. In others, such as scientology, for example, 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 can compete in their impact on society with
the ubiquitous unified impact, which the central powers have exerted regarding
the fundamental tenets of science.
In our case we have to realize that society is conditioned to act in defense
of something that has already gained ground through intellectual coup
d'états. An intellectual coup d'état of planetary
proportion in science has occurred at the beginning of the 20th
century, primarily in physics. The primary governing colonial powers of
that time‒‒Great Britain, France and Germany‒‒have
secretly rounded the intellectual edges of their elites, creating the
monster of the modern physics.
But then, how is it that with this wrong fundamental science
we could go to the Moon and have computer technology?
As mentioned, the common understanding, formed by wrongly making a
direct connection between science and technology, is that all boils
down to inevitability. The common thinking is that, if science were so wrong, then it
inevitably should lead to collapse of technology and, as a result, of society.
Society has not collapsed as of yet and the existing conclusion is that, therefore,
all is well in science. That conclusion is wrong on a deeper level.
If we understand correctly, as was already discussed,
the connections between science, technology
and progress in society, and do not judge for progress superficially, only
considering technological advances, but go deeper into the essence of societal
ideology, we should note that we are in fact experiencing this intellectual collapse.
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.
All of the 20th century
physics has devoted itself to making adjustments to theories that are wrong
at their very fundamentals, instead of cleaning these fundamentals from
the get go and nipping the problems in the bud. The concealment and adjustment
has gone a long way and depth and nowadays it is made so hermetic that
it is even beyond most experts' reach. A couple thousand collective of co-authors,
hidden behind colossal structures of supercolliders, have made themselves
completely unaccountable. The managing to become in charge of multibillion
facilities, pronounced as science labs, makes these ill practitioners literally
unassailable let alone that they themselves are no more to police their own
activity. At these conditions only loyalty to the group, not seeking the truth
by applying scientific method, becomes the norm and the ideal.
This is the real, established nazism, that has gained deep social roots nowadays,
reducing the individual to become a screw in a gigantic intellectually
suppressive machine, governed by a few dictators, installed by the monarchies
and aided by hermetic Stuttgart or London based private publishing companies,
unaccountable to anybody but their monarchical masters. Hundreds of voiceless
working bees in Governmental labs, such as the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, for instance,
governed mercilessly (in
intellectual terms) by a small elite in Caltech. Thousands and thousands
of enthusiastic young powerless intellectual slaves, working for meager
crumbs in the national laboratories, CERN and a plethora of dictatorial
superstructures around the world, where obedience to the doctrine, not
truth and reason, is the strictest requirement. Fascism, with its loyalty
to the master, is here to stay. More perfidious and elaborate than ever.
Senselessness is Impossible Today
An indelible feature, characterizing all modern societies
and social systems, from the 1933 Germany, through Soviet Union and the
various democracies of the time thereafter, is the unshakable adoption
of relativity. Social orders come and go
but one thing stays untarnished, stays above all, as a sad, misguided
symbol of ill-perceived intellectual progress‒‒the “theory''
in question. It is above all social systems. It governs them. It is one
of the best litmus tests to indicate why societies are so unable to get
rid of corruption, to solve the various socio-economic problems they face.
If corruption is indeed so deep to allow for such obvious, simple to spot,
meaninglessnesses to exist, then there is no hope to expect that there
will be solutions to the real complexities and meanderings of the societal
The “theory'' in question is the epitome of how a subtle factor,
practically unnoticeable, 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 progress, which has
never occurred, if such “theories'' are the measure.
No street rallies, no protests, no mutinies or revolutions can be seen
as calling for the overthrow of the discussed relativity amphigoric piffle,
desperately passed for a scientific theory.
People believe what they want to believe and that gives them the feeling
of structure and stability. It is not the first time that humanity has
had false prophets but history can hardly offer a false prophet of such
destructive, low quality impact on the highest levels of the humanistic
essence of mankind. Aristotle's teaching have survived many centuries
but 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 an internally contradictory creation, such as relativity, whose falsity is, at that, so obvious and
can be rejected without waiting for decades or centuries to pass. Historical
innocence is inapplicable to the “theory'' in question, which could have been
detected wrong, 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 “theory'' at any time in history.
This situation with the obviousness of said “theory's'' inadequacy
and yet its long stay, its vapidity unrecognized, resembles the placing
of one's valuables somewhere in an obvious place in order 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.
The Most Important Intellectual
Criterion for Social Change
The permanency of such outrightly fatuous occupant of intellectual territories, as
ambushing the highest levels of human activity throughout every social
order thinkable, indicates that the changes in these social orders are
superficial and do not cut into the heart of the problems menacing society.
Thus, criterion for real change in the society could only be the appropriation
of mechanisms to self-clean from such assault at reason, as well as to
have mechanisms in place of filtering them out, as soon as they raise
their ugly head.
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. As mentioned, 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 such obvious
absolute truths be played with and dishonored, by excusing oneself with
lack of expertise, is intellectual slavery of the worst kind. Such intellectual
slave, putting up with obvious vapidity, should not, then, complain about
the education, healthcare, political and whatnot problems of society.
These, however, are the central problems people complain about, really
missing where they all arise from.
In view of the singular importance for the future of the civilization,
no democracy, no class struggle or dictatorial regime should be of any
importance, if these political conditions of society preserve the current
state of affairs in science and protect the removal of mentioned corrupt
and dishonest science.
