4.  The Origin of Inconsistencies: THEORIES OF RELATIVITY

4.1 The greatest MYSTERY OF PHYICS? The Acceptance of Antiscience


Science and antiscience are clearly defined by scientists:

Science is describing observations and find out general scientific rules for observations so that these general rules can be used to explain (= describe by general rules) new similar observations.

Antiscience is describing observations by rules which are not based on observations, but are contrary to general scientific rules, which are based on observations.

It can be easily differentiated between science and antiscience:

Science is conform to daily observations and everything which is conform to daily observations is easy conceivable and easy understandable.

Antiscience is not conform to observations and therefore it is not conceivable and not logical, but instead it is interesting and exciting for human beings.

To describe physical observations by general rules (=scientific principles) is regarded as easy and simple, although this mostly requires strong efforts by logical thinking.

To describe a physical observation contrary to scientific principles and thus contrary to observations is regarded as genius, although there are lots of possibilities.

Overall this shows that it is logical and understandable that physics converted to antiscience. The first obvious antiscientific theory, which has been accepted by physicists was the theory of special relativity. This was caused by the impatience of physicists to wait for a scientific explanation for observations concerning light although physicists were extreme near: They already realized that there has to be an omnipresent matter (aether) to explain light and other observations.


Many physicists remained skeptical about Einstein’s theory, but finally the theory got the predicate “generally accepted”. And as scientists think that as scientists they are not allowed to do errors, this predicate was irrevocable. So antiscience got the predicate to be science. All scientists had to realize that by doing antiscience you get genius. Physicists had no problem anymore to do antiscientific explanations. In contrast they boasted about theories which are contrary to observations and thus inconceivable. They seem not to realize that they are boasting about doing antiscience.

There were also many physicists who wanted to return to science. But since acceptance of theory of relativity by “Autocratic Business Systemof Physics” this was not possible anymore.

This chapter gives an impression about the strong authority of Autocratic Business System of Physics, which forced physicists to degrade their exceptional experimental work by doing non-scientific actions like

  • Intentional wrong or biased interpretations of findings (findings = results of physical research).

  • Concealment of findings which are not conform to accepted theories.

  • Ignoring or conceal inconsistencies.

  • Adjustment of basic data of findings to expectations of theories (manipulation of data).

  • Defamation of scientists who publicized findings which are not conform to accepted theories


4.2 Since 1905: Physics turned away from NATURAL SCIENCE


Until about 1900 physicists did sophisticated scientific work with outstanding experiments and promising theories. Physicists did sufficient observations and worked out sufficient physical rules, so that already at that time it would have been possible to derive general valid physical rules and thus to discover scientific universal reality.

But shortly before physicists could solve the last inconsistencies, there happened something unbelievable: Physicists accepted the theory of special relativity of A. Einstein, although it was obvious that it was not conform to “daily” and experimental observations, violated well accepted scientific principles and was based on the thinking of a single person instead of observations of thousands of people. A. Einstein’s theories met all general accepted criteria for antiscience. The sudden decision of physicists in early 20th century to accept antiscience as valid physics is such an incredible issue that it can't be a free decision of physicists. So this is the most impressive example that mankind has no free will (see 1.9).

Einstein's theories of special and general relativity even disregarded the basic principle for doing scientific work: the scientific principle of relativity. The meaning of this principle is that observations and scientific rules are exclusively reality, when these are valid for every observer (= in every reference frame). Einstein postulated that time and space is different for observers in different reference systems. If this would be reality, it would not make sense to describe what we observe and to derive physical rules (do scientific work), because everything which can be observed and described has something to do with time and space. Everything which is described by scientific work would be not generally valid. Einstein's postulate is equivalent to the postulate that time and space are no reality, which means that the universe is no reality. Einstein realized the problem that his theory seemed to violate scientific principle of relativity. So he did some mathematics to check if his theory is conform to principle of relativity. By this he did a fatal fallacy: He did a circular reasoning by using his hypothesis for the mathematical transformation by which he “proved“ conformity. Nearly all mathematical proofs are fallacies by hidden circular reasoning.

The most popular example for the antiscience of Einstein's thinking is his “Gedankenexperiment” about emission of light flashes in the center of a moving train to the front and end of the train. Einstein argued that for a person in the train the arrival times of light flashes are identical because the person is not aware of the velocity of the train. But a person who observes the train from outside will observe that the light flash to the rear arrives before the light flash to the front because this person is aware of the velocity of the train. So the theory of special relativity is based on the statement that physical laws depend on the thinking of human beings. When a person thinks that a train moves the light behaves different than when the person thinks that it does not move. Another consequence of this Gedankenexperiment is that a person can stop a (for him) moving train just by jumping onto the moving train.

Einstein derived the absurd effects of special relativity (time dilation, length contraction and undefinable simultaneity of time) on his wrong understandings of scientific principle of relativity. In addition he concluded by his wrong thinking that there is an absolute constancy of light velocity. This is a clear violation of scientific principle of conservation of energy besides the violation of scientific principle of relativity. This is not conform to daily observations and this is falsified by nearly all experiments ever done (see SURe Vol.7).

 New Physics/ SURe:

 The purpose of science is to describe reality (observations) and define general rules for reality. Reality is unique. There can’t be two realities. Reality can mostly be derived by logics. Following scenarios: can be regarded:

  1. Light beams travel from center to train to rear and front with same velocity relative to the train. It is logical that light beams arrive at the same time independent from movement of the train.

  2. Light beams travel with absolute constant velocities. In this cases the arrival times depend on movement of train. When the train is moving forward the beams will arrive at the rear earlier than at the front.

