The Breach with Science from 1600 A.D. Onwards

In the preceding pages, and also in my Galileo versus the Geocentric Theory of the Universe and Sir Isaac Newton and Modern Astronomy, it has been implied, suggested and emphatically stated that there was a point at which scientific development began to part company with reality and that from then on the passage of time only increased the gap between true science and what so-called scientists believed or pretended that they were discovering. I have also strongly suggested that the divorce of science from truth was deliberately and systematically organised, with each step of so-called progress straining the very limits of credulity at the time and then, once the public had accustomed itself to accepting the new insanity, leading onto the next even more absurd step up to point at which we have now arrived.

In the belief that it might help the reader to appreciate the enormity of what has been done if he is shown, very much in outline and without going into detail, the mechanics of how it was done, I reproduce the following very informative passage from a book from which I have already quoted more than once in this chapter, Evert Beth’s The Foundations of Mathematics – A Study in the Philosophy of Science. As with some others that I have used, this book is useful to my purpose because the author does not take a position against what happened and therefore cannot be accused of bias in favour of my conclusions. He is merely reporting the facts that occurred. I shall interpose occasional comments. Pages 38 and 47 of the book (my emphases added throughout):

“Aristotle’s theory of science postulates, as we have seen, every science to have a deductive structure, to start from principles accepted as self-evident, and to have an empirical foundation.”

In other words, the principles set out by Aristotle, which by the turn of the seventeenth century had survived examination over some two thousand years, were that truth could be arrived at by a combination of (1) what one could see or otherwise experience with the senses, (2) what every reasonable person would agree to be self-evidently true, (3) what could be deduced by correct use of logic, and (4) what could be tested by experiment.

“About 1600, it became more and more clear from scientific practice that science could hardly hope to satisfy all three of these postulates at the same time.

“In mentioning the date 1600, I do not mean to imply that it was only then that the development of modern, ‘non-Aristotelian’, science had its beginning. It is known, from the studies of scholars such as P. Duhem, Dijksterhuis, P. Rucker, and A.C. Crombie, that the roots of modern science reach far back into the Middle Ages, and there may even be much truth in the opinion of such authors as R. Eisler and A. Frenkian, who place the origin of certain number of fundamental conceptions of modern science and philosophy in times far beyond Greek antiquity. It is not until 1600, however, that non- and anti-Aristotelian conceptions took scientific forms which could successfully rival and even supersede the solid edifice of peripatetic [i.e. Aristotelian] science.
“From then onward, it became customary to recognise two different types of science, one of which conforms to the postulates of deductivity and evidence, whereas the other answers to the requirement of an empirical foundation. Rationalism, as defended by Descartes, has a preference for the first type of science which I shall call rational science, whereas empiricism, typically represented by Locke, fosters empirical science, as the second type is called. The opposition between the two schools of rationalism and empiricism should not, however, be overrated, as these schools have their origin in the same historical situation and present quite a number of common features in their doctrines.”
 
Indeed the two opposing errors would have the same origin. The important thing is not the particular error that is propagated but that there should be errors. And once an error has been proposed, which will inevitably be attacked as demonstrably untrue, it is vital to set up another error in opposition to it, because otherwise the first error will be opposed only by the truth - leaving little doubt about which the victor will be. Provided two ideas in opposition to each other are both wrong, those responsible for propagating the errors do not mind which side we join; and the fact that two ideas are in opposition to each other carries the insidiously seductive implication that one of them must surely be right. In other words each confers a spurious legitimacy on the other.

“Leaving Kant aside, we may sum up the outcome of the development of the theory of science during the l7th century as follows. There are two types of science:

“(a) Rational science, which starts from principles, accepted as self-evident, and proceeds by rigorous logical deduction and so conforms to Aristotle’s postulates of deductivity and evidence, but not necess-arily to his reality postulate.

“(b) Empirical science, which starts from experimental data and proceeds by analysis; it conforms to the reality postulate, but not necessarily to the postulates of deductivity and evidence.

“Consequently, speculative philosophy has to make a choice between being either a rational or an empirical science, and it accordingly splits up into the currents of rationalism and empiricism. Kant, by bringing together rational and empirical science, made an attempt to restore, as far as possible, Aristotle’s unitarian theory of science; in my opinion, however, he was not successful.”

He certainly was not. Far from restoring Aristotle, which he could have done very easily simply by returning to Aristotle, he was advancing yet another error; but that is another story, outside the scope of this appendix.

“On the contrary, rational science turned farther from Aristotle’s ideal, by dropping his evidence postulate also. The development of non-Euclidean geometry constituted the first move in this direction; the decisive step was taken as a result of contemporary research into the foundations of logic and mathematics, Each of the modern schools in this field - logicism, cantorism, formalism, and intuitionism - attempted, initially, to maintain the postulates of deductivity and of evidence; they were all forced to drop the one or the other of these postulates.

“An equally significant development can be observed in empirical science. Here, in spite of Mach’s phenomenalism, the reality postulate had to be attenuated in order to preserve the ability to construct suitable deductive theories. Modern physical theories do not conform to the evidence postulate, and, recently, the transition to quantum logic has even necessitated a revision of the postulate of deductivity.

“It is easily understood how these developments have alarmed the representatives of the various schools of speculative philosophy, which, as we have seen, derives its origin, and even its right of existence, from Aristotle’s theory of science. This accounts for the violent protestations of speculative philosophers against the developments in modern science which gave rise to the establishment of such theories as non-euclidean geometry, mathematical logic, the theory of relativity, and quantum mechanics, each of which, in one respect or another, implies an infringement of the postulates underlying Aristotle’s theory of science; the unanimity of these protestations is, indeed, in a peculiar contrast to the common discord among speculative philosophers.”

In other words, putting it into nice simple language, the scientific system of Aristotle, which required equal weight to be given to both logic and what one could experience through the senses, was supplemented by either logic without the need to test it against experience or experience without logic. Rational science, on the one hand, denied the need for evidence, and empirical science, on the other, denied the need for reason. Thus, to point out only the most fundamental limitations: rational science said that if a thing could be shown to be mathematically true it was true even if common sense showed it to be false, examples of which we saw earlier on in the main body of this essay;* while empirical science limited its discoveries to what could be directly perceived, and no matter how demonstrably true something that was outside the range of the senses might be, it could not be accepted.

And, funnily enough, once sufficiently unhinged from reality, both erroneous systems of science eventually ended up by denying their own foundations; so that rational science, as Dr. Beth has just stated and as we had already seen, ceased even to adhere to the rules of logic and empirical science ignored empirical evidence. The wheel has turned full circle and unity has been restored; but this time it is not Aristotelian unity but a unity of universally self-contradictory madness.

* And when mathematicians are let loose on such distortions of reality, the results, surely not surprisingly, can be bizarre indeed. I offer an example.

We take a column of figures; we add 0 to it; in doing this we have not affected the result. So far so good; and similarly if we subtract 0 from the column of figures. But the inductive conclusion that has been too swiftly drawn from this and similar facts is that it is equally safe and mathematically valid to multiply or divide by zero. And it is not equally safe and mathematically valid; emphatically it is not.

It is obviously not good enough for me simply to assert this; I shall have to show that it is true. And in order to do that I shall have to suspend briefly my resolve to avoid any mathematics in this chapter and include a sequence of equations which not everyone will be able to follow. But courage, please! – even those readers who have not attempted to get their minds into training by seeing if they could make more sense of Eddington’s helpful dissertation on the displacement of the Frauenhofer lines than Dr. Lynch managed to make!

Unless you have never learnt any algebra or have forgotten all you knew, it will not be difficult to follow it. And even everybody else need not panic; for all they need to be aware of is that, although the following sequence of equations ought to be valid, since it obeys all the rules of mathematical manipulations (a fact they can confirm with any friend who knows enough mathematics), nevertheless it leads to the patently aberrant conclusion stated in the last line:
   Suppose  a = b

  therefore  ab = a2
  therefore ab - b2 = a2 - b2
  therefore  b(a-b) = (a + b)(a - b)
  therefore  b = a + b
  therefore  b = 2b
  therefore  1 = 2

Yes, one is equal to two, according to the rules of mathematics. Did you spot the flaw? It is that, on the right-hand side of the fourth line of the equation, the multiplicand “(a - b)” is equal to zero.95  And thereafter the equations are erroneous because the zero has been used to divide. And whereas even most mathematicians would acknowledge that this is not allowed in the context given, it does not stop them doing similar things themselves. And when they start treating infinity in the same way, the results are even more disastrous; and, of course, the more complicated the mathematics, the less easy it is for the layman to spot where he is being hoodwinked.

A whole chapter or book would need to be devoted to showing exactly why; but suffice it for the moment to say that these illegitimate manipulations were involved from the start in the integral and differential calculi invented and developed from the sixteenth century onwards, and underlie the whole of the branch of pseudo-mathematics founded by Georg Cantor to which reference will shortly be made in footnote 97.

All that now remains for me to say about the need for mathematics to be valid is that it should certainly not be supposed that, provided scientists get their sums right, their practical conclusions will definitely be correct. As I have pointed out earlier, the other main problem lies in the fact that mathematics sometimes supplies several different possible answers to the same calculation, between which, from the mathematical point of view, there is nothing to choose. (...)

