For several millennia, man has constantly tried to fathom the vast volumes of space surrounding him.
Various models of the Universe and ideas about humanity’s place in it were created to this end. Gradually, these concepts became the
so-called, scientific theory of the Universe. This theory was finally crystallized in the middle of the 20th century. Albert Einstein’s Relativity
Theory became the basis of the Big Bang theory that exists today.
All the other theories of reality, in principle, are only particular cases of this theory. That is why human conceptions about the Universe
and, more importantly, the future of civilization, depend upon the accuracy with which the theory of the Universe reflects the true state of
affairs. Different technologies, devices and machines are created on the basis of the concepts about nature. Therefore, the existence or
non-existence of Earth civilization depends upon what kinds of technologies are created.
If these concepts are incorrect or inexact, they can lead to catastrophe and destruction, both of civi-lization and of life itself on this
wonderful planet which we humans call Earth. Thus, concepts about the nature of the Universe can move from the purely theoretical to the
purely practical, thereby, dramatically influence the future of civilization and life on our planet. So everyone, not just philosophers and scientists,
should feel concern about such views.
Thus, concepts about the nature of the Universe can be a key to extraordinary progress by a civilization, if they are correct; or may result
in the destruction of civilization and life on Earth, if they are erro-neous. Correct concepts about the nature of the Universe will create, while
incorrect will destroy.
In other words, concepts about the nature of the Universe can become a weapon of mass destruction, in comparison with which a nuclear
bomb would be like a child's toy. This is a not a metaphor, but the naked truth. It doesn’t depend on whether or not someone believes it, and,
like any true statement, it doesn’t depend on the subjectivity of the person who perceives it, no more than, for example, the activity of the sun
would depend upon whether or not man understands its nature.
It is absolutely all the same for the sun, no matter what kind of concepts humans entertain about the nature of its activity. The closeness
of human concepts to the true phenomena matters only to humans. And it seems to me that most people, who call themselves scientists, forget
this simple truth and have been carried away with the creation of theories that to a much greater degree serve their personal agendas rather
than the quest for truth—which everyone dedicated to science should have as his single, over-riding purpose.
Regrettably, all of the above is not a figment of my imagination or mere verbiage, but actual fact. This fact is not hidden in nonsensical
formulas and determinations, which are unclear to most people, except for a small circle of "specialists". It is a fact that people can readily
understand, regardless of whether or not they are educated or able to read. Moreover, it is already having a direct impact on people to a
greater or lesser degree.
False, erroneous concepts about the nature of the Universe have resulted in an ecological catastro-phe toward which Earth civilization
is catapulting so confidently. There are so many confirmations of this that anyone who wants to see it will clearly have no doubt about
what is happening.
Everything indicates that the technocratic path of development which contemporary civilization has taken leads to the self-destruction
of Earth’s civilization. Traditional science has accumulated a great many observations of various phenomena of the so-called middle
world which humans inhabit. The middle world, which is situated between the macrocosmic and microcosmic levels, is where the
natural laws exist. In our middle world humans can observe only the manifestations of true natural law.
Those phenomena that man is able to perceive through the five sense organs are only the tip of the iceberg. All the rest is
"the thing in itself", an unknowable, about which Immanuel Kant wrote extensively. This type of understanding is unavoidable as it is
impossible to create the correct picture of the Universe by using five senses only.
This is simply because human sense organs evolved as a result of adaptation to the living conditions of the ecological niche which
humans occupy as a species of living nature. These sense organs allow hu-mans to accustom themselves to this ecological niche, but no
more than that. Sense organs are intended only for the middle world.
Man has created many different devices that marginally allow him to penetrate into the microcosm and macrocosm. It would seem that
the problem is solved: by means of these devices man is able to reach the micro- and macrocosm. However, there are several "buts." One of
the most significant "buts" is that man has only extended the range of his sense organs by using these devices, but has done nothing
whatsoever to transform his sense organs.
In other words, the limited nature of his sense organs has been carried over to the level of micro- and macrocosm. Just as it is
impossible to see the beauty of a flower by using one’s ears, it is impossible to penetrate the micro- and macrocosm by using only the
five sense organs. The picture that man attains by means of these devices does not allow his connecting with the "the thing in itself."
Instead, it allows him to see a false picture of the nature of the Universe that he himself has created by means of his five senses.
Thus, it was the limited nature of his instrument of knowing that allowed him to develop a distorted and false picture of the
Universe. So man was forced to take the wrong path towards knowing the nature of the Universe. This is due to the fact that his
observations are limited to only particular manifestations of natural law.
At the beginning of creating his modern picture of nature, man had to introduce postulates—assumptions that were accepted without
any explanation. In principle, every postulate was, and still is, looked upon as a god, just as man accepted God—likewise without proof.
