The Harm
Demise of Science‒‒Threat to Survival of Western Civilization
Abuse of Necessary Conservatism
Public Distrust of Science‒‒Danger to National Security
Why Hasn't It Been Pinpointed and Corrected Already?
How Can Disregarding Absolute Truths Affect Society?
How is This Damage to Society to be Amended?
Taxpayer Money‒‒Overwhelmingly Used to Fund Bad Science
If Science is So Wrong Why are We On the Moon? Why do We have Computers Around?
Practicality of America
Harm to Education
Reform in Physics
Usual Arguments Which Can Be Heard to Squander Criticism
Removing Relativity Absurdity is Impossible Today
The Most Important Intellectual Criterion for Social Change
Results from A Text Such as This One
Can Truth Prevail?

“Theory” of Relativity is Harming Public Interest

The Harm

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 method.

The most cynical part of that military-style occupation of science by the complacent fatuity of relativity is that when such intellectual imposition concerns the deliberate distortion of the most fundamental notions of science, such as 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 essence.

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 views.

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 constitutes a 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 and explosives.

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 feature‒‒logicality.

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, and ?) 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 against humanity.

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 with relativity.

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 the resistance.

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 efficient censorship.

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 method.

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 show.

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 nowadays.

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 dictatorship.

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, correct worldview.

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 quo.

Add to it also that the ideological basis for a given scientific theory to govern, is its belonging to the national, or even group, identity and pride. 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 nowhere?

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 apparent justification.

Muddling the minds of the elites, forcing them to accept internally contradictory absurdities as if they are a true expression of some new, 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 seats.

In view of the fact that, when truthfully presented, activities in pure science are disliked by the public, politicians feel discouraged to release public funds for these sciences, unless something fantastic and mind-boggling is not composed to offer smoke and mirrors to the public. To accomplish this, 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, that

  • 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 non-scientific “theory''.

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 harming it.

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 miserably.

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 from physics.

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 is.

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 brains.

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 societal menace.

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 ideas.

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, as yourself.

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 discussed below.

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 mere bonus.

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.

Taxpayer Money‒‒Overwhelmingly 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 of society.

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, profit.

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 funding.

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 categorically.

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 informed.

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 sanctity.

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 be.

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 critique.

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.

Practicality of the American society, discussed here, cannot be changed, however detrimental it may be with regard to science, if carried to the extreme, ‒‒no need to remind that genuine science being, in its very essence, anything but practical in a business sense.

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 the world).

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 to education.

Every single individual has his or her own hidden feelings about who the centers of power for his or her life are. It is where the material support comes from but also it is where the moral and psychological foundation is. When young, the obvious 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 experimental evidence.

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

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 already expressed.

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' counterarguments.

  • 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 relativity.

  • 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

    where is 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


    where is the momentum of the body. In doing so the advocate hopes to obscure the fact that Lorentz transformations present mass m in system K 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

    in K


    in k

    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 method is wrong''. Obviously, to sustain that 1 = 2, which relativity derives is only possible by destroying science and its scientific method.

  • Allowing faking of results in order to justify a conclusion.

  • 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 abyss.

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.

Removing Realtivity 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 ills.

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 relativity, 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 author's shoulder.

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 conclusive solutions.

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 truthful.

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.

Physicist Assaulting Scientific Method

Attempt to Legitimize Faking in Science