EINSTEIN AND MODERN PHYSICS

by N. Martin Gwynne

Are nuclear bombs truly weapons of mass destruction, or are they really just weapons of mass deception?

Footage of alleged nuclear explosions when analyzed with a critical eye reveal undeniable evidence of photo trickery.  In much of the early black and white test footage filmed in the 50s and 60s and shown on newsreels and fear-mongering films, it is clear we are looking at fake model sets complete with miniature houses, vehicles and trees.  Notice the unrealistic and unnatural perfect rows of disproportionally thin trees.  After the flimsy model trees are blown to one side, the film quickly cuts to clips of actual trees in some other location.  Similar to how a stunt double changes with the main actor during the crucial action scene, these clips intersperse or sometimes superimpose footage of models with reality.  The first H-bomb test known as Ivy Mike looks more like some stop motion lava lamps than an explosion.  Many other supposed nuclear tests appear to mix sped up footage of sunrises with real explosions to give the effect of a much bigger blast.  Footage from Operation Dominic appears to show a sunrise with the brightness slider rising in post-production.  Suspiciously, in some videos, the explosions are so violent as to obliterate entire houses in an instant, but yet the camera filming right next to the house survives unscathed and unshook.  The blast often comes from behind the camera, and not as they claim, from a protected location far outside the blast radius.  Someone moves the camera just before and during some of the blasts, and the camera is positioned at an oddly unrealistic height.  What kind of shielded tower would the camera and camera man have to have been enclosed in to survive such a test?  If nuclear bombs actually exist, why would there be a need to fake footage of nuclear explosions?

The Trinity and other nuclear test sites were admittedly first loaded with hundreds or up to a thousand tons of dynamite.  Footage exists showing military men stacking gigantic piles of TNT and dynamite at nuclear testing sites.  The official reason for this was claimed as “comparative purposes,” where the blast from hundreds of tons of stacked TNT would be compared to the nuclear bomb.  With each team sent to separate islands, each stacking piles of explosives but both that told the other island would have the actual bomb, it would be simple to deceive the very men creating the deception.  Mushroom clouds are not unique to so-called nuclear weapons, and can be formed with enough TNT, dynamite, regular bombs, and other explosive materials.  Later supposed nuclear tests like Abel were likely done using very large but traditional bombs and the Baker test done using hundreds of tons of submerged dynamite in a vessel underwater.

Nuclear fission occurs by bombarding uranium 238 with neutrons to split the nucleus and create the isotope uranium 235.  During this split, mass is lost and converted into kinetic energy, which is known as nuclear fission.  If each of those neutrons then goes into another uranium nucleus causing more fission and many more neutrons, this creates a theoretical process known as an explosive nuclear chain reaction.  Enrico Fermi’s famous nuclear chain reaction test was done by stacking massive amounts of graphite and embedding balls of uranium within so that when neutrons started flying through, they would be slowed by the graphite, collide with the uranium, release more neutrons, and then those neutrons would continue in a chain reaction pattern.  This achievement, which was only detectable by a Geiger counter, meant that the fission process could be sustained, but in no way proved the possibility of a nuclear explosive chain reaction. 

In reality, all explosions are gas related.  For an explosive chain reaction to occur, there would need to be an explosive gas created or added.  The byproducts of nuclear fission are 94% heat and 6% radiation.  No gas whatsoever is produced by nuclear fission and so there can be no massive destructive blast.  Furthermore, to achieve intense heat from nuclear fission, millions of atoms need to be split in a chain reaction, which requires a moderator to slow down free neutrons.  No such moderator is included in nuclear bombs, and even if it were, there is no test evidence that even this would result in an explosion. 

Recently declassified minutes of the Manhattan Project’s Interim Committee meeting on May, 31st, 1945 reveal that America had insufficient Uranium to build the Atom bombs supposedly used on Japan just a few months later.  Dr. Compton, director of the Met-Lab at University of Chicago who oversaw production of enriched uranium and plutonium for the bombs was quoted stating it would take another 3 years to produce the amount needed for the bombs, yet just over 3 months later America supposedly successfully produced and deployed two on Japan without being tested. 

Enrico Fermi stated they would need one half to one ton of enriched material to create a nuclear bomb.  Natural Uranium metal contains concentrations of 99% U238, 0.7% U235 and 0.3% U234.  Therefore, to obtain 1 metric ton of U235 you need 142.8 metric tons of natural uranium, and for each metric ton of natural uranium, you need approximately 1000 tons of uranium ore.  Supplies of such uranium ore are certainly not unlimited and especially in the 1940s were in short supply.  The Manhattan Project interim Committee minutes specifically mentioned that even reactor-grade uranium was in short supply and wouldn’t suffice, yet just 3 months later, the bombs were somehow ready and dropped. 

The footage we were shown of the supposed nuclear blasts at Hiroshima and Nagasaki show what appear to be two super-imposed smoke plumes atop one another in an attempt to make the mushroom cloud look larger.  Rather than making the blast look bigger, however, it looks more like some secondary blast began mid-air.  The footage of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki explosions look very different from the many other test examples shown previously, each of which also looked very different from one another. 

In reality Hiroshima and Nagasaki were firebombed just like Tokyo and many other Japanese cities.  When footage of the aftermath is analyzed, it is clear that the destruction is consistent with traditional carpet bombing and not from a single nuclear explosion.  If the damage shown in footage from the aftermath of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was actually from these nuclear bombs, there would be a single central circular blast radius showing the most destruction at the center-point with gradually less expanding outwards.  The debris and direction of destruction should all face outwards from this central location, and there should be an obvious blast crater at the site of impact. 

In World War II propaganda films, you can see footage of scientists pointing to the exact spot where the nuclear bomb supposedly landed in Hiroshima, yet the area looks no different than any other and has no discernable blast crater.  The damage immediately around the point of impact is no worse or more pronounced than anywhere else.  The destruction found throughout the two cities is in fact consistent with traditional fire-bombing, with all smaller wooden buildings decimated and only a few larger stone and reinforced concrete structures still standing. The propaganda films claim to show buildings with windows blown in one side and out the other, or Hiroshima bridge having the paint burnt off only one side, but these examples are clearly cherry-picked to give the illusion of a single blast, when the overall destruction is similar to every other fire-bombed Japanese city.

There is also no evidence of long-term radiation damage anywhere in Hiroshima or Nagasaki.  According to the experts, there was to be radiation and nuclear fallout for thousands of years affecting people, plants, animals and every living thing in the vicinity, causing generational deformities and a veritable death zone.  In reality, however, flowers, grass and other plants started growing back within a month and radiation levels have dropped in both cities recovering to normality within years.  Hiroshima and Nagasaki are now bustling modern cities, 80 years later, with no remnant of nuclear destruction.  The people there are not all born with deformities or chronic ailments, and there is no dangerous radiation or fallout to beware.  Radiation exists and remains present in an area after any and every explosion, not just supposed nuclear ones.  So, if you drop a bunch of bombs or blast a ton of dynamite and bring a Geiger counter, you will certainly register radiation, but it will not linger for centuries or millennia like nuclear radiation is claimed to do. 

As for the explosions which occurred at nuclear power plants like Chernobyl and Fukushima, these were gas explosions caused by the buildup of hydrogen, and not nuclear explosions.  In fact, it is impossible for a nuclear explosion to occur at a nuclear power plant, only gas explosions.  Today in Fukushima you get more radiation from the back-scatter scanners at the airport security gates than you do from their so-called nuclear disaster.  The way nuclear power works is essentially just using hot radioactive material to boil water and generate steam which drives turbines and creates electricity.  One of the leading nuclear physicists in America, Galen Winsor, who was responsible for helping set-up most of America’s nuclear power plants, was a vocal whistle-blower on this subject.  He said nuclear power is really just the cleanest and most economical way boil water, and that all nuclear power plants are essentially and practically just steam power plants. 

In his lecture tours he gave all across the country, Galen Winsor would talk about how he and other early nuclear physicists would regularly hold uranium, plutonium and radioactive waste with their bare hands without any ill effects.  He quipped about taking swims in the nuclear waste pools to prove they weren’t hazardous, and when his colleagues refused to believe him, he began drinking a glass of water from the pools in front of them every day.  In footage from his lectures, you can watch Galen open a tiny canister of radioactive material, supposedly dangerous enough to cause an EPA disaster area one mile in radius, contaminating everyone in the building.  He holds it in his bare hands, runs a Geiger counter over it which registers off the scale, licks all the radioactive material onto his tongue, tests it with the Geiger counter again, and swallows it.  Galen Winsor did this demonstration for years with no ill effects and lived into his 80s. 

After trying to blow the whistle with his lecture tours, the government confiscated his nuclear material, sent the SWAT team to his house, and began harassing him legally.  He was quoted saying: “There is no such thing as nuclear waste, only material created in a nuclear reactor to be recovered and used beneficially.  High level waste is radioactive and self-heating and so re-usable uranium fuel fits that definition, but if you disregard its intrinsic worth, then it would fit the definition of high-level waste.  But let’s say there is no high level waste and only material to be recovered and used beneficially.  Then what’s the low-level waste fiasco?  That’s an excuse for a federally mandated non-inspectable disposal system so that organized crime can get rid of any evidence they want and it can never be dug up again.”

