An Introduction to the weird theories

Relativity Theory

In our everyday world we know that different observers measure the speed of a moving object differently depending upon their own speed. For example an observer standing on a platform may measure the speed of a motor bike as 100kmph. Another observer travelling in a bus at 40kmph in the same direction will measure the speed of the same motor bike as 60kmph. And the motor cyclist himself will measure the speed of his bike as zero with reference to him. So the speed of any object is relative and depends upon the reference frame of the observer. This is what commonsense tells us. But apparently this commonsense can’t be applied to Light. Relativity preaches us that light always travels with the speed ‘c’ (3×108m/sec) irrespective of the reference frame of the observer.

 If we ask why, some relativists put that down to Maxwell. It is true that Maxwell had deduced the value of ‘c’ (speed of light) mathematically after experimenting on electromagnetism but he didn’t know to which reference frame this speed of light applies. While scientists were pondering on this reference frame issue, Einstein mesmerised the scientific folk with his weird maths and said that the SOL (3x108m/sec) deduced by Maxwell must be applicable to every observer irrespective of their reference frame and made the crowd to believe in the absurd law he proposed i.e. the law of constant speed of light.

Having lost the commonsense, the mesmerized scientific folk then interpreted every experiment as proof of relativity. As discussed elsewhere no experiment straight away supports any notion, rather we the humans apply our commonsense, interpret the data and decide whether the experimental data supports a notion or not. So we need commonsense and reasoning to interpret any experiment. But the mesmerized scientific folk had abandoned them in favour of weird maths. Great physicists like Stephen Hawking believe that our commonsense and logic may get affected by our earthly ‘illusions’ but not our mathematics. Scientists argue that what we see and how we experience the world depends upon how our brain processes and interprets the data it receives from the sense organs. So, what we see and experience i.e. our perceived reality may not be the actual reality, and another creature’s brain may interpret the same in a different way depending upon its neuronal anatomy and physiology. So our ‘picture’ of the universe could just be an illusion created by our brain. Hence the physicists argue that our logic and commonsense can’t be sworn upon to explain Nature and its actual behaviour.

But then, how come mathematics which is also the result of our brain’s activity can be relied upon any better? How come only Logic gets affected by our earthly illusions but not mathematics? I believe that Logic is the basis of all our knowledge and understanding of the Nature. And logic is the basis of mathematics. If some mathematical model predicts something that is against logic, there is no reason to discard our logic and uphold the mathematical prediction. Every mathematical model, however complex it may be, is ultimately built upon bits of simple reasoning and logic. Then how can mathematics contradict logic? How can anything contradict its own basic pillars of foundation and still be valid? 

Most physics students do agree that the theory of relativity is weird, but they put that down to their ignorance and inability to grasp the ‘complex’ mathematics behind the theory (like the crowd in the Emperor story who believe that it must be their ignorance that is stopping them from appreciating the Emperor’s magical costume!). And to progress in their career, students have to believe in the weird theory and live up to the expectations of their professors (who themselves have also gone through the same indoctrination process as students). After years of chanting and studying the same physics, some ‘bright’ students at some point of time in their career get ‘enlightened’ and they ‘realize’ that relativity is not at all weird but actually represents the ultimate reality or truth. Having studied and chanted the weird theory for years, now they don’t see anything weird in relativity. And having suppressed common sense during all these years of study, now it is the commonsense that appears weird to them.  At this stage they get opportunities to join and interact with the top class physicists of the world (who had also gone through the same phases of ‘transformation’) and keep spreading the weird science. This is how science students ascend in their career and become physicists. And the process is no different from someone becoming a priest.

But most science students aren’t ‘bright enough’ to reach to that celebrity stage and hence settle somewhere much down in the social hierarchy of the ‘science religion’. And they continue to believe that it is their ignorance that stops them from fully understanding the weird theory and from experiencing the truth. “Because the theory has been endorsed by all the top class physicists, and accepted and taught all over the world, though the theory sounds weird and its predictions absurd, it must probably be true” an average student is right to think this way. But a logician doesn’t blindly believe in what the majority think or what some celebrity professors and scientists teach. Every scientific theory is amenable to logical deduction unless it is based upon some weird magical assumption. As I said earlier, Logic is the basis of all our knowledge including science and it can’t be defeated by weird theories masquerading as science.  In this work I have argued why the theory of relativity and its predictions are absurd and illogical by all means of reasoning. I have also exposed the distorted interpretation of many experiments which the mesmerized physicists claim as proof of the weird theory.

Overthrowing someone’s theory doesn’t automatically make that someone stupid. For example Ptolemy’s geocentric model of the Universe was thrown away later by better reasoning in the wake of newer information gained as part of the mankind’s ongoing quest to understand Nature. But that shouldn’t make Ptolemy and his followers any stupid, because the model was true and very much logical up to that point of time. But that’s not the case with the theory of relativity. We don’t need any newer information or more sophisticated experiments to disprove the absurd theory which the modern physicists hail as the greatest scientific theory and whose principles they chant every day. Disproving relativity just involves exposing the relativists’ weird thinking and their stupid interpretation of the various experiments. So unlike the case with the Ptolemy’s Geocentric theory, disproving relativity also proves relativists as stupid.

The stupid thinkers claim that their weird theory has been proved beyond doubt by many experiments. Obviously no experiment straight away supports any theory but the data needs logical interpretation to arrive at correct conclusions. If some folk strongly believes that our world is fundamentally weird and hence declares that logic isn’t the best way of understanding nature, how can we expect such weird folk to draw logically valid conclusions out of any experimental data? No doubt that, physicists are the most intelligent crowd amongst the humans and I agree that we all need to respect them for advancing our knowledge and technology. But what if they get affected by a mania and that mania masquerades as science? It will be a big shame not only for them but to all the humans. It will also be a shame to our Planet Earth if some aliens realise how stupid the most intelligent race on earth thinks! So to save science from weird theories and to save ourselves from the embarrassment, our physicists must be rescued from the relativity mania.

Quantum ignorance

Quantum physicists are not as stupid as relativists – While relativity starts with the weird assumption of constant SOL and is supported by false interpretation of experimental observations (which could have been easily explained by classical science unlike what the relativity maniacs claim), quantum physics is ‘woven’ to explain some ‘really’ weird observations to which classical physics couldn’t offer logical explanation. For example the results of double slit experiment suggest that an electron travels via both the slits simultaneously. This observation and others forced the physicists to propose the weird laws of the quantum world.

While I don’t call quantum physicists as stupid, I blame them for one reason- Rather than trying to find out the missing logical ‘link’ connecting the classical and quantum worlds, the ‘tired’ physicists have taken the easy path of ‘blaming’ the Nature for being weird at the quantum scale. They teach that events in the quantum world (e.g. radioactive decay) occur ‘by chance’ or at random and hence what we can expect to know is only the probability of such events. For example we can only know how many atoms in a given radioactive substance may decay in a certain period but can’t exactly predict which individual atom decays and when. Apparently even Nature doesn’t ‘know’ when each individual atom decays. The overconfident physicists claim that they know as much as the Nature knows and the reason why they are unable to accurately predict any individual event at the quantum level is because Nature itself doesn’t know! In other words, we are ignorant because the Nature is ignorant. This is where I feel the quantum physicists are wrong. We can accept that quantum world is weird and hence we are unable to accurately predict individual events in the microcosm but that weirdness and unpredictability of quantum world must be to do with our ignorance and inability. 

