I have not read Tony Yuan's article, but I respond to its title. The Lorentz transformations have no physical justification. For this is a normal coordinate transformation at a fixed value of c, without taking into account the change in the length of the y- and z-axes of a moving coordinate system along the x-axis in a limited spherical space. In a space limited by a sphere, when the origin of coordinates moves along the x-axis, the length of the x-axis remains unchanged, and the two axes perpendicular to this axis are shortened in proportion (1 - l 2 / R2 )- 1 / 2, and when moving, they acquire a factor of β = (1 - v2 / c2)- 1 / 2, because here the numerator and denominator of the fraction are divided by the same number - the value of time in the chosen system.

The system of measurement in rectangular Cartesian coordinates provides units of length along the corresponding axes in the form of straight line segments with a length proportional to the length of the full axis (in a limited space). Then a circle with radius R with different scales of units of measurement along different axes will be formally described by the equation of an ellipse, remaining the same circle. Having informed the world that at a speed of movement v commensurate with the speed of light c, a circle becomes an ellipse, the scholastic relativists were mistaken.

Vladimir A. Lebedev

"The Lorentz transformations have no physical justification."

That's right. I've shown it by analyzing different derivations of LT from the university literature. They all lead to contradictions!

And with this, SRT is nonsense. It describes our reality but uses aids (LT) that do not match reality!

Jan Slowak Vladimir A. Lebedev

OMG, this is a hilarious and concise concentrate of pure ignorance.

I challenge you to point out a single mathematical mistake in this rigorous derivation of the Lorentz transformation which involves no more than 8th grade math: https://youtu.be/6N2mH3-khUg

V. G. Rousseau

"OMG, this a hilarious and concise concentrate of pure ignorance."

You don't have to be insulting, that doesn't befit a highly educated person. A scientist should confront his opponents with scientific arguments (physics, mathematics and not least logic).

I started watching the video you attached but stopped pretty soon after I heard a wolf howling! What does the wolf have to do with LT?

I challenge you to answer the question in my article

Preprint A Logical Critique of Length Contraction in Special Relativity

How long is the bus?

Jan Slowak

"A scientist should confront his opponents with scientific arguments (physics, mathematics and not least logic)."

Why don't you do it, then?

"I started watching the video you attached but stopped pretty soon after I heard a wolf howling! What does the wolf have to do with LT?"

You mean that you fled like a coward? That is reminiscent of all pseudo-scientists when we present them scientific arguments that they are wrong.

"I challenge you to answer the question in my article"

Challenge accepted: The conclusion right after equation (7) is non sense, since contracted length (as proven by Relativity) is a quantity that depends on the frame, as opposed to proper length. Your claim that "this leads to a logical contradiction" is therefore wrong and your paper is flawed.

Note: I'm still waiting for you to point out a single mistake in my tutorial!

V. G. Rousseau

You were the one who started the insult. If you think there is something wrong with my articles, my books or my comments, you have every right to counter-argue. You were the one who wrote to me first.

"You mean that you fled like a coward? That is reminiscent of all pseudo-scientist when we present them scientific arguments that they are wrong."

You are insulting again. You have NOT presented any arguments that I am wrong.

"Challenge accepted: The conclusion right after equation (7) is non sense, since contracted length (as proven by Relativity) is a quantity that depends on the frame, as opposed to proper length. Your claim that "this leads to a logical contradiction" is therefore wrong and your paper is flawed."

You can't use "as proven by Relativity" as a counterargument!!!

"I'm still waiting for you to point out a single mistake in my tutorial!"

I have not said anywhere that I would review your video. I have reviewed the derivation of LT from four different works, all of which lead to contradictions.

Jan Slowak

"You were the one who started the insult."

I didn't insult you, I only said that your paper "is a hilarious and concise concentrate of pure ignorance", which is the truth as any real scientist will confirm to you.

"You are insulting again."

Nope, this is a diagnostic. Not quite the same thing.

"You can't use "as proven by Relativity" as a counterargument!!!"

Yes I can. If you had a single clue of what Einstein's Relativity is, you would know that:

- It is a theory that claims that some measurable quantities are relative to the frame in which they are measured. These include time and lengths (among other quantities).

- 120 years of daily experiments have proven that the claims of Einstein's Relativity are correct.

So, there is nothing you can do about this experimental fact: Length is dependent on the frame in which it is measured. You can cry as much as you want, the Universe doesn't care: It stills behave the way Einstein described it.

"I have not said anywhere that I would review your video. I have reviewed the derivation of LT from four different works, all of which lead to contradictions."

That is precisely why I am challenging you to point out a single mistake in my derivation: https://youtu.be/6N2mH3-khUg

V. G. Rousseau

"I didn't insult you, I only said that your paper "is a hilarious and concise concentrate of pure ignorance", which is the truth as any real scientist will confirm to you."

If you say my article is then you are insulting me. Anyone can confirm that.

"It is a theory that claims that some measurable quantities are relative to the frame in which they are measured. These include time and lengths (among other quantities)"

Yes, these measurable quantities, time and length, are relative. This is clearly shown in my article

Preprint A Logical Critique of Length Contraction in Special Relativity

L0 = 10 m, L1 = 9.43 m and L2 = 7.45 m

My question was: How long is the bus? You don't have to write more if you don't answer my question.