While the acceptance of postu-lates was justified at the initial stage of inquiry, it is highly unacceptable at the final stage of creating a
concept of the Universe.
When human concepts about the nature of the Universe are developed correctly, the number of ac-cepted postulates should decrease
gradually until only one or two remain that do not require evidence-based explanation. For example, the objective reality of matter
transmitted through our sensations would be such a postulate.
Of course, man is not able to perceive all forms and types of matter by means of sense organs. For example, he cannot perceive a
number of radiations that affect physically dense matter; however, this does not mean that such forms of matter are not real.
Also, most people are unable to perceive through their sense organs 99 % of the spectrum of electromagnetic vibrations, which
are well known thanks to ultra-sensitive instruments—to say nothing of all those vibrations that modern devices are unable to detect.
One way or another, man longs for true knowledge of the world. Unfortunately, this kind of know-ing can’t happen instantly. Such
knowledge happens through trial and error, when erroneous concepts became the property of history, and new concepts come to take
their place, which in due course may also fill the list of unsuccessful attempts. However, every theory rejected through this practice is
positive, because it identifies and rules out ways that should not be taken in the search for truth.
The sign that shows the correct direction toward true knowledge is very simple: as the grains of knowledge accumulate, the number
of postulates in a given theory decreases. When this happens, there is nothing to worry about.
If it does not happen, if the number of postulates does not decrease, but increases, it is a sure sign that we are moving away from
understanding the true picture of the Universe. This represents danger to the future of civilization, because it inevitably leads to
Modern science has considerably more postulates about the nature of the Universe than the science, for example, of the 19th century.
Moreover, the number of postulates continues to grow. We all get so ac-customed to them that we do not pay attention to the presence of
postulates in almost every so-called, scientific statement.
The simplest questions confound famous scientists. When you ask an academician/physicist, what an electric current is, he will give
you the answer known to every schoolboy: "an electric current is a di-rected movement of electrons from plus to minus." Everybody is
so used to similar "deductions" that nobody even reflects on these words—not even academicians, who should be the most knowledgeable
in their field.
Just the concept of directed movement, i.e., movement in a predetermined direction, does not require any explanation of the above
statement. But when a well-known academician was asked to answer: "what is an electron, what is plus and what is minus, and why do
electrons move from plus to minus?" he replied, "Only God knows." This was the answer of a physicist, a man whose name was known
In the simplest statement of the phenomenon known today to every child, there are four concepts that are accepted without understanding
or explanation. Four postulates are subsumed in one statement, given as the law of nature! And that is not the limit. Almost all so-called
solid natural laws which man has delved into are statements of a similar kind.
It turns out to be an interesting situation when somebody succeeds in finding a word or label which can designate a natural
phenomenon: a problem is considered solved and we have a new scientific dis-covery. But what really happens is that a label without
content is created, thereby causing a contradiction between label and content.
One of the most striking examples of the contradiction between label and content is the concept of "dark matter."
Astrophysicists, who study the motion of celestial bodies, discovered an interesting phenomenon. In order for celestial bodies
— planets, stars and galaxies — to move along their orbits according to the laws of celestial mechanics the mass of matter required
must be ten times greater than the designated mass as-cribed to it.
In other words, the amount of matter, which is known to modern science, comprises only ten per-cent of the whole mass of matter
required to exist in order for celestial bodies to move along those orbits they now traverse.
Only TEN PERCENT!
Galaxies, stars and planets, very real material objects of space, should comprise ten times more matter of the Universe than they
appear to possess in order to be able to move in their trajectories! However, according to present concepts, modern science designates
their matter as only ten percent of the actual quantity of existing matter. We can’t call it a small discrepancy, but rather a preposterous
absurdity. Material objects move in trajectories which simply can’t exist. But you can’t get away from facts; they can be suppressed,
but not discarded.
To find a way out from another imponderable contradiction, a "simple" decision was found: scien-tists "agreed" to label as
"dark matter" the ninety percent of matter, which no one can "touch by hand", perceive through their five senses or apprehend by
technical devices—and everybody calmed down.
Thus, ten percent of "ordinary" matter plus ninety percent of "dark matter" add up to the desirable one hundred percent of the
mass of matter which must exist for real galaxies, stars and planets, to move in those trajectories which they have traversed for billions
A "beautiful" solution for an existing contradiction, isn’t it!
Only one question remains: whom does this solution help?
But, even in the above situation modern science acknowledges its complete helplessness. It turns out that contemporary science
is not, strictly speaking, a science, because scientists (though not all of them) acknowledge that they know of only about ten percent
of the matter existing in the Universe. This incomplete knowledge about ten percent of the matter of the Universe gives them no right
to demand recognition of their hypothesis and theories as a scientific picture of the nature of the Universe, and to step forward as
experts to accuse and criticize other theorists, even if the latter fall short of the truth.