Of course, its again the Relativity religion which distorted the face of science altogether and there by necessitated establishment of the quantum religion. If only physicists hadn’t misinterpreted Michelson’s experiment and thus forced the scientific community abandon the Ether theory, quantum physics with all its absurd notions wouldn’t have come into existence. Because, then physicists would have realized that Ether model would provide a very simple and straight forward explanation for the double slit experiment. But unfortunately, as Ether was ‘disproved’, the later physics pastors had no choice but to establish the quantum religion with all its mythical and illogical notions in order to explain the results of double slit experiment.

Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.


  • Galacar  On April 14, 2014 at 2:38 am

    “we all need to respect them for advancing our knowledge and technology”

    Well, really?
    There is nothing good that ‘modern science (physics) has brought us.
    Nothing at all!
    Not the atomic bomb (is also not good), not the transistor, not the MRI, not the microwave oven, not remote control and the list goes on and on and on…

    Warm greetings

    Galacar (Holland)

    Liked by 1 person

  • pimikepi  On April 30, 2014 at 8:37 pm

    There is nothing illogical about the predictions of mathematics. Unfamiliar, yes, but not illogical. Take the Monty Hall problem. Are you going to say that because the prediction seems illogical that the mathematics is false? Put your money where your logic is, then. I will play you, I will follow the mathematics and beat you using mathematics.

    QM was the “easy path?” Do you REALLY think they didn’t agonize about it for years? Einstein never accepted the conclusions of QM. It was only with Bell’s Theorem, and its experimental verification, that Einstein was proved wrong. Bell showed that if QM predictions were only due to ignorance, you would get one result, but if QM was fundamentally how nature was, you would get another. The latter case was true.


    • drgsrinivas  On May 7, 2014 at 3:23 pm

      Nobody here is arguing against the value of correct mathematics built upon correct logic. Just like there exists stupid people like relativists, there also exists stupid mathematics built upon stupid notions. I have only been arguing against that stupid maths.

      Mathematics just represents a symbolic version of a logical argument. Something that can be explained in mathematical terms can also be expressed in terms of logical statements. And there isn’t any puzzle that will only ‘yield’ to mathematics but not to logic. Either the puzzle is a stupid one ‘woven’ around a delusion (like your twins’ paradox) or it will yield to both maths and logic.

      When someone fails to predict things correctly using calculations, it either shows the inability of the person to use the correct method of calculation or it may be that the correct way of calculation is not yet known or devised. (When someone doesn’t know how to add numbers, one would obviously get at a wrong sum. It amounts to stupidity if one blames mathematics for the wrong result). Similarly when people fail to solve a puzzle using logic, the problem is not with the discipline of Logic, but is due to the ignorance and inability of the people to apply the correct logic.

      Are you arguing that Monty Hall paradox can’t be explained by Logic? Unfortunately for your religious crowd, this oft-repeated paradox can be easily solved by simple logic. You want to play with me? No problem, you may come with all your crowd. If I lose I will pay you. If I win I don’t want your money. Only ignorant people crave for money. My only expectation is to set free a poor mind from the clutches of a stupid religion. And let me correct you that Logic can never be unfamiliar; one just has to follow the correct logical sequence.

      Of course, even if I were to fail to solve that by Logic, that doesn’t in any case underestimate the value of Logic. That would just indicate my inability. And if you fail to solve a puzzle by Maths; that would just indicate your inability and not that of the Maths per se. It would be stupid to portray a competition between individuals as that between Maths and Logic.

      Einstein is surely the most intelligent person amongst your stupid folk. While he managed to ‘convert’ all the ‘scientific’ folk into his ‘religion’ and made them to religiously chant his stupid theory, he remained highly sensible when it came to accepting your other great religious theory – he didn’t fall prey to the quantum religion unlike the rest of your stupid scientific religious folk.

      Bell’s theorem only proves the ignorance of your stupid crowd. How can any ignorant and stupid crowd prove or disprove anything? If you presuppose the shape of an egg as a pyramid, then you could prove that the oval white thing laid by a hen is not an egg. That is, you can prove and disprove things as per your religious beliefs by making some wrong stupid presuppositions.

      I am not exaggerating your pastors’ stupidity at all. This is what they usually do. For example let me tell you how your pastors disproved Ether drag. They presupposed that if Ether drag was true, Earth would drag a large blob of Ether around it. But only a stupid mind can accept that presupposition- when a ball moves in air, it wouldn’t drag a blob of air. And similarly when a ball moves inside a stationary pool of water, it wouldn’t drag a fixed blob of water around it. (

      And even if we imagine that we drag a ‘blob’ of air around us as we walk in rain, the rain drops wouldn’t fall straight down unlike what your pastors preach. They would still fall at an angle.

      The way your pastors think reminds me of a saying in Telugu- when a stupid person was asked how many are pancha pandavas (five pandavas), he apparently said “they are like the three legs of a cot” and showed two fingers. Not only that he didn’t know how many are pandavas, he also didn’t know how many legs a cot will have. And when someone shows two fingers to represent three, we can imagine how stupid is that someone. Your pastors are not too different.


    • Robert Borer  On May 30, 2019 at 2:12 am

      Doctor, I love your work. Here’s a perfect example of “stupid maths” (from the article linked below):

      “A straight line is a straight line, unless Einstein calls it a circle”

      “In the textual definition, the requirement for a constant radius is explicit, while in the mathematical definition, it is implicit. This subtle but important difference means that when you have not explicitly confirmed that the radius for each point is the same, every collection of points when represented as <x, y, r> or <x, y, z, r> tuples will satisfy the mathematical equation for a circle or sphere, regardless of the actual shape that the points represent.”

      “adherence to the mathematical equations alone cannot confirm that a shape is a circle or a sphere if you have not also explicitly confirmed that the radius for each point is the same.”


  • Angela Stahlfest-Moller  On December 13, 2014 at 6:07 am

    Hello you wonderful man (or woman).
    I thought I was the only one thinking, if you can say gravity affects TIME then I can say temperature affects DISTANCE!
    Do you know how I found you? Not by ‘gravity does NOT affect time’ which just gave me the usual crap. What finally worked was something like ‘crackpot gravity & time’. I think that says a lot. My 13yr old already thinks gravity affects time.
    Thankyou again and if you are interested I have a theory.
    Angela or LadyGreen


    • drgsrinivas  On December 14, 2014 at 1:06 pm

      Thank you for your interest. I am glad to see more and more people like you successfully ‘navigating’ through the vast ocean of ignorance and reaching here. Yes, people who are truly rational and not blinded by the superstitious religion of science are welcome here to share their views and interact.

      And thank you Galacar for keeping the site active!


  • Galacar  On December 13, 2014 at 12:14 pm

    Angela Stahlfest-Moller .

    I am not the owner of this site, but Welcome!