The above, the getting science back to its honest, truthful path of reason,
should be elevated as the crucial criterion for the survival of our civilization.
Results from A Text Such as This One
The impact of this writing on society will be zero.
It has been known for a long time that the American society has absolutely
no respect for arguments, unless they come from persons with substantial
wealth (aka well-established individuals) or influential organized forces,
also backed up by substantial wealth.
This 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 man will not bother with such purchased truth. To correct the
perception that money determines what is to be perceived as true and seek
the real truth is, unfortunately, also connected with money of the amount
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 in words his or her thoughts regarding that problem, 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 the honest, truthful
analysis, ready for dissemination, that has been waiting for the right
moment to arrive. Probably, the above answers the question as to why this
author decided to write the text at hand.
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 text
is concerned solely with the truth, without hidden agendas or chips on
In addition to the above strength, as already said, the scientific
arguments given are succinct but definitive. Thus, the infinite widely
publicized debates and controversies of today are flatly avoided. None
of these widely publicized debates can really provide answers with the
definitiveness the scientific arguments put forth herewith provide. Therefore,
they are merely exercises in eloquence and not avenues to bring about
Also, as pointed out earlier, arguments are based on “theory'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 it would be
slightly more difficult to leave ideas, even ideas such as the ones herewith,
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 are opposing, a denial every
critic of the substantial fundamentals of theoretical physics meets today.
Of course, 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 text. Progress, however, is not
a stranger to idealists but idealists are probably progress' best friends.
It is noteworthy that certain groups complain that during certain regimes
their books were burned at the stakes. However, even worse than
burning books at the stakes, is to deny them the light of day by blocking
their proper publishing (not self-publishing), as it happens today. As
already 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 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 the society
to become introvert, “I, me, mine'' consumer society,
whereby each of its individual members is only interested in his or her
personal well-being, pleasures, family, feelings. Conditioning the society
in this personal-only direction, making it disinterested in the wider
common social and cultural goals, is carried out by the installment of
the introvert mass culture, reflected in its arts, literature, films,
theater and everything else. The idealistic concerns for the common
good are denigrated as elitist, elevating the lowest common denominator
as the standard. Stupifying large number of people is good for the business
as well. After all, business is number's game, not an enlightening pursuit.
The population is stupified 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. By allowing to be fooled it
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. Not to
say that speaking and acting truthfully does not pay. Truth does not sell.
The numbers' game, which is the game of business, cannot be played on honest
and truthful terms. Profit only determines what is honest and what is
The above efficiently holds the idealistic person back, leaving him or her under a glass
ceiling, unheard and unnoticed, waiting for his or her inevitable physical passing.
The physical passing away is occurring in too many a instance, long after the incurred
intellectual death, which the powers-that-be have already caused to the individual. Thus,
everything you have done, every discovery, every finding, will fade away with you
after you pass away. Everything will be lost as if you have never been. The
ignoring spoken above, has 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 ages-old solutions?
Ages-old, low-technology fact is also that no matter what developments technology
might undergo, the fundamentals of life such as air, water, food will remain
eternal. Even the sophistication of the computer today cannot show itself
without the common low-technology need for power to have it running.
It may happen so that the 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 really
long term. Being concerned mainly with the protection of their own and
their progenies' powers, the physical protection of details such as ideas
and writings are of lesser concern to these powers.
As shorter-term solution, it may be suggested that a non-profit foundation be
established, which purportedly will carry on some of your legacies after your passing.
However, it 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.
So, it is sticky-wicked. Your temporary presence on earth is in fact even
more tentative, considering the denial of legacy.
Can Truth Prevail?
From all said so far, the answer should be a resounding,
no. Truth cannot prevail in today's society. Especially, if one relies
only on rational, correct argument. The harm to society by the discussed “theory'',
confounded in the public mind as science, will deepen further in foreseeable
future, more and more encrusting its own elite, in parasitic relationship with the
rest of society, draining wastefully its resources. Sadly, that harm will still
remain invisible for society, blinded by the reassurance and the glory of the promises for
outwardly grandiose, fake actually, intellectual achievements.
Theoretical physics, unfortunately, will continue to stay with us in its present sorry
shape and waste resources because it is already entrenched out there, 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. Society is giving up on other social matters overwhelming
it, to the extent of not being able to deal with them. Alcohol, tobacco, not to speak about
legalizing marijuana, are all examples of know harmful agents, which have made their steady
way in society. What to say about the harm of fast-food chains, a known no-good 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 already massively
out there and there is no other chance but let them go as they are.
As said above, if these and other social ills are to be tackled, the first area to consider
overhaul in is theoretical physics. It is hoped that the ample arguments given above will
be sufficient to convince in 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 really
happens in science nowadays.
Prevalence of truth in science means its adoption in the recognized science
media, such as peer-reviewed science journals and, finally, in the standard
textbooks, used to instruct the young generations in the system of established
structures of thought in a given discipline.
The doctrines one sees in the textbooks have found their way by a complicated
means of consensus between the leading empires of the world, involving
billions of dollars or respective currencies, rounding corners and finagling
to find the common ground of these empires' interests. This process has
very little or even nothing to do with the establishment of truth. These
empires only pay lip service to the idea that establishment of truth is
the goal but in reality are ready to violate most elementary logic and
reason, only to reach the mentioned consensus. Therefore, it is absolutely
out of the question to bypass that process, relying only on sensible arguments
and logic, without involving major sources of public power and finances.
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.