Modern science differs in no way from religion, because every postulate, which is accepted without proof, is a god, just as God
is likewise accepted without proof. From the point of view of logic, religion has an obvious advantage over modern science, because
it only postulates God and God creates the rest. It is a logically flawless system that has only one unknown, God. However, this
impeccably logical system has one "small" drawback—it turns into nonsense without the postulation of God.
In other words, this logical construction begins by postulating God and also concludes with God. The logical chain of religion
comes back to its beginning. A self-contained circle occurs: the snake of re-ligion "bites" its own "tail". Religion that is built on the
postulate of God appears to be evolutionally dead right from the very beginning.
Unlike religion, modern science is logically far from ideal, although it seemingly relies on real natural manifestations. However,
due to the fact that modern science deals only with the manifestations of natural laws in the middle world, i.e., with processes that
happen between the macro- and micro-worlds, modern science plays only the role of an observer.
Everything would be just fine, if our scientists went on merely observing what happens inside and around us and abandoned their
attempts to explain natural phenomena. These attempts only result in the indoctrination of postulates, concepts and ideas that are
accepted without any proof.
It would not be a problem, if the number of postulates diminished gradually, as concepts about the nature of the Universe became
more and more developed, until only one postulate, backed by credible evidence, was left.
This obvious postulate would be a concept of matter as an objective reality that is given in our feelings. It follows from this that
the greater the number of sense organs and the more evolved they are, the more objective and complete the picture of the Universe
that man can create.
Unfortunately, the number of postulates has not decreased during the development of science; on the contrary, it has increased,
and now modern science has hundreds of postulates. To explain one postu-late, another is introduced, which, in turn, is explained
by introducing a third one, etc.—this process goes on endlessly. Thus, every postulate transforms into a god.
Religion refers to God the Creator to explain everything, while the scientific explanation of every-thing is built on postulates,
which are mini-Gods of science. Both cases are logically weak, false systems of concepts that attempt to explain the nature of the
In the case of religion, God is "situated" at the top of the logical system; in the case of modern science, God is at the foundation of the
logical system. However, the place of God changes nothing, except that in one case, the logical system of concepts is called religion,
and in the other—science. We get monotheism in one case, and polytheism (multiple postulates) in the other.
Serious problems of modern science are observed on both the macro and micro levels. While performing experiments on the
synthesis of elementary particles, nuclear physicists ran into the phenomenon which, in principle, signals the demise of modern
The basic law of modern physics, the law of conservation of matter, states that when a new particle is synthesized, its mass
must be less than or equal to the combined mass of particles that created it. In other words, the essence of the law states that matter
can neither be created nor destroyed—only transformed.
In some experiments on the synthesis of particles, the mass of newly formed particles was several times greater than the combined
mass of particles that formed them (from ten to one hundred times greater). Real devices, real particles—and the results are
unbelievable! The modern theory asserts that it can never happen, but empirical results clearly show that it can and does.
A question then arises: "Which should be defended—theoretical positions or practical results?"
It would seem that the answer is obvious from any sane position. However, not from the "scientific" point of view which
continues to rely on old statements and postulates. The practical results are of no im-portance to modern "science", if they do not
conform to their "scientific" bed of Procrustes.
Instead of revising the foundation of this "science", they try to "complement" this foundation with new postulates and assumptions.
They add and embellish, but without understanding, that only a viable theory can be "resuscitated"; "dead" theory will remain "dead",
however hard they try.
In this context, I would like to make some observations about the phenomenon of life. Not only theoretical physicists but also
biologists and physicians have "problematic" concepts about their field. Even today scientists, who study life, can’t explain the
nature of life; how, for example, one and the same atoms that are united in one spatial order can represent "dead" matter while
linked in another spatial or-der—living matter.
Why pay attention to such "trivia"; living matter exists, so why find out how it happens?
Nevertheless, both biologists and physicians consider themselves experts regarding questions of life. When you ask them a
question—e.g., how does the development of the human embryo (as well as of any other living organism) occur, their response is
as follows: With great faith in their knowledge and of-ten rewarding the ignoramus with a condescending smile, they proclaim
confidently: "different hormones and enzymes appear in different zygote cells (cells of a fertilized egg) and, as a result, a brain is
devel-oped from one zygote cell, a heart is developed from another cell, lungs are developed from a third kind of cell, etc. "
Above we see a classical "explanation" from the grade school curriculum of human anatomy and physiology. There is no other
explanation; it simply does not exist; even academicians and doctors of sci-ence, both biological and medical, cannot explain it.
Dig a little "deeper" and you will still not find an an-swer.
Every embryo develops from one fertilized egg, which begins to divide. According to the laws of histology (microscopic study of
cell tissue) that have been confirmed empirically, after one cell divides, two absolutely identical cells appear.
