A severe crisis has developed in modern physics surrounding Einstein’s theories of Relativity – Special (SR) and General (GR). The more official physics tries to “prove” these theories with mega-projects costing billions of dollars and with Nobel Awards etc., the more is the distrust, disgust, disappointment, and the general feeling that these theories are used to reinforce declining theology. Contrary experimental evidence to challenge these theories is impossible, because no financial and/or logistics support would be available for such stated goal and any contrary results would be rejected by official physics, as was the case with the OPERA results. Moreover, the evidence will bring in favor of the theories of relativity, endorsements from the big-name Professors and scientists from the most “prestigious” universities and research institutions around the world.

Mathematics also cannot deal with the contradiction. The reasons you can read in the subpage (, where the answer to the question “What is the difference between the mathematical equations and the equations of the theoretical physics?” is discussed. For many scientists in the field of relativity and cosmology is an inadmissible mistake that they overlook (it seems unconsciously and unintentionally) the fundamental difference that the use of mathematics (writing/creation of an equation of the theoretical physics) is possible only with the help of the measurement units of the physical quantities involved in the equation:

“We must emphasize that the equations of theoretical physics can exist only if the units of measurement are constant and do not change inside the scope of the given equation. Only then, the use of the “equality sign” between the expressions on both sides of the equations of theoretical physics is correct! The disregard of this important fact leads to the nonsense of the work of many scholars.”

That is why the search for mathematical solutions to Einstein’s field equations is only a demonstration of mathematical skills, but they have no physical interpretation. The scope of Einstein’s Field Equations is the entire Universe, where the units of time and of length (space) are unimaginably different. Usually, the scientists demonstrate excellent mathematical skills and physically interpret their irreproachably accurate mathematical “proofs”. As a result, he/she makes wrong conclusions and then says:

“It is true, because it is mathematically proven!” …

They began to argue — explicitly — that if a theory is sufficiently elegant and explanatory, it need not be tested experimentally, breaking with centuries of philosophical tradition of defining scientific knowledge as empirical. We disagree. As the philosopher of science, Karl Popper argued: a theory must be falsifiable to be scientific! Chief among the “elegance will suffice” advocates are some string theorists.
However, this battle for the heart and soul of physics is opening up at a time when scientific results — in topics from climate change to the theory of evolution — are being questioned by some politicians, which is actually very dangerous for mankind.

So it is obvious:

The problems in physics are created by the scientists themselves and are surrounded by their guardians. When they do not find scientific arguments against evidence of untenability from a scientific standpoint, instead of discussing a misconception – they react with SILENCE.

However, everybody knows that Silence is a sign of consent!

If a student of physics disagreed with the special theory of relativity, he or she is classified as insufficiently intelligent (stupid) to understand the special theory of relativity. Such a student, even if he succeeds to graduate, has no chance of becoming a Ph.D., even more so in the field of relativity and cosmology. That is why a Ph.D. has no chance of agreeing to any arguments proving that the special theory of relativity is a big delusion. This is because in this case, it will turn out that actually she or he himself is not intelligent enough. In fact, their whole life will prove to be a waste of time … However, honesty requires moving to the side of truth because progress in science cannot be stopped!

The Website sub-page “The “internationally recognized physics journals” – examples of rejection” is a demonstration of how internationally recognized journals of physics with the highest “impact factor” reject articles that compromised the special theory of relativity,… without any scientific arguments or discussion.

On the sub-page “The answers of some well-known physics and astronomy publishers” can be read the “scientific arguments” of the most famous publishers in physics and Astronomy, that rejected the publication of the book “Theory of Relativity – the Classical Review”. Much of the content of this book is uploaded to the site and anyone is free to read it, weigh the evidence, and comment.

In the website sub-pages are shown:

•   the arguments of some of the renowned physics journals and magazines with high impact factor, which have rejected manuscripts concerning the reality about the constancy of the velocity of light, or the special theory of relativity. Although according to the Oxford Dictionaries: “The criticism is the backbone of the scientific method”, the possibility for discussions was suppressed.

•   the arguments of some physics and astronomy publishers, which have rejected the proposal for the publication of the book “Theory of Relativity – the Classical Review”.

The author believes that the arguments of the readers will be scientific, without the use of the “logical circular reference”. In other words, the arguments cannot refer to the claims and statements based on existing misconceptions of contemporary physics. All of us must always remember that according to Kurt Gödel’s statement that the “truth” value of a statement cannot be evaluated by reference to the previously accepted value of the statement itself (self-referring).

The doors are opened for all scientists, who wish to participate in the discussion, who wish the physics to escape from the blind alley of the relativity and cosmology, where it is at present.

=> to the parent webpage