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

Theory Of Relativity - Hoax Of the XX Century

The second postulate of the theory of relativity - c = const is refuted by observations and experiments. Therefore, relativistic mechanics has nothing to do with the description of the real world. The theory of relativity, special and general, is the result of uncritical imagination, incompetence and outright deceit, a scientific pile in which there is no pearl grain, there is nothing to dig into and look for any meaning in it.

This is a collection of fantastic inventions and logical manipulations. The theory can be used as a kind of test for the readers' common sense and resistance to suggestibility, but it is better to push it further. And the problems, supposedly described by relativistic mechanics, must be rethought and their solutions must be found. First of all, to study and understand the nature of electromagnetic radiation, which is an essential part of the universe.

***
Review of V.I.Sekerin's  THEORY OF RELATIVITY - HOAX OF THE XX CENTURY

The work of V.I. Sekerin "Essay on the theory of relativity", about 2.75 author's pages, is devoted to criticism of the basic postulates of the theory of relativity of A. Einstein. It consistently sets out well-known and little-known to the general public, experimental facts that fundamentally contradict the principle of constancy of the speed of light. Specifically, these are: 1. Römer's experiments on observing eclipses of Jupiter's satellites. 2. Annual aberrations of stars caused by the addition of the speed of light and the speed of the Earth in its orbit. 3. Ritz's construction for binary stars, which, brought by the author to a direct calculation, unambiguously describes the course of brightness and their spectral properties for a wide class of binaries. 4. Experiments on the radar of Venus, the analysis of which was carried out by the American astronomer B. Wallace in 1961-1966, and in which the Crimean Astrophysical Observatory of the Academy of Sciences also took part.

All these experiments, without any doubt, contradict the theory of relativity. Among them, the most interesting are the annual stellar aberration and the radar of Venus. If, from the point of view of the practice of science, corrections for aberration were introduced and will always be introduced by any astronomer measuring the positions of the stars, while not at all worrying about the discomfort of the Einsteinians (practice requires accuracy, not worship of authorities), then in the case of radar of Venus, once again which confirmed that the speed of the source (relative to the observer on Earth) and the speed of the electromagnetic wave emitted by it are added (subtracted), ignoring this knowledge promises big trouble for scientists, astronauts and, especially, for the military in the near future.

Further, V.I.Sekerin has a set of examples demonstrating new possibilities in explaining various physical phenomena, without resorting to the postulate of the constancy of the speed of light. It is not all successful here in a purely didactic sense. There are rhetorically vulnerable spots, both in the author of the essay and in potential opponents.

The last, philosophical part of the work requires professional discussion, and we omit it. And, nevertheless, it is necessary to note the following, It has long been accepted in every self-respecting science that if in the constructed theory, system of evidence or experimental foundations, at least one fact appears that contradicts the previous laws, then the theory, system of evidence, the experimental foundations are rejected or radically revised.

And so, despite a wide range of experiments, where the constancy of the speed of light does not take place, Einstein's physics continues to live. Only the deeply rooted cult of Einstein's personality can explain this situation in physics.

As always, the cult creates a situation in which zones outside of criticism appear. In modern physics, any confirmation of the violation of the principle of constancy of the speed of light has become such a zone of silence. We are sure that a reasonable physicist perfectly feels the falsity in the presentation of his subject, but a cult with all the attributes of suppression of dissent and a repressive apparatus and methods - a doubting physicist (this is enough) immediately declares not a physicist with all the ensuing consequences for a scientist's career ... An active position in the criticism of the cult threatened quite recently with the announcement of the obstinate physicist mentally ill.

Cults must be broken. Any. Including the cult of Einstein. It is this circumstance that gives rise to the need to publish the polemical materials of V.I.Sekerin, designed to make a breakthrough into one of the closed zones of world science.

Serbulenko Mikhail Georgievich, candidate of physical and mathematical sciences, senior researcher Institute of Geology and Geophysics, Siberian Branch of the USSR Academy of Sciences.