When they in their turn divide, four identical cells appear, and so on: eight, sixteen, thirty-two, sixty-four, etc. In other words,
all cells of the embryo have identical genetics and are copies of one fertilized egg. In light of this fact, a question arises: how is
it possible that different hormones and enzymes appear in absolutely identical cells?
Oddly enough, this question still perplexes and stymies any biologist or physician. The only thing that can be heard in reply is:
"only God knows!" A very interesting answer for a scientist, isn’t it? Curi-ously, if we analyze them attentively, it is possible to "dig"
out a god in almost any position, statement or law of modern science. This confirms that there is nothing behind all their scientific
postulates except verbiage and ignorance.
Naturally, it is necessary to postulate, but only temporarily. It is impossible to explain everything all at once. However, after
explaining fundamental instances, it is necessary to return and explain temporary postulates, which were introduced before without
any explanation. Only then does temporary postulating play a positive role.
However, the problem is that modern science does not have temporary postulates. All its postulates are absolute in essence, and
no one even tries to give them any explanation. That is why postulates have grown into "gods" of science (dogma), thus turning the
latter into religion. The most curious thing is that scientists do not even meditate on this; almost all of them take this state of affairs
for granted and do not even see a problem.
It was this "blindness" that resulted in transforming modern science into religion, and scientists—into its priests.
Statements of prominent scientists confirm this. They assert that in order to be called a scientist one must have a healthy
skepticism and not trust his eyes, ears, data or proof, but firmly stand on the positions of science. It is a striking example of how
science transforms into religion...
Now, let us look at the "whales" on the backs of which modern natural science is based. We can enumerate several basic
postulate-"whales" of modern science:
The postulate or law of the conservation of matter states that matter can neither be created nor destroyed though it can
change its form. I should like to note that matter here refers only to physically solid matter which has four aggregate states—solid,
liquid, gaseous and plasma. And that is all.
- the postulate of the conservation of matter;
- the postulate of the isotropy (uniformity) of the Universe;
- the postulate of the velocity of light.
These erroneous concepts about matter do not even come close to reflecting conceptually its real es-sence. Moreover,
experimental data stemming from more advanced devices for researching the micro- and macrocosm fully refute modern concepts
about the nature of matter.
Research into elementary particle physics and astrophysics has yielded results that totally confound today’s scientists. Masses
of new particles have turned out to be several times greater than the combined masses of the particles that formed them. And the
presence of dark matter in the Universe, comprising 90% of the mass of matter—which, for some reason, no one can either see
or "touch", attests to the seri-ous crisis overtaking the law of conservation of matter.
One must either acknowledge that modern science has an erroneous concept of matter, or that the law of conservation of matter
is incorrect. The existing form of this postulate is absolutely unable to re-flect reality. The law of the conservation of matter is one
of those few postulates of modern science, which has almost reached the truth. We have only to extend the scope of understanding
the nature of mat-ter and this postulate acquires validity.
Unfortunately, we can’t say this about the postulates of isotropy of the Universe and the speed of light. It was these two postulates
that were the foundation of Einstein’s General and Special Relativity Theories. I should like to introduce some clarity into this matter.
Apart from whether this theory is correct or not, it would be wrong to consider Albert Einstein its author.
The fact is that Einstein, while employed in a patent bureau, simply «borrowed» these ideas from two scientists: a mathematician/physicist
Jules Henri Poincare and a physicist Hendrik Antoon Lorentz. These two scientists had collaborated for several years on this theory. It
was Poincare who introduced the postulates of the isotropy (homogeneity) of the Universe and the constancy of the speed of light in a
vacuum, and it was Lorentz who devised his famous formulas pursuant to his work on the ether drift.
Einstein, working then in the patent bureau, had access to their scientific research and decided to "jot down" their theory in
his name. He even kept the name of Hendrik Antoon Lorentz in "his" Relativity Theory, by naming the basic mathematical formulas
of "his" theory the "Lorentz transformations". How-ever, he did not specify what role he (Einstein) had in these formulas (none); also,
he even refrained from mentioning the name of Poincare, who introduced the postulates. In spite of all this he, for some "reason",
gave this theory his own name.
Everyone knows that Einstein is a Nobel Prize laureate and believes that he won this prize for creating the General and
Special Relativity Theories. But this is not so. The scandal around these theories, though known only in narrow scientific circles,
prevented the Nobel Committee from awarding him a purse for them.
Instead, they found a very simple way out: Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize for discovery of the second law of the
photoelectric effect, which was a particular case of the first law of the photoelectric effect. It is of interest, that Russian physicist
Alexander Grigorievich Stoletov (1830-1896), who dis-covered the photoelectric effect, did not receive a Nobel Prize, or any
other prize for his discovery. Yet Einstein won it for the "study" of a particular case of this law of physics.