 As Einstein postulated an absolute constant velocity for light therefore for him only scenario 2 is valid. It is not logical (= contrary to daily observations) that a moving train stops when a person in the train thinks that the train is not moving? In a train which has a movement parallel to travel path of light beams the arrival times of beams ( with equal velocities) will always be different. The time difference depends exclusively on movement on train. If the train does no movement the run times of light are identical.

The problem is that until now there has been no scientifically sound description and explanation of movement. New Physics/ SURe shows that when no other reference frame for movement has been specified, movement refers to movement relative to omnipresent neutrinos = ONs (see Vol 3 and 5). Movement relative to ONs can be specified as absolute movement. This is also valid for movement of light. As light has an absolute velocity it has no absolute constant velocity to every reference frame as postulated by Einstein.

As physicists realized the success of Einstein’s antiscientific theories, they stopped to describe experiments by describing what is observed but started to describe experiments by what they think to observe. They trampled on the basic rules of scientific research and didn't care about biased observations. Concerning tests of theories of relativity physicists did obvious wrong interpretations of experimental findings in order to be apparently conform to special and general relativity. Nobody discovered their false interpretations. All relevant tests which have been interpreted as verification of special and general relativity have been checked by New Physics/ SURe with the result that these can be logically and understandable explained by classical physics (see SURe Vol.7). Every scientist is capable to correct these fatal errors on basis of New Physics/ SURe. Every “verification” of theories of relativity is an embarassing demonstration for a wrong interpretation of an outstanding experimental finding The unbiased descriptions and interpretations of the “tests of relativity“ falsify special and general relativity and verify New Physics/ SURe.


4.3 The PROHIBITION to question accepted Theories


Einstein later realized that his theory of special relativity is not correct and corrected it by a publication in 1911 where he showed that the speed of light varies by gravitational force (physical reality). So Einstein was a real great scientist because he had the courage to revise his own obsolete theory. But unfortunately this was not the case for the Autocratic Business System of Physics, which did not want to show “weakness” by admitting the erroneous acceptance of Einstein’s theory. His revised theory was ignored and criticized which forced Einstein to continue with antiscience.


By the way: A .Einstein was also a great scientist because besides his wrong Gedankenexperiments he did an unbiased interpretations of photo-electrical effect. He dared to publish his finding based on photo-electrical effect, that the origin of light are particles, which falsified the accepted theory that light refers to electromagnetic waves. But he did not dare to mention the only possible conclusion: the falsification of theories about electromagnetic waves. Instead he again did an absurd postulate: the particle-wave duality.


Few years after publication of special relativity Sagnac and others falsified Einstein’s theory. As Michelson and Morley couldn’t find an absolute reference frame (aether) for linear movements on earth, Sagnac used a ring interferometer to eliminate any effect by dragged or linear-moving aether. Indeed by this he could prove that light speed depends on relative movement of source and detector. This clearly proved that speed of light is relative like all other velocities and that there has to be an absolute reference frame (aether). The Sagnac effect can exclusively be explained as an effect which is caused by the movement of the rotating mirrors of the ring interferometer through aether. Despite clear falsification Einstein’s theories were not withdrawn, but instead it was claimed that the theory of relativity is not valid for rotational movements. Every scientist is aware that this is an absurd restriction. Beams of light can’t differentiate between approaching mirrors by rotational movements or by linear movements. It can be shown that there are identical findings by linear movements of detector relative to source. Later also all movements which occur on earth had to be excluded from validity of theory of relativity, as it has been proved that rotation of earth is a movement through an absolute reference frame, which means there is a “wind of aether” on earth surface by rotation of earth. For this finding extreme large ring interferometers had to be used (Michelson-Gale-experiment) to achieve the required accuracy. So Einstein’s “Gedankenexperiment”of moving train by which he concluded existence of relativistic effects proved to be irrealistic, because it is an “rotational movement”.


Sagnac draw the correct conclusions by his experiments: the existence of an omnipresent matter. But this statement was ignored. The existence of the “wind of aether” was not accepted, although this is the origin of many observed effects like Foucault pendulum, Coriolis force, anisotropy of CMB, run time changes of atomic clocks and generation of magnetic fields by resting magnetic material on earth surface. Lots of nonscientific actions were done just to save antiscience and prevent that public gets aware of physical reality, which in this cases is the existence of an aether (= an absolute reference frame for movement).



4.4 The Deathblow of Physics: Abandonment of Aether


The abandonment of an omnipresent matter by A. Einsteins theories is the error with the highest impact for mankind because it prevented that Scientific Universal Reality had been discovered over 100 years earlier.

 Early discovery of SURe would have led within short time to many new important technologies, particularly for generation of “clean” energy. There would have been uncountable new and effective diagnostic tools for diseases and technologies to improve quality of our daily life. All money for fundamental physical research could have been spent for development of new technologies.


Key for detection of Scientific Universal Reality is the awareness of omnipresent neutrinos (ONs). Without the awareness of ONs physicists had no chance to find out valid explanations for physics or to define valid physical rules. Before 1900 nearly all physicists made the logical conclusion that the finite speed of light requires a specific reference frame by specific matter in space. Also many other observations like forces over distances led to the logical conclusion that an omnipresent matter has to exist. The omnipresent matter has been called aether at that time. Now physicists use also omnipresent matter for explanations of many observations but call this differently to hide that it is “old stuff” which has been abandoned by Einstein: astrophysicists call it dark matter, quantum physicist call it vacuum energy, particle physicists call it bosons.