Let us suppose that experiment has refuted the hypothesis of relativity (Einstein). How many labors were used by scientists to master it, how many students puzzled over it - and suddenly it turned out to be nonsense. And humiliating, and as if the treasure was lost.
How much pride there was in front of others, unfamiliar with the teaching - and everything collapsed. You have to bow your head and bitterly regret the time spent. Is it nice ?!
Old hypotheses are constantly rejected, and science is being improved. And scientists always prevent this most of all, because they lose and suffer the most from this alteration.
Average people are not hurt because they have not heard of these hypotheses. Of course, one must pity the scientists, but they themselves must beware and endure false humiliation for the sake of higher goals. To alleviate their suffering, special delicacy is needed.
K.E. Tsiolkovsky. A genius among people. M. "Thought", 2002.

Magi and real artists have the gift of providence. In the seeming chaos and confusion of life, they suddenly stop the attention of mankind on a seemingly insignificant detail, which acquires its true, key significance. Chaos disappears, the incomprehensible becomes clear.

Upon acquaintance with the painting by I. Glazunov "Mystery of the XX century", the fragment, which depicts the formula "2 x 2 = 5", the work of K. Malevich "Black Square" and the portrait of A. Einstein with his tongue sticking out, causes bewilderment. To the claims to the artist why he portrayed the popular physicist in such an unsightly way, Glazunov replied that he simply transferred the image of the scientist from a photograph to the canvas. As for the composition, this is his, the artist's, vision of the world of the 20th century.

Here another question arises: why did A. Einstein, being of old age and sane, not only photographed in this form, but also popularized this photograph in every possible way?
To get an answer, you need to understand the meaning of the picture as a whole. Glazunov's canvas captures the most outstanding hoaxes of the century, forming a common mystery, a deceptive theatrical performance of a world scale on the stage of life. Several hoaxes have found their place on the fragment being analyzed. In our opinion, they should be understood as follows.

The fine arts are valuable for their artistry, informational content, and the assertion of a realistic outlook. All this is present in “abundance” in K. Malevich's painting “Black Square”, called in some circles the “Manifesto of Abstractionism”. There is exactly the same amount of sanity in the formula "2 x 2 = 5". The answer to the portrait lies in the results of Einstein's activity, in his main work - the special and general theory of relativity.

(...)

Invention of the theory of relativity  Under the conditions described above, the invention of the theory of relativity was, to some extent, a natural act, but its appearance only aggravated the existing crisis. Here the word "invention" for the theory of relativity is not a reservation, but a statement that it was really invented, assembled entirely from the elements of the ether theory, only in a different order, like in a children's designer. There is not a single new element in it in comparison with its predecessor, there is not a single new discovery. This is well shown, for example, in the work "Einstein's Theory of Relativity" by Max Born, the author "who personally took an active part in the main scientific events of the first half of the twentieth century." The recommended book is voluminous, but the theories described in it can be schematically outlined rather briefly [15].

The essence of the ether theory. Experimental advances in the study of optical phenomena in the 19th century convinced the scientific world that light is waves of ether. But the experiment on detection of the ether wind, carried out in 1881 by A. Michelson, spoiled the harmonious picture. There was no ethereal wind, the speed of light in all directions relative to the source was the same. Many physicists could not accept the obvious conclusion from the named experiment: the ideas about the existence of the ether are false and one should return to the corpuscular ideas of I. Newton. They began to look for other reasons. To reconcile Michelson's experience and the ether existing in their imagination, some scientists presented fantastic, one might say, delusional thoughts.

In 1892 J. Fitzgerald suggested that bodies in motion, interacting with the ether, contract in the direction of their motion and the distortion of the device compensates for the undetectable motion relative to the ether. J. Larmor adhered to similar views. G. Lorentz acted most radically. Translating Fitzgerald's ideas into mathematical formulas in order to obtain a constant in magnitude the speed of light, he comes to the need to count not only the change in the size of bodies in a moving system, but also a change in the flow of time in proportion to the speed of the system relative to the ether. Let us emphasize especially that the change in the flow of time was found by Lorentz not as a result of experiments and observations, but by a school method in the course of mathematical adjustment of Michelson's experiments to etheric representations. The resulting mathematical equations later became known as Lorentz transformations. When calculating according to these equations, the speed of light always turns out to be the same, therefore, the movement relative to the ether cannot be fixed. This is how the experimental constancy of the speed of light was combined with an imaginary ether.