    Your reaction moved me! So good to see that people are waking up to all the bullshit in ‘science’ . I love that!!
    And see how the young are being indoctrinated!
    I don’t know where all your people are coming from, but I am really thinking of lectures of a few ours about how we are being lied to on all fronts!
    We are sold so much bullshit, it is unbelievable.

    Anyway, yes, I am very much interested in your theory!


  • Angela Stahlfest-Moller  On December 13, 2014 at 2:35 pm

    Hello Galacar. It is wonderful that you are interested, I really need feedback.
    I do not know if this is allowed, but my email is
    Please contact me and I will send you my pages. All welcome.
    It is a work in progress, as I really need collaborates. Trying to go to my local university was a bad move.
    Thankyou Angela


  • Galacar  On December 14, 2014 at 3:10 pm

    Angela Stahlfest-Moller,

    I have just send you an e-mail. I am very curious.

    You also wrote

    “Trying to go to my local university was a bad move.”

    For me too. However I never finished. I did physics./ math and clinical psychology.But I have seen enough to see what a madhouse it really is!
    Furthermore I am glad I find out what I know now.
    But , were I live, I see students going to university every day and
    I feel for them.


  • Angela Stahlfest-Moller  On December 15, 2014 at 3:35 pm

    Hello drgsrinivas and Galacar. And other reading this.
    Is it possible to find how many different types of clock have been used in gravity vs time experiments? ie pendulum, water, spring without batteries etc. Or just atomic.


  • Angela Stahlfest-Moller  On December 15, 2014 at 6:51 pm

    Hello again.
    How do you feel about massless anything and energy mass equivalence?
    I think it is more mania. E=mc2 contains an equals sign not an equivalance sign.
    Ice=frozen water, when water freezes into ice neither the frozen nor the water disappears, the equals sign means they are different ways of saying the same thing.
    I will say it another way. kg.m2/s2= Joules= kg.m2/s2= Energy= kg.m2/s2= mc2= kg.m2/s2. If kg or m=0 then E=0. If there is E then there HAS to be mass.
    Thankyou, LadyGreen

    Liked by 1 person

  • Galacar  On December 15, 2014 at 11:46 pm

    to Angela Stahlfest-Moller

    About those clocks, I only know of atomic clocks. But I may be wrong of course,
    About mass, in my opinion mass is non-existent


  • Angela Stahlfest-Moller  On December 16, 2014 at 5:03 am

    Hello again.
    As you can tell I am finding the chance to talk irresistable. And my phone limits post length.
    I am going to use my favourite estimation and guess that 50% to 90% of the people that find this site, and the few others like it, are not only thinkers rather than believers but also have an idea of how things actually work.
    I am giving a thumbs up to this site as the simplest and most rational I’ve seen just trying to say NO, & although not the most polite it is true.


  • Angela Stahlfest-Moller  On December 16, 2014 at 5:58 am

    I have always thougt that Einstein was spot on, Everything IS Relative.
    Including numbers.
    2 is only 2 relatiue to; base 10, divided by 1, + not -, to power 1.
    Should include; multiplied by ‘the absolute of the square root of’ (or ‘§’) +1 or -1.
    Now ‘§’ +1 is half + & half -, a binary system. ‘§’ -1 is also a + or – binary. Together it is a dual binary system from which complex numbers emerge.
    DNA is a dual binary of AT or TA & CG or GC from which protein production emerges.
    Brain too. A


  • Angela Stahlfest-Moller  On December 16, 2014 at 6:42 am

    ‘Philosophy is dead’ means thinking is dead only belief is left.
    Forget constant SOL, it is at least debatable, half of relativity is based on ‘if gravity did’t exist’!
    Forget logic, I refuse to base my view of the univese on a theory that includes a false statement on moral & mental grounds. That is almost the very definition of ‘a mental problem’.
    Relativity explains the universe from the viewpoint of a particle. Explain flight with ‘the bird remains still, all the rest moves, etc’.


    • drgsrinivas  On December 16, 2014 at 10:12 am

      “‘Philosophy is dead’ means thinking is dead only belief is left”.
      Very nicely put. I couldn’t control my laughter!


  • Angela Stahlfest-Moller  On December 16, 2014 at 7:06 am

    Particle theory explains using particles only, but they can point to stars for ‘why particles?’.
    String theory uses only strings & no answer to ‘why strings?’.
    Colliders are following a logic train like this; ‘I am going to smash apart this uncooked pasta, & analyze the fragments with respect only to each other, to find the flour & water it is made from’. Not possible.
    Strong Nuclear ignores: Still repels!! Any explaination of atoms must include a change in rules at very close so + & + attract.


  • Angela Stahlfest-Moller  On December 16, 2014 at 12:08 pm

    Hi Guys.
    Yeah I found the E=mc2 comments after that post, but limited post space made me not correct my self.
    Reading ‘A Grand Design’ gets me cranky, because of the ‘Philosophy’ thing. Although ‘renormalization’ does not help; ‘oh dear we got the wrong answer, to prove we know what we are doing we need this answer, so we will renormalize our answer to give the answer we need to prove us right’. Arrgh!!
    Also thanks for response.


  • LadyGreen  On December 17, 2014 at 3:49 am

    Hi Galacar.
    I am guessing you do not like my take on the universe.
    What is your idea to explain what we call mass?
    Thankyou LadyGreen


  • Galacar  On December 17, 2014 at 3:06 pm

    to Angela Stahlfest-Molle

    Do not like it? Well I have recieved it , and thanks for that,
    but still needs to read it and I will.
    My take is that this ‘universe’ is a hologram. a holographic universe.
    There is only light(waves) and what we see is there because we decode it with our brains.For a good example look up:

    Jill Bolte Taylor: My stroke of insight,

    Because of her stroke she doesn’t decode the ‘input’ anymore!

    Furthermore, most scientist are left brain thinkers, an If you are going to do research into rigt brain, you can find out that the left brain is extremely short sighted and stupid (Hence the stupidity of ‘scientists, see also my remarks on
    the education system, which shuts out the right brain as far as possible)

    Anyway, if here is only light, hence I think there is no ‘mass’
    Because there is no matter at all!

    The interesting thing is that if you start research from this viewpoint, one is able
    to calculate a lot of interesting things, because if this world is indeed only light,
    and human have been adjusted to this. lots of things you can calculate, e.g. the optimoum length of pregnancy, the form and length of dna, the optimum temperature for health, the number of accupuncture points, radioactive decay and so on and so forth,


  • LadyGreen  On December 18, 2014 at 5:00 am

    Come join me at for some frustrating fun with ‘belivers’.


    • drgsrinivas  On December 27, 2014 at 2:54 pm

      Hi Ladygreen,
      I have seen your post at physforum.

      You have really been making rational arguments to prove why slowing of an atomic clock isn’t same as time dilation. But I don’t think the religious scientific community will be ready to accept ideas that challenge their religious superstitions and beliefs. We can discuss with religious believers who know that they are religious believers. But we can never discuss with and convey anything to those religious people who don’t realise that they are religious believers, but call themselves as ‘scientific’ ‘rational’ ‘sceptic’ etc and adamantly claim their stupid beliefs as proven facts!

