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

The most dangerous intellectual error of modern science

 It was particularly Galileo who realised that mathematics provided the most effective terms in which to express physical observations, and it was he who contributed most to the introduction of those terms into science. The book of nature, he wrote, 'is written in the mathematical language'. But there are two things that should be said about this oft-quoted aphorism. The first is that 'nature', or 'the universe', as Galileo conceived it was a much more restricted concept than that which we hold and that with which modern science is concerned. It comprised only what we study in mechanics; all other phenomena — sights, sounds, smells, etc. — belonged in his view not to the external world but to the observing subject, and it was not at all his idea that mathematics played the all-comprehensive role in science that it is nowadays often assumed to do. Secondly, a language is a medium for expressing ideas, and it is just as capable of expressing false ideas as true ones. The fact, therefore, that something can be expressed with rigorous mathematical exactitude tells you nothing at all about its truth, i.e. about its relation to nature, or to what we can experience.

The most dangerous intellectual error of modern science, with which this book is concerned, lies in the fact that this has been overlooked. Mathematics is an immensely more powerful tool than the Aristotelian syllogism, and its use as a language in which to express the facts of experience has been so successful that the idea has crept unperceived into the minds of physicists that whatever it says must be true. This is openly expressed in the statement already quoted, that everything that is not mathematically forbidden is necessarily observable. Accordingly the habit has developed of assuming that a physical theory is necessarily sound if its mathematics is impeccable: the question whether there is anything in nature corresponding to that impeccable mathematics is not regarded as a question; it is taken for granted.

The fact is, however, that mathematical truths are far more general than physical truths: that is to say, the 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.

There are so many instances, even in the most elementary uses of mathematics, in which its indications are obviously false, that it may seem strange that this fact is almost automatically overlooked in the more advanced uses of the tool. But there is a universal tendency, not only in science but in everyday life as well, to pay exaggerated attention to predictions that are realised and to ignore those that are not. If, on say three occasions in a week, we dream of something unusual which happens later to occur, there is a very strong pre-disposition to believe that the dreams and the occurrences are directly related, notwithstanding the thousands of instances of dreams, apparently of the same general type, that are not realised. In somewhat the same way, although almost all mathematical solutions of a physical problem give both true and false results, we habitually accept the former as valid and pay no attention at all to the latter, when we are working in fields of experience where our existing knowledge is sufficient to enable us to distinguish them at once. Here is an example which I gave in a broadcast talk a short time ago,4 to which I shall revert later:

Suppose we want to find the number of men required for a certain job under certain conditions. Every schoolboy knows such problems, and he knows that he must begin by saying: 'Let x = the number of men required.' But that substitution introduces a whole range of possibilities that the nature of the original problem excludes. The mathematical symbol, x, can be positive, negative, integral, fractional, irrational, imaginary, complex, zero, infinite, and whatever else the fertile brain of the mathematician may devise. The number of men, however, must be simply positive and integral. Consequently, when you say, 'Let x = the number of men required,' you are making a quite invalid substitution, and the result of the calculation, though entirely possible for the symbol, might be quite impossible for the men.

Every elementary algebra book contains such problems that lead to quadratic equations, and these have two solutions, which might be 8 and - 3, say.

We accept 8 as the answer and ignore - 3 because we know from experience that there are no such things as negative men, and the only alternative interpretation — that we could get the work done by subtracting three men from our gang — is obviously absurd. But what right have we to reject - 3? Clearly, none at all if we accept the substitution: 'Let x = the number of men required.' If we have proved that 8 is the answer, then with the same inevitability we have proved that - 3 is the answer; and if we have not proved that - 3 is the answer, then we have not proved that 8 is the answer. The two solutions stand or fall together as soon as we allow mathematical symbols to represent facts of experience. Yet the inexorable fact is that one answer is true and the other false.

Now in this example it is experience alone that distinguishes the true from the false solution. We cannot prove by pure reason that there cannot be creatures who, with regard to the qualities here considered, can be interpreted as negative men; we know from experience alone that they are as unreal as centaurs. If the problem had been one concerning charges of electricity, of which there are two kinds which we call positive and negative, it might have led to the same equation, and then both solutions would in all probability have been true. There is nothing intrinsically impossible in the existence of negative men, any more than in the existence of black swans: experience alone enables us to reject the solution - 3 as false.

But it is possible to obtain perfectly valid mathematical solutions of a problem which we can see without experience to be physically false because the physical interpretation requires what can be seen without experience to be impossible. Here is an example. Suppose we have a cubical vessel whose volume is 8 cubic feet, and we wish to find the length of one of its edges. Now physically what we are asking is the reading of a standard measuring rod when it is placed along the edge. But suppose there is no such rod handy. That does not matter, for we can solve the problem by mathematics. We let x be the required length, and all we have to do is to solve the equation, x3 = 8. But this equation has three solutions, viz. 2, √( - 3) - 1, - √( -3) - 1 — all having the same mathematical validity. But we know that the only one of these solutions that can possibly correspond to the reading of a measuring rod is 2, because of the necessary properties of measuring rods, which we should understand even if we had never made or seen one. We might one day discover negative men, but we cannot conceivably discover a standard measuring rod that can read √(- 3) - 1 because, owing to the accepted standards of measurement, such an object would not be a measuring rod. So we just ignore two of the mathematical solutions, and quite overlook the significance of that fact — namely, that in 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. We 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.