Physicists around 1900 did many experiments to define the reference frame for velocity of light in vacuum. Michelson and Morley have proved that the aether is dragged by earth, Sagnac and others have proved that it is not dragged by mass of small bodies. Therefore Coudres and Wien proposed that aether is dragged by gravitation of celestial bodies. Unfortunately they abandoned this theory, which is reality, by following simple error: The Michelson-Gale experiment proved that the aether is not dragged by rotation of earth and physicists erroneously thought that gravitation should drag aether also by rotation. But it can easily be proved (rotating bucket) that exclusively friction drags matter by rotation of and not gravitation.

 As Einstein assumed that there is no omnipresent matter (aether), he had to postulate that the speed of light has no reference frame but is constant relative to all reference frames. This postulate is contradictory to all observations concerning light and to scientific principles. Even light would not exist because light beams are parallel traveling photons, which is not possible by postulate.



4.5 FAKE AND ERROR: Tests of Theories of Relativity



New Physics/ SURe proves in Vol.7 that all experiments which are currently claimed to verify theories of relativity are either fakes by intentional misinterpretations or erroneously misinterpretations by biased observations. One example are the misinterpretations of tests by resonators.

Biased observation:

Resonator experiments show that speed of light is independent from direction of light.

Erroneous conclusion:

This proves that there is no wind of aether because this would affect measurements of frequencies by resonators and cause an anisotropy.

Used assumption:

Physicists assumed that frequencies of radiation correlate with propagation speed of radiation.

Non-biased observation:

Resonator experiments show that frequency of light is independent from direction of light.

Non-biased interpretation:

This proves that if there is wind of aether this does not affect measurements of frequencies by resonators.

New Physics/ SURe:

Frequencies of radiation refer to kinetic energies of RNs. Kinetic energies of RNs are proportional to velocities of RNs. Velocities of RNs are much higher than propagation velocities of RNs (=speed of light). Propagation velocities are strongly reduced by collisions, because each collision takes a specific delay time. 

Whereas kinetic energies of radiation (frequencies) are independent from direction the propagation speed of radiation is mainly determined by number of collisions to ONs per time unit. Velocity of radiation (=velocity from collision to collision) has just a very small contribution to propagation speed. Physicists are aware that the assumption that “frequencies” correlate with propagation speed of radiation is wrong. They observed that high energetic radiation of supernova arrives on earth always earlier than low energetic radiation, but the difference of arriving time is extreme small. Another verification of New Physics/ SURe is that pulsed radiation does not show a relevant dispersion by long Travel times.


Delay times by collisions are independent from kinetic energy of RNs. Number of collisions are increased when RNs travel against common movement of ONs (=aether wind). This leads to an anisotropy of propagation speed of radiation., which has been verified by experiments like Michelson-Gale-experiment. The number of collisions depend also on concentration of ONs. As concentrations of ONs are decreasing by distance to celestial bodies, there is a significant reduction of speed of light when light passes near celestial bodies. This has been verified by Shapiro delay of light.



4.6 Displayed by ATOMIC CLOCKS: It is high Time for New Physics/ SURe


Whereas previous chapter has shown that number of collisions of RNs to ONs do not influence frequencies of RNs after emission, in this chapter it will be shown that number of collisions of source of radiation to ONs influences frequencies of emitted RNs.

One of the most important and most valuable tests in history of physics is the Hafele-Keating experiment. It has been planned and conducted by outstanding scientific work. In the experiment run times of atomic clocks have been compared in planes which circle the earth in east and west direction with an atomic clock on earth. By this the atomic clocks experienced different velocities and different altitudes. The Hafele-Keating experiment proved that the run-times of atomic clocks reduce by increased velocity relative to ONs and by increase of gravitational force.

 The change of run-times is interpreted as verification of the predicted time dilation by A. Einstein. But Einsteins theory of special relativity predicts that there is no time dilation within the same reference frame. This means that atomic clocks should do not any run time changes by velocity, because atomic clocks are not aware of their velocity. So the Hafele-Keating experiment clearly falsifies theory of special relativity.

New Physics/ SURe: 

Hafele-Keating experiment was by far the most useful experiments for the author of SURe to get knowledge about physical reality. First the more basic finding of the experiment has been defined by checking the measurement principle of atomic clocks. This lead to following information: Run times of atomic clocks are controlled by adjustments to specific emitted frequencies of radiation of specific atoms. New Physics/ SURe has proved that reality of “emitted frequency of radiation “ is “kinetic energy of emitted RNs”.


So the unbiased description of finding of experiment is: 

Kinetic energies of emitted RNs by atoms are affected by velocity and altitude of atoms (=distance to earth surface). The observed changes of run times have nothing to do with changes of time intervals (time dilation). NewPhysics/SURe shows that kinematic and gravitational run time changes of atomic clocks have same origin: Kinetic energy of emitted RNs by atoms is decreased by increasing number of collisions of atoms to ONs per time unit.

 According to scientific principle of chemical reactions (or CBD mechanism) increased number of collisions of educts shifts equilibrium of reaction towards products of reactions. In this case the products of reaction are atoms with increased number of bound BNs. Increased number of bound BNs means increased vibration energy of bondings of BNs and this means less kinetic energy is required to increase vibration energy to maximal vibration where a decay of RNs occur (see Vol.5 and 7). Overall effect: Energies (frequencies) of emitted radiation of atoms are reduced by increased number of collisions to ONs, which can either occur by increased velocity relative to ONs or by increased concentration of ONs, which decreases by distance to earth surface.

Final conclusion: 

Changes of time intervals have never been observed in universe. All experiments and observations which apparently show time dilation are classical energetic effects by CBD mechanism. 


All experiments about time dilation verify that time dilation is a biased interpretation of shifts of emitted energies. Decrease of emitted energy of RNs by reduced altitudes is verified by Pound-Rebka-experiment and gravitational redshift.