      May be we should all come together and launch a ‘crusade’ against the stupid religion of modern physics. Just thinking how we should do that!


  • Galacar  On December 18, 2014 at 2:09 pm


    Nope, I was banned there because , while I was very very serious, they thought I was ‘trolling’. You see, they like new ideas, but to too new. 😉


  • LadyGreen  On December 18, 2014 at 5:37 pm

    Hi Galacar.
    My first knee jerk reaction was no. I thought when you break a hologram each piece has all the info of the original.
    But then went, yes and when you pull us apart you get cells, each with all the info of the original.
    Also agree that real is just our brain interpreting data.
    So in the end I find no fault with the idea.
    Do you consider us as a copy of another nonholographic universe? Or is this it, not a hologram of something, just a hologram?
    Last post for this week.
    Bye for now, LadyG


  • Galacar  On December 19, 2014 at 3:04 pm

    to LadyGreen,

    I don’t know yet about yours being non-holographic yet. I only stated my viewpoint.
    And you are on the right track about the cells, however, I really think it goes deeper than that and that all the information in the universe is at every point and there are ways to access that information. I also use energy psychology techniques in whicht the premise is that this world is a hologram.(TAT).And there is so much more, pointing at this.And I find this extremely effective!


  • LadyGreen  On December 25, 2014 at 4:02 am

    A very MERRY CHRISTMAS to everyone!


    • Blue Heffnir  On January 1, 2015 at 4:20 am

      And a very HAPPY NEW YEAR to everyone too 🙂


  • Galacar  On January 1, 2015 at 4:35 pm

    HAPPY NEW YEAR!!! to you all


  • skycentrism  On January 24, 2015 at 10:58 pm

    Hello. Check out the Concave Earth theory. I make videos myself and here’s a great source of information as well:


  • David P  On February 11, 2015 at 9:28 pm

    Excellent site — I’ve been think much the same things here for the past 20 years. SR goes against common sense and engineering. “Nothing can go faster than light” is just the new flat earth philosophy — humans in general always seem to need an “edge” to their universe to feel comfortable. Two things i’d like to see more on:
    1. Black holes. Singularities can’t exist. All particles in the collapsar would have to collapse uniformly inwards at the same moment. In reality their entropy would give them an ever increasing acceleration resulting in an extremely fast orbit around one another — the closest you could get to a black hole is a “dark doughnut”. All of this would have to happen outside any theoretical “event horizon” so light would always escape.
    2. Expanding universe. More ether nonsense. Perhaps some environmental phenomenon (e.g. gravity) accounts for Doppler shift other than motion towards/away. Perhaps if we were at the center of the galaxy we would see less red shift or maybe even our physicists would say we live in a contracting universe?

    Keep up the good work!


  • Scott  On February 14, 2015 at 9:14 am

    If you seriously believe relativists are stupid…then why start this “article” with – “In our everyday world we know that different observers measure the speed of a moving object differently depending upon their own speed. For example an observer standing on a platform may measure the speed of a motor bike as 100kmph. Another observer travelling in a bus at 40kmph in the same direction will measure the speed of the same motor bike as 60kmph…” Kinda paradoxical in nature isn’t it? Seeing as you share, at least, some relativistic views.


    • drgsrinivas  On February 14, 2015 at 5:51 pm

      That just shows the plight of science students and science believers: most of them confuse relativity of motion of classical mechanics(“Galilean- Newtonian relativity”) with Einstein’s theory of relativity! Despite the fact that they don’t really know what Einstein had preached, they chant and adorn Einstein everyday.

      Anyway, let me clarify your doubt: By the word ‘relativists’ I only mean people who believe in Einstein’s theory of relativity (and not “classical” relativity of motion)


  • woodside  On March 13, 2015 at 8:47 pm

    In accordance to classical physics, the Global Positioning System gives an example where the speed of light measured by an observer varies with their own velocity.
    A Global Positioning System receiver records that a transmission from a satelite to the east of the receiver approaches faster, that is it arrives earlier, than that of a signal from a satelite that is west of the receiver. The earth rotates towards the east. Radio wave and light are both electromagnetic propogation.


  • truerelativist  On March 27, 2015 at 4:09 am

    Hi, Dr. Srinivasa

    I love, that You have taken the time and created this interesting and necessary website. There is not much material in the web about this, so thank you!

    I only recently took interest in relativity and quantum theory, thinking before that it is too complicated and I am incapable of understanding any of it. But since I have always been interested about how stuff works and I started to run out of interesting things to learn about, I took a shot at it. I watched a video in youtube, explaining the whole thing. Then it hit me – THIS HAS GOT TO BE WRONG!

    After a few weeks intensely reading and thinking about this, I finally understood, where the erroneous thinking came from. I started searching for similar explanations, but couldn´t find any, so I am posting this here for the first time.

    Here is the reasoning witch should put an end to the „relativity“ mania once and for all:
    I put relativity in braces for a reason – I 100% agree – all movement in space is relative. I am sure, there is no grid in space and no center of the universe relative to which all else moves. In that light we have to define, what a relative motion really is.

    But first:
    Due to our 2D perception of the world we identify very easily movement in that plane, but poorly in depth. We measure the angle between points seen by the eye and knowing how far they are, can estimate the approximate distance between these points and vice versa – knowing the size of the object, can estimate its distance from us. Our brains build a 3D model of the world with experience from interacting with the world. When we try to estimate the size of an unfamiliar object at a distance, we can compare familiar objects (which size we know) close to the object and give a pretty accurate measure.
    Due to the way our vision works, it is very easy to detect movement of an object orbiting us or in a tangential motion relative to us, when there is a reference frame (backround). It is much harder to tell the motion of an object (especially when it is far away) moving towards or away from us, due to little change in the field of vision. This is a reason why most people, when thinking about motion, visualize an object moving in a frame of reference, tangentially relative to them. And that is the fatal flaw in thinking that Einstein and all the relativists after him made.

    Back to relative motion.
    Wikipedia: Motion is observed by attaching a frame of reference to a body and measuring its change in position relative to that frame.

    In absolute space, there are three basic types of motion:
    Radial motion – a body is moving towards or away from the other in a straight line.
    Circular motion – a body is circulating another body, moving in a curved tradjectory.
    Tangential motion – one body passing the other, moving in a straight line in the frame of reference.

    In relative space the only frame of reference is a second body, relative to which the motion happens. I would define relative motion as change of distance between two objects.
    Let´s visualize an empty space, with only two bodies in it. In this situation there can be only one type of motion – two bodies moving towards or away from each other (radial motion). There is no change in distance when one body is circulating the other. Without a grid of reference there is no way to verify, whether the first body is circulating the other or the latter is simply rotating. Anyway, there is no change in distance between them, hence no motion.

    Tangential motion in absolute space is a composite of the two – an object, in a uniform motion, approaching stationary object from a distance is initially almost in a radial motion relative to the other, with a very little circulating element. When the object gets closer, the radial element (relative speed) decreases and the circulating element increases, the change in distance decelerates. When the object closing, reaches the closest point to the other, its radial (relative) motion drops to 0. Next the opposite happens – the object rapidly accelerates away from the second, with increasing radial movement and decreasing circulating element, until reaching almost uniform radial motion. This is how we perceive tangential motion in a frame of reference (absolute space). In a relative space, the motion would look like this – two bodies approach each other at almost constant speed. When they get close, their approaching speed starts to drop and at the same time they rotate around their axis in opposite directions. At the point closest between them, the bodies have rotated 90 degrees and for a very brief moment there relative motion has dropped to 0. Next, the bodies accelerate away from each other until they reach approaching speed and at the same time perform another 90 degree rotation.

