Relativity and the Nude Emperor

People believe in relativity not because they understand it but because they have great faith in our science prophets. To become a science prophet, one has to religiously ‘study’ the naked theory of relativity , ‘understand’ its naked mathematics, hail its absurd predictions and accept every experiment and observation as proof of the naked theory. So it is no surprise that our science prophets endorse the naked theory.

Obviously no scientist or science student would dare to argue against this ‘marvelous theory’. Doing so would not only ‘prove’ oneself as less intelligent but also risks one’s career. So despite its obvious absurdness, people would rather prefer to ‘dance’ with the crowd and hail Her Highness.

This unfortunate plight of science reminds me of the story of the Emperor’s new clothes.

As all the Emperor’s ‘intelligent’ men have ‘seen’ and declared His dress is marvelous, common people have no choice but to hail His majesty’s ‘wonderful’ costume.

Though most people in the crowd would only be pretending and praising the Emperor’s magical costume (out of fear of being labelled as unwise and out of fear of being punished), some highly faithful followers of the Emperor may actually ‘see’ a really marvellous costume covering up their master’s nude body. But because there was no costume at all, the faithful believers will have their own vivid imaginations and descriptions of the costume.

Imagine that we meet with those faithful believers and ask one of them to describe the costume that he has seen. He might say- “His majesty’s costume has a glittering golden yellow hue”

The rest of the crowd will start muttering in themselves “well, that was not the colour I have seen though it did have a slight yellow tinge on its boarder ——, may be the green colour that I have seen probably has also some yellowish tinge——-“. But no one would contradict his fellow believer’s description at this point of time.

Imagine that we contradict the above description of the nude Emperor’s costume by saying “But a divine detector of golden yellow colour failed to detect anything of that sort on the Emperor’s body”. (We may also add “and the detector is as accurate as the modern atomic clocks sworn upon by the relativists to prove time dilation”)

Now the crowd that has been silent until now, speaks out louder all at once in a great sigh of relief,

“Well, because… actually that was not the colour of His majesty’s costume”

Another person now gives his description. Again the crowd neither supports nor rejects its fellow’s description and will remain silent until you take the pain of ‘inventing’ some other detector and ‘prove’ him wrong. At this point all the rest of the believers cry again loudly-

“That was actually not the correct description” and one of the believers may add “Probably he got confused by the little decorative piece with changing colours hanging from His crown” to which the crowd will nod positively.

Because the crowd is so huge, we won’t be able to convince the crowd of their master’s nudity by dealing with them individually. Arguing with each and every believer in the crowd would be impossible.

Even if you manage to speak to all of them and expose their different imaginations of their Master’s dress and claim that as proof of their illusionary thinking and try to make them realise that He is actually nude, the crowd now may lose their patience and shout at you for being so ignorant and arrogant “His Majesty’s magical costume is visible only to the wise men and the other great thing about the dress is that it appears differently to different people and in fact it keeps on changing”.  Unless we run away from them, we may get severely punished.

Similarly, because relativity is a pseudoscience, all scientists who swear upon relativity (and believe that speed of light is constant and time dilation does occur), will have their own imaginations and illogical explanations for the theory. If I argue against one such explanation, all the rest will counter me at once and cry “that is not what relativity actually tells”. So group therapy is not the best way of dealing with any mass mania and may in fact provoke violence.

In the story of the nude Emperor, it was neither the ministers nor the intelligent who rescued the kingdom from the shameful plight but the cry of an innocent little boy. As the boy asks ‘how come our king is nude?’, his dad starts thinking ‘may be the king is really nude’ and clarifies with his neighbour who is also in the same state of confusion. And the wave of disillusion spreads from the periphery to the centre until it reaches the Emperor who then retrieves into his palace in shame.

The theory of relativity sounds absurd to us not because we are so ignorant or unwise but because it is actually absurd by all means of logic. And unless until the lay people and young science students realise this, and convey the same to the top physicists of the world, the scientific mania persists and the weird theory survives.

Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.


  • pimikepi  On April 30, 2014 at 8:44 pm

    “And unless until the lay people and young science students realise this, and convey the same to the top physicists of the world, the scientific mania persists and the weird theory survives.”