There are allegedly stainless-steel containers buried in concrete under the ocean boiling with hot radioactive material for 2000 years.  The production, storage, transportation and disposal of nuclear materials is incredibly expensive and secretive.  Protocols for dealing with nuclear waste materials involve allegedly burying it deep into Earth’s bedrock through such extensive, expensive procedures.  In reality, as Galen Winsor showed, these nuclear materials are not nearly as hazardous or toxic as they are made out to be, and the over-the-top, secretive disposal methods likely double as black-budget, black-op covers.  It provides the Military Industrial complex a never-ending blank check for themselves to dip into tax payer money.  At many times during the nuclear arms race, America spent upwards of 50 million dollars per day on nuclear weapons related expenses, nearly rivaling NASA’s huge budget. 

It is no doubt that incredibly high-powered ballistics, bombs and missiles all exist, but the specific claim of nuclear weapons and nuclear explosions, which require fission, a nuclear chain reaction, and result in destruction on a scale far beyond conventional weaponry, is patently false.  Nuclear fission simply does not produce any kind of gas necessary for such an explosion, and no moderator to slow down free neutrons is included in nuclear weapons.  Declassified documents suggest the American government was years from having enough U235 to produce the bombs allegedly dropped on Japan.  Film analysis of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and nuclear test footage show countless anomalies pointing towards photo trickery and deceptive wartime propaganda.  Radiation levels quickly dropped and the destruction attributed to two nuclear explosions looked no different from the neighboring towns and cities destroyed by aerial fire-bombing runs.  The stories of the Little Boy and Fat Man bombs were just the myths necessary to create the scare-mongering cold-war arms race that would soon begin.  The threat of any nation being able to push a button and destroy entire cities or countries is a perfect terrifying excuse for America to enter and make war with anyone that supposedly harbors or develops nuclear weapons.  Since the early tests, alleged nuclear explosions have continued to get larger and larger, while the payload continues getting smaller and smaller, to the point we are now supposed to believe they can be carried in a suitcase.  Teaching generations of children to duck and cover hiding under their desks has now instilled fear of a boogeyman just as bogus as the one under their beds.

Eric Dubay 

https://ericdubay.wordpress.com/

WE are always on the top; so that our friends down in the Antipodes are the people who mostly need gravitation

 ...for we have not, like flies, been provided with secretions in our feet, to enable us to stick on to a whirling ball ! How necessary some such a force would be, if we hang head downwards, or stick out as radii at various hours of the day and night ; for these m ust be our positions at different times during the twenty-four hours, if the earth has any axial motion. But somehow or other WE are always on the top;so that our friends down in the Antipodes are the people who mostly need gravitation. They cannot be on the top too, else it would be a queer shaped globe. This universal law (?) according to Sir R. Ball, affirms that “ every body in the universe attracts every other body, with a force which varies inversely as the square of the distance.”

If this be so, I should like to know what is the nature of the pulling tackle ? Is it solid, liquid, or gaseous ? Is no one able to explain this mystery? It would be interesting to learn something definite about it. But when we are told of a “ something " which we are unable to feel, see, taste, or smell, and which does not show any results for its universal pulling operations, what else can we reasonably call it but " nothing”?

At a recent debate in Leicester, upon this subject the gentleman who represented the Astronomers' position, confessed that “no one can tell what gravitation is ; no, not even an angel from heaven ”! The question naturally arises; did they get the theory from some angel in the other place?

Sir Isaac never made it clear w hat this law is ; but I find that he himself confessed it was a “ great absurdity."

In a letter to Dr. Bentley. Feb. 25th, 1692, Kewton says ;— “ That gravitation should be innate and inherent in matter, so that one body can act upon another at a distance—is to me SO GREAT AN A BSURDITY, that I believe no man who has, in philosophical matters, a competent faculty of thinking, can ever fall into it.” Yet many have fallen into this “great absurdity.” Such men therefore—according to Newton—have not " a competent faculty of thinking ” in philosophical matters. I am happy to be in agreement with Sir Isaac on this important point.

Sir Robert Ball says :— “ The law of gravitation . . . underlies the whole of Astronomy.” (Story of the Heavens, p. 122). It does not speak very well for the Astronomy, if it is founded on an acknowledged “great absurdity.”

Perhaps some reader may kindly inform me how the planet Jupiter can pull “our earth ” without any chain or rope between ; or how a fly in my room could manage to attract a stone on the beach at Douglas, Isle of Man ; and this, too, without any "pulling tackle ”? It would be rather hard upon the poor fly ! The idea of “ universal attraction ” is foohsh in the extreme, it is an absurd theory foisted upon the credulous crowd.

C. Vernon Boys, F.R.S., A.R.S.M., M.R.I., in his paper.
The Newtonian Constant of Gravitation.” says :—
“ It is a my sterious power which NO  MAN  CAN EXPLAIN. OF ITS PROPAGATION THROUGH SPACE ALL MEN ARE IGNORANT”— Proceedings of the Royal Institution of Great  Britain, p. 355. March, 1895.

Is not this an honest and authoritative confession of Astronomical ignorance of their fundamental position?
Professor W. B. Carpenter, in his paper. “Nature and Law,” says ;— “ We have no proof, and in the nature of things can never get one, of the ASSUMPTION of the attractive force exerted by the earth, or by any of the bodies of the solar system , upon other bodies at a distance.

. . . The doctrine of universal gravitation then is A PURE ASSUMPTIONS.—Published in Modern Revietv,
October, 1890.

This “ absurd ” law, or “ mysterious power which no man "can explain,” the existence of which has never been proved, and of which its supposed operation through space “ all men are ignorant,” amounts therefore to nothing but an empty assumption.

Bodies by their own weight will either fall or rise, until they have found their equilibrium ; consequently Newton's apple fell to the ground simply because it was heavier than the atmosphere.

Successful attraction operates in the case of sweethearts separated by long distances, though I am not sure whether it is “ inversely proportional to the square of their distance"
How cleverly Sir Isaac guessed—“ discovered ”— I should state— From an apple falling to the ground by its own proper weight.

That atoms, million miles apart, and stars down to a straw , Can pull each other without ropes, by merely “ Natural Law!” —From “ The Evolutionist,” by “ Zetetes.”

The famous German philosopher and poet, Goethe, regard­ing the Newtonian system, said ;— “ It may be boldly asked where can the man be found possessing the extraordinary gifts of Newton, who could suffer himself to be deluded by such a hocus pocus, if he had not in the first instance wilfully deceived himself ? . . . To support his unnatural theory Newton heaps FICTION UPON FICTION, seeking to dazzle where he cannot convincc.”— Proceedings of the Royal Institiition. vol. 9, p art 3, P- 353-

Is the Earth a Globe WHIRLING IN SPACE? AS IS ASSUMED AND TAUGHT BY MODERN ASTRONOMICAL “ SCIENCE.”
The Su b j e c t  Se r io u s l y,  Sc i e n t i f i c a l l y, AND
S a c r e d l y  Co n s id e r e d.
BY
KARL A. SMITH.

Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality

 Nikola Tesla’s statement about the modern methods of scientists like Einstein is revealing. “Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality.”538

Nikola Tesla was the most brilliant scientist and inventor of his time. So advanced were his discoveries that upon his death in 1943 his research papers were seized by the FBI and classified “Top Secret” at the request of the U.S. War Department. One of Tesla’s most notable discoveries was alternating electrical current (a/k/a AC) that is today used to power most homes and businesses.

Tesla understood true science and knew a scientific scam when he saw one. In 1935, Tesla called Einstien’s theory of relativity “[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king..., its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists.”539
Professor Herbert Dingle was once an eminent proponent of the theory of relativity. He later realized that it was simply a myth, supported not by scientific experiments, but rather by false math formulae. He discovered that the theory of relativity is held to be true, not because it is true, but because mathematical formulae were devised and held up as evidence of its truth. “Not only are hypotheses held to contain the 'real truth'; it is now claimed that any (mathematical) hypothesis is necessarily true.”

(parenthetical in original)540

The problem with basing proof for a scientific theory solely on mathematics is that a mathematical equation may not correspond to reality. A mathematical formula may only prove something that is imaginary and not real. Professor Dingle explains:

[T]he symbols that compose a mathematical expression may, with equal mathematical correctness, correspond both to that which is observable and that which is purely imaginary or even unimaginable. If, therefore, we start with a mathematical expression, and infer that there must be something in nature corresponding to it, we do in principle just what the pre-scientific philosophers did when they assumed that nature must obey their axioms, but its immensely greater power for both good and evil makes the consequences of its misapplication immensely more serious.541

The experiments supporting the theory of relativity were “thought experiments” performed completely through complicated math formulae designed to bedazzle ignorant laymen. Professor Dingle stated:

[M]athematics has been transformed from the servant of experience into its master, and instead of enabling the full implications and potentialities of the facts of experience to be realised and amplified, it has been held necessarily to symbolise truths which are in fact sheer impossibilities but are presented to the layman as discoveries.542

Dr. Dingle reveals the key point that is the cornerstone of the theory of relativity. Many highfalutin scientists do not seem to know this one simple fact. “[I]n the language of mathematics we can tell lies as well as truths, and within the scope of mathematics itself there is no possible way of telling one from the other.”543 That is the dirty secret behind the theory of relativity. Einstein used mathematics to tell lies. The only way to determine if a mathematical formula has any validity is to test it in the real world. Dr. Dingle explains that “[w]e can distinguish them only by experience or by reasoning outside the mathematics, applied to the possible relation between the mathematical solution and its supposed physical correlate.”544 Physical experiments are not something that have been done with much success in proving the theory of relativity. Consequently, scientists resort to thought experiments, using mathematical formulae, which have no correlation to reality.