    Now analyzing Einstein´s thought experiment, where one person is standing on the platform and three on a train passing by:
    The train in this experiment is performing classical tangential motion. When the man standing in the middle of the coach lights his lighter at the moment he is closest to the man on the platform, there is no relative motion between these men. Hence, the man on the platform will observe light reaching men at the opposite ends of the coach exactly at the same time and this violates no logic, since the men are not in relative motion at that moment. No need for time dilation, length contraction and other nonsense.
    In case the man in the coach lights the lighter, when the train is approaching the man on the platform, the latter would observe light reaching first the man at the front of the car and then the one at the rear. Also, the light would have a blueshift. No logic violated here and again, no need for time dilation,…
    If the man on the coach lights his lighter, when the train has passed the one on the platform, the latter would observe light reaching man at the rear first and then the one at the front. The light would have a redshift. Once again, no need for time dilation, etc.

    What Einstein did – he took motion in an absolute space and used it in the frame of relativity. In fact all these absurd properties, that have been assigned to space, time and mass with this weird theory, goes against true relativity. Therefore all experiments that have allegedly proven the theory are either misinterpretations of a different phenomenon, malfunctions of equipment or outright forgeries.
    For instance – The twin flight experiment with planes flying in opposite directions is absurd from the beginning. The experiment is again based on motion in absolute frame, not relative. Relatively, there is no difference, whether the earth is rotating, or the entire universe is circulating around it (that is the preconception that STR is based on). Relatively, the earth (together with the rest of the world) could travel at the speed of light in any direction if we look at things from the perspective of a photons emitted from the earth. So expecting to find any, let alone different time dilation on these planes (also applies to the GPS satelites) is directly against relativity. Any time difference measured is either fabrication or some other phenomena interacting with the equipment (aether wind?).

    The maximum relative speed in space is at least double the speed of light. When a body in space emits simultaneously two photons (for arguments sake, let´s assume there exist this mysterious particle), which travel in opposite directions, relative to either photon, the other travels double the speed of light. Eat this, Einstein!

    Best regards,
    True Relativist


    • drgsrinivas  On March 30, 2015 at 10:12 pm

      True Relativist,
      Glad to see you not succumbed to the weird teachings of relativity, but I have to tell you that I disagree with your description of relative motion and your argument overall. And I request to have a critical rethink on that.

      When we describe motion from the perspective of an observer, we imagine that there exists a grid, fixed to the observer, spanning the entire universe. And displacement of an object within that grid constitutes motion according to the observer, whether it is radial, tangential or circular. And that motion can be objectively quantified from the perspective of the observer including total displacement, rate of displacement and direction.
      You seem to be defining motion as change in the distance between the observer and the body. But truly, any change in the position of an object with respect to the grid/observer constitutes motion from the perspective of the observer. So, circular motion does constitute motion.

      Coming to your train explanation, what if the relativists argue that their observer is not actually on the platform but is in the same straight line as the people on the train, so that all motion becomes ‘radial’? Does it make relativists’ distortion of space/time true?

      But I agree with what you said in the last two paragraphs.

      Luckily, for the truth seekers, it isn’t difficult at all to understand why relativity and its teachings are utterly wrong.


  • woodside  On March 27, 2015 at 7:56 pm

    True Relavatist

    In all three cases of the train and the man on the station the man would see the light arriving at man at the rear of the carriage first, because that man has moved closer to the position that the lighter was when it was lit and so the light from the lighter has travelled less distance when it reaches the man at the rear of the carriage than the distance it travels to rach the man at the front of the carriage, who has moved away from the position that the lighter was when it was lit.


  • truerelativist  On April 1, 2015 at 12:19 pm

    Dr. Srinivasa,

    That’s exactly it – we IMAGINE the grid, which does not mean it really exists. This is what my argument and true relativity is all about – there cannot be an objective/absolute grid in space. We are so accustomed to a reference grid backround /foreground objects, that it is very hard to imagine an empty space without it and this is why we automatically attribute a grid to a reference point when there in fact is none. It is simply one perspective among unaccountable others and everyone of them is just as valid. We could look at things from the perspective of a photon, and say that the whole universe is in extreme motion and there are other hpotons travelling twice as fast. Or linking the grid to an object rotating, we could attribute enormous speeds to an object very far away from the first. Imagine what would be the speed of a galaxy 1000 light years away, if we tie the grid to a spinning rotor of an electric motor, turning at 100 000 rpm. My point is, that there is no RELATIVE MOVEMENT between the rotor and the distant galaxy, regardless the rotation of the rotor.

    Imagine we have a solar system in an empty space, where nothing else exists. This solar system would have planets orbiting the star at fixed positions relative to each other. In this case, it is impossible to tell, whether the planets are orbiting the star or the star is simply rotating. There is no grid – other reference points beyond the planets, compared to which to determine the motion. It is only when we fix the grid to the star at the center, we may say, the planets are orbiting. This would not make it absolute. Just as well we could take the perspective of a planet and say that the star is rotating. It would be just as valid.
    To make things more interesting, let´s imagine, the planet is also rotating.Fixing the grid to this planet, we could rightfully say that the whole solar system is orbiting the planet. In this case – which is right – the perspective of the sun or the perspective of the planet? Anyway, there is no change in distance between the star and the planets, hence no relative motion, regardless the rotation.

    Before Copernicus/Galilei, the scientific paradigm was that the sun, the moon and all the stars are orbiting the earth. And they were right, from their perspective. Only after the accustomization to the new thinking and indoctrination from an early childhood, we think that the sun is in stationary and the earth is circling it. This is also the reason, why they expected to find relativistic results from the twin flight experiment – they looked at earths rotation from the suns perspective and attributed absoluteness/objectiveness to it (forgetting the earth orbiting the sun). If the experiment would have been conducted fixing the grid to the moon, I´m sure the results would have been different 😉

    If in the train example, the poor suicidal observer would stand on the tracks in front of the train, he would definitely perceive light reaching the man at the front first and then the man at the rear of the coach, because the light reaching the man at the rear has to travel extra distance to reach us. Light would reach the two men at the ends simultaneously. But since the man at the front is closer to the observer, the later would see light reaching him sooner because it has the length of the carriage to travel extra from the man at the rear. Also, since the train is in motion towards the observer, the light has to have blueshift (Doppler effect).
    In case the observer is on the tracks behind the train and the latter is moving away, he would see light reaching the man at the rear first (same principle). And since the light source is moving away, the observer would perceive redshift.
    In both cases there is no violation to logic and hence no need to attribute strange behavior to time and length.
    The observers perception of light reaching either man first is just a PERCEPTION not a true representation of the reality. Just as if there where two explosions far away from each other, at exactly the same moment, and we would be at equal (safe) distant from the two. In this case we would hear the bang from the two at the same time – just one bang. But if we would be positioned so that the explosions were one behind the other, we would hear two bangs in sequence, in spite of visual perception of a simultaneous event.