Arrant nonsense, however you look at it. The only logical explanation is that someone intensely desired to make Einstein the
Nobel laureate and looked for any opportunity to achieve this. The "genius" had only to "work" a little with the discovery of
Russian physicist Stoletov, "studying" the photoelectric effect, and ... behold, a new Nobel laureate "was born"!
Probably the Nobel Committee considered that two prizes for one discovery was excessive and decided to award only one ...
to the brilliant scientist Einstein! Who cares whether the prize was given for the first or second law of the photoelectric effect?
What mattered to them was that Einstein, the "genius", was selected. However, the fact, that this discovery was made by the Russian
physicist Stoletov, was a "trifle", not worthy of consideration.
The most important consideration was that, a man of "genius", a "scientist", Einstein, became the Nobel Prize laureate. And
now almost everyone believes that he received this award for "his" GREAT General and Special Relativity Theories. A compelling
question arises: why did someone very influential want so badly to make Einstein the Nobel Prize laureate and glorify him throughout
the whole world as the greatest scientist of all times? Was there a reason?
The reason lies in the terms of the deal that was struck between Einstein and those persons who made him the Nobel laureate.
Probably Einstein himself was eager to be the Nobel laureate and the great-est scientist of all time! And most likely these persons had
a vital necessity to direct the development of Earth’s civilization towards the wrong path, ultimately leading to ecological catastrophe.
Einstein agreed to become an instrument of this plan, but stipulated his condition—to become the Nobel laureate. The deal was done
and its terms were fulfilled. Furthermore, the creation of Einstein’s image as the genius of all time has only strengthened the effect of
the plan that was intended to indoctrinate the masses with false concepts as to the nature of the Universe.
In this connection Einstein’s famous photo, wherein the world’s "greatest genius" sticks out his tongue, takes on quite a different
meaning that can be easily guessed!
Unfortunately, plagiarism is not a rare phenomenon in science. However, the real issue is not even the fact of plagiarism, but that these
concepts about the nature of the Universe are completely erroneous. As a consequence, the science, which created the postulates of isotropy
(homogeneity) of the Universe and the velocity of light, is leading mankind to planetary ecological disaster.
Someone might assume that Einstein and those supporting him simply did not know that this theory fell short of reality. Or, perhaps
Einstein and Co. honestly erred, as did so many scientists who created their hypotheses and theories that later on could not be empirically
verified. Some may even protest that there were no high precision devices available at that time, which would enable man to plumb the
depths of micro- and macrocosm. Some may cite experimental facts which could confirm the rightness (at that time) of Einstein’s Relativity
Almost everyone knows about the supposed confirmation of Einstein’s theory by the Michelson-Morley experiments, which is taken
for granted in scientific texts. However, almost nobody knows that the total distance through which light passed in the Michelson-Morley
interferometer was 22 meters.
Moreover, these experiments were conducted in the basement of a stone building that was practically at sea level. Further, they were
performed during a period of four days (July, 8, 9, 11, 12) in 1887, when the data of the interferometer were recorded over a period of
6 hours with 36 turns of the device. This experimental base supposedly confirms the non-existence of the ether drift and, hence, the
"correctness" of Einstein’s Special and General Relativity Theories.
Since the facts are very crucial here, let us appeal to them. In 1933 the American physicist Dayton C. Miller (1866-1941) published
the results of his experiments on the so-called ether drift, carried out during a period of over twenty years. His research was published
in the journal "Reviews of Modern Physics". All these experiments confirmed the existence of an ether drift.
He began his experiments in 1902 and finished them in 1926. For these experiments he created an interferometer with a general
trajectory for the beam of light of 64 meters. This was the most accurate interferometer in the world at that time and at least three times
more sensitive than the interferometer used in the Michelson-Morley’s experiments.
Interferometer data were taken at different times of the day and at different times of the year. Miller performed more than 200,000
observations and made more than 12,000 turns of the interferometer. He periodically brought the interferometer to the top of Wilson’s
mountain (6,000 feet above sea level), where, as he had supposed, the speed of ether wind was greater.
And now let us look at what the facts tell us.
On the one hand, we have the Michelson-Morley’s experiments, which altogether were performed for 6 hours, during 4 days,
with 36 turns of the interferometer.
And on the other hand, we have experimental data recorded by the interferometer over a period of 24 years, with the device being
turned 12,000 times! At the same time, Miller’s interferometer was 3 times more sensitive! These are the facts.
But perhaps Einstein and Co. were unaware of these results, or they didn’t read scientific journals and remained deluded? They
perfectly well knew everything. Dayton Miller wrote letters to Einstein. In one of them he reported on his work of 22 years that confirmed
the presence of an ether drift. Einstein replied very skeptically and demanded proofs, which were given to him, whereupon there was no
We can understand why there was no answer after they had received Miller’s experimental data. However, the most curious thing is
that the positive results about the ether drift were registered even in the earlier Michelson-Morley’s experiments, but were "simply"
ignored. After Miller’s death in 1941, his work was "simply" forgotten; nobody has ever published it in scientific journals—as if this
scientist never existed. But he was one of the greatest American physicists.
