Time reversal, “Time” and “time”…


Researchers at the University of Maryland have discovered how to transmit power, sound or images to a “nonlinear object” without knowing the object’s exact location or affecting objects around it using a “time-reversal” technique. [1]

The time-reversal process is like playing a record backwards. When a signal travels through the air, its waveforms scatter before an antenna picks it up. Recording the received signal and transmitting it backwards reverses the scatter and sends it back as a focused beam in space and time thus reaching the target-object.

Time is more and more used in the “reverse” by scientists. From time travels (proved to be possible by… who else? Gödel) to “time reversal” techniques we are gradually getting acquainted with the notion that Time can be handled more as a… variable and less as a “physical entity with inherent properties”.

If time can be reversed, it we can go back to the past, then maybe time does not “exist” as we fantasize it does.

So “time” would be more correct than “Time”. Not so “inescapable” after all…

Time travel, CERN, paradoxes, Higgs

A pair of distinguished physicists have suggested that the hypothesized Higgs boson, which physicists hope to produce with the collider at CERN, might be so abhorrent to nature that its creation would ripple backward through time and stop the collider before it could make one, like a time traveler who goes back in time to kill his grandfather.

Holger Bech Nielsen, of the Niels Bohr Institute in Copenhagen, and Masao Ninomiya of the Yukawa Institute for Theoretical Physics in Kyoto, Japan, put this idea forward in a series of papers with titles like “Test of Effect From Future in Large Hadron Collider: a Proposal” and “Search for Future Influence From LHC”, posted on the physics Web site arXiv.org in the last year and a half.

Dr. Nielsen and Dr. Ninomiya started laying out their case for doom in the spring of 2008. It was later that fall, of course, after the CERN collider was turned on, that a connection between two magnets vaporized, shutting down the collider for more than a year.

Dr. Nielsen called that “a funny thing that could make us to believe in the theory of ours”.

As Niels Bohr said, “We are all agreed that your theory is crazy. The question which divides us is whether it is crazy enough to have a chance of being correct. My own feeling is that it is not crazy enough”.


  1. http://www.ramnousia.com/2012/03/cern.html#.T2Ux4xEf68k
  2. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/13/science/space/13lhc.html?pagewanted=all
  3. http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=157609.0
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holger_Bech_Nielsen
  5. http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.2991
  6. http://arxiv.org/abs/0707.1919
  7. http://physicsbuzz.physicscentral.com/2009/10/back-from-future-is-higgs-jinxing-lhc.html

► See the article Harmonia Philosophica for a more in depth analysis of how what seems “illogical” can sometimes be more… “logical”.

Harmonia Philosophica (Antithesis Synthesis)

Harmonia Philosophica

Basic Harmonia Philosophica articles are distributed as a book from Amazon or from Lulu.

We all look at the same one reality with the same tools. However we almost never agree. Why is that?

The answer I give in this articleis that we just use different words to describe the same things, or see the same thing from different point of view. As Parmenidis said, the “IS” is one and that same “IS” is what we all try to approach and explain. A unification of all opinions looks as the best way to look at it…

For example, the world can be eternal (as Heracletus said), but at the same time have a First Cause (as Aristotle said) the Absolute Infinite that was first discovered by Georg Cantor and actually contains all “lower-level” infinites. We could be indeed constrained within the existence of the world that exists (as Sartre said), but given the fact that the world is infinite that constraint is not a constraint at all. Mathematics can indeed contain universal truths, but their expression may be imperfect due to the imperfections of humans. Evolution could happen due to natural selection, but maybe that selection has a purpose after all.And humans helping other people who are meant to die is simply the most direct hint that the theory of evolution is not the answer to everything. We may be lifeless sets of electrons and protons, but it is the life-giving force of Henri-Louis Bergson that gives us the strength to deny our own existence. Faith is based on logic analysiswhile logic is based on faith to someaxiomatic truths. And these a-priori thuths are nothing more than the inner wishes of logic.No big philosophical question has been answered by anyone. The continuous quest for answers is what has value. Science is one of the tools we have to reach the truth, and not a perfecto tool that is. Nor is logic. Let us not forget thatgreatest scientific breakthoughs have been based on illogical bursts of inspiration based on instinct and intuition. Delawere indians cannot refer to a “thing” as it exists on its own, but onlyin the context of a specific situation. In that way they do nothavea word for “snow”, but they do have words to say “yesterday it snowed” or “the ground is covered with snow”. [1] Who tells us that our language, with so many Platonic dogmas embedded in it, is more “correct” than that language”? Nuer indiansdo not have the notion of “time” in their language as we do. Maybe if we learnedfrom these different perspectives, we wouldn’t need thousands of years for Godel to come and tell us that time may be just an illusion. [2][3][4][5] Scientism, materialism, idealism, theism, atheism, not one of these philosophies has answered all questions. We must use all of them andnot be dogmatically stick to just one.The separation of state and church must be complemented by the separation of state and science, that most recent, most aggressive, and most dogmatic religious institution, as Paul K. Feyerabendonce said in”Against Method: Outline of an Anarchistic Theory of Knowledge” (1975). Logic is based on axioms, which some claim that they are based on data from our senses. But sometimes the results of logic go against what our senses tell us. Honey is sweet, but people with icterus taste it as bitter. What is the “reality” after all? Who’s reality is more “valid”?