These ideas were supported and approved by the famous mathematician and philosopher A. Poincaré.

As an employee of the patent office, A. Einstein knew the rules for drafting applications, according to which he composed a new invention from elements of the borrowed. After many years of searching, the main "achievement" of the aetherists was the "explanation" of the constancy of the speed of light in Michelson's experiments. Einstein makes this “achievement” the basis of his theory, puts it as a postulate “... light in emptiness always propagates at a certain speed V, independent of the movement of the emitting body”, in which the connection with ethereal ideas is clearly visible: “… with a certain speed V, independent of the motion of the emitting body.” It is in the medium (ether) that the speed of wave propagation does not depend on the motion of the emitter. Only later, under the onslaught of questions, Einstein gave a different, expanded and somewhat different meaning, definition of the postulate as a self-evident property of nature without any justification: "The same light ray propagates in emptiness with speed "c" not only in the frame of reference K, but also in every other frame of reference K', moving uniformly and rectilinearly relative to K".

Using the announced postulate and ready-made mathematics - the Lorentz transformations, he gets that in systems moving relative to the observer, bodies contract, and time flows in a different way than in the observer's system. In his fundamental work, A. Einstein did not indicate a single previous work, from which he borrowed ideas and mathematics.

Typical "creative" plagiarist approach. In modern literature, this fact is constantly noted, but is considered by apologists no more than a prank of a genius.

The most inconvenient element of the ether theory was the proof of the existence of the ether itself. Ether in the ether theory manifests itself and exists only during the passage of waves through it. No waves, no ether. Therefore, in the new theory, it is declaratively excluded from consideration. However, light in the theory of relativity is considered as waves. A wave, by definition, is the propagation of a disturbance in a medium. Therefore, if there are waves, then there must be a medium, a carrier of waves. Yes, it seems so, but this is no longer ether, but, say, a vacuum. But vacuum is emptiness, nothing, there can be no waves in it.

Then - "physical vacuum", "physical field", or something like that, indefinite, called dualism. The main thing is that now it is not necessary to consider the physical characteristics of the light-carrying medium, it is not in theory, and to coordinate them with the parameters of the waves of the medium. Light, and with it all electromagnetic radiation, have become a kind of abstraction, devoid of any real, consistent properties: waves - without a medium, particles - without mass.

The result is a chimerical theory, similar to the ethereal one, but without ether. It contains all the developments of the ether theory, but its main element, the ether itself, is excluded, there are waves, but the medium, the carrier of waves, is not. What was a consequence of mathematical calculations in the ether theory - the constancy of the speed of light, as a result of changes in the size of bodies and time intervals, in the new theory is set as the cause. And the reason for the ether theory - the change in the size of bodies and time intervals, was a consequence of the constancy of the speed of light. What united both theories is that the predicted changes in the size of bodies, time intervals and mass are fundamentally undetectable, mystical. If in moving inertial systems time and distance change in accordance with the Lorentz transformations, then this applies not only to measured bodies and phenomena, but standard measures of length and control clocks.

Unlike the ethereal theory, in which even mythical causes and mechanisms of interaction of phenomena were considered, in the invented theory its predictions have neither reasons nor mechanism of changes, they cannot be confirmed or refuted by scientific methods.

Everything must be taken on faith. Instead of the obligatory concept - "I know", a new concept - "I believe" is introduced into science, which makes this problem similar to the scholastic task of the Middle Ages: how many devils can fit on the point of a needle?

Instead of returning to the views of Galileo-Newton while studying the nature of light and on this basis to develop physics further, as W. Ritz tried to do, Einstein introduced one of his own fictions - the postulate c = const, and all the other fictions of the Etherists based on the postulate logically tied one by one.

Perhaps the scientific community and the world would have survived such a metamorphosis calmly, and the theory of relativity, along with the ether theory, would have taken their rightful place in the list of curiosities in the history of science, if politics and politicians had not intervened in the development of events.