Now it is this latter kind of reasoning that — according to the argument outlined in the Introduction, to which I can get no answer and which seems to me plainly unanswerable — invalidates the special theory of relativity. The problem here is to find the relation between the rates of two exactly similar standard clocks, A and B, of which one is moving uniformly with respect to the other, on the assumption that the motion is indeed truly relative, i.e. that there is no justification for ascribing it to one rather than to the other. Now this is a problem that can be solved mathematically, and we find that there are two solutions, known technically as the 'Galilean transformation' and the 'Lorentz transformation'. According to the first the clocks work at the same rate, and according to the second they work at different rates. The special theory of relativity regards the second as true and the first as false; the usual expression is that 'a moving clock runs slow'. But, as we have said, it is a condition of the problem that either clock can be regarded as the 'moving' one, so this second solution (subject, of course, to the truth of the postulate that the motion is truly relative) requires equally that A works faster than B and that B works faster than A, and just as we know enough about measuring rods to know that they cannot read √(-3) - 1, so we know enough about clocks to know that one cannot work steadily both faster and slower than another. Hence, without in the least rejecting the Lorentz transformation as a mathematical solution of the problem, we can say at once that it is not a possible physical solution. Nevertheless, in modern physics it is universally assumed to be so, on the sole ground of its mathematical validity.

How such an obvious error could have occurred and escaped immediate recognition is explained in Part Two, but it may be said at once that the apparently simplest way of exposing it — by setting two clocks in relative motion and observing their rates — is impracticable because the difference which the theory requires is too small to be detected except at velocities far too high to be yet attainable. Experiments have been made in which elementary electrically charged particles (conceptual bodies, such as electrons, protons, etc.) have been used instead of clocks, and observations of what have been regarded as their 'rates' have been made, and these have shown that such 'rates' differ for particles which, according to electromagnetic theory, have vastly different velocities. These observations have been held to constitute an experimental proof that the Lorentz transformation is a physically valid solution of our problem. But there are two reasons why this argument fails. In the first place, even if it be fully granted, it shows only that one 'clock' works more slowly than the other — which would be quite possible if the motion of each was absolute, as Lorentz showed before Einstein's special relativity theory appeared. If the motion is relative, however, and the Lorentz transformation is a valid solution, then also the second 'clock' must work more slowly than the first — and this, it need hardly be said, has been left unproved. The second reason for the failure of the argument is that the interpretation of the particles as 'clocks' and of the observed phenomena as their 'rates', and the assumption that they move with velocities, ascribed to them (it is, of course, quite impossible to observe them; their existence and properties have all to be inferred on theoretical grounds) depend on the truth of a theory that itself depends on the truth of the Lorentz transformation (this is explained in Part Two), so the argument is circular: the observation proves the physical truth of the Lorentz transformation only if we first accept a theory which itself requires that transformation to be physically true.

An experimental test of this requirement of the special relativity theory is therefore at present impracticable, and the claims often advanced that such a test has been made are spurious. But surely, one does not need an experiment to prove that one clock cannot at the same time work both faster and slower than another. And this brings me to the most serious aspect of this whole matter. How is it possible that such an obvious absurdity should not only have ever been believed but should have been maintained and made the basis of almost the whole of modern physics for more than half a century; and that, even when pointed out, its recognition should have been universally and strenuously resisted, in defiance of all reason and all the traditions and principles of science expressed by Sir Henry Dale in the statement quoted at the beginning of this chapter?

This question has two aspects, an intellectual and a moral one. Both are astonishing, but of their reality and profound importance there can be no question. The former is the less difficult to understand, though it needs a careful survey of the history of the subject to make it credible: this I attempt in Part Two — necessarily less completely than is desirable, but sufficiently, I hope, to show that what appears patently absurd in one context may present quite a different semblance in another, and to explain how the special relativity theory came to be accepted in spite of its contradictions (disguised as 'paradoxes') in the early decades of this century. After all, it was not so very long ago that men of the highest intelligence believed that Moses wrote the account of his own death recorded in the Pentateuch. But the more serious lapse is the moral one, not only because of the intrinsically greater seriousness of a moral as compared with an intellectual fault, but also because the nature of science itself does not ensure its eventual correction as it does when the mistake is intellectual. When Dale wrote of the unflinching fidelity of science to the answers which nature gives to its questions, he took it for granted that those answers would, in the long run, be unmistakable, and the contribution that science had to offer to civilisation lay in the moral sphere, in its acceptance and publication of those answers, at whatever cost to expectancy and without prejudice or preconception of any kind. It is in the failure of present-day science to live up to Dale's ideal in this respect that, notwithstanding the incalculable physical danger involved in the intellectual error, lies the ultimate offence. That is so, not only because fidelity to truth for its own sake is ultimately more compulsory than that for the sake of physical well-being (if that is disputed I shall not argue the question), but also because the loyalty of science to truth has a far wider relevance than that exhibited in the matter of special relativity alone, wide though that is. In an age in which science has begun to play a dominant role, quite beyond the control or even the comprehension of the non-scientific citizen, the whole future of civilisation is dependent on the absolute unqualified fulfilment by scientists of their moral obligations.

Science At the Crossroads

Herbert Dingle