All these antinomies show us what we cannot see because of our stuborness to use right-wrong disctinction: that the world is “ONE”. As Parmenides said, there is not “right” and “wrong” – something cannot “not be” right. The distinction between “real” and “not real” may after all be insufficient to explain the true reality of our world. And remember that one has to be “logical” to understand a logical argument, but what kind of credibility does an argument has if it can persuade only people who are already trained to accept it? Logic kills fantasy, and we must remember that it is the latter which has been the source of all great human progress during history. Human kind cannot stand the teachings madness and death can give and that is why the boundaries of madness where always defined by the state authorities and not by any objective criterion. Men give their lives for some higher ideas. Maybe their heart knows something that their logic cannot even glimpse at? Every day we try to drive ourselves higher than our material body, like madmen we strive to create in fields that modern materialistic science cannot even see – poetry which you cannot understand fascinates you, like your Sein (The ONE Sein) which you canot see pushes you to something more meaninglinfull and of higher essense than your Da-Sein. All of our cells change, but we remain the same. Our Sein seems to be independent of the matter which nevertheless constitutes our Da-Sein. Children listen at their teachers for years and only after they have learned to think as their teacher do, do we let them think “freely”. But how “free” can they be then? Western medicine tells us that its medicines are “better”, but what about the medicines Indians used for thousands of years? They were banned not after careful examination, but after the white people simply wished to state their superiority to other races. How “free” can modern Western medicine be, when it is dictated by pharmaceuticals that control governments, states and even the EU? Is health “better” that sickness? What about parents who wish their children to get sick so as to develop antibodies? What about people who were always isolated from microbes and then died on the first time they encountered one? Our bodies – because of “too much health” – have begun attacking their own selves thus increasing the autoimmune diseases greatly. Maybe health AND sickness is the better way to live… Nothing “right” or “wrong”. Just one world and one reality…

Those who believe in scientism want more “control” over nature and reality. But what is “control” for? What do they want to control? Would someone like to BE controlled? Would someone like to control his feeling, to be able to start and stop loving someone else by just pushing a “button” inside him? And if more “control” is the main goal, why not follow the path of people with faith in a God, who because of that faith are in a state where they feel and “live” a life of complete control overy everything? Which control is more “valid”? Those who believe in scientism think that the lack of “data” and “information” is the great problem science will solve and – thus – save humankind of its problems. But none of the most important issues humans face are related to lack of information, as the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew correctly points out: The important problems of humans today are related to lack of trust, love, patience, understanding…

Man has to awaken to wonder – and so perhaps do peoples. Science is a way of sending him to sleep again.

Ludwig Wittgenstein

How can someone fly if all he has been taught is how to crawl? A genius is the most illogical creature – every single great breakthrough in science was based on great illogical leaps of faith. Logic is a great tool, but sometimes it becomes synonym to the “status quo” of the way people think during a time period if history. And in that case you cannot progress if you think “logically”…

If you believe something “because it is logical” then you are nothing more than a slave to the current axioms of your time.

For thousands of years we thought as “right” the axioms stating that “negative number times a negative number provides a positive number as a result” or that “there is only one parallel line we can draw from a point outside a line”. But when we thought to question these “truths” we suddenly “discovered” the imaginary numbers of the non-Eucledian geometries. And we were startled to see that these new “weird” theories had practical implications.

We should be startled though: the truth is as “true” as we think it is.

Logic dictates that in order to “prove” something you must complete your syllogism. But can a syllogism be completed? No. The infinite number of causes that leads to the First Cause is what makes certain that a logical syllogism can never be completed. What generates our “certainty” that a syllogism can be completed? Faith? Antinomies and paradoxes seem to be embedded in everything, even the most pure mathematical logic. We should accept their existence, embrace their nature and trust what we believe if we want to “understand” the cosmos as it “is”… After all who verifies that our faith in the axioms of logic are correct? Why not be illogical as Zenon and Democritus? Why not be illogical as Einstein and Newton? Newton found his idea of gravity as “so absurd that I do not think anyone will believe it”. [6] But we did believe it… Maybe we should start believing things we consider as non-logical? Maybe as G.K. Chesterton once said, “The madman is not the man who has lost his reason. The madman is the man who has lost everything except his reason“.

All science is based on the axiom that a proposition can be either true or false.

de omnibus dubitandum est

However there are substantial evidence indicating that a logical proposition can be true and false at the same time [dialethism]! [7] Consider for example the logical proposition “this proposition is false”. Is it false? If yes, then it is true. Is it true? If yes, then it is false. Logic is so illogical that can drive someone into the conclusion that his logic is wrong… If I say “you are right” and what you have said is that “I am wrong”, then who is right after all? Know that the antinomies exist and do not try to “understand” them.