All of the above clearly show that the concepts about the nature of the Universe were intentionally imposed upon mankind to steer
the development of civilization from the correct path. The reason is that those backing Einstein feared losing their power and position.
They feared that the true knowledge, if re-leased, would inevitably unmask them and reveal to everyone their true face and true intention.
If any group or individual works this carefully to impose false concepts on a planetary scale about the nature of the Universe, it is a
sure sign that they are hiding something of great significance, not only for physicists and philosophers, but for every inhabitant of planet
The concealment of the truth lasted quite long and happened to be successful. However, even the false path of the development of
science resulted in the appearance of new experimental data, which razed Einstein’s Special and General Relativity Theories to the
The information that came from the Hubble telescope showed unexpected results. Two noted astro-physicists from the Universities
of Rochester and Kansas, after analyzing the propagation of radio waves from 160 distant galaxies, discovered that radiations rotate
while they move through space. Their rotation resembles a barely noticeable picture that looks like a cork-screw, which was akin
to nothing observed before.
The complete turn of the "cork-screw" is observed per each billion of miles through which the radio waves pass. These effects
are in addition to what is known as Faraday’s effect, a polarization of light that is caused by the intergalactic magnetic fields. The
periodicity of these newly discovered rotations depends on the angle of motion of the radio waves toward the axis of orientation t
hat passes through space. The more parallel the direction of motion of the waves and axis, the greater the radius of rotation.
This axis of orientation is not a physical value; rather it determines the direction in which light moves in the Universe. When
observed from Earth, as researchers affirm, the axis passes toward the con-stellation of Sextans in one direction, and toward the
constellation of Aquila in the other.
Which direction will represent the "top" or the "bottom", is considered an arbitrary choice. Astro-physicists B. Nodland and J.P.
Ralston, who made this discovery, published their report in the "Reviews of Modern Physics" in 1997.
This discovery means that the Universe is anisotropic (non-uniform).
The most exact devices currently employed, register how the speed of radio waves changes depending on the direction of their
distribution. The most curious thing is that these directions neatly reflect a layered structure of the Universe, because a "top" and
"bottom", and "east" and "west" are clearly deline-ated.
The experimental registration of the ether drift of light waves in Miller’s the 1930’s experiments, and Nodland and Ralston’s
1997 discovery of the change in velocity of the radio waves’ distribution in the Universe, serve as irrefutable proof of the anisotropy
of the Universe.
Herewith some explanation to clarify the picture. The ether drift that was recorded in Miller’s flawless experiments and the
change of distribution of radio waves, depending on direction, are one and the same thing. The terminology is different, but the
sense is identical. These experiments prove the anisot-ropy of the Universe and, thus, the falseness of the first postulate of Einstein’s
Special and General Rela-tivity Theories.
But perhaps the second postulate of these theories is a credible statement? Let us examine it.
The essence of this postulate in that the velocity of light in a vacuum is fixed, in other words, a constant, and the maximum
possible velocity of motion of matter in the Universe equals 300,000 km/sec (186,000 mile/sec). Without this condition the
Lorentz transformations become nonsense, because, when matter (and even light) moves with a speed greater than 186,000
mile/sec even the mass of a photon be-comes infinite according to these equations.
Let us examine now how matters unfold with this postulate of Einstein’s theory.
Dr. Lijun Wang obtained surprising results in his experiment performed at the NEC Research Institute in Princeton. The
experiment consisted of passing light impulses through a vessel filled with a specially treated gas, caesium. The results appeared
to be phenomenal: the speed of light impulses appeared to be 300 (three hundred) times greater than the allowed speed from the
Lorentz transformations (recorded in 2000)!
In Italy (in 2000), another group of physicists from the Italian National Research Council conducted the experiments with
microwaves. The speed of their distribution was 25% faster than the maximum pos-sible speed stipulated by Einstein. It follows from
the Lorentz transformations that, if the velocity of light (or other material objects) exceeds the speed of 186,000 mile/sec, in even one
millimeter per second, the mass would become infinite.
In other words, in these experiments the mass of photons and microwaves should be greater than the mass of any "black hole",
and, according to the formulas of Einstein’s theory, our planet would turn into a super "black hole" as a result of these experiments.
However, nothing of the kind happened; both light and radio waves remained simply waves and their mass did not tend toward
Thus, the second postulate of Einstein’s Special and General Relativity Theory appeared to be false. Without it these theories
are meaningless and, at best, should pass into the history of science as further hypotheses unconfirmed by experimental data.