    Einstein started as the nude emperor. His ideas were thought ludicrous until we all realized that they had to be right. Students always react against them but finally become convinced. And, of course, there is that overwhelming direct evidence of sending an atomic clock on a plane journey and bringing it back to Earth, and finding that it hasn’t run as fast as the twin one on Earth!


    • drgsrinivas  On May 7, 2014 at 4:11 pm

      Of course it is not unusual for people to feel weird whenever they get exposed to any new religion or ideology for the first time. But over time, as they chant and practice the new religion, they get used to it, develop faith in the new religion and become totally converted. More over if one has to progress, one will have to develop faith in what one chants everyday. Obviously if a student refuses to accept your weird theory and doesn’t get ‘converted’, he will be dubbed as less intelligent by your religious preachers and his career will get jeopardised.

      Your twin flight experiment proves your religious crowd’s overwhelming stupidity- Your own religion preaches that motion is relative. So from the perspective of the atomic clock on the flight, it was the clock on the Earth which was travelling fast and hence should have ticked slower. I am sure your religion will have a stupid explanation for why it didn’t happen that way.

      Liked by 1 person

  • thh1859  On December 31, 2014 at 3:24 am

    Yes, it’s interesting that in the famous thought experiment where twin A stays on the earth while twin B goes into space and returns, a common and transparently weak explanation is fobbed off on students who ask why the earth-bound twin A cannot equally be thought of traveling away and returning.

    To quantify a scenario:
    B travels away from earth for 1000 years and one month. reaching a speed of 0.99c after one month. She then turns around and takes another 1000 years and one month returning to earth at 0.9c. Under SR, when the twins meet again, traveler B has hardly aged at all compared with stay-at-home A.

    “But” says the skeptic, ” by the principle of relativity, B can equally be considered stationery, with A now the traveler. So B must hardly have aged at all compared to A.”

    Relativist: “Aha!” [This is where the magic enters.] “B accelerates as he turns to go back to earth; A does not. Their travels are not equivalent.”

    Conclusion: two months of acceleration nullifies the ‘time dilation’ effect of 2000 years of uniform motion at 0.9c – retrospectively.

    Incidentally, in the atomic clock experiment above, the plane is in constant acceleration. Somehow, that doesn’t matter. Well, of course not, because it gives the result they’re looking for.

    The nonsense of SR is made explicit by Herbert Dingle’s question: two objects, X and Y are in relative motion. Which one is faster?


    • Bill Green  On September 5, 2016 at 9:59 am

      To thh1859, of course you are correct. If one believes in Relativity then neither frame of reference can take precedence over the other. To the person in the space machine, the other person is traveling away from her. When they meet up, shouldn’t traveler A be much older?
      What I wonder is how these people feel when they realize their insistence about this has been wrong all along.


  • Galacar  On December 31, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    to thh1859

    O yes! Dingle! I love his book “Science at the cfrossroads” !
    In it he explains the flaw in Relativity indeed.
    But very interesting are the RE-actions of the academic field!
    Once you start researching how the academic field really works,
    you will se that it has NOTHING to do witn what is in the textbooks!
    It becomes then even hilarious what is in the textbooks!
    As I said and will say throughout this site,’science’ is all about (thought) control.
    Nothing more.
    ‘science’ as it is now, was created by our oligarchy to replace the religions, because the religions didn’t works as good anymore (for control).
    So you see, ‘science’ has taken the place of religion. And if you look closely
    you can see the resemblance with religion. Highpriessts (Hawkins, Einstein etc), rituals, oppression of other ‘camps’, The tabboo of subjects (ufo, parapsychology etc)
    And of course, but not so obvious to the insiders, a lack of evidence, logic and creativity.
    Exactly as planned!


  • Bill Green  On September 5, 2016 at 10:04 am

    I have used the Emperor’s New Clothes allegory dozens of times when getting into discussions with Relativists. That’s how their minds work. They think that the majority of scientists can’t all be wrong, can they? And that’s even the argument they use since they can’t argue with logic.
    What they don’t realize is that there is a concerted effort to control scientific thought by a few people. Like Galacar mentioned it has become a new religion, a new way to control. But it’s not just Relativity and physics that is controlled in this way. There is the same control going on in the areas of genetics, biology, psychology, anthropology and many more. They all have the same aim, to control in the place of religion.