As Shestov geniously states, to “understand” is not the same as to “know”. [8] If you try to understand something you actually try to fit it into your current way of thinking, thus altering it in a way that you loose the “truth” in it. And let us remember that in the ancient times of Homer the notion of “illogical” did not even exist. Everything that was said was part of “Logos”. [9] Only after 2,500 years of civilization have made some “truths” embedded in our brain as “correct” have we started to believe in fictious contradictions like “logical” – “illogical”…

If a crazy person tells you he is crazy, would you believe him? If you dream of something illogical, will you question your logic or your dream? When you talk to yourself, who is doing the talking?

God may be dead as Nietzsche said, but only if Man is dead too, as Adorno postulated… We may be free to decide as Sartre said, and this freedom could have its basis on the natural laws… The world may be eternal, but that may have given the probability of the existence of a God the chance to manifest itself. And God may see us arguing for this and that while He drinks his decaf coffee… Because even He cannot escape the antinomies… A priori truths may be embedded into our brain, but only experience can help us know them. A posteriori truths may be the result of logic, but that logic has to be based on some non-“a posteriori” truths. Logic cannot look at itself without the danger of antinomies popping out, but the things which refer only to themselves are the only “real” things, as Kant said.

We may be the only beings in nature conscious of the mortality of our DaSein, but all-wise nature may have given us this tragic knowledge only because we can bear with such knowledge due to the immortality of our spirit (Sein).
Man may be meant to rule the Earth, but only in harmony with the other species. And harmony in theory and in praxis can be obtained only with “primitive” thinking, beyond any dogmatism. This primitive thinking – if and when conquered be humans – will be the more advanced conquest we have ever made. As Oedipus represents the hyperbole in questioning (Levi Strauss), we may have to behave like Persival and be silent for things we cannot “see” (Wittgenstein). We have gained much with “logic”, but even more with “illogical” thinking.

People like us, who believe in physics, know that the distinction between past, present and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.

Albert Einstein

We all discuss with each other. However Schrödinger said that we all perceive only ONE consciousness: our “own”. We can never be aware of the consciousness of others. Could that mean that there is actually only ONE consciousness in the world? [10] And that single consciousness could be the real source of the Carl Jung’s collective unconscious…

Primitive people of the caves had a more pure thought, which was not influenced by theories for the artificial definition of “true” of “false”. Primitive people thought and believed that life does not end with physical death. Primitive people thought more freely – they did not have thousands of years of civilization behind them to talk on their behalf. Primitive people thought that life does not end with death, since they were not taught the (artificial?) idea of “time” on which all pseudo-philosophy of “existence/non-existence” is based. Maybe things we cannot easily define, do not actually exist. I exist now in Kythera on the year 2010. No matter how much “time” passes, I will still exist in Kythera on the year 2010…

Primitive people lived much healthier lives than we do.
But they died younger.
What does that tell us about death and life?
Could death be something “good” in the context of Nature?
Is that opinion illogical enough so that we can believe it?

How can you feel relaxed, if you don’t get tired first? How can you live if you don’t die some day?

Hall of the Bulls at Lascaux

“The complete freedom and independence of vision of primeval art has never since been attained… In our sense there was no up and no down, no above and no below … Nor was there a clear distinction and separation of one object from another – witness the continuous use of superimposition – nor rules of related size and scale. Gigantic bulls of the Magdalenian era could stand alongside tiny deer from Aurignacian times, as around the dome of Lascaux… All was displayed within an eternal present, the perpetual flow of today, yesterday, and tomorrow ” [Source: ARAS free sample – http://search.aras.org/record.aspx?ARASNUM=1Cb.501%5D

At the time before Socrates in Greece, the idea that things “change” was a topic of discussion between philosophers and not a matter solved. And it is very important to remember that when one opinion prevails, it has a tremendous effect on the future – thus making it profoundly vital for everyone to question everything over and over again… When we understand that the more recent information ir not necessarily more “valid” than the older ones [Levi Strauss], we will learn many things we have “forgotten”… How can a thing be changed without losing its identity? Perhaps things do not change eventually, said Parmenides. The cells which constitute our body as humans are changed several times during our lives. How do we know that we are who we think we are? Is there a “reality” beyond what we see? Finally the theory of Democritus and Leukippos (according to which things are changing) prevailed over the theory of Parmenides, and that has defined profoundly our scientific thinking ever since. Is that what is actually happening though? 22

Okanagan Specialty Fruits Inc. (OSF) has created a genetically modified apple that does not brown after being cut. [11][12] Is an apple that does not turn brown after being cut an apple?

What are the characterisitcs an apple has? How many characteristics of an apple can we change before we stop talking about “apples”? Are things really different or is the world ONE as Parmenides said? What actually is “is” ? What makes something what it “is” ? If we change one characteristic of something, is that something the “same” ? Yes? What if we change two characteristics? Do we still have the “same” thing? If we change all characteristics of normal “apples” as we know them now, in 2010, will they still be “apples”? Imagine the same questions for humans and your mind can blow up… If all of our body cells change continuously – even the cells of our brain [13][14][15][16] – are we still the “same” person? If yes, what about the change called “death”? Is that also a small “characteristics change” in our body and existence? Do we still remain humans, as apples that do not brown are still “apples” ? [17]

How can something “change”, if change means that it is not the same “thing” anymore?