There is an error of A. Einstein and others by claiming that the energy (frequency) is changing by gravitation (altitude) when photons (=RNs) are traveling. This is falsified by many observations and would violate principle of energy conservation: Emitted RNs do not change energy by distance to earth surface.



4.7 Absolute important: The ABSOLUTE REFERENCE FRAME for Velocity


Another great achievement of Hafele and Keating is the detection of the absolute reference frame for velocity and kinetic energy. It is the earth surface without rotation and thus is the reference frame, where ONs have on average zero velocity. This alone would be worth to be acknowledged by Nobel Price. But because this finding would falsify the accepted theories of Autocratic Business System of Physics it was just mentioned as “nothing interesting to be discussed.

 Unbiased description of findings of Hafele and Keating:

 Atomic clocks have no kinematic effect on run time (= maximal run time) when these move in agreement to rotational movement of earth.

 New Physics/ SURe:

 Finding proves that ONs are dragged by orbital movement of earth but not by self-rotation of earth. This is a very important finding as the reference frame of ONs are the absolute reference frame for all interactions with ONs and thus essential for the understanding of movement , kinetic energy and magnetism.

 For example physicists know that magnetic fields are generated by movements of electrons. Like everything this is explained by New Physics/ SURe by CBD-mechanism: Electrons collide to ONs and generate low-energetic RNs with aligned orientations of bonding options. Thus the RNs have the possibility to bind to chains of BNs which are magnetic fields. By the knowledge of the reference frame of ONs you get aware that resting electrons on earth do movements relative to ONs and thus collisions to ONs which create magnetic fields. Indeed all magnetic fields of celestial bodies are generated by self-rotation of celestial bodies. All additional movements in inner part of celestial bodies do not contribute but hinder generation of magnetic fields. Also ferromagnetism is no specific effect; it is the same effect as usual magnetism except that the required movement of “single” electrons is due to self-rotation of earth. This can easily be verified by using ferromagnets on poles of earth.

Misunderstanding of magnetism and movement was a main factor which induced A. Einstein to his irrealistic theories of relativity.





There are two different speeds of radiation :

  1. Speed of RNs, which is the speed of RNs from collision to collision. This depends exclusively on kinetic energy of RNs. This means speed of gamma-RNs is larger than speed of light-RNs and speed of light RNs is larger than speed of IR-RNs.

  2. Propagation speed of RNs, which is much slower than speed of RNs, as the propagation speed of RNs is strongly reduced by CBD- interactions with ONs, which takes a specific duration. Therefore propagation speed of radiation depends on number of collisions per time and thus on concentration of ONs. Kinetic energy contributes only very little to propagation speed of RNs. This is verified by the observations that gamma-RNs from supernova arrive just few hours earlier on earth than visible RNs.

  3. Contrary to current hypothesis radiation has no phase velocity as propagation of radiation has no phase. New Physics/ SURe shows in Vol. 6 that there are lots of inconsistencies concerning phase velocity.

Currently it is erroneously assumed that there are significant differences of “phase velocities” of RNs in translucent matter, by which refraction and dispersion is explained.

New Physics/ SURe proves in Vol.6 that these and most other explanations of optical effects are not valid. The only scientifically sound explanations for all optical effects are by CBD- mechanism of RNs.

Current theory of optics can easily be falsified by observations/ experiments. It is obvious that scientific rules for waves like Fresnel-Huygens principle are not valid for radiation.


Origin of speed Limits:

Limits of propagation speeds are due to the fact that number of collisions to ONs increase exponentially by increased speed. Speed limits of radiation are specific for each concentration of ONs. In space there are strong variations of concentrations of ONs, therefore speed of light/radiation varies by traveling through space. This is observed by gravitational lens effect and Shapiro time delay. Even on earth there is an extreme low probability that propagation speed of light at two different locations is the same.



4.9 Is your gravitational Mass equivalent to your inertial Mass?


Hafele and Keating did not realize or concealed that their experiment falsified equivalence principle of inertial and gravitational mass: By atomic clocks it can be differentiated whether there is a force by gravitational mass or a force which accelerates an inertial mass :

 When a person in a rocket experiences a pressure and the run times of the atomic clocks are changing , the pressure is due to acceleration. When the run times are stable the pressure is due to gravitational force. For experiencing weightlessness it is the other way round.

 As the theory of general relativity is based on the postulate that this differentiation is not possible, Hafele-Keating experiment falsified theory of general relativity besides theory of special relativity.


New Physics / SURe has defined the origin of different masses. By this inertial mass and experienced gravitational mass of bodies of ordinary matter have nearly same values, because they are calibrated to same values. But neutronium and neutrinium have a much larger ratio of inertial mass to experiencing gravitational mass than atomic matter. Adequate tests will also show differences for atomic matter. All tests which are claimed to show equivalence are either too inaccurate or not valid to detect differences. St the same time all findings of these tests can be explained by CBD- mechanism. A valid test to prove/falsify equivalence principle is to get two bodies with different densities to identical gravitational mass by scales on earth surface (no acceleration) and do same measurement on same samples in an accelerated rocket in space (no gravitation). Depending on differences concerning material and shape of samples the balanced samples will turn to unbalanced samples.



4.10 MANIPULATION of Data which falsify accepted Theories


Even worse than wrong interpretations and concealment of important findings is that Hafele and Keating have been forced by the autocratic business system to adjust basic data of the experiment to the values expected by formula of A. Einstein. So the data have been fitted to the formula, but the formula did not fit to the experiment, as the formula describes a different situation. Even if the observed run time changes would fit to the described situation of Einstein the observed kinematic run time changes are different from predicted calculated values of Einstein.