    Let´s make things interesting and put an explosion (smaller) on a moving train. There are two sound detectors at each ends of a carriage and the exploding device in the center at equal distance from the detectors. The detectors give off a light pulse the moment they register the explosion. The carriage is closed and there is no air movement in it.
    Just as the carriage is passing and is closest to us (standing on the platform), the explosion device goes off. In this case, would we see the light turning on at the rear first, and then at the front?
    I wonder what would Einstein say. Time dialation? ;D

    Best regards,
    True Relativist


    • drgsrinivas  On April 3, 2015 at 3:51 pm

      The fact that your platform observer and the train are not real but are just imaginary doesn’t mean that we can’t draw valid conclusions from that imaginary scenario.

      Whether there really is a grid or not doesn’t change the things. It’s just a way of explaining relativity of motion. In stead of grid, one could use the coordinates to specify the position a body in space with respect to the observer. A change in the position of the body constitutes motion in the reference frame of the observer.

      Relativity of motion doesn’t mean what the human observer just sees or feels. For example a blind observer may not see a ball moving in front of him but it doesn’t mean that there doesn’t exist a ball near by him or there is no motion of ball.

      An observer may not see a distant star moving. But that doesn’t mean that the star is stationary relative to him. And an observer may only see light signals coming from the front but not those coming from behind. Another observer who has got eyes both in front and back of his head will see both the signals. A dead observer or a wooden block may not appreciate any of them. These differences occur because of the different capabilities of perception of different observers. You may call that as ‘subjective relativity’ if you want.

      But what we discuss in physics is ‘objective relativity’. And you seem to be confusing between the two. Of course even relativists do the same and mess up things when they ‘explain’ twins paradox and relativity of simultaneity etc. The fact that there exists some time delay for the signal to reach the observer, doesn’t mean that the actual event occurred late even in the perspective of the observer. An intelligent observer would know that the event had actually occurred earlier than he saw it. And we must design the experiments in such a way that we eliminate the bias caused by the signal delays and also the perception defects of the blind/ deaf observers.

      Of course what you said at other places is correct. For example you are talking about objective relativity here “It is simply one perspective among unaccountable others and everyone of them is just as valid. We could look at things from the perspective of a photon, and say that the whole universe is in extreme motion and there are other hpotons travelling twice as fast. Or linking the grid to an object rotating, we could attribute enormous speeds to an object very far away from the first. Imagine what would be the speed of a galaxy 1000 light years away, if we tie the grid to a spinning rotor of an electric motor, turning at 100 000 rpm”


  • woodside  On April 1, 2015 at 5:32 pm

    the air that the sound is moving in is moving with the train and so the sound would arrive at the front and back simultaneously. But the light would not arrive simutaneously. Its the same when you watch a distant thunderstorm the wind effects the sound not the light.


  • truerelativist  On April 3, 2015 at 3:10 pm


    That’s exactly it! The medium, in which the sound is traveling is motionless RELATIVE to the men in the train, regardless the motion of the train. So why should the “medium” in which the light is traveling be in motion? The only case, the light would reach the man at the rear sooner, would be if it travels in ether and the train is in motion relative to it. In this case all observers would register it exactly the same and there would be no reason to implement time dilation etc. But this would contradict the fundamental precondition of Einstein´s “relativity” and the reason it was conceived – to eradicate ether from physics. If the relativists say – “light would have to reach man at the rear first”, means it travels at different speeds in two directions relative to the emitter. This is also a gross violation of “relativity”. There is a fundamental contradiction in this experiment – if light travels at the speed c from the (imaginary) position in space it was emitted from, it cannot travel at the same speed relative to the emitter, which is (allegedly) in motion. There is just no two ways of looking at this.

    To make things clear and easier to imagine, let´s put the men in spaceships in an empty space. In this case, there is no backround to confuse us. The man in one spaceship lights a LED bulb (no open flames in a spaceship!) at the moment the other spaceship with the observer is passing by and is closest. As relativity says – there is no objective way to say, which ship is in motion, since there is no grid in space or either, relative to which they move. We can say, that both ships are in motion, the one carrying the observer or the one with the three men. All cases are correct! Only the relative motion BETWEEN these ships is of significance and there is NONE at the moment the light is turned on – the only RELATIVE motion is radial motion (change of distance between objects under observation). So, which man at the ends of the spaceship the light reaches sooner?


  • Alex  On December 16, 2015 at 4:49 pm

    I haven’t finished reading all of your posts but still, I need a comment on Lorentz’s factor (γ). When one points out to a physicist that the astronaut moving away from Earth can’t be treated differently from an Earth moving away from the astronaut, he ‘ll always answer that only the astronaut is accelerating and that’s why relativistic time and length appear on him. This implies that acceleration is paramount to dilation and γ factor. Yet, Lorentz’s factor has no acceleration factor/parameter. I has (v) for velocity and not (a), which implies that acceleration can’t be the answer. And one can’t sidestep the problem by substituting (v) with (a). Looking at the formula again, if you substitute, say, (v)=10m/sec with (a)=10m/sec^2, you end up with a result that doesn’t say [T=xT’] but something like [T=xT’sec], which is meaningless. I don’t know if I made myself clear, since English are not my native language but I don’t see any way around this. If the Lorenz Factor is meaningfull, then one can’t explain dilation according to acceleration. If, on the other hand, acceleration is important (when it comes to time dilation), then the Lorenz Factor is wrong or at least incomplete. And if the Lorenz Factor is wrong, so is most of Einstein’s work.

    If my scepticism is grounded, the next question is “how on Earth don’t people see something that obvious when they give you the acceleration answer”?


  • Galacar  On December 17, 2015 at 2:15 am

    Alex wrote:

    “If my scepticism is grounded, the next question is “how on Earth don’t people see something that obvious when they give you the acceleration answer”?”

    I really don’t ‘get’ your whole post, but to your question why people don’t see the obvious the answer is ‘education’ better called ‘indoctrination’

    The thing is like a magician playing his tricks with smoke and mirrors.
    When you know how it is done, the trick, you are no longer distracted
    by the smoke and mirrors and can , very very simply. see throgh the whole thing.

    A real life example.

    Did you know banks create money out of nothing, out of thin air?
    Then they lend this money to you. Then you later have to pay back.
    But the bank actually never gave you real money. No coins were moved
    no gold was used., because there is no connection to gold and money anymore.
    So, it is all an illusion! albeit a persisten one, to quote einstein! lol

    Now, if you have read this have you followed also your thought when reading this?
    It nearly always goes something like this: “well, it can’t be true.There are controls in banks, there are controls in government. Government would never allow thar.
    besides the whole system is wayyyyyy too complex to let it work this way.
    You have derivatives, put options,…”

    and so on and so forth.

    If you do the research it really works they way I wrote.
    The rest is nearly all, smoke and mirrors!

    So, to come back to your question why people don’t see the obvious.

    It is their ‘education’ telling them that the smoke and mirrors are real!