Moreover, many physicists have begun formulating theories in which the concept of time does not exist. [18][11] Godel had even found a solution to the equations of general theory of relativity in which time t is deleted. Ultimately is it not true that time is an entirely artificial construct? Is it not true that what we make as the passge of time is merely the movement of the colck figures?

If things like the concept of “change” and “time” do not exist then what could be the meaning of “Death”, since death is based on those concepts? [20]

And as the ” What does it take to believe in Death ” series of articles in the Harmonia Philosophica portal suggests, the things which you have to believe in order to uphold “mortality” as true are much more than the things you have to believe in order to hold “immortality” as the norm…

If something is an apple and then turns into an organge, then maybe it was never an apple and it was never an orange – the most probable is that it is something else which can simply turn into an apple or an orange…

Believing in the uttermost power of one or the other philosophical theory or scientific theory could be well “founded” some years ago. But in the face of recent discoveries of Godel, Russel and others it is really hard to “believe” in the *truth* of anything else than the world itself. We must understand that philosophy is not fast food (another great antinomy of our time). We cannot simply choose the theory of our liking and deny the fact that every theory is based and tries to describe the SAME reality. We must cook all ingredients carefully in order to have a good result…

You know you have consciousness, but how can you know others also have?
If you dream in a shared dream, you will always think you are the only one dreaming…

In the long going materialists-dualists debate, people tend to refer to a material brain. However we should all get used to the fact that modern science agrees that matter is mainly empty space that only appears to be solid when two structures that are of similar wavelength interact. We have lived for such a long time with the conviction that matter or at least particles exist, that we have a very hard time to even consider that all might be energy in various states of polarization and swirling at incredible speeds. Matter is energy in a very intense and specific condition of aggregation. Particles are just packets of energy. This world is immaterial anyway.

Everything is Energy. All is One.

Do lobsters feel pain? (source) Do you feel pain? I do not know. How could I know? Small simple questions indicating the answers to all major philosophical questions… Only 1 (Leibniz, monads) exists. Everything else is a tautology. (Wittgenstein, mathematics) You can understand only you. Only you can feel your self. You can only talk about your self because only you exist. See the whole cosmos through self-reference…

Every kind of knowledge is tautological in nature. [see “Knowledge. Tautology.” @ Blogger]
We can only know what we already know.
And although we like to believe that we can get over the past,
our future is always stagnant in that original first thought ever made…

The only thing we can control is our mind.
The only thing that exists is our mind.

Our life is not our own. And yet we feel and act like it “belongs” to us. Sorrow and grief concentrate more energy. Could they be the meaning of life? Should every man seek actively his own thorns (σκόλοπες) ? (see here)

The leaf which falls down in the Fall is not consolated by the fact that new green leafs will come into existence. It cries out “I am not one of these new leafs!”. Oh you poor leaf! Where would you like to go? And where do the other leafs come from? Where is the Nothingness or the abyss which frightens you? [The World as Will and Representation]

Maybe with death we all return to the “matrix” from which we came into being in the first place, as Schopenhauer said. Maybe we are all entangled into the phenomenon of personalization – which is only an illusion (Gr. Φαινόμενον). Maybe death just destroys this kaleidoscope which makes us see “many” consciousnesses where only the One exists…

Logos is the child of our civilization, not the other way around (Durkheim, Mauss). And as Levi Strauss found out, the “σημαίνον” can easily switch places with the “σημαινόμενον”: the child becomes a parent after only one generation. How many times has our child – Logic – been a parent to things that we try to test if they are “true” based on their own parent? Aristotle defined Logos as something which can revel or conceal (απο-καλύπτει or επι-καλύπτει) things. And Heidegger geniously pointed out that the latter (the concealing function of Logos) is something we must look at carefully…

If every philosopher has logical arguments to what he says, then maybe the extreme – no matter how unlikely – is the solution: that everyone is right.

The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it. (Friedrich Nietzsche, Human, All Too Human, aph. 332) The irrational is a proposition with no convictions. What a better way to approach truth, than without any belief (axiom)?

Maybe we should go back in time to find answers to the great questions. Because when it comes to The question of “reality”, the more old the answer is the more valid it seems, as Heidegger says. To question is good, but only if the right question is asked.

And as Impresionists once upon a time tried to forget how to paint in order to paint, we must try to forget how to think in order to really think …

Note from the author

The Greek text (Harmonia Philosophica – Αντιφάσεων Αρμονία, which can be found in Google Knol or here) presents more examples in its effort to unify all philosophical theories under the same umbrella and more analysis on why being illogical could be the most logical thing to do… In any case, you can contact me directly (via email or comments in this page) to ask anything you want.