Oddly enough, the whole world continues to study Einstein’s theories in schools and universities as theories that reflect reality,
not only after the publication of Miller’s results in 1933, but even after the recent discoveries of 1997-2000.
Without these two postulates Einstein’s theories would be just another unsuccessful attempt to create a picture of the Universe in
the process of trying to understand nature —no more and no less—if it were not for one little "but".
Both the "creator" of the Special and General Relativity Theories and those behind him knew from the very beginning that these
theories do not even partially reflect reality. Nevertheless, they were im-posed upon humanity. As a result, human civilization followed
the wrong path that ultimately leads to self-destruction. It means only one thing: the correct path of civilization’s development is dangerous
for those who were behind Einstein and who still continue to back his theories.
Those, who remain in the shadow, fear only one thing: loss of their power and control over the masses. They know that once
enlightened by knowledge, every single individual, as well as mankind in general, would be able to see and understand what is
happening on planet Earth—and this ultimately spells goodbye to their power, influence and wealth.
Why are these people so afraid of true knowledge? The reason is simple: they acquired all of their above booty undeservedly and
fraudulently and certainly don’t want to lose it.
We may deduce from this analysis that scientific and philosophical concepts about the nature of the Universe have political and
financial roots. The obtrusion of false concepts upon humanity allows social parasites to prosper by feeding off the body of Earth’s
I should like to focus on one of the instruments used for obtruding false concepts of nature upon mankind—namely, mathematics.
You may wonder what connection mathematics has with all this.
As a matter of fact, the only purpose of mathematics is to perform practical calculations. Still, we should remember that when
we add one apple to another, we are talking about two apples, thus identify-ing one apple with another. We don’t take into account
their differences in weight, form, sizes, color, ripeness, taste, etc.
We simply say: "two apples" and it is enough to share these apples between two people on a relatively equal basis. Each one will
get an apple, although there are no absolutely identical apples and no ab-solutely identical people, since even twins have their
At any rate, nothing will change in the world and no one will suffer if one apple is bigger, sourer or sweeter than the other.
However, it is quite another matter, when mathematics is used as the foundation of theoretical prin-ciples: in this case, real
natural processes are designated by a letter or symbol and introduced in equations and formulas in the form of letters or symbols.
These letters and symbols are then subjected to operations according to mathematical laws without considering the fact that natural
phenomena and processes unfold independent of those concepts that humans may have.
Mathematicians often forget what is behind these letters or symbols; they calculate derivatives and integrals, tend to stipulate and
impose limitations and discard "unnecessary" items—i.e., they do everything they can to extract an elegant formula out of a natural
"law". Einstein’s Relativity Theory is a glaring example of this.
The only reason for introducing the postulates of isotropy of the Universe and the speed of light was that the Lorentz transformations
would make no sense whatsoever without them. The same applies to Einstein’s Special Theories. The Lorentz transformations imposed
certain requirements on the speed of distribution of material objects in space. The speed of any material object (including light) must
not be greater the velocity of light in a vacuum.
According to the postulate, the velocity of light in a vacuum is a constant. Maximum velocity for material objects is 300,000
km/sĺc (186,000 miles/sĺc). It cannot be greater due to one reason only: according to the Lorentz transformations, if the speed of
movement of a material object is greater than this constant the mass of this material object would become infinite; the same would
also apply to the conditional mass of a photon. It would happen according to these formulas.
However, what happened in reality was the following: the real laser impulse, when passing through a real gas, caesium, moved
with a speed 300 times faster (90,000,000 km/sĺc), than the formula "al-lowed". Quite an irresponsible laser impulse—it does
not want to move according to the laws of mathematics. A most curious thing was noted: the mass of every photon in this impulse
of light did not become infinite; photons’ behavior remained the same after they entered the special gas environment.
One should remind mathematicians that nature lives according to its own laws and does not submit to laws of mathematics, which
are only mind games that reflect a visible reality to a greater or lesser de-gree. Nature will not adjust to laws invented by mathematicians,
to accommodate theories based on mathematical formulas. For some reason mathematicians completely forget about this as they get
carried away by their abstract cerebral gymnastics.
I should like to add a few more words about the problems posed by mathematics. There are a great many contradictions within
mathematics—but no need to enumerate them all. I would like to mention only one of them that almost everyone runs into, but disregards.
One of the basic laws of algebra says that only the square root of a positive number can be accessed, because the square root is
an operation inverse to squaring. Any number, be it positive or negative, be-comes positive upon squaring [for example: 2 x 2 = 4
or (-2) x (-2) = 4], because a minus (-) x a minus (-) is a plus (+). Everyone knows this rule from elementary school.
So, in higher mathematics, a negative number appeared under the square root of (-1), when some mathematical transformations
were performed to calculate the real physical processes. It is a complete absurdity from the point of view of the axioms of mathematics.
