To common objections

It is very interesting to explore the difficulties associated with perceiving and evaluating a physical model based on Einstein's principles and theories (Chapter 2). Adherence to the relationships between mathematical and natural laws is so unusual and incomprehensible in current physical hypotheses that these principles are not accepted in the contemporary scientific environment. In the following section, we will examine some of the fundamental objections to the "Reciprocal Physics" model.

OBJECTION: Of the most common objections in scientific circles is the question: "Where does the energy that acts from all directions and in all directions actually come from?" 

ANSWER: Reciprocal Physics is not based on scientific procedures but on systemic methods. To illustrate this: if the builders of pyramids, Greek, and Roman temples had first studied where the materials for construction came from, we might still be climbing trees today. The purpose of systemic disciplines is not to clarify where the material comes from, but how to work with it. This task belongs to scientific disciplines. The material for building pyramids, temples (and even the material for constructing the Universe!) was always available. Technical disciplines must learn to work with this material, and that is their task. How nature handles the material from which the Universe is assembled, in the case of Einstein's theories being valid, is illustrated by the principles of Reciprocal Physics.

Another line of objections focuses on attempts to disprove Reciprocal Physics through assumptions. For example, Richard Phillips Feynman, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist, attempted to disprove this model with the assumption of passivity in his "Lectures on Physics" in 1965.

OBJECTION: The Earth, while moving around the Sun, would encounter more particles coming from the front side than from the rear (similar to running in the rain, where the rain is stronger on the front of your face than on the back of your head). Therefore, the Earth would eventually stop due to this resistance. In such a case, the mechanism of gravity cannot work. 

ANSWER: This is a great example of attempting to disprove a hypothesis through mere assumption, which is common practice in the scientific world but would be considered unacceptable in systemic disciplines. The argument that the Earth would stop due to particle resistance is based on the notion of a passive Universe. Reciprocal Physics, on the other hand, demonstrates that the Universe is highly active and dynamic. According to this model, the Earth could very well "break free" and move out of the solar system in an active environment without stopping. Feynman's method had to be what it was, otherwise his quantum physics could have been easily challenged—which would undoubtedly have been very uncomfortable.

Some scientific objections stem from a lack of understanding of the facts, which is itself fascinating.

NÁMITKA: Pokud by působil nějaký vnější gravitační tlak, a to stejný v každém bodě a každém směru, podle Pascalova zákona by se situace měla podobně projevit i v kapalině. Tedy by se i dvě tělesa ponořená do kapaliny měla vzájemně gravitačně ovlivňovat. Takový jev však nenastává.  

ANSWER: This objection is somewhat misguided. It's interesting how it seems as if someone believes that if something is subjected to uniform gravitational pressure from all sides, it should behave entirely differently from what actually happens. But consider this: if you throw a stone into the sea, what happens? The stone simply sinks to the bottom and continues to descend regardless of the depth. This indicates that some form of gravity is indeed at work between two bodies immersed in a fluid—such as between the Earth and the stone.

It's fascinating how many objections in modern science still arise from the notion of solid, impenetrable surfaces of objects, which is a bit like saying that technologies like smartphones are nonsense because we imagined in the 17th century that everything would work on mechanical clocks.

OBJECTION: The force between irregular bodies depends on their orientation. A cylindrical satellite, for example, would be pushed toward Earth depending on how it is oriented. However, this contradicts current measurements. 

ANSWER: So, if I understand correctly, the objection is that the force between irregular bodies changes with their orientation, and this should be a problem because it supposedly conflicts with existing measurements. It's important to recall that, as early as the 20th century, scientists discovered that matter consists of atoms, which are composed of nucleons. These nucleons, which we can think of as small spheres, are impermeable to "energy." No matter how you orient the satellite, the shape of the nucleons remains unchanged. They are simply small spheres that retain their shape once formed.

Thus, the problem with gravity here relates to geometric principles. Regarding spheres—no matter how you orient them, their surface area relative to any direction remains the same. This means you can rotate a sphere as much as you like, and it will still be the same sphere. It's like saying that rotating a pizza changes its size. It's no wonder that existing measurements attempting to accommodate this unusual claim are inconsistent.

OBJECTION: Two wooden spheres should be attracted to each other with the same force as two spheres of lead of the same size because gravitational force does not depend on their geometry. However, this contradicts all existing measurements. 

ANSWER: This is an interesting objection that assumes all spheres, regardless of material, should attract each other with the same force. However, early in the 20th century, scientists discovered that matter consists of atoms, which are further divided into nucleons. These nucleons are, as experts would say, impermeable to energy. So, if you have a lead sphere containing many more nucleons than a similarly sized wooden sphere, it should also have a much greater "surface area" of clusters of these nucleons.

Thus, the gravitational force between two lead spheres will indeed be greater than between two wooden spheres because lead contains more nucleons than wood. It's like saying that two heavy trucks and two light cars would attract each other with the same force. If you've ever tried to move a truck on your own, you know it's not a walk in the park. Scientific measurements that ignore this simple fact might be somewhat surprised to find that lead spheres indeed exhibit greater gravity than wooden ones.

OBJECTION: Each of these two objections is sufficient to demonstrate that this law of gravity is invalid. 

