Weird concepts in Physics

There are several weird concepts in modern physics that contradict our commonsense and reasoning.

Amongst the most weird are-

Constant speed of light: This scientific superstition forms the basis of the theory of relativity. It preaches that light waves always travel with the same speed irrespective of the state of motion of the observer or the source.

Time dilation: time apparently runs slower for fast moving objects and near heavier bodies.

Curved space: Space is apparently bent or curved in the vicinity of heavy celestial bodies.

Quantum uncertainty:  Things in the quantum microcosm (eg. a particle’s position, velocity, path, outcome of events etc) can’t be accurately known. This is not weird as long as we put this down to our ignorance and inability to study the ‘quantum world’ and don’t consider this ‘uncertainty’ as a fundamental property of the microcosm.

Feynman’s multiple histories: related to the quantum uncertainty, and proposes that an electron travels in multiple paths simultaneously

Extra dimensions, multiverses  etc

These ‘scientific’ notions have sprung from complex mathematical models which are put forward to ‘cope’ with or explain certain experimental observations (? errors), rather than reasoning and logic.

But modern physicists argue that we can’t simply rely on our logical sense, because our perceived reality, which is the result of our brains interpretation of various things around us, may not represent the ultimate reality of the Universe. For example we see things like a chair or a tree because visible light rays from them interact with our retina from where signals are transmitted to the brain and it is our brain which interprets them and gives us the picture that we see. This picture could be an illusion created by our brain.

An alien looking at the same but whose brain/ retina can only process radio waves may not ‘see’ the same picture, so he may have a different understanding of the nature and ‘flow’ of things. They may feel that the earth is standing on the tree or our office comes to us rather than we go to the office. Their logic and sequence of reasoning may appear weird to our minds. So our physicists argue that we can’t swear upon our picture of the universe as representing the ultimate reality and so we can’t go by our logic.

For a moment, let’s accept their argument – Let’s believe that our picture of the universe could be an ‘illusion’ created by our neuronal network and that our logic and reasoning may lead us to wrong conclusions.

But then how could mathematical formulae and derivations, also the result of our brain’s activity, give us the correct picture of the universe or ultimate reality? and why scientists swear upon the weird mathematical predictions that contradict our logic and reasoning?



Go to Next topic

Go to Main Index



  • Marius de Jess  On December 2, 2013 at 6:47 pm

    That is really good. You should please host a forum.

    Please, host a forum.


  • Larry Good  On April 14, 2014 at 9:27 pm

    Last night on the new “Cosmos” series Neil D. Tyson reiterated that the entire universe was once compressed to a volume the size of a marble, He held one up in his hand. This is a very good place to begin debunking many of the unsupportable ideas of modern science.


  • David  On November 19, 2014 at 9:45 pm

    For the problems with science you have, you don’t need Relativity or Quantum Mechanics, just read a book of Classical Mechanics, it’s beautiful and not “wierd”.


  • Harold Johnson  On November 20, 2014 at 6:22 am

    I read a lot more of what you’ve been talking about in the various pages you have here. I really think we think alike in a lot of ways. As I continue to go through my ‘standard model’, standard paradigm of science education, I would like to chat with you to keep my perspective open. I’m trying to get somewhere new in science.


    • drgsrinivas  On November 20, 2014 at 9:50 am

      I always like interacting with truly rational minds not blinded by the superstitions of the science religion. I look forward to hear your perspective.


  • Harold Johnson  On November 26, 2014 at 12:17 pm

    In addition to your thoughts on wave mechanics, a problem that I think about a lot (as it relates to particle physics) is Zeno’s paradox. I don’t believe there is a such thing as an elementary particle. To me, the behavior when describing the quantum of objects is much better described with waves. ‘Particle’ in a broad sense is a word used to describe a system of behavior in regard to energy, or energy configuration in my opinion (You’ve mentioned this several times in your writing). One may analyze a system’s given characteristics well but once you start chopping it down into smaller and smaller bits (i.e. the reductionist method), you start running into observational limits, and then the paradox again. “Why would I assume that there is no smaller space?”


    • drgsrinivas  On November 26, 2014 at 6:58 pm

      I agree with you. A ‘particle’ is nothing but a specific configuration of energy. And going by the same, this whole universe can also be described as a specific pattern of energy.
      I am glad that at least someone has understood what I have said on that page. (Of all the topics that I have written on this blog, that was the one I thought the most difficult to convey and I always wondered whether anybody would understand it!)