In addition by SURe basic data of run times should show once per celestial day a significant peak. Hafele and Keating have not reported these strong periodic drifts.

Of course physicists realized that correct interpretation and correct data of experiment would be the death of current physics. Otherwise it would have been obligatory as good scientific practice to repeat the experiment to increase the accuracy of kinematic effect. Instead only the gravitational part of experiment has been repeated. Repetition of kinematic effect will verify New Physics/ SURe and falsify time dilation.




 4.11 DEFAMATION of Physicists who falsified accepted Theories


 Now to the final step which occurs to physicists when these dare to publish physical reality: The Autocratic Business System of Physics will downgrade them to “nobody”.

 Anisotropy of light speed

 Between 1921 and 1926 Dayton Miller did the most accurate and most numerous experiments analog to Michelson-Morley. He discovered an anisotropy of speed of light up to 10km/s which showed periodic changes per sidereal day. The autocratic business system of physics realized that Miller's results falsified special relativity, so his work was strongly criticized without any valid arguments and after Miller's death his work was declared to have systematic measurement errors by arguments which can clearly be shown to be absurd.

 New Physics/ SURe explains the periodic daily changes of anisotropy-effects by adjustments of concentration of ONs on surface of earth, which are done to achieve the equilibrium concentration around earth when the earth moves through space with lower ON-concentration. This adjustment mainly occurs on the part of the surface of earth which faces the orbital movements around the center of the milky way. Because of earth rotation at each location of earth surface (except poles) concentration of ONs is changing once per sidereal day. So this observation shows the movement of earth (atomic clocks) through galaxy. The periodic anisotropy effect has also been discovered by Esclangon by a complete different measurement precedure (see Vol.7).


Neutrinos faster than light

 OPERA research team falsified the limit of propagation speed of light by thorough experiments which showed a small but significant higher speed of high energetic neutrinos. (Ref.: search under “OPERA neutrino anomaly”). The team was forced to invent a measurement error and was severely criticized and mobbed for their publication.

 New Physics/SURe:

 High energetic neutrinos are RNs in energetic range of gamma-rays which have larger velocity than RNs in energetic range of visible light. As propagation speed is mainly determined by concentration of ONs the difference of propagation speeds is relative small. The difference is verified by the observations that emitted neutrinos by supernovae arrive always earlier on earth than the emitted light. Overall the OPERA team did correct measurements and all later corrections of data were manipulations forced by autocratic system.

 Differences of arrival times of emitted particles from supernovae are a good method to measure distancies. Currently there are no reliable distances as there is not any scientific basis for the determination of large distances.


Variations of radioactive decay rates

A significant correlation of rates of radioactivity to sun activity and distance to sun has been observed. (Ref.: search by ”Radioactive decay rates vary by rotation of sun”). This finding verifies that radioactive decays are not spontaneous but activated by emitted neutrinos from sun. The Autocratic Business System of Physics realized that this finding would have led in short time to the discovery of New Physics/ SURe. To prevent this, measurements were arranged by a much less sensitive equipment. By the low sensitivity the periodic variation was not significant any more, which was ”sold” to public as falsification of the accurate measurements.


The postulate of spontaneous reactions is an example where the error is so obvious and the knowledge of reality is so high that it can be assumed that no physicists does still believe in spontaneous reactions: Physicists are aware that all daily observed interactions and all interactions in chemistry work by cause and effect, physicists are aware that the earth is constantly bombarded by billions of neutrinos per second from sun, that neutrinos are hard to detect and that most neutrinos travel through earth without relevant absorption (which is explains constant decay rates independent from location), physicists even use radioactive decays to detect neutrinos. Physicists also know that neutrinos from sun explain the apparent symmetry violation of postulated weak force. But physicists had to conceal all their knowledge (acquired by their own experimental work) and were forced to keep obsolete hypotheses.



4.12 DARK MATTER cannot cover Inconsistencies of GRAVITATION


Every physicist is aware that theories of gravitation (Newton and Einstein) can’t be reality, because there are many unsolved inconsistencies and many observations which falsify these theories. Formulas of gravitational force of both theories completely fail to describe gravitational forces in galaxies. The postulate of a huge halo of dark matter around centers of galaxies did not solve anomalies but created additional inconsistencies:


The halo of dark matter is not conform to the existence and structure of satellite galaxies within a galaxy.


The halo of dark matter does not explain the strong reduction of orbital velocities by decreasing distance to the supermassive neutrino star in the center of galaxy (SURe calls black holes neutrino stars because these are bound structures of neutrinos.) 

There is an extreme low probability that the halo of each galaxy has exactly the size that the orbital velocities are nearly constant by increasing distance to center beyond a distance of maximal velocity.


New Physics/ SURe shows in Vol.5 that all accelerations (including gravitation) can exclusively be explained by CBD-mechanism and presents scientifically sound explanations for all motions including all motions in space like orbital velocities.

 As already mentioned Einstein found out that speed of light depends on gravitation. But revisions of accepted theories are not allowed (even not by Einstein). Einstein was strongly criticized and thus was forced to give up any follow-up of his idea. But as he realized that his idea had a great potential to define a new theory of gravitation he did a “clever” trick: As he was not allowed to use variable speed of light he replaced the variable speed of light by variable spacetime, which is mathematically equivalent to variable speed of light, but physical nonsense. So he was forced to describe gravitation by the antiscience of variable spacetime.


