First, a few sentences to all those who are not indifferent to what the universe really is and how it really works.


"We [that's professors of physics] now take Einstein's special theory of relativity for granted." – this is fragment of text which professors of physics posted on the website of Pittsburgh University.

https://www.pitt.edu/~jdnorton/teaching/HPS_0410/chapters/origins/index.html

But the result of Oannes' UNEARTHLY thought experiment proves that Einstein's special theory of relativity (in short: STR) doesn't correctly describe the surrounding reality.

[Oannes' UNEARTHLY thought experiment, which is very simple and very short, is below.]

It's because Oannes' UNEARTHLY thought experiment is carried out in accordance with STR, and it's result is

ABSURD.

But it can't be ruled out in advance that Oannes has carried out his UNEARTHLY thought experiment erroneously – that's not in accordance with STR.

[Equally likely, that Oannes has carried out his UNEARTHLY thought experiment erroneously, is that the cows of the headman of my village can fly. But this also can't be ruled out in advance.]

In order to dispel any doubt as to whether Oannes' UNEARTHLY thought experiment is carried out in accordance with STR or not, I – that's Kaziuk von Märchendorf – funded the prize of

$10,000

for the first professor of physics who will show that Oannes has carried out his UNEARTHLY thought experiment not in accordance with STR.

[Professors of physics willing to win the prize, please make the entries in my facebook funpage (the link is below).]

So there are three possibilities:

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1.

Some professor of physics will show that Oannes has carried out his UNEARTHLY thought experiment not in accordance with STR. In this case, this professor of physics will win the prize, and I – that's Kaziuk von Märchendorf – will take back everything I have written below (and not only there) about professors of physics.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2.

No professor of physics will win the prize. And for the public it'll mean that for professors of physics $10,000 isn't worth the trouble.

[But even the village fool from my village isn't so stupid to take this option seriously. And of course, even the village fool knows that if no professor of physics shows that Oannes has carried out his UNEARTHLY thought experiment not in accordance with STR, then the third option would only be right.]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3.

No professor of physics will win the prize. And for the public it'll mean that

Oannes has carried out his UNEARTHLY thought experiment in accordance with STR.

Thus, for the public it'll mean that

STR doesn't correctly describe the surrounding reality.

And therefore, for the public it'll mean that

the image of the universe which professors of physics – with professor of physics Albert Einstein in the lead – "painted on the undercoat" of STR is a COSMIC BULLSHIT.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And a few words to professors of physics:
If no professor of physics wins the prize, then I – that's Kaziuk von Märchendorf – will keep increasing the prize by next zeros. And when the prize reaches 1,000,000 USD, then I'll make sure that information about this fact goes around the entire world, and even the entire universe. And if still no professor of physics wins the prize, then ...


The author of the above few sentences, of course, is me – that's Kaziuk von Märchendorf.

E-mail: kaziukvonmaerchendorf@gmail.com

Facebook: Oannes' tales

Kaziuk's

www.kaziuks.com



Preludium to Oannes' UNEARTHLY thought experiment.


STR says that the movement – among others the movement at a constant speed – is accompanied by the slowing down of the passage of time.

"Special relativity indicates that, for an observer in an inertial frame of reference, a clock that is moving relative to him will be measured to tick slower than a clock that is at rest in his frame of reference. The faster the relative velocity, the greater the time dilation between one another, with the rate of time reaching zero as one approaches the speed of light (299,792,458 m/s)." – this is fragment of text which professors of physics posted on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

[Of course, the same can be read in every textbook of physics written by professors of physics.]

But STR also says that the movement at a constant speed is relative.

"One could equally well say that body A was at rest and body B was moving at constant speed with respect to body A, or that body B was at rest and body A was moving." – professor of physics Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time.

I'll give one more quote confirming my words, so there is no doubt about what STR says:

"Imagine that, from the point of view of observer A sitting on the upper deck of his own space station, the station of observer B passes by at considerable speed. But from the point of view of observer B, his own station is at rest. For him, it is observer A's station that is moving." – this is fragment of text The Principle of Relativity which professors of physics posted on the website:

http://www.einstein-online.info/elementary/specialRT/RelativityPrinciple.html

[Of course, the same can be read in every textbook of physics written by professors of physics.]


The author of preludium is me – that's Kaziuk von Märchendorf.

E-mail: kaziukvonmaerchendorf@gmail.com

Facebook: Oannes' tales

Kaziuk's

www.kaziuks.com



Oannes' UNEARTHLY thought experiment.


You – the Earthly reader – imagine that once somewhere in space there was a space station A, and very far away from this space station – let's say about a light year away – there was a space station B.

[The engines in both space stations were off, and the space stations didn't change their position in relation to each other.]

[The light year is the distance that light travels throughout the Earthly year.]

Once the astronauts, who were at these space stations, have communicated by radio to conduct certain experiment.

[Due to the huge distance, which separated both stations, it took a very long time. But finally, the astronauts agreed on the details of the experiment.]

The experiment started like this:

At the set time, the space station A started its engine and set off for the space station B, and the space station B, after starting its engine, set off for the space station A.