  • cadxx  On September 7, 2016 at 12:14 am

    Hafele­Keating Experiment
    “In 1971, experimenters from the U.S. Naval Observatory undertook an
    experiment to test time dilation . They made airline flights around the world in
    both directions, each circuit taking about three days. They carried with them four
    caesium beam atomic clocks. When they returned and compared their clocks with
    the clock of the Observatory in Washington, D.C., they had gained about 0.15
    microseconds compared to the ground based clock.”
    “Louis Essen, elected FRS for developing the Caesium (Atomic) Clock, wrote to
    Nature that the alleged confirmation of Relativity by the gentlemen who took
    Caesium Clocks round the world by airplane was bogus because the caesium clock
    did not have the claimed accuracy. Nature refused to publish, preferring the PC
    ‘confirmation’ of relativity to stand.”

    As I recall the very first so called proof (bending starlight around the sun) was denied and debunked by both astronomers and physicist who claimed the seeing conditions were bad and that it was the result of cherry-picking. I have yet to read of an uncontroversial “proof”.

    Regards cadxx


    • John Davis  On September 7, 2016 at 11:21 am

      Thank you Cadxx for that information. I’ve actually never heard of this scientist before. It seems his work is buried. His book “The Special Theory of Relativity: A Critical Analysis” only returns one result on ebay and it’s $700! How has this not been reprinted?

      I’d like to know if he had a competing theory.. gotta keep looking.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Galacar  On September 7, 2016 at 8:30 pm


      Yes, you are right. but I find it a bit odd to read it again, because I have stated
      it here already:So this ‘scientists’ was mentioned.

      On the other hand, repition is the mother…


      Liked by 1 person

    • Bill Green  On September 9, 2016 at 10:52 am

      @cadxx I’ve read about that experiment and it’s still quoted by Relativists today. The original experiment had some results that were not accurate but were accepted as acceptable. I believe others have done similar experiments recently with more accurate tools. But my point is that the whole principle is in error. Notice that all these experiments use frequency of things near the speed of light to count oscillations. But of course it is going to take a longer time to make 1 cycle of an oscillation if an object is moving faster. It travels a longer distance to make that 1 cycle! t=d/r If the rate stays the same and the distance increases the time will increase as well.

      Liked by 1 person

  • Galacar  On September 7, 2016 at 1:05 am

    @Bill Green

    First, this isn’t my site, but I welcome you here. Always good to have some fresh air.

    Abiout what you wrote above,

    Spot on and absolutely right! I have written on this site before that ALL ‘science’ is a control tool indeed.But you can take it even further and start to realise
    how deep the ‘rabbit hole” goes. I wanted to start out to mention some things until I realised it is easier to do it this way: There is NOTHING in this world
    (talking mainstream niow) that is not used for control! wow, that was easier to put then mentioning a lot of things. 😉
    But anything that will be mentioned and is inside the ‘mainstream’ is a controtool
    by default.

    This world is not even real! It’s an illusion. Really.
    So, if ‘scientist’ are doing ‘research’ they are actually researching an illusion!
    What can come of that!?

    And you are right about ‘scientists’ not being able to think logically.
    Just look up some of their ‘arguments’ about alternative to physics or just only
    some criticism on their dogma’s.
    I have found this way, the three most logical fallacies used by this breed:
    “The logical fallacy of circular reasoning” and “the logical fallacy of appeal to authority’ and the “logical fallacy of ‘appeal to popularity’.(consensus!)
    Most of the time these are mixed together.

    Anyway, if people are not aware of this control aspect they can be played like a
    violin by the TPTSB. And they do.

    Anyway, again welcome here and I hope you will enjoy your stay.



    Liked by 1 person

    • Bill Green  On September 9, 2016 at 10:46 am

      @Galacar Thank you for the kind welcome. It’s great to find others who think the same that I do. It helps with the frustration of sheep who believe their masters even though the masters are wrong. Once we find the reasons it all makes sense and the frustration lessens.