  1. Στους αντίποδες του ορθολογισμού, Λεβ Σεστώφ, εκδόσεις Printa.
  2. 10 επίκαιροι διάλογοι με τους Προσωκρατικούς, Κωνσταντίνος Βαμβακάς, εκδόσεις Σαββάλας.
  3. Άκου ανθρωπάκο, Wilhelm Reich, εκδόσεις Ιαμβλιχός.
  4. Heidegger, George Steiner, Fontana Press, 1978.
  5. Farewell to Reason, Paul K. Feyerabend, 1987, ISBN 0-86091-184-5, ISBN 0-86091-896-3.
  6. The meaning and limits of exact science (Sinn und Grenzen der exakten Wissenschaft), Max Planck.
  7. Nature and the Greeks, Erwin Schroedinger, εκδόσεις Τραυλός.
  8. Η ανθρώπινη κατάσταση, Χάννα Αρέντ, εκδόσεις Γνώση.
  9. Η εικόνα της φύσης στη σύγχρονη φυσική, Werner Heisenberg, εκδόσεις Σάκκουλα.
  10. Περί της αθανασίας του ανθρώπου, Williams James, εκδόσεις Printa.
  11. Η Μοναδολογία [La Monadologie], Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz, εκδόσεις Εκκρεμές.
  12. Η ιστορία της τρέλας, Μισέλ Φουκώ, εκδόσεις Ηριδανός.
  13. Λογικομίξ (Logicomix), Απόστολος Δοξιάδης (http://www.logicomix.com/).
  14. Το Παράδοξο, Doris Olin, εκδόσεις Οκτώ, Αθήνα, 2007.
  15. Φρήντριχ Σίλλερ, Περί της Αισθητικής Παιδείας του Ανθρώπου σε μια σειρά επιστολών.


  1. Farewell to Reason, Paul K. Feyerabend, 1987, ISBN 0-86091-184-5, ISBN 0-86091-896-3.
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton’s_law_of_universal_gravitation
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialetheism
  4. Στους αντίποδες του ορθολογισμού, Λεβ Σεστώφ, εκδόσεις Printa.
  5. 10 επίκαιροι διάλογοι με τους Προσωκρατικούς, Κωνσταντίνος Βαμβακάς, εκδόσεις Σαββάλας.

Conspiracies for Fun [The greatest conspiracies of all times – Unedited]

This Knol lists conspiracies for fun reading. Everything here is derived mainly from roumors and hearsay rather than bibliography or hard evidence. You can consider everything here as wrong and false. This is meant just for fun reading and good bed-time stories. Anything that looks serious or indeed true, is probably purely coincidental and can be treated as such… Is it? 🙂 Happy reading!!!

VISITORS: Anyone can contribute a good conspiracy!

Feel free to post your own conspiracy in a comment below!!!
> No bibliography or sources required! <

I. Scope

This Knol (article) lists conspiracies for fun, with some little details about each one. Everything written here is derived  basically from rumors and hearsay rather than bibliography or hard evidence (although even if it did I wouldn’t tell you if such bibliography or hard evidence could exist, even though many times it does exist as you can see below). You can consider everything here as wrong and false. Anything that looks serious or indeed true, is probably purely coincidental and can be treated as such. (or not? could this *really* be a conspiracy to show true things as false? Hehehe)…

The author (that is me and the readers who contribute) does not claim anything about anything written here, except the wish to help you have fun and a good discussion with friends while enjoying a good meal.

II. Conspiracies

Many conspiracy theories exist. Many conspiracy theories existed in the past. And even more conspiracy theories will exist in the future. Conspiracy theories is what makes the world go around. Conspiracy theories give people something to write about and other people something to read or talk about. But most of all conspiracy theories make us have fun and exercise our fantasy and creativity skills. And unfortunately, sometimes conspiracy theories, no matter how absurd, actually form policies or drive political decisions…

Alfred Russel Wallace

1. Conspiracy of the vaccines

There is no such thing as the “effectiveness of a vaccine”. [1] Pharmaceuticals have invented that term in order to get rich. Any search in Google about the “ineffectiveness” or the “problems” of vaccines will convince you. [2] [3] There are numerous problems with vaccines that have low rate of proved success, but are still produced and used by patients. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] The infamous founder of the Theory of Evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, was against the use of vaccines himself. He had founded (with in-depth research of the statistical data in Britain) that the extermination of specific diseases during his century was the result of the better hygiene rules followed and not of the vaccines [1]. Today many vaccines have a success percentage that is not only far off the 100% but even close to less than 50%. If you have a vaccine that has a success rate of 50%, is that a good vaccine or not? If someone gets sick even though he/she was vaccinated, can you really say that the vaccine worked? Can you really be sure that the fact that a percentage of the people vaccinated did not get sick is due to the vaccine? The pharmaceutical companies seem to rule the ground of medical research and the H1N1 fiasco showed that they can even rule the world… [9]

2.Conspiracy of the B2 bomber with anti-gravity devices

The US military bombers B2 use anti-gravity devices which utilize electromagnetic fields in order to nullify the effect of the power Newton first described. The US government has somehow acquired know-how for creating these devices – the most possible way seems to be the contact the government had with aliens. This seems to be the same technology UFOs use. [10] Some even claim that the technology was first developed by the Nazis in WWII and then stolen by the Americans after they won the war.