ANSWER: To this, I can only say: such an argument is reminiscent of the medieval Inquisition. It is truly unfortunate that our science still uses outdated notions about the nature of matter that have long been surpassed. Technical fields, on the other hand, must rely on real, verified facts. The question of the absolute impermeability of material bodies to gravitational phenomena, in this context, becomes more a matter of belief than science—and technical fields do not operate on belief.

If these objections were valid, light would never pass through glass; everything would stop at the glass, and electrons, rays, or cosmic radiation would not exist at all, as they would immediately halt on any surface. That would be truly remarkable—imagine a world without light and cosmic radiation; now that would be a "beautiful" visualization.

Many objections are based on unproven and unnatural divisions of energy into kinetic and potential forms. For example... 

OBJECTION: Two bodies in contact (for example, the Earth and the Moon) have a certain amount of energy, which is the sum of their kinetic and potential energy. According to this reasoning, no work is done because the gravitational force acting on the body is always perpendicular to its path, and therefore no energy is consumed. 

ANSWER: Well, that's interesting— it seems that dividing energy into kinetic and potential forms is essentially unproven. Science adopted this approach because otherwise, there would be energy discrepancies in the orbits of the Moon, planets, and similar systems that no one could explain. So, rather than seeking real solutions, a "crutch" was created to address the inexplicable issues within the existing physical model.

In Reciprocal Physics, such crutches are not needed. Here, a single type of energy suffices because having multiple types of energy would be like wanting one system with five different keys, each unlocking something different. In nature and mathematics, this is contrary to the simple and elegant laws that tell us that all we need is one type of energy. So imagine how physics would look with one key instead of five—a much simpler system, right?

Some objections concern the contradiction between Einstein's theories and current scientific opinions. For example:

ANSWER: Clearly, there is an issue with this claim. Indeed, Einstein's theses are in conflict only with the authors' own views on the nature of things in quantum physics. Quantum physics includes elements that are completely unnecessary in the Reciprocal Physics system, leading to a whole set of redundant interactions. It is not surprising that quantum physics comes into conflict with Einstein's theses. It is interesting how easily different hypotheses can be created in the scientific world, but technical methods then reveal them to be practically unusable. It's like having a large library full of books that no one reads—beautiful but useless.

General Objections: These involve objections that cannot be specified and encompass a wide range of different questions. For example:

OBJECTION: Newton's and Kepler's laws, along with other similar theories, support the current system. 

ANSWER: On the contrary. The formulas of these laws can be derived directly through mathematical and logical methods in Reciprocal Physics, which unfortunately is not possible in current scientific models. It is interesting that some claim these formulas cannot be derived correctly and that only incorrect methods can lead to their acquisition. This idea is entirely mistaken—it's like saying that the correct method cannot get you to the result while incorrect paths will. The next time you face mathematical problems, remember this delightful notion that when everything else fails, you can achieve success by doing it wrong! 

OBJECTION: Incorrect astrophysical arguments are used, which are in conflict with current astrophysical observations. 

ANSWER: This objection needs a bit more clarification. Incorrect astrophysical arguments refer to the hypotheses of current science, which is a fundamental difference. For example, energy plays a completely different role in Reciprocal Physics compared to current scientific theories. Reciprocal Physics does not use terms like potential, kinetic, antimatter, or dark energy, which remain empty concepts within this system. In Reciprocal Physics, there is only one type of energy. The universe is, in fact, incredibly simple, as Einstein himself assumed during his lifetime.

The final category of objections, when lacking in arguments, often diverges into mysticism. This is frequently done in a manner that appears to be scientific expression. For example:

OBJECTION: There is much that is unknown in the universe; not all of its corners have been explored. We also do not know all the laws of nature, so there could be some special gravitational force, and so on. 

ANSWER: Reciprocal Physics is a compact system that encompasses all of nature. Its principles can explain all known phenomena in the universe. If you try to introduce any additional natural laws, forces, or even some new "energy," you encounter problems with the system's compactness. Most of what is currently labeled as "unknown" (as noted by the inquirer) is simply a result of contemporary science dealing with a model of physics that doesn't actually exist. It is no wonder that it is surrounded by incomprehensible phenomena. If it were focused on the true model of physics, everything would be much clearer.

Now, let's ask: Why would this system need any new forces, energies, or laws when everything can be simply explained by the principles described in Chapter 3? Trying to introduce new natural laws into Reciprocal Physics is like adding unnecessary gears to a perfectly functioning clockwork. Clearly, it would cause the entire system to become inconsistent. Therefore, if Einstein's theories hold true, there cannot be any new law or force that contradicts the objective laws of nature. It's so simple that one must wonder why everyone hasn't grasped it yet!

OBJECTION: Several objections concern the possibility of proving the validity of Reciprocal Physics. It should be relatively easy to demonstrate the correctness of many phenomena that current physics cannot explain. For example, the principle of reflection and refraction of light... 

ANSWER: This is true. However, our scientists continue to think within the confines of their own hypotheses, SI units, and similar frameworks. They attempt to explain phenomena described by Reciprocal Physics within a system they themselves consider scientific. Yet, nature seems to have ignored that our scientists have their own boundaries regarding how the universe, physics, and other natural laws should function.

Phenomena that do not fit within these boundaries are simply deemed non-existent by science. Our scientists somehow forgot to tell nature how it should behave in order to be properly assessed and studied by their methods. But nature stubbornly refuses to conform to the rules set by our scientists.