The world at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries 

“A very special atmosphere has been created around the theory of relativity. She defends herself with extraordinary passion, and her opponents are subjected to all kinds of attacks, from which it is clear that this is not at all about the details of some theory, but that here in this area the class struggle is reflected, the participants of which do not even realize that they participate in it. " A.K. Timiryazev. Introduction to theoretical physics. M., 1933.

According to its purpose, the theory of relativity began to perform some of the functions of religious and mystical doctrines losing their positions and, first of all, very successfully the function of discrediting common sense, perverting the methods of scientific knowledge. (What are the holy miracles, if, for example, science has "proven" that a twin flying under certain conditions on a space flight, after returning, can meet with a much older twin brother, or even with a son who has become older than his father). This theory took over from religion not only the structure of its construction, it is based on dogmatic postulates that contradict common sense and reality, but also methods of asserting its dominance: substitution of concepts, ruthless suppression of opponents. She also incorporated elements of religious mythology into her content: the creation of the world as a result of the Big Bang and, possibly, the end of the world due to scattering and dispersal.

The theory of relativity was formed gradually, therefore, scientists E. Mach, H. Poincaré, H. Lorentz and others [1], [19], who have done a lot of preparatory work, should be included in its team of authors. And although each of them strove to reveal the truth in natural science, in essence they worked for philosophical concepts that were contrary to common sense, in other words, for mysticism and idealism. (...)

In the nineteenth century ghosts roamed Europe, not only the ghost of communism, but also the ghost of Zionism. In the twentieth century, "ideas took possession of the masses", their confrontation began.

Communism has set itself the goal of building a paradise on Earth for all people on the planet - the elimination of the exploitation of man by man, racial and national inequality, the satisfaction of the material and cultural needs of society on the basis of a universal and equal obligation to work. The philosophical basis of communism was dialectical and historical materialism, based on the achievements of classical science, including physics. The key points of the philosophy of communism are the recognition of the materiality of the world, the primacy of matter and the secondary nature of consciousness, the acceptance of cause and effect relationships, the materialistic development of nature and human civilization, the denial of any religion.

Zionism also set the goal of creating a paradise on Earth, but in one country and only for one people - the Jews. The ideological basis of Zionism is Judaism, in which the main shrine is the "chosen by God" Jewish people. His chosenness of God in relations with other nations should ensure privileged well-being, not only moral, but also material.

Judaism, like any religion, is an idealistic teaching that recognizes the primacy of spirit and the secondary nature of matter.

Under the cover of advertising noise, one of the elements of which was Eddington's astronomical observations, the development of the situation around the theory of relativity and its author was given a new direction. “Until 1919, Einstein, who was then already forty years old, was engaged in ordinary scientific activities in close contact with a number of his - quite, by the way, his worthy colleagues and had equal fame with them. But in 1919 there was an unexpected and unheard-of explosion in Einstein's popularity, which can be learned from any of his life stories.

Einstein's change in status was truly incredible and startling. "This is what the memoirist K. Blumenfeld writes.“ Until 1919, Einstein had no connection with either Zionism or the Zionist way of thinking. In February 1919, our meeting took place, which revolutionized Einstein's attitude towards the Jewish people.

At this time, Felix Rosenblum (now Israel's Minister of Justice Pinchas Rosen, 1956) presented a list of Jewish scholars in whom we wanted to awaken an interest in Zionism. Einstein was among them.

Natural scientists have known for many years about the significance of this man, but when we visited him ... there was still no crowd of interviewers, photographers and curious people who besieged him in the future." (Quotes are taken from the article by Vadim Kozhinov: "N. Agursky's Zionism and International Zionism", "Our Contemporary", No. 6, 1990, p. 152. The latter is cited by the author of an article from the well-known collection "Light Time - Dark Time" (He11e Zeit - Dunkle Zeit. In Memoriof Albert Einstein. Europa Verlag, 1956, p. 74), expressing regret that this collection has not been published in our country. It should be added - it is a pity that there is no translation and publication in Russian of Einstein's book "Mine worldview" (Albert Einstein. Mein Weltbild Zveite Auflage Amsterdam, Quarido Verlag, 1934). These works contain interesting facts from the life of the famous physicist).

From that time on, Einstein came under the tutelage and service of world Zionism, which became one of the reasons for the incredible popularity of his creation. Since then, any criticism of the theory of relativity, in the spirit of Zionist practice, has been declared "anti-Semitism." And the senseless theory of relativity is used to fool the national elites of the goyim, to prepare them for the perception of the irrational and illogical. They are taught that common sense - direct sensible judgment and the very ability to think normally - does not exist, and that science has "proven" this.

The philosophical idealistic doctrine of relativity, the conventions of human knowledge - relativism received a "scientific" justification for the approval of mystical teachings and prejudices. Fertilized with mysticism, the mind can more easily perceive religious dogmas, biblical stories and social deception. The existence of orders, when some acquire villas and yachts, and build temples, synagogues, mosques and temples on the remains, while others drag out a miserable existence for years, cannot take place without interference beyond natural forces. The physical destruction of opponents is to some extent a solution to the problem, de-ideologization is much more effective - there are only sheep left for wool and skins.

The attack on the materialistic worldview met with resistance in our country. In the journal "Pod Znamenem Marksizma" (No. 1–2, 1922) the physicist prof. A.K. Timiryazev publishes an article where he points out that drawing public attention to the theory of relativity is necessary for those "friends of the revolution" who would like to destroy the sciences and restore "... the authority of religion and various currents of idealist philosophy at its service" the main merit of this theory is that it delivers a "fatal blow to materialism!" Analyzing the physical and philosophical essence of the theory, Timiryazev writes about its inconsistency. He shows that “Einstein gives real meaning to imaginary constructions,” and he sees the reason for this situation in the fact that “questions connected with the theory of relativity concern areas where we, with our technical means, cannot yet solve cases by laboratory experiments. And where the scientist is deprived of his faithful support, his mind can go crazy very easily." In No. 3 of the same journal, V. I. Lenin published an article "On the Significance of Militant Materialism," in which he defines the main tasks of the journal in strengthening the ideological foundations of our state.

He sets the task of rallying the forces of all consistent materialists under the leadership of the Communist Party as one of the primary ones, considering it very important "an alliance with representatives of modern natural science, who are inclined towards materialism and are not afraid to defend and profess it ...". As an example, Lenin notes that "A. Timiryazev's article on Einstein's theory of relativity allows us to hope that the journal will succeed in implementing this second alliance." This alliance is necessary because "without a solid philosophical foundation, no science, no materialism can withstand the struggle against the onslaught of bourgeois ideas and the restoration of the bourgeois world outlook." Lenin's testament was not fulfilled. Under the patronage of L. Trotsky, an ardent propagandist of relativism, A. M. Deborin (Ioffe), took the post of editor-in-chief of the journal Pod Znamenem Marksizma, without being a member of the ruling party. The popularization of the theory of relativity began to grow steadily. In a still illiterate country, the years of devastation “... the period 1922-1925. was published brochures and books on the theory of relativity with a total circulation of up to 100 thousand copies. Among the authors of brochures and books, let us name Cassier, Eddington, Born, Harry Schmidt, Lehmann, Auerbach, Moshkovsky, S. Norman; from Russian authors - Semkovsky, E. London, Fredericks, S. Lifshitz, B. Duchesse, Tan-Bogaz, and others. " ("Under the Banner of Marxism", No. 7, 1937, p. 46), and the total number of editions of Einstein's works and about Einstein in subsequent years is more than 1 million 300 thousand copies.

("Science and Technology", No. 9, 1984, p. 29). Not only mass propaganda began to be used, but also other methods of disseminating the theory. Here is what Acad. A.P. Alexandrov. “Soon after the war, it seems, in 1946, I was summoned to the Central Committee of the party and a conversation was started that quantum theory, the theory of relativity — all this is nonsense. Some company, not very clear to me, gathered. Two figures from Moscow State University tried especially hard. But I told them very simply: “The atomic bomb itself demonstrates the kind of transformation of matter and energy that follows from these new theories and from nothing else. Therefore, if we refuse them, then we must also refuse the bomb. Please give up quantum mechanics and make the bomb yourself, however you want ” (Izvestia, No. 205, July 23, 1988). 