[STR of Earthling Einstein says that time was passing in both stations, before the engines were started, in the same pace. So if STR of Earthling Einstein correctly describes the surrounding reality, then there was no problem with the synchronization of stations' setting off.]

Then it was happening like this:

Both stations accelerated and finally reached the sublight speed. Then the astronauts turned off the engines. From this moment the stations traveled at constant and the same speed.

[Of course, STR of Earthling Einstein says that from the point of view of observer A (that's the astronaut who was at the station A) the station A was at rest and the station B was moving at constant speed, however, from the point of view of observer B (that's the astronaut who was at the station B) the station B was at rest and the station A was moving.]

If it were as STR of Earthling Einstein says, then the experiment would run like this:

From the point of view of observer A, the clock B (that's the clock that was at the station B) was running much slower than the clock A (that's the clock that was at the station A) – it's because from the point of view of observer A, the station A was at rest and the station B was moving at constant speed. But from the point of view of observer B, the clock A was running slower – it's because from the point of view of observer B, the station A was moving.

If STR of Earthling Einstein correctly describes the surrounding reality, then the experiment would run like this because STR of Earthling Einstein is based on this postulate of Earthling Einstein:

"1st postulate:

The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference." – this is fragment of text which professors of physics posted on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity

[Of course, the same can be read in every textbook of physics written by Earthly professors of physics.]

Eventually, both stations have met and merged into one double space station. Now both observers look at the clocks A and B which they brought from their space stations and put on the table. Of course, observer A sees that the clock B is very much delayed compared to the clock A – it's because from the point of view of observer A, the clock B was running slower (much slower, and for a very long time). But observer B, who is looking at the same clocks, sees that the clock A is delayed – it's because from the point of view of observer B, the clock A was running slower.

So, STR of Earthling Einstein leads to such absurdity – or rather idiocy.


The thoughts which Oannes transmitted to me telepathically, I – that's Kaziuk von Märchendorf – wrote down with my own words.

E-mail: kaziukvonmaerchendorf@gmail.com

Facebook: Oannes' tales

Kaziuk's

www.kaziuks.com



4 warnings for professors of physics from Oannes.


1st warning.

The experiment made on Earth in 1971 showed that the atomic clock in a plane flying east was running slower than the atomic clock in a plane flying at the same speed but west. There is nothing unusual about it because the total speed of the plane flying east was greater than the total speed of the plane flying west.

[The fact is that an atomic clock is running slower when it's in motion. But it doesn't mean that STR of Earthling Einstein correctly describes the surrounding reality – it's because this phenomenon can be explained in a completely different way.]

[Another thing is that Earthling Einstein doesn't explain anything in his STR – he just postulates. Like the village fool from Kaziuk's village who postulates in his theory that a cow produces milk when it chews grass at constant speed. Of course, the postulate of the village fool is correct, except that it doesn't explain why the cows produce milk.]

[The total speed of the plane flying east was greater than the total speed of the plane flying west, because the total speed of the plane flying east was: Earth's rotation speed + plane's speed, and the total speed of the plane flying west was: Earth's rotation speed – plane's speed.]

In the context of my UNEARTHLY thought experiment, it's important that the result of this Earthly experiment – in contrast to the result of my UNEARTHLY thought experiment – wasn't absurd. That's because

the clocks in the planes – in contrast to the clocks in the space stations – weren't running slower relative to each other.

Earthly professors of physics believe that the clocks in the planes were running slower relative to a clock that was at the center of the Earth.

"For example, imagine a reference clock at rest at the center of the earth, another clock on the earth’s surface, and a third clock aboard a plane, flying either with or against the direction of the earth’s rotation. With reference to the clock at the earth’s center, the clock aboard the plane moving eastward—in the direction of the earth’s rotation—is moving faster than the clock on the earth’s surface, and so it should run slower. Similarly, with reference to the clock at the earth’s center, the clock aboard the plane flying westward—against the earth’s rotation—is moving slower than the surface clock which means that clock should run faster than the clock on the surface. And that is exactly what was observed when, in an experiment performed in October 1971, a very accurate atomic clock was flown around the world." – Earthly professor of physics Stephen Hawking and Earthly professor of physics Leonard Mlodinow, The Grand Design.

[I omitted this clock on the Earth's surface because it's meaningless.]

So, maybe the clocks A and B, which were running in my UNEARTHLY thought experiment, weren't running slower relative to each other but were running slower relative to some third clock? However, the space stations – in contrast to the planes that were moving around the center of the Earth – were moving in a straight line. And that means that this third clock should have been some kind of distinctive inertial frame of reference. And yet Earthling Einstein postulates in his STR that there are no distinctive inertial frames of reference.

"1st postulate:

The laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames of reference." – this is fragment of text wich professors of physics posted on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulates_of_special_relativity

[Of course, the same can be read in every textbook of physics written by Earthly professors of physics.]

So if some Earthly professor of physics states that the clocks A and B weren't running slower relative to each other but were running slower relative to some third clock, and he would claim at the same time that STR of Earthling Einstein correctly describes the surrounding reality, then he would prove that Earthling Einstein certainly was not wrong in one:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and

stupidity of Earthly professors of physics,

and I'm not sure about the former." – Earthly professor of physics Albert Einstein.

[It's true that in the original is die menschliche Dummheit – that's human stupidity – but since all Earthly professors of physics are humans, it is the same.]


2nd warning.

In the experiment made on Earth in 1971, the planes accelerated at the start and slowed down when landing. However, STR of Earthling Einstein applies to the bodies that move at constant speed, not to those that move with acceleration or slow down.

[Similarly to the theory of the village fool from Kaziuk's village which applies to the cows that chew grass at constant speed, not to those whose jaws move with acceleration or slow down.]

Nonetheless, Earthly professors of physics have generally recognized that the result of this Earthly experiment proved the correctness of STR of Earthling Einstein. After all,

most of the way the planes have traveled at a constant speed.

[And besides, everything that is moving in space (even the jaws of the cows chewing grass) had to accelerate one day. So if STR of Earthling Einstein only applied to the bodies that moved at a constant speed from the very beginning, then it would be the same

IDIOCY

as the theory of the village fool from Kaziuk's village which applies only to the cows whose jaws moved at a constant speed from the very beginning.]

So if some Earthly professor of physics states that STR of Earthling Einstein doesn't apply to my UNEARTHLY thought experiment, because the space stations accelerated at the start and slowed down when landing, then he would prove that Earthling Einstein certainly was not wrong in one:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and

stupidity of Earthly professors of physics,

and I'm not sure about the former." – Earthly professor of physics Albert Einstein.

[It's true that in the original is die menschliche Dummheit – that's human stupidity – but since all Earthly professors of physics are humans, it is the same.]


3rd warning.

As I mentioned in my previous warning, in the Earthly experiment conducted in 1971, the planes accelerated and slowed down.

And it didn't affect the experiment's result in any way.

[All experiments carried out on Earth have shown that acceleration, or deceleration, has no effect on the rate of the running of atomic clock. Thus these experiments have shown that what matters is in how fast movement is an atomic clock at the moment. What's more, all Earthly experiments have shown that acceleration, or deceleration, has no effect on the slowdown of the running of atomic clock which occurred when this clock was moving at a constant speed.]

So if some Earthly professor of physics states that the result of my UNEARTHLY thought experiment would be different, because the space stations accelerated and slowed down, then he would prove that Earthling Einstein certainly was not wrong in one:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and

stupidity of Earthly professors of physics,

and I'm not sure about the former." – Earthly professor of physics Albert Einstein.

[It's true that in the original is die menschliche Dummheit – that's human stupidity – but since all Earthly professors of physics are humans, it is the same.]


4th warning.

"In physics, the twin paradox is a thought experiment in special relativity involving identical twins, one of whom makes a journey into space in a high-speed rocket and returns home to find that the twin who remained on Earth has aged more. This result appears puzzling because each twin sees the other twin as moving, and so, according to an incorrect and naive application of time dilation and the principle of relativity, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged less. However, this scenario can be resolved within the standard framework of special relativity: the travelling twin's trajectory involves two different inertial frames, one for the outbound journey and one for the inbound journey, and s o there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the twins." – this is fragment of text wich professors of physics posted on Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twin_paradox

"The naive interpretation – the reason why the situation is called a paradox [twin paradox] – is to assume that the situation is competely symmetrical. If that were the case, Jane's [twin-astronaut in this example] diagram would simply be a mirror image of Joe's [twin who remained on Earth]. But the results of Special Relativity we derived were restricted to the relations between inertial frames of reference. In this regard, the situations of the twins are definitely not symmetrical." – this is fragment of text wich professors of physics posted on the website of University New South Wales.

https://newt.phys.unsw.edu.au/einsteinlight/jw/module4_twin_paradox.htm

[Of course, the same can be read in every textbook of physics written by Earthly professors of physics.]

What's important is what I marked in red. So, according to Earthly professors of physics, the lack of symmetry is the solution to the twin paradox. However,

in my UNEARTHLY thought experiment there is

full symmetry.

[By the way, what Earthly professors of physics say in the above 2 quotes is idiocy that has nothing to do with the surrounding reality. But that's not the point.]

So if some Earthly professor of physics applies this idiocy, which I quoted above, to my UNEARTHLY thought experiment, then he would prove that Earthling Einstein certainly was not wrong in one:

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and

stupidity of Earthly professors of physics,

and I'm not sure about the former." – Earthly professor of physics Albert Einstein.

[It's true that in the original is die menschliche Dummheit – that's human stupidity – but since all Earthly professors of physics are humans, it is the same.]


The thoughts which Oannes transmitted to me telepathically, I – that's Kaziuk von Märchendorf – wrote down with my own words.

E-mail: kaziukvonmaerchendorf@gmail.com

Facebook: Oannes' tales

Kaziuk's

www.kaziuks.com

P.S. What the universe really is and how it really works, you – the Earthly reader – will learn from

Oannes' UNEARTHLY tales.


(5-August, 2018)