3. Conspiracy of the Earth growing!

The Earth is growing at a steady pace. There is no such thing as continent drifting. What we see as continents changing is the mere effect of the fact that our planet accumulates dust from its journey through space and is thus growing and becoming larger every minute we speak.


4. No Free Energy conspiracy against Tesla et al

Free energy is the holy grail of science. Or is it not? Does company-controlled mainstream science REALLY wish for the people to have free energy? Check out cases like the one of James L. Griggs [1] (use of shock waves and fluids for the production of energy) or Prof. Alexander Chernetski [2] (use physical-vacuum energy or zero-point energy to produce electricity) and you will know that there is no such thing as “free thinking” in our modern capitalistic society.

The most renown case of course is the case of Nikola Tesla. It is known that Tesla had invented a way to transfer electrical energy through Earth (via the soil) in a way that could render the use of electric cable useless. Moreover, the way Tesla invented foe electricity distribution did not include power losses so electricity could in that way be available to all the inhabitants of the planet at minimum costs! The electrical conglomerates have been hiding that truth ever since, in order to keep gaining great profits from their selling of energy at high prices. Tesla also mentioned a strange motor that could move a plane and that would look nothing like any other motor [3]. And you can bet that even though he had a contract to build such an engine, such an engine was never built…

5. Conspiracy of the oil ending

The oil companies want you to believe that the oil is ending and, thus, increase the prices of oil. But the oil has been “ending” for more than 50 years now. [11] For more than 50 years we hear over and over again “valid” scientific theories of the oil ending – but we see no oil ending after all!! Recently some scientists posted papers which claim that oil is constantly and continuously produced in the sub-surface of the planet and that the “oil ending” argument is just a myth. [12] [13] [14]

Who should we believe? Maybe wait until 2500 to see if oil actually ends?

Julian Huxley

6. Conspiracy of Eugenics on lower classes

Many philosophers and proponents of the theory of Evolution were in favor of Eugenics in the beginning of the 20th century. Julian Huxley, who later became the first president of UNESCO, said that…

“The lowest strata are reproducing too fast. Therefore… they must not have too easy access to relief or hospital treatment lest the removal of the last check on natural selection should make it too easy for children to be produced or to survive; long unemployment should be a ground for sterilisation” [15]

This plan was almost spoiled by Hitler who gave a very “bad name” to eugenics. But that was dealt with by just changing the name: from “eugenics” to “genetics”. So now there is a great coordinated effort to apply eugenics to the lower classes populations via gene control, genetics etc. [16] Everyday we are bombarded with news on how “that gene is responsible for that” or “that gene is the cause of that behavior” so that we get used to the idea of eugenics and genetic control. A good and deep conspiracy…

Eugenics was and is still used by “civilized” countries (see here). And there are many who believe that vaccines in the Third World are a tool for controlling growing population… (see here, here, here and here)

Michelson–Morley experiment apparatus

7. The Michelson–Morley experiment

The famous experiment of the two researches which contrubuted so much in the Special Relativity Theory is false. Ether actually exists [17] and science cannot hide it anymore…

Many doubt this experiment’s results. (see here and here) The experiment of Morley DID measure a difference in light’s velocity, which was considered to be an “experimental error” (source). Morley himself was not convinced of his own results, and went on to conduct additional experiments with Dayton Miller. Miller worked on increasingly large experiments. (see here and here) Miller consistently measured a small positive effect that varied with each rotation of the device, the sidereal day and on a yearly basis. His measurements amounted to only 10 km/s instead of the 30 km/s expected from the Earth’s orbital motion alone. He remained convinced this was due to partial entrainment, though he did not attempt a detailed explanation. [18] Michelson experiment – even if we accept it – showed that the detection of a common ether was impossible, NOT that the speed of light is independent than the movement of the source! There are theories which predict ether dragging and they postulate that since the Earth is dragging ether as it moves in space, we cannot detect aether (since we are moving with it). The Many-Minds Relativity theory solves this “problem” by just accepting the logical postulate that each mind has an immaterial aether of its own. In any case there are now many examples of light speed anisotropies (see here for example) and many theories which predict/ accept/ explain such anisotropies (see “Modern searches for Lorentz violation” and “Lorenz violating models“), like theories for quantum gravity for example.

What is more, there are many phenomena which are observed and were speeds greater than that of light are observed – e.g. the EPR paradox, Scharnhorst effect, superluminal motion seen in certain astronomical objects or the galaxies which in some models of the expanding universe are drifting away from each other in much greater speeds than that of light [19].

Why would they want you to believe in the theory of relativity? Maybe because they do not want you to know that signals can travel with a speed greater than that of light, something that would immediatelly imply that we can travel back in time (Godel has proved it after all)…

(could ether be the “dark matter” we have just now “discovered”?)