How can math be used to tell lies, as alleged by Professor Dingle? A simple example will illustrate how math can be used to support a falsehood. If one were to say that a glass that is half-empty is the same as a glass that is half-full, that would be true.

One can use mathematics, however, to make that simple truth be the foundation for a falsehood. Let’s put the half-full glass equaling a half-empty glass into an equation, where “E” represents an empty glass and “F” represents a full glass: ½E = ½F. That equation (½E = ½F) is accurate as it is presented; a half empty glass is equal to an half full glass. Now, in basic algebra, if one multiplies both sides by the same number, it does not affect the accuracy of the equation. Thus, to multiply both sides of the equation by two, one would get the result of E = F. Under the rules of algebra, that is supposed to be a true statement. We know, however, that in reality an empty glass does not equal a full glass (thus, in reality E ≠ F). However, mathematics can be used to present a falsehood as truth (E = F). That is the type of unreal reasoning that permeates the theory of relativity, where the scientific testing is done in thought experiments, using mathematics. This creates a fantasy world of relativity. The theory of relativity is not science, it is mysticism, supported only by mathematical models.

Physicists gave up trying to understand the absurd results of the formulae used to explain the theory of relativity, and simply capitulated without much of a fight. They accepted the mathematical formulae of Einstein, even though they often gave inaccurate and incongruous solutions. Dingle explains that “with the apparent success in 1919 of Einstein's general theory with its then quite new and terrifying mathematical machinery of tensor calculus, came the fatal climax. ... [Physicists] gave up trying to understand the whole business, surrendered the use of their intelligence, and accepted passively whatever apparent absurdities the mathematicians put before them.”545

Einstein’s biographer, Ronald Clark, reports that Einstein’s friend, Janos Plesch, suggested to Einstein that there seemed to be some connection between mathematics and fiction, Einstein replied: “There may be something in what you say. When I examine myself and my methods of thought I come to the conclusion that the gift of fantasy has meant more to me than my talent for absorbing positive knowledge.”546

The theory of Relativity is not science; it is fantasy, conjured by mathematical formulae in the minds of Einstein and his followers. The blind faith of the scientific community in the supposed truth of the theory of relativity, and its intolerance for any evidence of its invalidity, is akin to adherents in a religious cult. When one realizes that relativity is more a religion than it is science, it explains why the ascension of relativity is in direct proportion to the descent of Christianity in society. It seems that there is more tolerance in religion than there is in the scientific community toward heterodoxy, especially when it comes to the theory of relativity. Indeed, Professor Dingle said as much:

It is ironical that, in the very field in which Science has claimed superiority to Theology, for example — in the abandoning of dogma and the granting of absolute freedom to criticism — the positions are now reversed. Science will not tolerate criticism of special relativity, while Theology talks freely about the death of God, religionless Christianity, and so on (on which I make no comment whatever). Unless scientists can be awakened to the situation into which they have lapsed, the future of science and civilisation is black indeed.547 (parenthetical comment in original)

Charles Lane Poor, Professor of Celestial Mechanics at Columbia University, and the author of a number of standard textbooks on astronomy, stated that “the Relativity Theory strikes directly at our fundamental concepts as to the structure of the universe; its conclusions are startling and completely upsetting to our common-sense way of looking at physical and astronomical phenomena.”548 Dr. Louis Essen, a distinguished mathematician, and Fellow of the Royal Society, stated that the theory of relativity was not truly a physical theory but rather simply a number of sometimes contradictory assumptions. Lord Ernest Rutherford is considered the father of nuclear physics; so eminent was he that chemical element 104 was named rutherfordium after him. Lord Rutherford has called the theory of relativity, simply “nonsense.”

In 1922, Professor Herbert Dingle wrote Relativity for All, one of the first standard textbooks on the theory of relativity. His second book on the subject, written approximately 20 years later, The Special Theory of Relativity, remained for a long time the standard work in English and American universities on the theory of relativity. Indeed, Professor Dingle was one of the foremost experts on the theory of relativity in the world. During a span of fifty years, he studied the theory intensively and conferred about it with all the physicists who were experts in it (e.g., Einstein, Eddington, Tolman, Whittaker, Schroedinger, Born and Bridgman). So renowned was Dingle’s expertise on the theory of relativity, that when Einstein died in 1955, the BBC chose Professor Dingle to broadcast a tribute to Einstein.

In 1959, after years of believing and promoting the theory of relativity, Dingle realized that something was wrong. He found a paradox in the theory of relativity. He spent 13 years canvassing his large network of scientists to try to find an answer to the paradox. Nobody could answer the paradox. He tried to publish the paradox, but was refused all access to scientific journals.

Finally, in 1972, Dingle decided to publish his conclusion in a book titled: Science at the Crossroads. He explained in his book that he only published it because he was denied access to scientific journals to present his evidence. In that book, Professor Dingle presents unimpeachable proof that the theory of relativity is invalid.

In order to understand the paradox with which Professor Dingle was faced, some explanation should be given. The coup de grace to the Michelson/Morley experiment results showing that the earth does not move is the central maxim of relativity theory that there is no way to tell which of two bodies is in motion. The theory of relativity provides that motion is relative to the observer.

Thus from earth it would appear that the sun is moving. However, from the perspective of the sun, the earth is moving. According to the theory of relativity there is no way to establish which is the case, because the movement of the two bodies is only movement relative to the other body. This maxim of relativity effectively kills the null result of the Michelson/Morley experiment, since according to the theory of relativity, the null result was only a matter of relative perspective. Under the theory of relativity, if you were to fall on your face, it cannot be said that you fell to the ground, as it is equally likely that the earth rose up to meet your face. That is the kind of silly conclusion brought about by the theory of relativity.

In addition to the above relativity of motion, Einstein theorized that time slows down, the faster one travels. For example, if a twin (Paul) takes a trip on a spaceship at near the speed of light and he returns to earth ten years later, his twin brother (Peter), left back on earth, will have aged ten years, but the twin on the spaceship would only have aged very little. The problem with that postulation from Einstein is that under the theory of relativity, the movement of each brother is relative. Each twin sees the other as moving, and therefore each brother should have aged more slowly than the other brother. The conclusion under the theory of relativity is that Peter has aged more slowly than Paul and at the same time Paul has aged more slowly than Peter. Of course, it is impossible for each twin to age more slowly than the other twin.

The twin paradox is chosen by this author, because it very simply illustrates the issue. Professor Dingle, however, never actually used the twin paradox, because there is an alleged quirk in that example that gives the supporters of the theory of relativity an out (or so they allege); they assert that there is no symmetry, since the twin on the spaceship is traveling outbound and inbound, which involves two inertial frames. Of course, that is pure sophistry, and addressing such nonsense is beyond the scope of this book. Professor Dingle was too well versed in the theory of relativity to allow the promoters of relativity such an easy out, so he steered clear of using the aging twins example. He, instead, used an example of two clocks moving in the same trajectory at different speeds.
Professor Dingle asked scientists all over the world to assist him in finding an answer to the paradox using speeding clocks, with one clock traveling faster than the other, in the same direction. Every scientific journal in the world refused to even address the paradox that Dingle raised. No one could resolve the paradox, and the scientific community seemed to think it was impolite to even discuss it. “I can present the matter most briefly by saying that a proof that Einstein's special theory of relativity is false has been advanced; and ignored, evaded, suppressed and, indeed, treated in every possible way except that of answering it, by the whole scientific world.”549 In science, a paradox is a self-
contradictory conclusion that is logically impossible. A theory that causes a logically impossible result is necessarily wrong. A paradox in the theory of relativity simply had to be suppressed by the high priests of science.

Professor Dingle laid out the paradox, which has never been resolved to this day, as follows:

According to the theory, if you have two exactly similar clocks, A and B, and one is moving with respect to the other, they must work at different rates ..., i.e. one works more slowly than the other. But the theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock is the 'moving' one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B moves and that B rests while A moves. The question therefore arises: how does one determine, consistently with the theory, which clock works the more slowly? Unless this question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A --which it requires no super-intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false.

But, as I have said, more than 13 years of continuous effort have failed to produce either response.550

Professor Dingle concludes that “[t]he magical influence of this word [relativity] has transformed science in this field into a superstition as powerful as any to be found in primitive tribes.”551 We have it on the authority of Professor Dingle, one of the foremost experts on the theory of relativity that the theory of relativity is false.

The theory of relativity is more than just false; it is nonsense. It is based upon the premise that motion is not absolute, but rather it is relative to the frame of reference of the observer.

Einstein’s motive in constructing such a theory was to explain away the Michelson/Morley null result for the motion of the earth.

According to the theory of relativity, there is no way to tell the difference between an object that is at rest and an object that is moving at a constant velocity in an inertial reference frame.