      Yes, there isn’t anything that we can consider as an elementary particle. And that’s what forced me to propose ether, ultra-ether, ultra ultra-ether and so on.

      I wonder if ‘infiniteness’ could also be described as a pattern of energy? Is it something to do with the software that our minds use to process information?

      I think our human mind’s ‘material software’ is forbidden from reaching the ‘boundaries’ or the ‘depths’ of our infinite universe and so from experiencing the Nature to the deepest. May be we need a different programme called ‘spiritual software’ to really experience the infinite cosmos??? I am presently working on the idea that human mind is nothing but a software programme and has its own set limits. A software can’t look or think deeper than the ‘bites’ that make up the software. Let me see where it takes me!


  • Harold Johnson  On November 27, 2014 at 6:20 am

    That is an interesting thought. When considering the spiritual side of our existence, one could see where boundaries exist and why they would be there. I don’t even see the need to separate spiritual existence from physical because that ultimately is short-changing your understanding of reality/life.

    Something else I was thinking of in regard to your mention of ether-ultraether–ultraultraether mediums in the cosmos is why, physically, the access to the higher mediums (i.e ultra ether and up) might be denied for our physical bodies. If you think about the mediums that we know of, (water, air, etc.) their composition comes from energy configurations (‘particles’). The less energetic mediums are composed of more loosely configured energy, or essentially bigger particles. One way to understand the amount of energy available from a composition would be to think about the type of known reactions in nature and their respective energy ‘cost’. In basic chemical reactions, a relatively small cost gives you a split molecule; in nuclear, a much larger cost gives you a split nucleus; in the QGP theory of the standard model, free quarks and gluons were only available at astronomically enormous energy cost. This is just an example.
    As you go up in energy, you get more tightly configured particles (smaller) filling a medium. Perhaps the higher mediums are composed of tightly configured particles, containing such a potential energy that is beyond our ability to understand or interact with in any way. To reach such levels would be to go beneath the observational horizon. To access such a level of energy, one must be required to have a higher level of existence. Just a thought.


  • Galacar  On March 14, 2016 at 4:25 pm

    The more one looks into phjysics with a deprogrammed mind, it becomes easier to see, that it is full of myths.More then we even realise.

    Of course the myths mentioned here above,

    However, as I have stated elsewhetre there are layers upon layers.

    Well, to put it simply, if the foundation is wrong, then everything build on
    that foundation is wrong and deeply skewed.I think most can agree on that.

    Recently I have deprogrammed myself from the very flawed concepts of

    Gravity and ‘the atom’

    Both are non-existent. I had my reservations about gravity, but they are gone now. And there is no such absurd thing as an atom at all.

    That’s right. There is no gravity and there is mo atom.

    If that being the case, imagine what will collapse once this is understood.

    The deeper one looks into the whole physics ‘science’, the more one starts
    to realise it is something very psychotic, designed by psychotics.
    and, probably, making people psychotic, by believing weird things.
    (one can find out how ‘wrong’ things or information effects the brain, by studying narcisim, again, a whole deep subject by itself, but wrong or deeply flawed information effects the brain as a whole and distorts its information processing
    talked to a strange scientist lately, then you knew what I mean)

    Nuff said



  • John  On May 11, 2016 at 10:34 am

    In regards to electron uncertainty, I think this comment is great! I found it on a Scientific American article which attempted to set the record on the validity of quantum particles…

    pgtruspace August 25, 2009
    Don’t be fooled by the statements in the article. Nearly all “particles” are artifacts of test equipment and the need of researchers to earn grants and awards for greater and greater complexities and discriptions in their theories. That is why “particles” are interchangable. Only Protons are real things, and atoms are made up of protons and their electron shells. Electrons and all other “particles” are interchangable as has been shown in many test experiments. An Electron shell is a charge field not an orbiting electron “particle”.
    A neutron is a hydrogen atom with an electron shell in a compressed condition, and is slightly larger then a proton and has slightly more mass then a hydrogen atom. This lead to the first totally invented none existent particle, the neutrino, to cover up the error in thought with more B.S. and earn the “inventor” greater standing with his peers. Much later test equipment gave hints of something that almost matched the theories discriptions so everyone had more bragging rights for finding the much sought particle and “proved” the theories.
    Today the discription of a dependable test equipment artifact “particle”can earn lifetime fame and fortune.
    The discription of the “electron” as a real particle was the first error of quantum machanics and everything else has been built on that.
    Dark matter / Dark energy is the primal building block of the hydrogen1 atom and everything else. All “quanta” are test equipment measurements of the same thing. That is why all quanta are interchangeable, one changing to another. Just different test results at different points on the test track. This has been known for at least 40 years that I know of, but there is not much academic profit in that.