8. The SETI coverup

The infamous search for extraterrestrial life is nothing more than a hoax. The US government knows there is life outside our planet. The SETI program was continuously looking for analog alien signals (which would require vast amounts of energy just to reach Earth) while they did not conduct any search for digital 0-1 signals (that we even now use). The only goal was to take millions of dollars for “research” while at the same time people were told that “well, we found not aliens – we are alone guys!”… Scientists have already found pulsars, which are deliberately characterized as “unknown radiowaves sources” while their signals are repeated like the ones SETI was supposed to be searching for. That is why the Catholic Church made a weird statement that “all beings even from outside Earth are all creatures of the same God”, in a time when the pulsar research was at its high peak…

9. Nuclear tests, Cancer & Ozone layer cover-up

Governments try to convince us that it is WE, who destroyed the ozone layer by using our refrigerators and our air conditioning. However this is just to cover-up a very simple but horrifying truth: that the hundreds of surface and atmospheric nuclear tests performed by USA, USSR and China are the ones responsible for the ozone layer disaster! More than 600 nuclear blasts in the atmosphere of Earth, surpass the effects of any possible nuclear war that could happen on the planet! Such vast nuclear energy unleashed without ANY control into the air destroyed our planet (and us). “After 1955 the level of radiocarbon (C-14) in the atmosphere, and thus in living organisms, almost doubled in about 10 years”, Pier Andrea Mandò, head of the Florence division of the INFN, explained in a statement. (see here) It is not a coincidence that the “Ozone layer disaster” was “suddenly discovered” after the surface nuclear tests were banned… And after that cancer was “suddenly” starting taking its toll on human lives…

10. The UFO conspiracy

Astronaut Edgar Mitchell said it loud and clear: Aliens have contacted humans several times but governments have hidden the truth for 60 years, the sixth man to walk on the moon has claimed. Apollo 14 astronaut Dr Edgar Mitchell, said he was aware of many UFO visits to Earth during his career with NASA but each one was covered up. He also said that people knowledgeable about an alleged crash of an alien spaceship in Roswell, N.M., shared the information with him [1, 2, 3, 4].

11. The era of Satan

The times we live in after the Enlightenment are dark times. The era of Satan.

19th century was the era of revolutions against the establishment, part of which was the church. The era of optimism. The era of communism. The era of logic. Nietzsche [Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche] wrote that God is dead and everyone cheered. Few people understood that the great thinker wrote that phrase as a sad conclusion [4] and not as a triumphant cry for science, which he hated as much as he hated rationalism (he was the founder of irrationalism after all). For sure the church made mistakes. But the mistakes were due to NOT following the teachings of Jesus and not because it did! Unfortunately, few noticed that and the hordes of barbarians found saw a great opportunity to express their hatred and the “My arm aches, let’s cut the head” mentality prevailed. The City [Κωνσταντινούπολη] has fallen. The barbarians won. Now they were just solidifying their power. [from “Against Enlightenment: The Enlightenment was not light. The Enlightenment is darkness.” article]

The poems of Marx to Satan and the image of Lucifer on the cover of the first Encyclopedia of Diderot, fake occult human sacrifices ceremonies at CERN near an unneeded status of Shiva [1, 2], the way Hollywood promotes satanism and pedophilia [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9] or the easiness with which mainstream media promote satanists (see here for example) clearly show the character of a heavily anti-Christian era. People is the new power. And the new power wants anything old destroyed. Not because it is wrong. But simply because it is old. God and Christ, along with society, are dead. Now the individual (or nature) is the new god…

12. Theory of Relativity is inherently flawed

Yes, I know what you think: There are many lunatics who claim that they have found errors in the Relativity theory of Einstein. But no, this is not the case. There is a basic flaw in the theory of relativity which – despite what most people like to think – is not solved. It is called the ‘Clock Paradox’ (a version of which is the ‘Twins Paradox’) and in summary it goes like this: If Person A is moving at a great speed in relation to Person B, then time moves slower for the person moving (Person A). However and since motion is relevant, Person A will also see Person B as the one moving so – according to his perspective – time for Person B will move slower! Hence, the paradox.

Many people believe that the paradox is solved either by invoking the role of acceleration or by invoking the relativity of simultaneity.

But before we go there, it is very important to understand that all the solutions of the paradox do not actually refer to the ‘pure’ Clocks Paradox but to another convenient version of the paradox called ‘Twins Paradox’. In the Twins Paradox (which is a version of the more ‘pure’ Clocks Paradox mentioned above) we have two 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, each should paradoxically find the other to have aged more slowly.

  • The acceleration ‘solution’: The solution appears to be the acceleration experienced by the twin who travels in space when he turns back his spaceship to return back to Earth. This acceleration differentiates his journey from the journey of the other twin, who cannot mistakenly believe that he was travelling (since he did not experience such an acceleration). [source]
  • The relativity of simultaneity ‘solution’: 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 so there is no symmetry between the spacetime paths of the two twins. [source]

However neither solution is correct and neither solution (most importantly) solves the initial pure version of the paradox.