  • cadxx  On September 7, 2016 at 8:14 pm

    John Davis: You may be able to get a free copy of Essen’s book here:

    Galacar thank you for the welcome. I have to agree with your sentiments about control and the illusion created by the shadow oligarchs. The problem is, of those stuck in the nexus many seem to like it and will not be persuaded otherwise. This is the origin of the extreme sceptics who wreak havoc and destruction and then call themselves scientific – it’s a form of denial that creates insanity.

    We have been lied-to about electricity (and many other things) since the 1930’s with the consensus acceptance of the “New Physics”, particle physics, the electron, Einstein’s theories that don’t need aether etc.. My own research shows me that no new electronic technology has arisen since that time. You can find my own thoughts on this and other matters at my website. I would like some kind reader to take a look at this page in particular as no one seems to understand it! and let me know what you think? thanks for your time in advance.


    • Galacar  On September 9, 2016 at 12:38 am


      You wrote:

      “My own research shows me that no new electronic technology has arisen since that time. ”

      Yes, yes, yes!
      Well, I stated exactly that same here on this site in different subjects.! So, very good!
      I repeat myself here, but so be it, I hope that is ok.
      I always say or wrote that there is NOTHING and I mean NOTHING came form
      ‘modern physics’..NOTHING, zilch, nada, zero.
      EVERYTHING that is here because of ‘modern physics’ was invented way way way before there was a ‘modern physics’. And not only electronics.
      I think it is important to understand that before the time you mention,
      the “Aether” was in vogue, so to say..

      This means of course we are being lied to on a gigantic scale.

      Most people can’t comprehend that.

      It even goes as far, as I have recently discovered, that the Earth we are
      living on is a copy of the original Earth!

      I know it sounds extremely weird and ridiculous for most, but then again.

      “In a time of universal deceit – telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

      George Orwell”

      Anyway, the ‘masters’ of this earth are uncreative and can’t create themselve something.(these ‘masters’ are not human.)
      But what they can do is ‘steal’ something and change it, according to their wishes. That ‘s all they can do.They can steal it and put things upside down e.g.

      Now the following is easier to understand:

      ““Just look at us. Everything is backwards, everything is upside down. Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, psychiatrists destroy minds, scientists destroy truth, major media destroys information, religions destroy spirituality and governments destroy freedom.”

      ― Michael Ellner”

      Now I do understand this raises, again, a lot of questions.
      But I force myself to stop now.

      I could go on for days.

      Enjoy your stay!




  • cadxx  On September 8, 2016 at 8:19 pm

    Hi Galacar I’m sure no physics researcher worth his salt would fail to read the Creation Research Quarterly.
    Just about everything we need to know about Loui’ Essen including his letter to Carl Zapffe can be found here:

    A test for science hypnotics – not for Galacar:
    NASA tells us: Sir Isaac Newton first presented his three laws of motion in the “Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis” in 1686. His first law states that every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force. The problem with this is that nothing in the whole universe is travelling in a straight line – as NASA and Newton should know. You only need to look at a child’s astronomy book to see that everything is in orbit about something else and nothing is at rest.

    If someone else has posted this, and others no doubt have noticed, I apologise for the repetition. I know of no source but me. It is this that got me unofficially kicked-off of Quora. One ‘scientist’ said I should be in the dock next to Edward Snowden. Anyway, a cyber-bomb was delivered to my computer every time I logged in.


    • Galacar  On September 9, 2016 at 1:02 am


      The “funny” thing here is, Newton never wrote the “Principia Mathematica Philosophiae Naturalis”. because he was too drunk! Another author wrote it.
      I have his name here somewhere in a document.

      Anyway, it shows that what when we were children, and the children now
      are being spoonfed is a bunch of lies. But as a child, what do you know?
      You take it all on face value.You have too if you want to ‘survive”
      Or better, you think you do!
      I really feel it is criminal to do this. Spoonfed children lies.

      But that happens every single day!

      I see here also people going to ‘college’ everyday and I feel for them.
      They pay for their own indoctrination.