    My two cents.


  • Nona Maus  On December 17, 2015 at 10:29 am

    @Alex very well put. I have similar questions. Care to help us out, @drgsrivanis ?


  • drgsrinivas  On December 17, 2015 at 11:27 pm

    Alex’s criticism is absolutely right. The problem is obviously with relativity and not with his rationality or lack of understanding of the weird theory. Relativists brought the issue of acceleration into twin’s paradox just to confuse people and to save their stupid theory. If they didn’t, they knew that their religious theory would crumble and vanish from this world.

    They do a similar kind of mess up when they talk about circular motion. At one time, relativists argue circular motion as accelerated motion and use that to illustrate the gravity-acceleration equivalence, and at other times, they take circular motion as uniform motion and use special relativity while calculating the time dilation for particles moving in circles in ring accelerators.

    And there exist so many absurdities and self contradictory explanations in relativity religion. I have talked about some of them here-
    Basically, whenever relativists feel that their theory is in trouble, they introduce some weird argument or propose some absurd phenomenon by default and the story goes on.

    Actually it doesn’t require great IQ to realize the absurdities and self contradictions in relativity. And most people do realize them while studying relativity. But people have so much faith in scientists that they blame upon their own ignorance and limited IQ for the perceived absurdness. People think that they are not intelligent enough to question scientists however absurd the latter sound. “If scientists are wrong, we wouldn’t be having all these gadgets” they argue. So they always blame upon their ignorance whenever they feel that some scientific theory is absurd. It is upon that blind faith, the physicists of our time survive.


  • K Sean Proudler  On December 27, 2015 at 3:51 am

    Something will only seem weird if the absolute truth is not being exposed. Special Relativity(SR) says that being at absolute spatial rest can not be detected, that absolute motion can not be detected, that an absolute length can not be measured, etc. If this is accepted, then it becomes impossible to understand SR absolutely, since SR excludes many absolutes in the first place.

    Meanwhile, if you start with the acceptance of the existence of an absolute 4 dimensional environment, an environment known as Space-Time, and you analyze the concept of absolute motion ongoing within that environment, you end up independently discovering with SR and independently deriving all of its equations. Due to having started such an analysis with just these bare bone simple basics, no prior knowledge regarding physics is required to achieve such an outcome. Thus, SR does exist within an absolute foundation, the foundation of which physicists ignore.


  • Galacar  On December 28, 2015 at 12:38 pm

    to K Sean Proudler

    Ok, I am still watching the video’s. So haven’t finished them, yet.

    Anyway, First I congratulate you that

    “Due to my unique but unappreciated way of thinking, my parents had pulled me out of school, and had done so before I had a chance to acquire any education in the field of physics.”

    I have read that here:

    Very good! You are blessed in this regard.Maybe more than you know.

    However, It looks like you are still ‘defending’ relativity and I feel it is wrong on all sides.I feel it is here to disguise any real physics. And , according to me, real physics needs the aether in place. ALL, and I mean ALL inventions are done with
    the aether in place. Tesla rejected Einsteins relativity. Guess which one has the most patents?

    And you wrote:

    “Something will only seem weird if the absolute truth is not being exposed”

    Yes, this is true.But then the problem becomes what the ‘absolute truth’ is!
    That might be that the whole of science and therefore ‘education’ is wrong, or that somethings in education are discarded so we don’t go into sensitive areas
    like anti-gravitation.That math can be wrong, and so on and so forth,.
    See what I mean? because you don’t mention what ‘absolute truth’ is,
    it is rather vague too me.

    That is not to say that I don’t value your independent thinking, but if I watch the videos it feels like you don’t want to reject einsteins relativity totally, which is what I do.Not that I am right by definition of course. I might be wrong as well.
    But so far I haven’t seen anything to defend the totally wrong theory of special and, for that matter, general relativty.

    Might it be true, that special relativity is defended by you, because somewhere in the back of your mind it must be true because it is taught at schools and universities?

    I am kind of a radical, I admit. When something is pushed hard at schools and universities I take it as not true at all!. I immeditaley assume there is someone with an agenda to push it, As I have written here before, if something is true, it will never be taught at universities and schools.
    Truth might have some people at the top of this world lose their power.

    My two cents



  • Galacar  On December 29, 2015 at 6:03 pm

    As my research progress, it comes more and more clear to me that the whole of ‘education” is here to put us in a box, so to speak.

    I mean by this that our consciousness is closed off and mentally we are living in an extremely small box.(left brain anyone?)

    But once you become aware of this.You can start looking outside this box.
    (actually, while you are in the box, you are enslaved. But you don’t see the bars!).

    Looking outside this box is what I am doing now for years and that way you can find out how extremely powerfulll our consciousness is!

    There are still things I have a hard time to believe, but know them to be true.
    If what I have seen, and of course others with me. then I am very positive about our future. IF we get our head of the box!!

    Anyway, the more I see what our consciounsess can do, the more I understand that schooling, culture conditioning and what have you, is to here to clamp down
    our consciousness.(put it in a box).

    To keep all this in the context of this site, once you are aware what consciousness can do , it is more easy to understand we don’t need schooling and theories like relativity and quantum bogus etc.

    The ONLY thing these absurd theories will l do is ‘teaching us that there are limits.

    However, in the consciousness there are NO LIMITS!


    I know it sounds preposterous to some and I understand. My left brain still has some difficulty in believing this kind of stuff. But I do accept more of it then when I started on this journey.

    I can put things here that will turn a lot of people immediately off.
    It will be too far out for them.I went there gradually. So I understand.

    The following might look off topic. However I am trying to illustrate my point with this.

    So, something simple.

    Put a glass of water (simple tap water) in your room and send your intent that it will do whatever you want.)

    Some examples of intent

    Heal an ailment
    get some money
    a job
    flush out poison and that kind of a thing.


    Just make up your own.

    Now a lot of people will make this very complex , but don’t.

    Then just very simply just drink this water, and see what happens.

    I have seen this work by a lot of people.

    Why not try it? It is free and see it as an interesting experiment.

    One of the things here is that you need to get rid or don’t take your limits seriously,

    If you this and it works you have prove to yourself that you don’t need any theory and that theories limit your use of your consciousness.

    Just sayin 😉


  • Galacar  On January 1, 2016 at 4:32 am



  • geocentric101  On January 10, 2016 at 4:22 am

    I have recently come across the work of Walter Russel and his theories of light and how everything stems from electricity etc.

    I wonder if anyone on this site/thread knows of his work and theories?

    I think he may well have more of a grasp of reality than our current understanding of life, the Universe and everything as espoused by today’s scientist.


    • drgsrinivas  On January 10, 2016 at 7:29 pm

      I have just googled Walter Russell.
      Found his teachings truly enlightening:
      -The Universe we believe to be solid and real is an illusion
      -Our senses trick us into believing motion is matter
      -The Universe is a projection of Mind, and is generated in the same way you imagine a thought in your own mind
      And what surprised even more is that, these are exactly the same conclusions that I have also arrived at

      But I must confess that I didn’t really get the explanation provided for the double slit experiment on that site. I think Photon ether model is the only rational explanation for DSE. And photon Ether provides the framework to explain everything in this universe in terms of waves.