A bold statement, I must say, the future president of the Academy of Sciences knew the strength of himself if he could engage in blackmailing I. V. Stalin and L. P. Beria. (...)

The use of the theory of relativity as a philosophical idea from the very beginning did not attract the approval of the majority of scientists, including those who indirectly created it. Indicative in this respect is the position of H. Lorentz, who acted as a natural scientist when, formulating his transformations, he tried to eliminate the inconsistency between the hypothesis of the electromagnetic ether and Michelson's experiment with the help of mathematical equations and physical assumptions. The scientific world of physicists at that time was convinced of the existence of the ether and that Michelson would determine the absolute speed by his experiment. The negative result of this experiment prompted Lorentz to build a physical model, in which such extravagant assumptions as changes in space and time of moving charges and other material bodies were applied, and others - to treat this model with conciliation. Earlier, a similar assumption was made by J.J. Thomson in relation to the mass of a moving electron. 

Einstein's contribution to the creation of the theory of relativity was manifested in the fact that, with his paradoxical postulate c = const, he transferred the difficulties of Lorentz's ethereal model to the field of formal reasoning and thought experiments, where there was no longer any place for any physical assumptions. That was to puzzle over the mystery of the nature of the constancy of the speed of light in the Michelson interferometer, it is better to simply declare: the speed of light is a constant value, without explanation and justification. Then the supposed cause of this phenomenon - the Lorentz transformation - logically becomes its consequence.

Simple and brilliant!

This cheating trick obtained the invulnerability of the theory of relativity for such a long time. Before physicists, it is protected by a philosophical orientation, before philosophers - by technical complexity, and before everyone else - by casuistic confusion and politicking.

Later, Lorenz did not see his offspring in the theory of relativity, so he never claimed co-authorship. In the presentation of Einstein, this theory has ceased even to resemble a physical theory. In it, no longer material bodies in motion, interacting with the ether, changed their forms in space and time, as in Lorentz, but space and time themselves have lost their classical forms. While Lorenz tacitly rejected the theory of relativity, others spoke out openly. The apologists of Machism present these statements as a manifestation of inertia and stupidity. So, N. Gardner wrote: “Many scientists were unable to free themselves from the old, Newtonian way of thinking. They were in many ways reminiscent of the scientists of the distant days of Galileo, who could not bring themselves to admit that Aristotle could be wrong.

Michelson himself, whose knowledge of mathematics was limited, did not recognize the theory of relativity, although his great experiment paved the way for the special theory of relativity." No, this is not sluggishness and stupidity - these words are in fact evidence of Michelson's steadfastness and deep understanding of the essence of the problem. 

“Later in 1935,” Gardner continues, “when I was a student at the University of Chicago, Prof. William Macmillan, a well-known scientist. 

He openly said that the theory of relativity was a sad misunderstanding. We, the modern generation, are too impatient to wait for anything, ”Macmillan wrote in 1927. - In the forty years that have passed since Michelson's attempt to detect the expected motion of the Earth relative to the ether, we have abandoned everything that we had been taught before, created a postulate, the most meaningless of all that we could only think of, and created a non-Newtonian mechanics consistent with this postulate. The achieved success is an excellent tribute to our mental activity and our wit, but there is no certainty that our common sense ”[26, p. 112]. 

Giving preference to judgment over experience, contributing to the erosion of the criteria for the truth of our knowledge, both natural science and socio-historical, the debatable hypothesis is used by certain forces in the political struggle, which is why it has not yet suffered the fate of many other hypotheses that have turned out to be scientifically untenable. Its assertion was also facilitated by the fact that, according to A. K. Timiryazev, “the theory of relativity is such an area of physics that not only has significant, but even supposed practical applications” [24, p.

164, T.2].