      They are going to ‘University”. Now isn’t that telling?
      They all have to think the same!, Hence UNI.

      Maybe one day I start a DIversity. 😉

      Only accesible for non-conformists!

      ok, ok I force myself to stop, once again!




  • Galacar  On September 9, 2016 at 12:41 am


    Do you know the books of Peter Bros?
    I really think you find them very interesting to say the least.
    They are on this site, if you can’t find them I will help.




  • cadxx  On September 9, 2016 at 9:16 pm

    Hi Galacar and namaste
    I have never encountered a forum that jives so closely with what I do and I’ve been writing online about science (or the lack of it) for many years.
    The fact that no technology has been derived from physics is something I noticed early on, even now the BS that goes with this stuff surprises me.
    I guess its all about waking-up. It was the Velikovsky affair that first caught my attention all those years ago and then I read the books of Charles Hoy Fort and I was hooked. It’s been quite a journey of discovery since then.

    Let me know about the true author of Newton’s Principia, I’m told it’s as big as the bible – I’ve never seen a copy of the original? I tend to be drawn to electronic tech’ and I found some interesting stuff by Ivor Catt only last night – how particle physics has tried to destroy electrical engineering.

    I look forward to your Diversity opening.

    he name Peter Bros rings a bell somewhere but I’ve read so many things.

    Don’t forget to have fun.



    • Galacar  On September 10, 2016 at 12:47 pm


      Yes, it is all about waking up, and it is always very pleasant to meet
      like-minded people.

      Charles Fort, eh?! I have all his books here and love them!
      How he could look at ‘science’ was so great.
      He wasn’t impressed or intimidated by it at all!.

      Velikovsky and his books. Of course ridiculed, because that is
      what academia do with truth!

      When I find the name of the author of the “Principa..” I will put it up here.
      But I have a rather large library.
      All ‘fringe’ things, of course. 😉

      Thanks for the name of “Ivor Catt” I will for sure look into that.
      btw, I have put this elsewehere on the site, but there can’t be
      a ‘nuclear atom’! So, the particle thing is a bit stupid as well.

      Here is my posting about the books of Peter Bros:
      (It starts a little above the middle of the posting.)

      And with your interests, have you read anything of “Walter Russel’?
      Especially the book “The secret of light”” ?

      Well, it seems the tide IS turning!

      And I will have fun.;)

      Warm greetings




  • cadxx  On September 10, 2016 at 8:31 pm

    Bill Green says: @cadxx I’ve read about that experiment and it’s still quoted by Relativists today. The original experiment had some results that were not accurate but were accepted as acceptable. I believe others have done similar experiments recently with more accurate tools. But my point is that the whole principle is in error. Notice that all these experiments use frequency of things near the speed of light to count oscillations. But of course it is going to take a longer time to make 1 cycle of an oscillation if an object is moving faster. It travels a longer distance to make that 1 cycle! t=d/r If the rate stays the same and the distance increases the time will increase as well.

    Hi Bill Green
    It’s good to here from you.
    The above is not the only example of the physicists total misunderstanding of technology and engineering. I wrote about Gravity Probe B some time ago and the physicists expectation that two identical balls could be manufactured with plus a million times accuracy. Not only was what they were trying to do beyond the far reaches of what can be measured, it was an engineering impossibility. As an engineer myself I admit I would never declare anything impossible, but what is likely to result is something like Gravity Probe B that does not work. The physicists have their heads buried so deep in math that they fail to recognise the real world when it bites them in the ass. Engineering uses tolerances to overcome the problem of not being able to produce two things the same. When the tolerance is reduced by a million its like having no tolerance and engineering fails.
    Best regards


  • Aether  On January 6, 2017 at 2:09 am

    From the link:

    This raises a problem for scientists: Coalition-mindedness makes everyone, including scientists, far stupider in coalitional collectivities than as individuals.

    Forming coalitions around scientific or factual questions is disastrous, because it pits our urge for scientific truth-seeking against the nearly insuperable human appetite to be a good coalition member. Once scientific propositions are moralized, the scientific process is wounded, often fatally.



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 )

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.

%d bloggers like this: