In the dusty halls of great libraries and on the glossy
pages of modern textbooks, what lies is not history, but
mythology. A mythology built with mathematical precision and
ratified by committees and subcommittees vote. I want to
take you behind the scenes of this theater of the absurd, to
where shadows are longer than light, where truth is not a
discovery, but a choice made once for all of us in the early
20th century, amid the roar of printing presses churning out
sensational newspaper headlines and the murmur of bewildered
minds. I will try to summarize in this post all the
arguments of the anti-relativist school of physics, which
you most likely have never heard of. So that you may
understand. Knowledge has always been a currency whose
circulation was controlled by the priests. Egyptian, Greek,
alchemists who sealed secrets in lead - it doesn't matter.
And today, their heirs in frock coats and spectacles have
simply changed the language. They understood that in the age
of progress, the main force is not to hide a manuscript in a
dungeon, but to print "truth" in millions of copies and
remove from them everything that contradicts it. Newton
buried his alchemical experiments on the shelves of an oak
secretary, driven not by fear of ignorance, but by fear of
premature knowledge. But the 20th century industrialized a
more sophisticated craft - the creation of a canon, where a
place for the classics was allotted only after their works
had passed through a strict editorial review filter. But
whose? 1905. A bolt from the blue, or an artificially
triggered explosion? The papers of an unknown patent clerk -
on photons, on motion - were picked up not so much by the
scientific community, which met them with skeptical silence,
but by someone's propaganda machine. The victory of the
special theory of relativity was as swift as a German
blitzkrieg in the minds. Textbooks began to be rewritten.
The works of giants - Maxwell, Kelvin, Lorentz - disappeared
or were distorted beyond recognition. Maxwell's real
equations, his harmonious electrodynamic picture of the
world where interactions could travel faster than ghostly
light, were quietly removed and replaced with the convenient
Hertz-Heaviside version. A new reality was formed - one
where there was no place for Britons like FitzGerald,
Heaviside, or Kennedy, whose conclusions did not fit into
the Procrustean bed of the new dogma. Einstein, not knowing
English, simply could not familiarize himself with them. And
when the Hungarian Zeleny proved that an atom emits ordinary
spherical waves - a fact that shatters the early
constructions - it was acknowledged with a belated nod, as
if a minor technical correction. But cracks appeared in the
foundation almost immediately. The equations of STR refused
to coexist peacefully with classical electrodynamics and a
whole range of experiments. Quantum mechanics itself,
embraced on a wave of probabilistic fatalism rather than
precision, stumbled over the problem of ergodicity (the
development of Schrodinger's theory). It turned out that
old, classical methods could yield the same results for
which quanta were previously thanked. Schrodinger developed
Planck's idea, but the very framework of the building was
already crooked and askew. And what about those experiments,
the holy grail of science, which you constantly shove at me
as counterarguments? They were pushed into a far corner. The
experiments of Miller and Michelson, meticulous, repeated
many times, proving the existence of the ether wind - they
really happened. They were confirmed. But in 1927, at a
conference, the adherents of the new faith dismissed them,
pointing to Kennedy's "null" result obtained under shielded
conditions - as if reproaching a man who heard the sound of
the sea for not plugging his ears with cotton wool. Later,
independent checks again confirmed Miller's experiments. But
the textbooks were already printing a different story.
Entire layers of reality - from the size of the atom to the
redshift in distant galaxies, from paleontological anomalies
to climatic cycles - stubbornly refused to be explained
through STR. They were simply declared non-existent or
forced to fit the answer. Politics has always stood behind
science.1933 in Germany, the theory of relativity was banned
as "Jewish." But the irony of fate is that the German
anti-relativist physicists quietly worked on nuclear
projects, later passing secrets to the Allies! And after the
war, the West and the USSR, having defeated Nazism,
canonized the theory that the Nazis hated. Criticism became
not just a mistake, but career suicide. In the USSR and the
West, scientific elites merged into a consensus, and the
Soviet Commission for Combating Pseudoscience under the
Academy of Sciences became not a guardian of the purity of
method, but a guardian of the paradigm, jealously protecting
accelerators and nuclear power plants, silencing those who
pointed out their dead ends. The price of this revolution
turned out to be monstrous. Nuclear power, which promised
oceans of cheap energy, turned into an economic pit and an
environmental threat. Thermonuclear fusion has been
thrashing like a fish on ice for decades, while mechanisms
of transmutation that could provide answers are declared
pseudoscience. Entire fields - energy, ecology, history -
are built on a falsified foundation. And yet,
superconductivity or cold transmutation forge their own path
despite official dogma, by the force of stubborn
experimenters. The legacy of this era is not only a
technological dead end but also a spiritual desert. The
alienation of science from philosophy, the decline of
ethics, the convenient falsification of history - all of
this has its roots in that ideological revolution. It is no
coincidence that titans like Schrodinger or Einstein
himself, toward the end of their lives, painfully doubted
the creation of their youth. History repeats itself as
farce. The British and German schools of the early century,
their rivalry, the financial and media support for certain
ideas - all of this determined whose voice would be heard.
And the voices of doubters, often combining science with
philosophy, were pushed to the sidelines. Entire layers of
knowledge about ancient cultures, about language, about the
origin of man were adjusted to fit a new picture of the
world, built on a shaky postulate. Today, many scientists in
the quiet of their offices realize that the emperor has no
clothes. They see how new data stubbornly fails to fit into
old equations. But institutes, grants, careers, reputation -
all of this has cemented a bureaucratic monolith. Publishing
the truth means becoming an outcast. Science, which should
be a bold dialogue with the unknown, has turned into guarded
territory where doubt is equated with heresy. The outcome is
bleak. If concealment and distortion continue, science will
finally break away from reality, becoming an expensive
ritual of self-validation. Technological progress will slow
down, hitting the walls of dogmatic delusions. Many
scientists, whose names do not appear in textbooks, are
sounding the alarm, warning of this danger. They remind us:
once upon a time, the priests also thought they controlled
the truth. And then came those who decided to seek it, not
guard it. The only question is whether the spirit of such
seekers still remains in our academic temples, or whether
all the exits have already been bricked up tight by the
pages of approved curricula?

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A48 (Linux/64)
* Origin: Shipwrecks & Shibboleths [San Francisco, CA - USA] (700:100/72)