According to Einstein, all motion is relative to the frame of reference of the observer. For instance, according to the theory of relativity, it is equally valid to say that the railroad track is moving under a train as it is to say that same train is traveling at a constant speed over a stationary track. A person standing next to the track would perceive the train moving as it passed by him. But a passenger on the same train moving at a constant speed, who is inculcated in the school of relativity, would perceive the person standing next to the track and the landscape speeding by the train and conclude that it is equally possible that the train is standing still and the earth is moving beneath him as it is that the train is moving on the track. We know, however, that is nonsense. The train is in fact moving. The motion of the train can be detected and measured. The theory of relativity is not based upon true science and measurable observation; it is based upon religious superstition that is propped up by deceptive mathematical models that contradict reality.

The World Heritage Encyclopedia describes the importance of Einstein’s theory of relativity in explaining away the null result of the Michelson/Morley experiment.

This [Einstein’s 1905 theory of special relativity] allows a more elegant and intuitive explanation of the Michelson-Morley null result. In a comoving frame the null result is self-evident, since the apparatus can be considered as at rest in accordance with the relativity principle, thus the beam travel times are the same. ... Special relativity is generally considered the solution to all negative aether drift (or isotropy of the speed of light) measurements, including the Michelson–Morley null result.552

Very simply, the theory of relativity explains that the null result of the Michelson/Morley experiment was because the instrument doing the measuring was, relatively speaking, at rest, as that was its frame of reference, and not because it was actually at rest. Einstein asks us to ignore the reality as actually measured and accept in its place the mathematical postulates of relativity.

The theory of relativity postulates that no motion of the earth was detected in the Michelson/Morley experiment not because the earth is in fact motionless but rather because the measurement was performed from the earth. According to Einstein’s theory, if the Michelson/Morley experiment would have been done from say the moon, then the moon would have been detected to be motionless and the earth would have appeared to be in motion. Under the superstitious religion of relativity, motion is all relative to the frame of reference of the observer.

Lest you think I am overstating the fact, please make your own judgement after reading the explanation of the theory of relativity by Albert Einstein himself during an address he gave at Princeton University:

What we mean by relative motion in a general sense is perfectly plain to everyone. If we think of a wagon moving along a street we know that it is possible to speak of the wagon at rest, and the street in motion, just as well as it is to speak of the wagon in motion and the street at rest. That, however, is a very special part of the ideas involved in the principle of Relativity.553

The sad thing is that scientists believed him! And they still believe him today! They do not perceive that relativity is not true science, it is a religious deception clothed in scientific lingo. It is based on belief in mystical principles, which contradict common observation. Gerrard Hickson accurately describes Einstein’s theory of relativity as the very negation of reason. Referring to the above quote from Einstein, Hickson states:

That would be amusing if we read it in a comic paper, or if Mutt and Jeff had said it; but when Professor Einstein says it in a lecture at the Princeton University, we are expected not to laugh; that is the only difference. It is silly, but I may not dismiss the matter with that remark, and so I will answer quite seriously that it is only possible for me to speak of the street moving while the wagon remains still— and to believe it— when I cast away all the experience of a lifetime and am no longer able to understand the evidence of my senses; which is insanity. Such self-deception as this is not reasoning; it is the negation of reason; which is the faculty of forming correct conclusions from things observed, judged by the light of experience. It is unworthy of our intelligence and a waste of our greatest gift; but that introduction serves very well to illustrate the kind of illusion that lies at the root of Relativity.554

Nevile Martin Gwynne describes the irrationality that is woven through the warp and woof of the theory of relativity.
The concept of relativity attached to his [Eintstein’s] name and propagated by him represents an attack on human reason so insidious and diabolical, and so successful, that no opportunity of demonstrating its falsity, and not only its falsity but, to anyone prepared to believe his own powers of reason, its blatantly obvious falsity, should be allowed to pass.555

Gwynne proves that most of the elements of the theory of relativity were not the discoveries (Gwynne properly describes them as inventions) of Einstein. Indeed, if one examines the historical record, the only reasonable conclusion is that Einstein plagiarized the entire theory of relativity. Gwynne states that “Einstein’s works can be searched from beginning to end without revealing a single original thought of real importance.”556 Gwynne documents the little known historical facts that Einstein stole ideas from other scientists and passed them off as his own. He plagiarized their work. He gave no attribution to the other scientists.

Curved space, for instance, was thought of by Riemann; adding a fourth dimension, that of time, to geometry to create the new concept of space-time, by Minkowski; the doctrine that objects contract in proportion to the speed at which they moved, by Fitzgerald; and the idea that the velocity of light in a vacuum was constant irrespective of the notion of any object connected with the light ray, by Lorentz. ... Did he [Einstein] first assert the impossibility of detecting the velocity of the earth through the ether? No, this was done by J.H. Poincaré and H.A. Lorentz. ... Did Einstein coin the name Relativity? No, Poincaré did. ... It was Poincaré too, who first asserted that no velocity can exceed that of light. Einstein was not the first to assert that a clock in motion runs slow. This was done by Sir Joseph Larmor. Einstein was not the first to assert that matter is crinkles in curved space. Professor W.K. Clifford advanced this quaint notion in 1870, nine years before Einstein’s birth. ... Did Einstein even invent the famous equation, E=mc², which has become almost synonymous with his name the equation from which nuclear energy and nuclear destruction capability are supposedly derived? Not even that. In 1881 J.J.Thompson had produced a formula, E=¾mc², in respect of a charged spherical conductor moving in a straight line. In 1900 Poincaré suggested that electromagnetic energy might possess mass density in relation to energy density, such that E=mc², where E is energy and m is mass.557

Plagiarization is intellectual theft. The unimpeachable record proves that Einstein was not a genius, but was simply a very clever con man, with powerful backers. Gwynne concludes that “[t]he truth about Einstein is that he was no more than a puppet.”558 Gwynne presents compelling evidence that Einstein was selected to play the specific role of refuting the Michelson/Morley experiment and reestablishing the rotating globular earth.

[I]f Einstein had not existed another would have been selected to fill his place, for he possessed no qualities which are not available in profusion in almost any place in any age. ... The obstinate truth about Einstein is that in mathematics he was no more than competent and that among the so-called discoveries presented to the world under his name one can search in vain for one that was original. Had Einstein not been selected, for reasons which had nothing to do with intellectual ability, to act out a role which was deemed necessary for the furtherance of the war against God and civilisation, his claim to immortal fame would have been that of a talented and not-undistinguished physicist, a life-long Zionist, an occasionally enthusiastic admirer of Stalin’s Russia.559

Einstein was a front-man for very powerful interests behind the theory of relativity. That theory was simply an amalgamation of theories propounded by many scientists over many years. As Gwynne points out the global elite needed to have a single front-man for their theory to be popularly accepted.

[I]t is much easier to impose false beliefs on the world if they are personalised. If a theory is put forward without reference to the person who originated it, there will be a tendency for it to be judged on its merits and then, if it clearly has no merits, for it to be rejected. This is far from being the case if a theory, however ludicrously opposed to common sense, is put forward by a man of universally acknowledged genius. When that happens, the tendency will be for the theory to be examined with respect; if it cannot be understood, this will be ascribed to the incapacity of the person examining the theory; if it appears manifestly illogical, it will be assumed that the originator has grasped a logic which is beyond the reach of lesser mortals. In short, it will gradually become accepted on no better grounds than the authority of the person who has advanced it.560

Why was Einstein, of all people, chosen to be the front man? There are very powerful inter-generational interests behind promoting Einstein. These interests have an occult religious agenda to enslave the world. Martin Gwynne identifies the core of the conspiracy as Jewish. That Einstein was a Zionist Jew was probably the qualifying factor that put him at the top of the list to be the mouthpiece for the Satanic conspiracy to send the scientific world into darkness through the theory of relativity.

From the middle of the nineteenth century onwards, those presented to the world as the modern geniuses marking the turning points in civilisation have been Jews. I do not wish to exaggerate this, and it is certainly true that non-Jews too, such as Darwin at the beginning of the period and Lord Keynes in more recent times, have had their nonsense presented as majestic contributions to human knowledge.

Nevertheless, if asked to name the three men whose writings had the greatest influence in shaping the modern world, few would go beyond Karl Marx, Sigmund Freud and Albert Einstein.

Explanations for the phenomenon, adequate or otherwise, are suggested elsewhere in other papers that I have written. Here I record only the fact and the inference that can be derived from it. The Jews are entering into what they believe to be their inheritance.

If it be accepted that it was desirable to build up the reputation of a single man for the difficult task of imposing Relativity on the world and that that man should be a Jew, why was Einstein, out of all the other Jewish scientists available, chosen to play the role assigned to him? One can only speculate. Clearly his being a Zionist and a Communist would have recommended him highly to those who selected him; it seems to be agreed by all who came into contact with him that he had much charm, probably indispensable in the task allotted to him; and eyewitness accounts of his lectures provide evidence of considerable abilities as an actor and a showman, which, for the successful accomplishment of the purpose for which he was used, are talents even more necessary than charm. There must, however, have been many other people with similar or better credentials even in a population restricted to people interested in physics. Failing some revelation by those who chose him, all that can be said is that we need have little doubt that he earned his duties and his privilege somehow.

I have given some indication of what Isaac Newton did to earn the rewards that he received and is still receiving in this world. Those who recall this and take seriously verses eight and nine of the fourth chapter of St. Matthew have little alternative to the belief that such fame and adulation as Einstein received in his lifetime and has received since, and which on the face of it were wholly undeserved, must have been earned at the expense of an extremely exacting bargain in respect of his immortal soul.561

After the general acceptance of Einstein’s theory of relativity, science entered into a strange new world where experiments were not done using instruments in the physical world, but instead using mathematics in the mind of the scientists. Einstein was famous for announcing new “mind experiments.”