All experiments which apparently verify theory of general relativity have been wrongly interpreted. SURe shows in Vol.7 that all tests have to be explained by CBD-mechanism according to Universal Principles. Scientific Universal Reality is that gravitational force does not depend on mass, but on concentration and concentration gradient of free moving ONs. The concentration gradient of ONs is verified by gravitational lens effect and is explained by SURe in Vol.5. There are more collisions of free neutrinos against the side of the body where there is high concentration of free moving neutrinos. Thus the body is pushed to the direction of less free neutrinos, which is to the center of celestial bodies.

 The theory about dark matter is a typical example for theories which are supported by Autocratic Business System of Physics because these meet all requirements of the system:

  •  Hold on to accepted theories (theories of gravitation)
  • Arise public attention because appearing magic

  • Increase chances for financial support to solve the inconsistencies generated by the theories.

Dark matter has been postulated although physicists are aware of the matter which is everywhere in universe: neutrinos. Neutrinos are the only particles which are not visible and extreme stable. So it should be clear that dark matter particles are neutrinos. But physicists are not allowed to mention this logical conclusion as by this the mass cannot be explained which is required to save the theories of gravitation. Instead of solving inconsistencies by improving obsolete theories, physicists have to create new theories despite additional inconsistencies.



4.13 Falsified by OUMUAMUA: LAWS OF MOTION


The laws of motions for celestial bodies have been derived by I. Newton and A. Einstein based on the laws of gravitation. Formulas totally failed to describe orbital movements in galaxies and following other observations:

Oumuamua anomaly: 

Oumuamua is the first observed asteroid /comet (2017), which has crossed our sun system, which means that the origin of this celestial body is not our sun system. It has been observed that its escape velocity away from sun system showed an increasing acceleration, which cannot be explained by present theories. 

Pioneer anomaly:

For the two spacecraft Pioneer 10 and Pioneer 11 it was observed, that these experienced an unexpected increasing deceleration when leaving the sun system. The difference to Oumuamua is that the Pioneer spacecraft left the sun system in the plane of the sun system and Oumuamua left it out of the plane. The Pioneer anomaly was explained b an anisotropic radiation pressure caused by heat loss of spacecraft. Deceleration by anisotropic heat radiation is a scientifically sound explanation which is conform to Universal Principles. But this does not explain following observations:

Deceleration was “normal“ up to orbit of Saturn.

Anomal deceleration increased by distance to sun. 

Anomal deceleration showed annual and daily periodicity.

Perihelion precession of mercury: 

Physicists assume that the perihelion precession is explained by gravitation of other planets and in addition by theory of general relativity. New Physics/ SURe shows that this is impossible: Gravitation of other planets does not explain the constancy of precession.

New Physics/ SURe:

All motions in universe from smallest particles over particles of radiation to largest celestial bodies occur by CBD mechanism according to Universal Principles.


4.14 Incredible: Physics does not care about MATHEMATICAL RULES


Scientists know that velocities are relative. As long as an absolute velocity is not defined velocities have to be mathematically expressed by v + x, where x is unknown. Thus only differences of velocities relative to same reference frame are well defined: (v1+x) - (v2+x) = v1-v2. Sums of velocities relative to same reference are determined by (v1+x)+(v2+x) = (v1+v2) +2x.


Mathematical rules for velocities are also valid for propagation velocity of light.

Einstein was genius. He managed that physicists accepted theory of special relativity although it clearly violated basic mathematical rules:

Einstein postulated that photons emitted from a particle which has a velocity of 0.9 c (c= speed of light) relative to earth surface in direction of movement has a velocity of c relative to earth surface and a velocity of c relative to particle. Everyone realizes that this is impossible, everyone is allowed to mention that this is absurd and that theory of relativity is absurd. But absurd theories were not eliminated but got genius

 Theory of special relativity is genius because it invented new mathematics: 

0.9c + 1c = 1c 

According to mathematical rules and to common sense there are following possibilities:

  1. The light beam has a velocity of c relative to the emitting particle which results in a velocity of the beam relative to earth surface of 0.9c + 1c = 1.9c.

  2. The light beam has a velocity c relative to earth surface which results in velocity relative to the emitting particle of 0.1c : 0.9c + 0.1c = 1c.

 New Physics/ SURe:

 Reality is possibility 2. Propagation velocity of photons is always nearly c relative to earth surface and independent from velocity of source of photons. This means it is not c relative to a moving source or detector.

 The velocity of light particles relative to a light particles emitted by same source in opposite direction is always

 c - (- c) = 2c instead of the postulated c - (-c) = c.


The velocity of light particles relative to other light particles emitted to same direction is always zero:

 c - c = 0 instead of the postulated c – c = c

 Reality has been verified by tests and daily observations. Before Einstein’s theory physicists tried to explain this phenomenon and found the only logical conclusion: The speed limit of light can only be caused by an invisible physical system called aether.

After Einstein nobody tried to find an explanations for constant propagation speed of light It was accepted that physics is unexplainable. This new attitude can be regarded as the death of physics as science.




4.15 Most Errors of Physics are caused by MATHEMATICS


Mathematics is a tool to describe physics after you have understood physics. But it is no tool to get understanding of physics. There are many examples (like the two in the next chapters) which show that using mathematics caused fatal fallacies and by this the current disastrous situation of physics. Mathematical transformations only show that the formula you start with is the same you end with. So if you start with a hypothesis you will end with a hypothesis. If you use a hypothesis inbetween for transformation the end is also a hypothesis. It is not possible to verify any hypothesis by mathematics.


In the example of deriving the formula for kinetic energy of a PU it has been started with a hypothesis about the process of acceleration. So at the end you can get the energy of the process of acceleration, but it is not valid to interpret this as kinetic energy of a PU.




4.16 Proven Errors of Physics are not corrected: Speeds of Light


Currently it is postulated that speeds of light in matter depend on energy (frequency). By this postulate refraction and dispersion has been explained. Reality by observation is that propagation speed of light depends on medium. But why should light experience a deflection when it travels at an angle from one medium to another? This has been explained by the hypothesis, that the speed of photons are influenced by neighbouring photons. If photons would travel independent, there would be no deflection. But physics has no explanation for the mutual interactions. Later it was observed that refraction works also by single photons. By this the explanation for refraction has been falsified.


The postulate of variations of propagation speeds as cause for dispersion has also clearly been falsified: There is no relevant dispersion when light pulses travel long time periods through matter, whereas the dispersion by travelling from one medium to another can be observed already after few millimeters.


New Physics/ SURe can present the first and only scientifically sound explanations for all optical effects: All optical effects are reactions of RNs by CBD-mechanism. (See details in Vol.6).


4.17 The most surprising Nonsense: Formula for KINETIC ENERGY


Current hypotheses:

  1.  There are two definitions for kinetic energy:
  2. a) Kinetic energy is the energy which a body or particle possesses due to its velocity.

    b) Kinetic energy is the energy needed to accelerate a body from rest to a specific velocity.

  3. Kinetic energy is a scalar.

  4. Formula for kinetic energy (Ekin) of a PU at velocities well below speed of light is Ekin = ½ m v².

  5. Formula for kinetic energy for all velocities v up to speed of light is Ekin = (L-1) m c² with

    L = Lorentz-factor = 1/ square-root (1- (v² / c²))

    m = mass at rest

    c = propagation speed of light in vacuum as a constant

    v = speed of body in vacuum in reference to an arbitrarily chosen rest frame

    Formula above is called formula for relativistic kinetic energy.

 New Physics / SURe:

None of above definitions and hypotheses are physical reality. Main cause for this is that currently there is no definition of an absolute velocity. As well the postulated definitions as also the postulated formulas for kinetic energy require a definition of an absolute velocity. Without this definition the formulas for kinetic energy are nonsense. Most physicists should have realized this as they have knowledge of basic mathematical rules.

It is not valid to set ½ mv² = ½ m (dv)² . It is extremely strange that nobody bothered about this inconsistency. It would have been essential to solve this fatal inconsistency before doing anything else in physics as it is needed for basic understanding of physics. But physicists continued doing physics based on nonsense. The result: More than 100 years of creating of irrealistic theories just because one single person in the universe had the absurd idea that the universe works without an absolute reference frame for velocity.


  1. The two definitions of kinetic energy are complete different physical issues.

    a) Kinetic energy and velocity are no intrinsic properties of a body or particle. The correct definition of kinetic energy is:

    Kinetic energy is the energy which a PU possesses due to its velocity relative to another PU.

    So if you don’t specify a reference, kinetic energy of a PU has arbitrary values and is undefined. In many cases you get correlations with sufficient accuracy by using an arbitrary reference frame like earth surface. But there are many cases where the absolute reference frame has to be used. The absolute reference frame for velocity is the system of randomly moving ONs. On earth this is the earth surface without rotational movement of earth.

    Currently there is also the problem that there is no valid definition of mass. The valid mass m for kinetic energy is exclusively inertial mass which is on earth surface much smaller than the experiencing gravitational mass.

    b) This definition can’t be used to describe kinetic energy of a PU. This is the definition of energy which is consumed for the process of acceleration of PUs. The energy used for acceleration of particles differs strongly from the kinetic energy which is taken over by accelerated particles. Physicists know that particles have a speed limit. So the energy used for acceleration near speed limit is increasing to infinity, while the kinetic energy of an accelerated particle shows no significant increase

    The kinetic energy which is taken over by a PU is proportional to the increase of velocity relative to a constant arbitrary reference frame. If there is no relevant increase of velocity there is no relevant increase of kinetic energy. Also there is no increase of mass which causes an increase of kinetic energy. The inertial mass of same particle is always the same.

    This is the explanation of the observation that high energetic accelerators used for collision experiments have no relevant effect to increase the collision energies of particles.

  2. Velocity and kinetic energy are vectors.

  3. As currently physics uses two different definitions for kinetic energy, they use also two different formula for kinetic energy. The formula for energy of acceleration for velocities far below speed of light is E = ½ mv² , the formula for the kinetic energy which a particle has because of its movement is E = mv. Currently this energy is not called kinetic energy but momentum. But the definition of momentum is the basic definition of the kinetic energy of a PU. So the term and formula of momentum has to be changed to kinetic energy and the formula for kinetic energy to Ekin = m * v, which is valid for all velocities of PUs but not for propagation velocities.

    Kinetic energy is the energy which a PU transfers to another PU by collision. All observations/experiments show that the impact to a target is proportional to velocity v and not to v². Another simple test is to throw or fire a body with different velocities (optimal in vacuum). The result is that the length or time of flight is proportional to v and not to v².

  4. Formula for relativistic kinetic energy has no scientific basis and has nothing to do with kinetic energy. It just uses an arbitrary mathematical expression which is conform to the observation that the energy for acceleration goes to infinity when the accelerated particle approaches speed of light. The correct formula has still to be defined. The formula for kinetic energy is still Ekin =mv.

    The fact that an increase of acceleration energy has no relevant effect on kinetic energy of particles when these approach speed limit, has been verified by many tests:

  • Colliding experiments: If the maximal energy of acceleration in LHC can be reduced to 1% or less without any change in results of collision experiments.

  • Deflection curves of accelerated particles by magnetic fields show that near speed of light the increase of travel length of particles by increase of acceleration energy strongly reduces, which means that near speed of light there is no relevant effect of acceleration energy on the kinetic energy of particles.

  • Bertozzi in 2005 measured in addition kinetic energy of “relativistic particles” by heat generation of collision. He verified that there was no measurable increase of heat generation by increased energy for acceleration. Ref.: search under “ Speed and Kinetic Energy of Relativistic Electrons”

For all tests it was stated that speed limits according to special relativity have been verified, but nobody realized (or nobody dared to mention) that speed limits of particles are equivalent to limits of kinetic energy and thus falsified Einstein’s formula for relativistic kinetic energy.

At lower energies of acceleration the tests of course also falsify formula of kinetic energy for non-relativistic velocities: Length of deflection curve is proportional to v and not to v².



4.18 The most famous Nonsense: E = mc²


There are numerous inconsistencies which prove that Einstein’s most famous formula is extreme far off from natural science. Some examples are: 

1. A closed physical system can do rearrangements by generation and break of bondings, which change total inertial mass. As inertial mass is no property which is conserved and energy is a property which is conserved it is scientifically impossible that both properties are equivalent. 

2. If you look thoroughly to the deduction of this formula by Einstein, you will realize that there is no scientific basis at all. It looks like that Einstein had diced this formula and not deduced this formula. He diced so long (did physically absurd mathematical transformations) until he got something which looked like an energy. Einstein's deduction is based on theory of relativity which violates scientific principle of relativity.

3. There is no scientifically sound and clear definition of E. Trials for definition like rest energy or inner energy makes it even worse, because these energies are undefined per definition (see SURe Vol. 5). 

4. There is no scientifically sound definition of mass. SURe shows that there are 3 different types of mass which have totally different values.

5. If c is light velocity, it is not constant, but varies by concentration of ONs and thus by location. If c is just a constant there is no reasoning that energy should be proportional to a value which is about the value of speed of light. 

Correlation of energy to c² has not any scientific basis.

6. Speed of light requires a definition of a reference frame.

7. E = mc² is a complete different physical issue than delta E = delta m * c². It is not clear what is meant. 

8. If the formula refers to delta E and delta m: There are uncountable observations, which prove that change of mass does not correlate with generation or consumption of total energy .

9. Einstein did a mathematical transformation from delta E = delta m * c² to E = mc², which is invalid.

10. Absolute energies are not observable. Something which is not observable can’t be defined as a physical law. Observable are exclusively transfers of kinetic energy.



4.19 The Importance and the Impotence of COLLIDER EXPERIMENTS


Collider experiments are extremely essential to get full understanding of physics. By New Physics/ SURe the importance of collider experiments will even get a much higher value. New Physics has proved that all reactions in universe are due to collisions. Physicists did the right thing to ask for construction of colliders in order to do extensive research and development work in this area. For New Physics/ SURe thousands of additional collider experiments are needed. There will be extreme useful new applications for colliders, the most important one is to define the optimal conditions for generation of clean energy.

By high energetic collider experiments many findings of New Physics/ SURe could be derived/ verified:

  • Decay reactions of protons.

  • Definition of most stable particle: neutrino

  • Final particles of all decays: electrons. Thus definition of fundamental particle

  • Generation of “clean” energy by proton decay

  • No difference between particles and antiparticles.

  • Falsification of formula for kinetic energy

 Unfortunately Einstein’s errors concerning kinetic energy and energy-mass equivalence caused that physicists did not realize above findings and the fact that it is impossible to observe any additional findings by high energetic collisions than the listed ones. So additional high energetic collider experiments are not of any use for science. There is nothing new to detect. The reactions which required strongest activation energy are decays of neutrinos which can be achieved by acceleration energy below 100 GeV. All decay reactions have been studied in detail. So in future collider test facilities have to concentrate on relative low energetic collisions, in order to study optimal conditions for generation of clean energy, for verification or definition of structures of atoms, molecules and other particles or to study bonding reactions.


High energetic collider facilities had a strong problem, because the resulting basic data did not change since over 50 years. The only difference were the wrongly assigned collision energies. There was an extreme pressure to deliver new results. So it is understandable, that the apparently high collision energies were used to define new particles by the statement that the part of collision energies, which could not be assigned to particles are masses of non-observable particles.

 The reality is that the claimed non-observable particles do not exist. A simple rule of physics is:

  • Everything which can’t be observed does not exist and everything which exists can be observed.



4.20 And the Energy of Accelerators goes to: SYNCHROTON RADIATION


Energy of high energetic accelerators is lost by collisions to ONs or BNs of magnetic fields. Number of collisions to ONs increases by velocity which explains the high losses by “relativistic“ velocities. By collisions large parts of kinetic energy of accelerated particles are transferred to neutrinos. By take-up of kinetic energy neutrinos get to RNs. Energy of RNs depends on kinetic energy of accelerated particles. In an accelerator ring the RNs leave the ring tangential, because kinetic energy is a vector. This is called Synchroton radiation. But Synchroton radiation is not a specific phenomenon and is not restricted to acceleration. All moving particles collide to ONs and thus generate radiation. If collisions occur in magnetic fields the spin orientation of emitted RNs is orientated parallel to magnetic fields. So the radiation is coherent or polarized.


All accelerations are done by CBD-mechanism. Acceleration by magnetic fields are limited by maximal bonding energies of BNs of magnetic fields. These bonding energies cannot be increased by increased power to produce magnetic fields. Increased power for generation of magnetic fields and thus strength of magnetic fields refers to density of chains of BNs.


Another possibility for acceleration is to transfer directly kinetic energy from one particle to another by collision. This is for example done by resonators. By CBD mechanism the energy is always transferred from high energetic particle to low energetic particle. The energy which can be transferred by collision to a specific particle is below the maximal vibration energy of the specific particle, because above this energy the particle will decay.