  • Galacar  On May 11, 2016 at 8:27 pm

    Thanks John,

    As I have written before it is ALL psychotic talk!

    Recently I listened to someone who knew a lot about the work of Walt Russell.

    It turns out the mainstream science is even more psychotic then I thought.

    (If you go into alternative vieuws, you get different reference points and some things in the mainstream-bollocks becomes easier to see. If you have no comparison at all, it is much more difficult.)

    It really is all there, ONLY to CONTROL the MIND, mind-control.

    nothing more, nothing less.

    I am soo glad times are changing


  • John Davis  On May 12, 2016 at 7:54 am

    Wow! Walter Russell! New one to me. Looks incredible. Thank You for that.


  • Galacar  On May 12, 2016 at 11:40 am

    Read his book : “The Secret of Light” . It is for freee online.

    and your ‘science’ won’t be the same anymore! 😉




  • Galacar  On May 12, 2016 at 11:47 am

    And now we are at it, another incredible good book:

    “”The Case Against the Nuclear Atom”

    by D. B. Larson

    I can read it online, but I have even ordered it at my local library and I am
    going to get the real book to read today.Yummie.

    I love to do that!



  • Galacar  On May 12, 2016 at 2:54 pm

    Btw I LOVE this quote from Walter Russell:

    “I believe that mediocrity is self-inflicted and that genius is self-bestowed.

    ~ Walter Russell

    Walter Russell is an example of the genius we all are.
    UNTIlL we start to be raised by parents and raped by school!

    “Walter Russell: musician, painter, sculptor, architectural designer, philosopher, and natural scientist; Walter Russell dropped out of school in grade 8 in order to help support his family. Always sensing a deep inner connection, he became aware of his genius no matter to what endeavor he turned his hand, becoming a world class pianist, artist, sculptor, writer, architect and figure skater. As his awareness of the true nature of man grew, he knew that anyone could do likewise.”

    Wow! Where did we learn this at school? ahhhh NOWHERE!




  • Galacar  On May 18, 2016 at 8:52 pm

    The Atom

    Somewhere above in my postings I wrote there is no Gravity and no Atom.

    I was right about the Gravity but wrong about the Atom.

    It should be there is no NUCLEAR Atom.

    Ah well.




  • khuram  On June 14, 2017 at 11:04 am

    One apparent weird concept in relativity is that free falling is an inertial frame. This is not wrong concept basically. But just how Einstein has presented it makes it weird. This is the so called ‘happiest idea’ (1907) of Einstein. Einstein had plagiarized this idea from the works of Newton. He presented only the final result of Newton and did not disclose the background reasoning. He cooked his own background reasoning to give it a looks of his own genuine idea. Now idea is solid and true. But basically makes no sense to a rational logical mind. It also perplexed me a lot and I had been trying to find out fault in the truth of idea. But it came out that I was wrong, idea was correct.

    Despite being correct, the idea makes no proper sense because Einstein never disclosed original source and right background reasoning of the idea.Thus Einstein presented this true idea in a mysterious way such that despite being true, it was hard to comprehend. In this way Einstein promoted his image as a supra commonsense genius who had ‘found’ such a truth that was so much hard to comprehend.

    For details, please see my detailed analysis on on following link:


  • Martín  On June 26, 2017 at 5:13 am

    You forgot a brand new one….Magnetic reconection, at the same level of stupidity than curved space.


  • Galacar  On June 4, 2018 at 11:24 am

    About these weird concepts, like space curvature and all the other things,.

    Don’t think they are only just flawed concepts,

    Those concepts have a very very negative influence on the mind.

    If one piece of information in the brain is wrong, that corrupts a whole other

    chain of information.

    Now, I have written here before, that this world is run by psychopaths and by

    definition, psychopaths are also narcissists. Now what narcissist often do is

    called ‘gaslighting’. That means in short ‘playing with your brain and senses’,

    and in a mean why. Now you know e.g. why we see red plastic bags with the title

    ‘green’ on it or something like that. It confuses the mind.

    Which is exactly the point!

    Hence the importance like websites like this one. They bring us back to ‘reality’

    and give us our mental and spiritual freedom back.

    ( btw If you want to understand ‘gaslighting’ more and it’s devastating effects

    on people just google ‘gaslighting’ and ‘narcism’, the two go hand in hand)




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.