Einstein claimed that he did not know of the Michelson/Morley experiment prior to coming up with his special theory of relativity in 1905. Robert Shankland published an article in 1963, in which he stated that Einstein told him in 1950 that he only became aware of the Michelson/Morley experiment after he published his paper on special relativity in 1905. Shankland pointed out that indeed Einstein did not mention the Michelson/Morley experiment in his 1905 paper, suggesting by that fact that Einstein did not know about the Michelson/Morley experiment.

Einstein’s claimed ignorance of the Michelson/Morley experiment is contradicted by other statements that he made indicating that in fact he did know about the experiment. Einstein is on record admitting that he did in fact know about the Michelson/Morley experiment and it played a role in his theory of relativity.562 Einstein’s biographer, Ronald Clark, stated that one of the principle issues for science with the Michelson/Morley experiment was that the experimental results proved that the earth is stationary. Clark explained the implications of the Micehlson/Morley experiment meant that the whole Copernican theory had to be scuttled, which was “unthinkable” for the scientific community.563

Einstein never mentioned the Michelson/Morley experiment in his 1905 paper announcing his theory of special relativity.564 In 1942 Einstein claimed to Michelson’s biographer that he had already become “pretty much convinced of the validity of the [relativity] principle before I did know this [Michelson/Morley] experiment and its results.”565 It seems that Einstein was trying to avoid having anyone connect his theory of relativity with the Michelson/Morley experiment. However, the historical evidence suggests that Einstein was lying. Think about it; how could anyone believe that Einstein would be ignorant of the Michelson/Morley experiment, when in fact it was the talk of the entire scientific community? His claim of ignorance simply does not pass the smell test. Regardless, we have proof that Einstein lied when he claimed ignorance of the Michelson/Morley experiment.

Forty-two letters were uncovered between Einstein and his fiancee Mileva Mari. Those letters reveal that in fact Einstein knew about the Michelson/Morley experiment as early as 1899.566 In addition, in a recently uncovered 14 December 1922 speech that Einstein delivered at Kyoto University in Japan, Einstein admitted that he was aware of the Michelson/Morley experiment and the “strange result” of that experiment affected directly his theory of special relativity.
While I was thinking of this problem in my student years, I came to know the strange result of Michelson's experiment. Soon I came to the conclusion that our idea about the motion of the earth with respect to the ether is incorrect, if we admit Michelson's null result as a fact. This was the first path which led me to the special theory of relativity. Since then I have come to believe that the motion of the Earth cannot be detected by any optical experiment, though the Earth is revolving around the Sun.567

Notice Einstein reinforces the scientific myth that the earth revolves around the sun, but he claims that fantastic movement “cannot be detected by any optical experiment.” Why can the movement of the earth not be detected by any optical instrument? Because there are no optical instruments that can detect movement that is not there. Indeed, Einstein knows that, which is why he is so certain that no instrument could ever detect the motion of the earth.

537.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 108.
538.Nikola Tesla, http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/n/nikolates l401270.html (last visited on September 9, 2015).
539.New York Times, 11 July 1935, p23, c.8.
540.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 14, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
541.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 16, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
542.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 5, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
543.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 18, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
544.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 18, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
545.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 64, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
546.Marshal Hall, The Earth is Not Moving, at 117 (1991), (quoting Ronald W. Clark, Einstein: The Life and Times, at 87 (1971).
547.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 5, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
548.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 11, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
549.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 6, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
550.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 7, http://blog.hasslberger.com/Dingle_SCIENCE_at_the_ Crossroads.pdf.
551.Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972), at 33.
552.Michelson-Morley Experiment, World Heritage Encyclopedia, http://self.gutenberg.org/articles/Michelson-Morley_ex periment (last visited on October 28, 2016).
553.Gerrard Hickson, Kings Dethroned, at 65 (1922).
554.Gerrard Hickson, Kings Dethroned, at 65 (1922).
555.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 3, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
556.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 31, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
557.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 31-32, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
558.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 32, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
559.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 3-4, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
560.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 5, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
561.N. Martin Gwynne, Einstein and Modern Physics, at 5-6, http://www.alcazar.net/einstein.pdf (last visited  on October 6, 2015).
562.Malcolm Bowden, Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!, December 28, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxMSL9h2ziY.
See also, Jeroen van Dongen, infra.
563.Malcolm Bowden, Geocentricity is Scientific, Heliocentricity is a Lie!, December 28, 2014, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxMSL9h2ziY, citing Ronald W. Clark, Einstein, The Life and Times, at 80 (1971).
564.Jeroen van Dongen, On the role of the Michelson-Morley experiment: Einstein in Chicago, Institute for History and Foundations of Science & Descartes Centre, Utrecht University & Einstein Papers Project, Caltech, http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/4778/1/Einstein_Chicago _Web2.pdf (last visited on October 6, 2015).
565.Jeroen van Dongen, supra (quoting Einstein to Michelson’s biographer, Bernard Jaffe, on 17 March 1942; as in (Holton 1969/1995), p. 340.).
566.Jeroen van Dongen, supra.
567.Albert Einstein, How I Created the Theory of Relativity, Translated by Yoshimasa A. Ono, Physics Today, Vol. 35, No.8, pp. 45-47, August 1982, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.

1.1.451.9501&rep=rep1&type=pdf.

The Greatest Lie on Earth
Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe
Edward Hendrie

Flat Earth or conspiracy theories as a spiritual exercise

A Lesson in Humility

Alchemists stress the importance of humility, because a humble mind is always ready to receive higher truth. If we cling pridefully to false knowledge then truth will flee from us, we must always be ready and willing to have our worldview transformed into something greater and more illumined. We must be able to discern between the true light and the false light, to follow the golden thread.

Back in 2002, my PhD supervisor, a senior professor, told me a story which always stuck with me. There was an international nuclear physics conference back in the 1980s, where all the world’s top researchers gathered annually to share their work. One of the guests of honour was an old professor who had spent his entire career developing an exciting new theory of the structure of the atomic nucleus.
Everyone admired him and was familiar with his work, he was a legend in the international theoretical nuclear physics scene.

During the conference, a young post-doc, fresh out of his PhD and still wet behind the ears, got up on stage to deliver his presentation. In it, he systematically debunked and disproved the professors theory, using sound scientific methodology and reasoning, demonstrating that it could never happen as it was physically and logically impossible.
He showed this beyond any doubt, revealing that the professor had spent his whole life promoting a theory which was inherently flawed and just plain wrong. The professor stood up from his seat, walked down the isle, got up onto the stage and reached out and shook the post-doc’s hand, saying “Thank you, now I know the truth’.

This story is a lesson in humility, and a reminder to all intellectuals that truth should always be the goal, we must be prepared to let go of our beliefs and admit fault the moment we become aware of it, even if we have spent our whole life working on it, its the honourable way.

It can be difficult. embarrassing, humiliating even, as our ego gets attached to the wrong ideas, we may even be successful and financially dependent on perpetuating them. Nobody likes to publicly admit they were wrong, it is vulnerable, a form of surrender, a humbling. Humility is the opposite of pride, its what makes an apology a real apology.
If this professor were full of pride, he would kick and scream and launch ad-hominem attacks, demanding that the post-doc be cast out from the conference and stripped of his honours for daring to question authority.

Pride puts ego above truth, humility puts truth above ego. At its most extreme, pride can completely block people from the truth that is right in front of their noses, it’s a form of spiritual blindness and a back-door for demonic influences to enter the mind and take over. Alchemical texts and religious scriptures are replete with warnings about the consequences of pride.

Whereas, humility is said to be a precursor for receiving higher knowledge and for effective healing and prayer, it’s a key component of spiritual development. We must be able to humble ourselves before the eternal truth of the universe, or we are destined to live out our lives in darkness, believing in fables and pseudo-science.

**

I first heard of ‘flat earth’ around 1999, playing the Stephen Jackson Illuminati card game with some friends at university. The cards each represent human groups with different special interests, and on the card for ‘Flat Earthers’ it says “People laugh, but flat earthers know something”.
Of course, my student friends and I all laughed at the idea of people who believe the earth is flat, how could they be so stuck in the past? I kinda dismissed it as a weird joke, and after that I didn’t think about it again for many years.
During 2015-2016 it popped up a number of times online, and eventually by recommendation from a friend, so I decided to see what it actually is these people believe.
I expected it to be some weird cultish thing like scientology, but what I found was just solid, verifiable scientific research that calls into question many of the theories we are taught about our world. For the most part there was no nonsense at all, just straight-shooting facts and hard questions that are thought provoking and irrefutable. As someone coming from a scientific background, I was well impressed by how meticulous and well-reasoned the flat earth research was, it was a breath of fresh air to see the scientific method being used so effectively. I couldn’t understand why I hadn’t learned any of this in university, it’s really fundamental stuff. It took a few months of watching presentations and doing experiments and having many heated conversations with people, but eventually I came to a place of 100% knowing that our world is not a planet spinning through space. I may not know 100% what it is, but I know 100% what it is not, and it’s not a spinning ball. The Illuminati cards were right, flat earthers do know something.