Regarding the acceleration solution, this solution does indeed justifies a difference between the two twins due to acceleration, but this difference is on top the time dilation caused due to the constant speed of every twin. So it kind of solves part of the problem, but not the whole problem. [source] That is why the original paradox where two people simply move in relation to one another without any acceleration is basically untouched by this ‘solution’ which offers nothing more than a cover-up of the main issue here. What is more this solution is also useless in another version of the Twins Paradox which has the two twins using two spaceships travelling at opposite directions! In this case both twins will experience the same acceleration at the turning point of their travel in order to return to Earth, so there will be absolutely no way of differentiating one from another and, thus, decide which one aged less. [source]

As far as the relativity of simultaneity is concerned, this solution claims to solve the problem by claiming that the path of the travelling twin will be different than the path followed by the staying-at-Earth twin. These two different paths can then explain the difference in time lapse, but there are some major problems here as well. First of all, how do you know which path belongs to which twin?! Both twins could argue that they are the stationary ones and the other twin is moving! [source] What is more, the solution again does not answer the pure Clocks Paradox which involves no ‘turning around’ but just two people moving in relation to one another.

To the above one could add many other objections to the interpretation of Relativity Theory: If the notion of ‘time’ in the theory is the notion of time showing on a clock [source], if perhaps the Many Worlds interpretation could be used, if adding Earth as a reference point to the paradox is valid [source] and so on and so forth [another example of relative discussions can be found here]

However what is important is that the Clocks’ Paradox is not solved at all. The Theory of Relativity claims that time is relative and yet, based on this paradox, we are forced to revisit what we think we learnt for time based on that theory…

13. Geo-engineering

USA’s secret agencies have undertaken a great project to geo-engineer the planet in order to fight global warming. (and perhaps assist their own goals of global control by altering the ionosphere in ways that support their plans) Watch CIA Director John Brennan discussing Stratospheric Aerosol Injection (SAI), a.k.a. “Chemtrails” at the CFR here.

Other Small Conspiracies

1. The dark side: NASA’s Grail gravity twin satellites slammed deliberately into the dark side of the Moon after their fuel was depleted. [source] This is not the first time NASA sends a spacecraft to crash on the dark side of the moon. The Lunar Orbiter 2, which took the infamous photo of the century, also had the same fate… [source] Why crash in the dark side where no one will be able to see it? What kind of weird science is that?!?

2. The Majorana fermion: One of the biggest discoveries of 2012 was the discovery of the mysterious Majorana fermion, which was detected in a nanowire according to Dutch nanoscientist Leo Kouwenhoven. These fermions are in the verge of matter and anti-matter: they are the anti-particles of them selves. They are as mysterious as the physicist who predicted their existence: Majorana disappeared during a boat trip leaving no trace at 1938… Was the fact that he discovered the essence of One [source] that got him?

3. Ice lakes: Two attempts to drill down to under-the-ice lakes in Antarctica (lake Vostok and lake Ellsworth) have been cancelled due to weird accidents. [source] The mysterious lakes, which have been isolated for millions of years, have secrets which they do not want to be revealed…

4. The meat conspiracy: Scientists have been making some funny claims that humans could be engineered to be allergic to meat, so that we need less food and resources in general as a planet in the future. [source] After a while, scientists started “discovering” some bugs causing humans an allergy to… meat! [source] Do you believe in coincidences? [Bonus: Check out here for another related “conspiracy” – The insect eating]

III. Conclusion

There is no conclusion! Conspiracies are true… errrr, I meant fun! 🙂
Hope you enjoyed them and hope you contribute some more on your own!!!
The truth is “out there”, hmmm… I meant “in here”~!!!!


  1. VACCINATION A DELUSION, Alfred Russel Wallace LL.D. DUBL., D.C.L. OXON., F.R.S., London, 1898
  2. Google search for vaccines effectiveness exaggerated [example]
  3. Google search for vaccines effectiveness exaggerated [example 2]
  4. http://www.whale.to/m/incao.html
  5. http://www.whale.to/m/incao.html
  6. Is HPV Vaccine Benefit Exaggerated?, MedicineNet.com
  7. Review: pneumococcal vaccination does not prevent pneumonia, bacteraemia, bronchitis, or mortality, Evid Based Nurs 2009;12:74 doi:10.1136/ebn.12.3.74.
  8. http://www.naturalnews.com/022611.html
  9. http://ezinearticles.com/?The-Vaccination-Conspiracy&id=2471228 (old reference, not working)
  10. Boeing Grasp Google search results
  11. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/29/AR2005072901672.html
  12. http://www.info-quest.org/documents/newoil.html
  13. http://www.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38645
  14. http://www.aapg.org/explorer/2002/11nov/abiogenic.cfm
  15. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Huxley
  16. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20028
  17. http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/jse_20_2_gift.pdf
  18. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment
  19. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light
Exit mobile version