It simply cannot be, but, nevertheless, this absurdity appeared in the mathematical calculations of the real physical processes.
An obvious conclusion should have been drawn from this situation. The appearance of absurdity highlights the flawed approach
of trying to use a cerebral mathematical tool to resolve and accomplish a real physical task. No one even thought in this direction!
It is easier, of course, to break a deadlock by means of "sleight-of-hand", or, more precisely, "sleight-of-mind". Why change everything,
if it is possible to "fudge" equations?
They found a simple way out. If mathematics says that the square root of a negative number does not exist, a negative number
must disappear. Done: (-1) was denoted by i2 and the problem disappeared! Thus the square root of a squared number is a positive
number (vi2 = i), and i is a so-called imaginary unit. However, nobody explained, what this imaginary unit is and where it exists in reality.
If there is an imaginary unit (i), then imaginary reality must exist. But, is it really worth paying attention to such "trivia"? Certainly not,
because if we do pay attention, the result is complete nonsense. If it is possible to replace a minus unit (-1) under a square root, why not
replace a minus unit in any other mathematical equation? Actually, we would encounter complete chaos if we did. That is why nobody
does it. Because in this case by adding two apples to two apples (2 + 2), we will get a cucumber, or a pear, or a zero or minus four
So, mathematicians did not do it, but began to use the imaginary unit only when it suited them. They also created a category of
mathematics and dubbed it "functions of complex variables". The imaginary unit exists and is officially acknowledged only in this
"territory". In the rest of mathematical terrain a minus unit (-1) remains a minus unit (-1) and there are no imaginary numbers.
Amusing, isn’t it?
It may be possible to deceive somebody else, but it is impossible to deceive oneself. However, is it possible to pretend to be
deceived, but then who would need this deception and why?
Somebody is ready to obtrude any absurdities into modern science, if only to prevent the revision of its foundations and
principles. It can’t be a contingency or misunderstanding. Someone is behind it; someone is in deep need for the development of
humanity to follow the false evolutionary path.
The obtrusion of false or incomplete concepts about the nature of the Universe serves these forces by keeping Earth civilization
ignorant, as a whole, as well as single individuals, in particular. This enables these forces to easily dominate civilization and maintain
their financial and political power. If someone breaks through their imposed illusion of reality, these forces will ruthlessly destroy
him and everything he has created.
An example of their modus operandi is the fate of Nikola Tesla, an American of Czech origin, whom they liquidated. Tesla created
an apparatus and devices based on quite different principles, many of which could have freed mankind of fuel and energy crises and
saved the ecology of the planet.
He developed electric generators that did not have a single running part and did not require any fuel. Electricity was obtained straight
out of space. He found a simple and cheap method of water decomposition into oxygen and hydrogen. Tesla created a great number of
amazing devices, then "unexpectedly" fell ill and died shortly after a demonstration of his devices.
After his death the representatives of the USA government confiscated all the devices from his laboratory, which was razed to the
ground with bulldozers. A mechanical engineer, who had fashioned Tesla’s devices in metal, disappeared without a trace and no one,
up till now, has any knowledge about his fate.
Thus, the US nation illegally took everything that Tesla created. From that moment on Tesla’s generators and other inventions failed
to appear either in the USA or some other country in the world. That is because utilization of his electric generators could only have
brought prosperity, warmth and economic independence to every home and family.
But this did not happen. The fuel and energy crisis did not disappear, but only became worse. Electric power is still obtained by
means of primitive electric generators with revolving rotors. Hydro- and nuclear power plants consume an enormous amount of natural
fuel. All these methods of manufacturing electric power destroy the planet’s ecology, exhaust its natural resources, and poison its
atmosphere. Added to this, nuclear power plants are extraordinarily dangerous.
Knowing all this, the nation(s) that, in theory, should be serving humanity are destroying or concealing the source of free electric
power. They certainly do serve; the only question is whom do they serve? Probably the same group of people that stands behind the
false concepts of modern science by backing such "scientists", as Einstein and Co.
Thus, the theory of the Universe exerts the strongest influence upon the objective reality we inhabit. That is why the future of our
civilization depends upon our concepts of objective reality. It is not a matter of who is right or who is wrong, it is a matter of whether
our civilization will exist tomorrow on Midgard-Earth or will perish.
Nicolai Levashov, March 6, 2006.
In his book, "The Anisotropic Universe", the author of this article expounds an absolutely different theory of the Universe, which
explains almost all phenomena of living and non-living nature.
The results of recent experiments emanating from various countries of the world confirm one hundred percent the principal theses
of his theory. It should be noted that the scientists, who have diametrically opposite concepts about the nature of the Universe, and never
heard of the author or his theory, conducted the above experiments without any relationship with or input from the author.
These facts fully eliminate any possible unconscious bias exerted by the author to influence the desired experimental results.