The process of conversion is a one-way street, nobody ever goes back to believing in the ball, there are no ‘ex-flat-earthers’ as far as I know, because there is actually no reason to believe you are spinning once you know that you are not. But how does one get to a place of knowing such a thing?

Well, start by asking yourself, how do you know that you're on a spinning ball flying through space? You have to set about trying to prove the globe, something that seems like it should be quite an easy task (especially for a boffin such as myself) but it turns out is actually quite impossible.

Many will tell you the same story, becoming a ‘flat earther’ is the result of having tried to prove the globe and failed. The irony is flat earthers are treated as the most stupid people in society, a proper fool in the negative sense, a symbol of ignorance, madness and wrong-think, a group of people not even worth listening to. The globe is so entrenched in the collective consciousness that it is generally deemed to be an unquestionable fact of reality.

To do the work it requires a position of neutrality, no attachment to any particular outcome, just simply to look at all the evidence for and against the spinning ball earth.
In doing this we have to be comfortable being ‘the fool’, people will call you a fool for even looking into it, so we must be open minded, curious, humble, and ready to have our worldview challenged.

Going in with a hard head and a zealous attachment to the globe will get you nowhere. Eventually, once the various proofs are understood, and the beliefs and assumptions of the globe model have been overcome from every conceivable angle, it all just clicks into place.

I remember vividly the day I realised I wasn’t spinning through space, it was the most profound awakening of my
life, a true enlightenment experience, a new dawn, finally getting ‘out of the mind’ and ‘coming to the senses’. The globe earth is often called the mother of all conspiracies, and for good reason, it’s a conspiracy about the nature of our mother, Earth! And when you internalise this it is like a master key that makes all other conspiracies very transparent and easy to spot.

The topic has been presented and debated very thoroughly for a long time now, there are literally hundreds of verifiable scientific experiments to consider’ and some amazing resources and dedicated people’ devoted to giving you all the best information on every question you might have.

In general it is a topic best discussed by video presentation, since the globe is largely an image promulgated through the medium of video. However, if you really wish to try and prove the existence of the globe for yourself, let me save you some time, there are only two tests that really matter:

1) proof of spinning,
2) proof of curved horizon.

Here’s the catch: you can’t use images from NASA as your ‘proof’ because NASA has been shown to be a fraudulent organisation that lies to the world and fabricates fake imagery, many times over. Plus, it’s unscientific and logical fallacy to ‘appeal to authority’, you have to prove it using the scientific method, techniques that can be repeated by independent people. All NASA imagery is unverifiable and unfalsifiable, so it’s useless as evidence for anything (the ‘space program’ will be covered in the next chapter).

When I set about trying to prove this back in 2016, I thought it would be child’s play, with my trusty PhD and advanced mathematical skills, and since I was flying ‘around the globe’ in planes all the time, I could undoubtedly prove it, easily! But the more I looked and the harder I tried, I just couldn’t, I searched for globe evidence every single day for many years, it was an obsession, I kept thinking maybe there was something I overlooked, some test that proves it, I soured many relationships due to broaching the subject, and I followed the debate online closely, but I have never found a single reason to believe in the globe in all the years since. The case for the globe gets weaker with each passing year, while ‘flat earthers’ grow in number constantly.

What’s clear is that academics don’t engage with it on a sincere level, they either completely ignore it, or use ad-hominem attacks to slander and belittle the researchers, as if the whole topic is beneath them, an insult to their intellect, a conversation not worth having. This is intellectual bypassing, they just block you and smear you and carry on as normal.
From 2015 through to 2018, a golden era for the free flow of information online, almost every single day I found more reasons to doubt the globe model of earth, and almost every time I tried to talk to someone about it, I was shutdown, dismissed as a fool.

I eventually opted to keep it out of social conversation as it’s far too much of a thankless labour trying to re-educate people in cosmology during the short windows of time we have together, especially when most don’t even want to learn. All the alchemy texts I was reading warned against trying to share higher knowledge with people who are not ready or willing for it, plus I felt like there was no reason why anyone would believe me, in the eyes of the world I was a professional fool, not a serious scientist.

Nevertheless, I knew in my heart of hearts that the globe is a lie, I could find no real evidence for the existence of this giant spinning ball we call “planet earth”, and all the theories it was based upon were crumbling under scrutiny, it became clear as day that the whole thing is very a clever fabrication.

Steven A. Young
Science Conspiracies & The Secret Art of Alchemy

***
Photograph of Chicago taken by Joshua Nowicki, as he stood at Grand Mere Park, Michigan, 57 miles away.
If the earth were a globe Chicago would be below the horizon. The only way that Chicago could be seen from the western shore of Michigan is if the world is flat. Below is a map showing the 57 mile distance across lake Michigan from Grand Mere Park, Michigan to Chicago, Illinois.

Let us calculate the position of Chicago in relation to Grand Mere Park, assuming that the earth were a globe. Grand Mere Park is 600 feet above sea level. Lake Michigan is 577 feet above sea level. Therefore, Grand Mere Park is 23 feet above Lake Michigan (600 − 577 = 23). Let’s assume that the photographer was at the highest point in Grand Mere Park. We will add six feet for the height of the photographer. We come up with an estimate that the camera was, at most, 29 feet above the level of the water on Lake Michigan (23 + 6 = 29). We will subtract seven miles from the distance of 57 miles to account for the 29 foot elevation of the camera above Lake Michigan (29 foot drop to horizon = approximately 6.6 miles, which is rounded up to 7 miles) (29 feet = 6.62  × 8 inches).

Calculating the curvature of the earth using the 50 mile distance, we find that the street level of Chicago should be 1,644 feet below the horizon. The tallest building in the picture is the Sears Tower (it has been recently renamed the Willis Tower). The Sears Tower was, from 1974 to 1998, the tallest building in the world. It stands 1,450 feet above the street. However, the antennae on top of the tower brings the total height to 1,729 feet above the street level. In coming up with the 1,644 feet drop below the horizon, it must be understood that it was necessary to subtract 23 feet from the total drop of 1,667 feet (502 × 8 inches = 1,667 feet) to account for the fact that the Sears Tower is 23 feet above the level of Lake Michigan. The Sears Tower is 595 feet above sea level. Lake Michigan is 577 feet above sea level. That puts the Sears Tower 23 feet above Lake Michigan. Therefore, the base of the Sears Tower would be 1,644 feet below the horizon (1,667 − 23 = 1644). That means that if the earth were a globe, none of the buildings, including the Sears Tower, would be visible. They would all be below the horizon. The top of the Sears Tower would be 194 feet below the horizon (1,644 − 1,450 = 194). The only thing that would be visible in the entire Chicago skyline would be the uppermost 85 feet of the antennae on the top of the Sears Tower.
In fact, however, the entire Sears Tower and all of the other buildings along the shore in Chicago can be seen in the Nowicki photograph. (...)

Joshua Nowicki’s photograph created such a sensation that it was necessary for the media powers to explain how Chicago could be seen from the Michigan shore, 57 miles away, which is an impossibility if the earth were a globe. Tom Coomes, a weatherman for ABC News argued that it was impossible to actually see Chicago from 57 miles away. Coomes stated that “Chicago is beyond the horizon; you should not be able to see it.”47 However, it can be seen; it is clearly revealed in Joshua Nowicki’s photograph. How does Coomes explain this apparent impossibility? Coomes explained away Nowicki’s photograph by averring that the Chicago skyline wasn’t really there at all.48 He claimed that Nowicki’s picture was depicting what is called a “superior mirage.” Coomes showed an amazing display of self control, as he kept a straight face throughout his ridiculous explanation.

The problem with Coomes’ explanation is that a superior mirage is a mirage of an object that is usually inverted above the actual object. Sjaak Slanina explains that “[a] superior mirage occurs when an image of an object appears above the actual object.”49 The drawing below is from the National Snow and Ice Data Center (NSIDC) and illustrates the inversion of a superior mirage. (...)

Mountains of Proof

Jon McIntyre was troubled by the evidence of the flat earth and simply could not bring himself to accept that such a massive conspiracy to hide the very nature of the earth could exist. He came up with an ingenious way to determine, once and for all, whether the earth was a sphere or flat. He concluded that if the earth were flat then two equally high mountains separated by many miles would appear to the observer to be the same height if the observer was stationed at a vantage point that was equal in height to the peak of the two mountain tops.

All he needed to do was to move perpendicular to the alignment of the mountains, thus creating a parallax between the mountains, and he could then see both mountains side-by-side. If, however, the earth were a globe, then the more distant mountain top would drop below the height of the nearer mountain top by the distance in miles squared multiplied by eight inches (miles2 × 8 inches = distance of drop on the supposed spherical earth).

McIntyre searched and found three mountains that met his criteria. The three mountains were found in the Black Mountain Range in North Carolina. He positioned himself with his camera at an elevation of 5,385 feet on the ridge of Tennent Mountain. He then trained his camera at Fryingpan Mountain, six (6) miles in the distance from his position on the ridge at Tennent Mountain. The peak of Fryingpan Mountain has an elevation of approximately 5,380 feet above sea level. Thirty four (34) miles beyond Fryingpan Mountain was Graybeard Mountain, with an elevation of approximately 5,395 feet.

McIntyre’s position was to the side of Fryingpan Mountain, which created a parallax between it and Graybeard Mountain. This allowed him to view both the mountains juxtaposed to one another, although they were separated by 34 miles. He discovered that in fact the mountain tops were almost the same height, just as indicated by their official reported elevations.

