are the "ants" able to understand "condor" at all?

The open letter to professors, doctors and students of physics around the world.

*************************************************************************

I discovered something of fundamental importance. But not being a scientist, I don't have the possibility of publishing my findings in a scientific journal – I even wouldn't know how to go about it. However, I found another way to propagate my remarkable ideas. I sent the following OPEN letter, starting from 5 November 2015, to many professors, doctors and students of physics around the world. It would be nice if any of them replied to my letter, but it is not my main goal.

Madam/Sir

[First an auxiliary and introductory piece.] At the beginning of my letter, please imagine something easy: a glass full of water, and an ant which lives on the surface of this reservoir. The ant was swimming from one edge of the glass to this opposite one. How fast was the ant? To answer this question one has to measure the distance separating the edges of the glass, and the time it took the ant to overcome this distance. However, there is also another way to estimate ant's speed on the surface of water. Namely, swimming ant is creating a wave – the faster is the ant, the bigger is the wave. Now imagine a really huge glass full of water – let's assume for a moment that it is all that is. Imagine also that on the surface of this vast ocean there is, as the eye could see, only one ant and nothing more. Although there are no visible reference points on the surface of the ocean, a condor, which is just soaring above the ocean, can easily estimate how fast is the ant on the ocean's surface – to measure the wave's height is just enough, of course. So, in this aquatic universe the movement of the ants is ABSOLUTE. What's more, it doesn't matter whether the ants are moving at a constant speed, or accelerating. This is because the acceleration doesn't affect the size of the wave. [Now about what is really important.] Now please imagine a really huge four-dimensional "glass" – it's not that easy, isn't it? Just as the three-dimensional glass – easily imaginable for you – is filled with wet water, so similarly the four-dimensional "glass" – absolutely unimaginable for you – is filled with "wet" energy. This mysterious energy which is hidden from you in the depth of the fourth dimension I called the oceanus.

"Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with 'stuff' that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether." – Robert Betts Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics. [But you may call it a relativistic ether.]

"In physical cosmology and astronomy, dark energy is an unknown form of energy which is hypothesized to permeate all of space, (...)" – Wikipedia. [Or just the dark energy, if you like.]

Just as in the three-dimensional aquatic universe – this auxiliary one – there is the two-dimensional dry surface, so similarly in the four-dimensional "aquatic" universe – seen through the eyes of my four-dimensional imagination – there is the three-dimensional "dry" space. Just as the ants moving in the two-dimensional dry surface distort the ocean in its third wet dimension, so similarly the rockets moving in the three-dimensional "dry" space distort the oceanus in its fourth "wet" dimension – which results in an increase of the rockets' mass, but not only. What's more, it doesn't matter whether the rockets fly a zigzag accelerating again and again, or they are in the rectilinear uniform motion. So in the "aquatic" universe the movement of the rockets, whichever it may be, is always ABSOLUTE. Therefore, in the "aquatic" universe an increase in mass is ABSOLUTE and time dilation also is ABSOLUTE. In my text which is posted on my websitewww.solomon.pl I described step by step how the "aquatic" universe is built and how it works. However, I'm like a condor soaring 10 km above the ocean, so my description of the oceanus – as seen from the height of the fourth dimension – is very sketchy and is devoid of detail.

"It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise [in special relativity] was that no such medium existed." - Robert Betts Laughlin, Nobel Laureate in Physics.

Albert Einstein and all the eulogists of his especially "dry" theory of relativity are like ants that live on the two-dimensional dry surface of the ocean – below them is the whole depth of wet water (or medium, if you feel like it), but they don't have any idea about it. Now, at the end of my letter I'll ask a rhetorical question: are the "ants" able to understand "condor" at all?

Yours faithfully, Solomon Sarcoramphus Papa, email: kondorman@o2.pl

***********************************************************************

Main page

conservative pseudo-scientists in 63 percent

Dear <REDACTED>,

I apologize for the Nobel Committee did not keep their word and did not donate the Nobel Prize to Gabor Fekete.

According to justification of the Nobel Committee, Takaaki Kajita and Arthur B. McDonald received their Nobel Prizes for the discovery of neutrino oscillations, which shows that neutrinos have mass.

The Nobel Committee donated Nobel Prizes and 8 million swedish korona again for the NOTHING, since yet always is unknown the numerical worth of the frequency, impulse, kinetic energy and therefore the mass of the neutrinos. That is not proved that the neutrinos have oscillation and mass. If in one light-year thick layer of lead is absorbed only half of the neutrinos, then how is it possible to detect neutrinos and the oscillation of the neutrino? This is only a scam!

The physics Nobel Committee is already not unified. The main problem comes from the fact that the Nobel Committee consists of conservative pseudo-scientists in 63 percent.

The following persons tried again to defend their modern physics pseudo-science, therefore they voted against Gabor Fekete's Nobel Prize for his truth physics science and voted for the worthless "discovery".

Alexander N. Skrinskiy Anders Bárány Anne L'Huillier Bengt Nagel Björn Jonson Bo Lehnert Carsten Peterson Cecilia Jarlskog Claes Fahlander Claes-Göran Wahlström Dan-Olof Riska Denys Wilkinson Eleanor Campbell Gert Brodin Gösta Ekspong Gunnar Ingelman Hans Ryde Ingolf Lindau Ingvar Lindgren James D. Bjorken John Magne Leinaas Lars Bergström Lars Brink Lennart Stenflo Ludwig D. Faddeev Olga Botner Paula Anna-Maria Eerola Per Carlson Peter Erman Petter Minnhagen Reinhold Schuch Steven M Girvin Stig Stenholm Sune Svanberg Sven-Olof Holmgren Thors Hans Hansson Torleif Ericson Torsten Akesson Ulf Danielsson

Gabor Fekete demonstrated that the modern physics is a full pseudo-science in hundred percent degree and he described with eight digits accuracy the electromagnetic physics of photons, X-ray-photons, gamma-photons, muons, electrons and all atoms, thus solving all the problems in particle and nuclear physics. He also gave a new interpretaion for the full spectra of the hydrogen and described the strengthening points of all photons in the hydrogen atom.

At the same time he uncovered the fraud of Joseph Incandela and his team. Joseph Incandela and his team issued a speculative explanation. They said that they detected 133 proton mass Higgs boson. It proved to be a lie, because they detected only 4 muons and 2 photons. The mass of these is altogether 0.4 proton mass. Francois Englert and Peter Higgs received undeservedly their Nobel Prizes for fraud of the Incandela team and their ridiculous boson theory.

The scientific significance of his work is hundred times greater than the oscillation of neutrino.

I ask again apologize for the disappointment brought about by the above persons and I beseech thee, do something about the downfall of modern physics pseudo-science and its pseudo-scientists.

Best regards, Professor Anders Irback The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Member of Class for Physics Professor in theoretical physics Lund University Phone: +46 46 222 34 93 Fax: +46 46 222 96 86 Email: anders@thep.lu.se Address: Lund University Inst. för Astronomi och Teoretisk Fysik Sölvegatan 14A SE-223 62 Lund Sweden PS: I'm thinking about my leaving from the Nobel Committee.