      Thank you geocentric101 for pointing us to such an enlightening personality.


  • Galacar  On January 10, 2016 at 12:00 pm


    Yes I have and I love his work! And oh yes, he has for sure more grasp of realty then today’s ‘scientists’
    (Well, everybody has per definition a better grasp than today ‘scientists’ by definition. lol)
    And if you are interested in his work you probably are also interested in the works of Bruce Cathie and Buckminster Fuller.
    If you understand these works you will laugh and scoff and want to mock that cheap religion called ‘science’ today!
    You will see (‘science’ that is) it for what it is. A bag full of bollocks and shite.

    Just my two regular cents 😉


  • Galacar  On January 10, 2016 at 8:42 pm


    “-The Universe we believe to be solid and real is an illusion”

    Yes! Enter Bill Hicks, a comedian:

    ““Today a young man on acid realized that all matter is merely energy condensed to a slow vibration, that we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively, there is no such thing as death, life is only a dream, and we are the imagination of ourselves. Heres Tom with the Weather.”

    ― Bill Hicks”

    ““The world is like a ride in an amusement park, and when you choose to go on it you think it’s real because that’s how powerful our minds are. The ride goes up and down, around and around, it has thrills and chills, and it’s very brightly colored, and it’s very loud, and it’s fun for a while. Many people have been on the ride a long time, and they begin to wonder, “Hey, is this real, or is this just a ride?” And other people have remembered, and they come back to us and say, “Hey, don’t worry; don’t be afraid, ever, because this is just a ride.” And we … kill those people. “Shut him up! I’ve got a lot invested in this ride, shut him up! Look at my furrows of worry, look at my big bank account, and my family. This has to be real.” It’s just a ride. But we always kill the good guys who try and tell us that, you ever notice that? And let the demons run amok … But it doesn’t matter, because it’s just a ride. And we can change it any time we want. It’s only a choice. No effort, no work, no job, no savings of money. Just a simple choice, right now, between fear and love. The eyes of fear want you to put bigger locks on your doors, buy guns, close yourself off. The eyes of love instead see all of us as one. Here’s what we can do to change the world, right now, to a better ride. Take all that money we spend on weapons and defenses each year and instead spend it feeding and clothing and educating the poor of the world, which it would pay for many times over, not one human being excluded, and we could explore space, together, both inner and outer, forever, in peace.”

    ― Bill Hicks”

    Don’t you love these quotes!

    And now, you know one of the main reasons, why drugs are FORBOTTEN!!
    They let some people see through the illusions in which we are caughtt!

    lol, there is more wisdom in a comedian, then all scientists combined!




  • Galacar  On February 10, 2016 at 1:00 pm

    And, of course, once again, things are not coming from “Modern Science” as
    I state all the time.It is impossible with “modern science’ to create new technology.

    Here is another example, the TV and even the “SMART”-phone.
    (The reason I put ‘smart’ apart is a whole theory by itself, I won’t go into
    that here and now.)

    “Years Before The First TV, Tesla Predicted And Helped To Develop The Smartphone And FaceTime

    Five years prior to the world seeing the first practical demonstration of the television, and scores before the first instance of the smartphone, Nikola Tesla, not only imagined it but had completed crucial steps for making it possible.

    Television was only a small portion of Tesla’s predictions, however. In Volume 100 of Popular Science Monthly, January-June, 1922, Tesla would predict FaceTime.

    A real good “educated” scientist would say:

    “Yeah, the smartphone is here because of ‘modern physics”


    When do people en masse wake up to the all pervading lies surrounding them?!

    Well, ithings are changing.




  • Galacar  On February 11, 2016 at 12:19 pm

    Now for some real controversial info: 😉

    In reality we are all infinite consciousness having an experience here.

    (read Bill Hicks again)

    So we are not Ethel, Galacar, Jim or what have you.

    (We call this “The Phantom self”)

    Now , nearly everything in mainstream is here because it is trying to convince us

    we are ‘little people’ (NOT infinite consciousness)

    Hence all the lies everywhere.

    If we buy into this, and from the moment we are born this is the message., just

    look around you, we can easily be controlled!

    Once we understand we are all infinite consciousness, it will be impossible

    to control ‘us’.

    Do people here now understand whty I write all the time that ‘science’ is one of

    the tools to control us? It is a “surpressing/control ” tool.So it MUST be made of

    lies, bollocks and shite! Of course all this by design.

    There is no other way!

    Really hope this might open some doors for some people.

    I am pretty sure it will resonate with some here.

    Others will rather die clinging to their belief systems. so be it.

    Nuff said.



  • drgsrinivas  On June 19, 2016 at 1:57 pm

    RJ, I appreciate your suggestion.
    I have explained the reasons for that terminology elsewhere on this blog.
    I would be glad to modify that if you could suggest an alternative descriptive term for the religious folk who are adamant that the nude Emperor’s costume is marvelous, time dilation is real, space warping is a fact and believe that particles exist at multiple places and travel through multiple paths simultaneously, a cat can be dead and alive etc and keep spreading their superstitions as science!

    BTW, have you ever witnessed how the religious science crowd react whenever somebody tries to politely explain to them why their ‘scientific’ theories are wrong?


  • Robert Borer  On January 7, 2017 at 7:34 pm

    I found your site by googling “time dilation fallacy.” Love what I’m seeing.


  • Rajesh Swarnkar  On May 20, 2017 at 7:50 pm

    Haven’t Quantum Mechanics became just an obscure pop science topic than a real scientific challenge?

    I dislike the fuzziness going around the modern day QM or QFT etc etc. I feel the obscure and far-fetched mathematical complexity is keeping the young minds from re-discovering it. I feel Science is facing an elitism and I hate it.

    I frigging want some “REAL” science with “meat” in it. I feel like PHYSICS NEEDS A REBOOT.

    Liked by 1 person

  • Robin Pike  On October 13, 2018 at 5:32 pm

    Here is an argument that suggests that relativity is not a physical explanation.

    Special relativity defines movement without reference to a universal frame of reference. This produces the equations of relativity, which although accurate, contain a logical inconsistency.

    The logical inconsistency occurs in the travelling twin scenario. When the travelling twin arrives back home, since her loss in time is real, this requires her rate of time to really have changed at some point in her journey (it cannot be the result of just apparent changes).

    However, this leads to a problem for relativity… for whatever action in the travelling twin’s journey caused her rate of time to slow down – for real – and since relativity has all frames of reference as being of equal standing, then there can be no reciprical action by which her rate of time can – for real – come back up from that slower rate. And yet when she returns to earth, her rate of time does increase – for it returns to the rate of time on earth.

    To remove this inconsistency, other explanations have been put forward as to how the time is lost. For example, the travelling twin’s path through space-time is shorter than the stay at home twin’s path through space-time. But this does not remove the problem, it shifts it to become… how does the travelling twin at the end of her journey increase the length of her shorter path through space-time so as to match that of the earth through space-time?

    No matter what relativistic mechanism is invoked to explain the travelling twin’s loss of time, they all suffer the same problem: they have a logical inconsistency because they do not include a universal frame of reference.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.