If the earth were a globe, then the curvature of the earth would cause Graybeard Mountain to drop 770 feet and be out of the sight of the observer. But that is not what we see.

Such a configuration as depicted in McIntyre’s photograph would be impossible on a spherical earth. His picture is compelling evidence that the earth is flat.

It should be noted that McIntyre is not a believer in the flat earth. The most he can bring himself to say on the issue of whether the earth is flat is: “I don't know.” But he cannot otherwise explain the phenomenon of the mountain peaks being the same height in relation to one another as officially reported, although they are separated by 34 miles. He states that he can “find no way to interpret this data other than to say that it clearly supports the conclusion that the earth is flat.” Yet, he cannot bring himself to believe it. The implications for him are just too disturbing.

This shot I find to be completely bizarre. Do I believe that the earth flat? That’s a big leap to make. A really big leap to actually believe in a conspiracy theory of that size. It is craziness! But what am I supposed to do with this evidence? I don’t really know. Honestly, I don’t really know.

But I felt compelled to make this video. I felt compelled to collect irrefutable evidence one way or the other, so I could end the internal debate I was having about it and answer the questions I was having regarding flat earth, because I did find the debate interesting.87

It seems that McIntyre finds the evidence in his experiment that proves that the earth is flat to be compelling. He put a lot of work and study into conducting his experiment, but when the results pointed clearly and irrefutably toward a flat earth, McIntyre could not fully believe that the earth is flat. To do so would be to make “a really big leap to actually believe in a conspiracy theory of that size.” He has been thoroughly conditioned to ignore his senses and view the results of his test as “craziness” no matter how convincing is the evidence. McIntyre admits that, although the evidence in his experiment is compelling proof that the earth is flat, he cannot bring himself to accept it, because he cannot overcome his conditioning from “a lifetime of being told that I live on a globe flying through space.”

My love of truth and love of the pursuit of truth compelled me to conduct this experiment and produce this video. I find the evidence I collected to be very convincing. In fact I find no way to interpret this data other than to say that it clearly supports the conclusion that the earth is flat. Yet if you were to ask me if I believe the earth is flat my answer would be “I don't know” because at this point I truly do not know what I believe. I am fully aware of what this evidence is pointing to and yet my mind seems unable to firmly settle on the belief that the earth is flat. Maybe this is due to a lifetime of being told that I live on a globe flying through space.88

McIntyre’s video and photographic proof of a flat earth has been attacked by deceptive debunkers.

They use sophistry, obfuscation, and lies to confuse readers and conceal the truth of the flat earth. One example is the purported debunking website, Metabunk.com, which was so full of errors and misrepresentations that McIntyre called the deceptive posters: “liars.” The whole purpose of the heliocentric posters is to deceive the unwary and ignorant who the posting charlatans know will not truly dig into the details. It is an age-old strategy of befuddling people with misleading details so they will just throw up their hands in frustration and reject the otherwise convincing evidence that would upset the mythology of the status quo.

Below is a quote from McIntyre about the supposed debunking of his video on the forum at Metabunk.com. Keep in mind when reading McIntyre’s reaction to the deceptive posts that he, to this day, does not accept that the earth is flat. That means he agrees with the viewpoint of the debunkers that the earth is a sphere, but he nonetheless calls them liars. He calls them liars, because he knows his facts and understands how they are twisting the evidence to mislead others. McIntyre will not tolerate misrepresentations of the evidence. McIntyre strives to find and accurately report the truth and will not allow his work to be maligned by liars who have an agenda to deceive people into believing that the earth is a sphere; even though he, himself, believes the earth is a sphere. Indeed, he pulls no punches and describes the so-called debunkers as “liars.”89 McIntyre states:

Look, this is exactly what I'm not going to deal with. I spent many, many days hiking around those mountains trying to locate the perfect position to get the shot. The whole entire time I was intermittently seeing Fryingpan and Graybeard.

And I've been up there probably more than twenty times since and I still see them all of the time. I hike over Tennent regularly. Guess what? I see Fryingpan and Graybeard and they look exactly the same as in my shot because guess what??? They are the same mountains. How in the world do I go up there and spend all of this time up there and hike all of these mountains. I've been to the top of all of these peaks. I know these peaks. I see them all the time. And then somehow when I need to find a shot on my line of sight and at the right elevation I suddenly forget what they look like.

I quite seriously do not appreciate this. Not you bringing this to my attention but a liar lying and the trying to force me in some way to pay attention to these lies as though they are worthy of attention.

The assertions by that page you sent me are.... I don't know... absurd, outright lies, inanity. I verified those peaks. I live near those peaks. I hike those peaks. I was directly on that line which is obvious to anyone who can think because it looks exactly like the image on Peakfinder.

Furthermore, just take a look at the mountain range in the distance that includes Graybeard. LOOK AT IT. To the left of Bald Knob you sea steady incline all the way up to the hogback of Mount Mitchell.

It's obvious. Look at it. then look at Peakfinder and examine the way it looks. That ridge of mountains is unique and completely identifiable to anyone willing to think.
I hike up there all the time. I drive up the Blue Ridge Parkway all of the time. And I've hiked down the ridge to Graybeard from the road. When I'm driving up the Blueridge I have Mt. Mitchell on my left and I'm looking to the right and guess what I see... to the furthest left: Graybeard, slightly closer: Pinnacle, then even closer: Bald Knob. I've sat on top of those peaks. I know them. I've hiked that trail and been up there. I've used my topo maps for navigation. I've seen them from multiple angles and multiple mountain tops.

... I hate liars. I've seen those peaks from many angles and and made sure to be thorough and yet I have some guy making up lies about me and my test. Look, you are free to read that trash and believe it. You are being lied to. [If] you bring it to my video again, sincere or not, I [will] delete [your] comments and I [will] block you.

Why? Very simple. I will not allow lies and deception to be promoted along with my video on my channel. I won't have it. I'm done. Bring legitimate, honest debunking to my comments or don't bring anything. Stop being lazy.

Go to Peakfinder. Take a look at how that mountain range looks and then watch my video. It is obviously the same mountain range. I should not have to spend my time explaining something to you that is so completely obvious. Instead of checking with me to see if some debunker has made a point just go spend an hour and look for yourself. It is easy. And you will see they are lying.90

McIntyre’s tirade against the liars on Metabunk would also apply to Jesse Kozlowski, who portrays himself as an expert in land surveying. Kozlowski states that he has been land surveying for many decades. Jesse Kozlowski has posted videos and other information on the internet that he alleges proves that McIntyre was wrong and that the earth is a globe. Kozlowski was first introduced to this author by Dr. Jim Fetzer. Dr. Fetzer is professor emeritus of the philosophy of science at the University of Minnesota Duluth, who believes the earth is a spinning sphere. Dr. Fetzer engaged in an email discussion with True Ott, Alex Studer, and this author about flat earth. Dr. Fetzer explained his view of the flat earth thusly:
As a professional philosopher, I offered courses in epistemology and the philosophy of science as well as in logic and critical thinking. My first book, SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE (1981), focuses on the nature of scientific knowledge. The belief in a flat Earth is a manifest absurdity in contradiction to thousands of years of scientific research.91

Dr. Fetzer followed up that email by calling upon Jesse Kozlowski as one of his experts to address the evidence with which Ott, Studer, and this author had presented Fetzer that proved the earth was flat. Dr. Fetzer introduced him as “the brilliant Jesse Kozlowski.”92 So, here we have an eminent professor in turn bringing forth his “brilliant” expert to once-and-for-all put to rest the flat earth nonsense. Let us examine the effort closely, because the refutation of their evidence does nothing but prove the earth is flat. (...)

The Greatest Lie on Earth
Proof That Our World Is Not a Moving Globe
Edward Hendrie

[One bhikkhu introduced me to the idea, which previously was ignored by me. Indeed, things aren't as simple as I thought, good exercise in thinking against acquired set of assumptions]. But one should remember the Sutta:

“Now recluses and brahmins of the third kind reckoned thus: ‘Those recluses and brahmins of the first kind, by acting as they did without precaution, failed to get free from Māra’s power and control. Those recluses and brahmins of the second kind, by reckoning how the recluses and brahmins of the first kind had failed, and then planning and acting as they did with the precaution of going to live in the forest wilds, also failed to get free from Māra’s power and control. Suppose we make our dwelling place within range of that bait that Māra has laid down and those material things of the world. Then, having done so, we shall eat food not unwarily and without going right in amongst the bait that Māra has laid down and the material things of the world. By doing so we shall not become intoxicated; when we are not intoxicated, we shall not fall into negligence; when we are not negligent, Māra shall not do with us as he likes on account of that bait and those material things of the world.’ And they did so.

“But then they came to hold views such as ‘the world is eternal’ and ‘the world is not eternal’ and ‘the world is finite’ and ‘the world is infinite’ and ‘the soul and the body are the same’ and ‘the soul is one thing and the body another’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata exists’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata does not exist’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata both exists and does not exist’ and ‘after death a Tathāgata neither exists nor does not exist’294 [158] That is how those recluses and brahmins of the third kind failed to get free from Māra’s power and control. Those recluses and brahmins, I say, are just like the deer of the third herd. MN 25