"120 years of daily experiments have proven that the claims of Einstein's Relativity are correct."

Has anyone done a 120x365 experiment? Please DO NOT write nonsense.

"Length is dependent on the frame in which it is measured."

How long is the bus?

"That is precisely why I am challenging you to point out a single mistake in my derivation"

If you answer my question AND if you transcribe your video into text then I can do a review of what you write there.

Jan Slowak

Your entire argumentation boils down to "I don't like the existence of length contraction because I don't understand it." Since you don't understand it, you're also not capable of understanding that your question has been answered properly here and on other threads. So you are trapped in an endless circle of unwillingness or incapability to face reality.

We can't help you with that at this point, you can either start reading about the experiments that verify time dilatation and length contraction and thus come to a grasp of reality or you stay in your ignorant current state, but if you chose the second option, actual physicists like V. G. Rousseau will have only the choice between laughter or anger with regards to your insults against real science (and laughter is the healthier option).

Jan Slowak

"My question was: How long is the bus? You don't have to write more if you don't answer my question."

The answer to your question is in your paper. Did you even read what you wrote?

Let me answer clearly:

- The proper length of the bus is 10 m (that's the length as measured in the frame where the bus is at rest).

- The length of the bus in one of the frames you mentioned is 9.43 m.

- The length of the bus in the other frame you mentioned is 7.45 m.

I just answered your question. Now, since you are claiming there is a contradiction, I am challenging you to point out a single mistake in this rigorous derivation of the Lorentz transformation which proves the length contraction formula with no more than 8th grade math: https://youtu.be/6N2mH3-khUg

Jürgen Weippert

"Your entire argumentation boils down to "I don't like the existence of length contraction because I don't understand it." Since you don't understand it, you're also not capable of understanding that your question has been answered properly here and on other threads. So you are trapped in an endless circle of unwillingness or incapability to face reality."

I haven't said I don't like length contraction. It's poor argumentation that you write something about me that you have no way of knowing what it's like. It seems you are doing the same thing as many others when they do NOT have good counterarguments: they insult the person instead of to talk about the theme.

"We can't help you with that at this point, you can either start reading about the experiments that verify time dilatation and length contraction and thus come to a grasp of reality or you stay in your ignorant current state, but if you chose the second option, actual physicists like V. G. Rousseau will have only the choice between laughter or anger with regards to your insults against real science (and laughter is the healthier option)."

I didn't ask for help in my article. And who are the "we" you're talking about?

Here's the thing: no experiments can confirm a false theory.

You mention "reality" but then answer my question: How long is the bus?

Because we have one bus and three lengths. Ask everyone else in the group "we" and ask them to answer the question.

V. G. Rousseau

"The answer to your question is in your paper."

"Let me answer clearly:"

You don't have to repeat what is in my article, just answer my question. But you can't, no one can.

Because we only have one reality, a bus, and according to SRT we have three lengths in my example. Here there is still a contradiction that makes SRT considered nonsense. Or do "you" have another explanation? You can't have that, not a scientific one, you only insult others who oppose SRT.

"I just answered your question."

You have NOT done that.

"since you are claiming there is a contradiction, I am challenging you to point out a single mistake in this rigorous derivation of the Lorentz transformation which proves the length contraction formula with no more than 8th grade math"

Yes, it's a contradiction: one bus and three lengths!

My previous comment:

If you answer my question AND if you TRANSCRIBE your video into text then I can do a review of what you write there.

Jan Slowak

"> "I just answered your question."

You have NOT done that."

I clearly answered your question. You asked what the length of the bus is, and I told your that its proper length is 10 m, its length is 9.43 m in some other frame, and 7.45 in yet another frame. I can even add the fact that there exist a frame in which its length is 1 m.

This is the answer to your question. There is no contradiction. The theory of relativity has been tested experimentally for 120 years, and the experimental results are predicted by the theory with an astounding accuracy.

If you believe that Relativity is wrong, then quit using all modern electronic devices that would not exist without it, and this starts with the computer that your are using in order to post your BS.

And go see a psychiatrist!

V. G. Rousseau

"I clearly answered your question. You asked what the length of the bus is, and I told your that its proper length is 10 m, its length is 9.43 m in some other frame, and 7.45 in yet another frame. I can even add the fact that there exist a frame in which its length is 1 m."

Nonsense! We only have one bus, it cannot have three different lengths at the same time.

"This is the answer to your question. There is no contradiction."

Nonsense!

"The theory of relativity has been tested experimentally for 120 years, and the experimental results are predicted by the theory with an astounding accuracy."

If you include MME among these experiments, you can check

Book Autopsy of Special Relativity

"If you believe that Relativity is wrong ..."

Yes, I am convinced! You can prove me wrong, but don't do it by insulting me.

"And go see a psychiatrist!"

This is a clear insult!

Jan Slowak

Dude, do you realize that you are making a fool of yourself on the web?

For your information, Jack G. Liu is not an scientist, he is only a pseudo-scientist, and what he says is therefore totally worthless.

"This is a clear insult!"

Take it as an insult if you want, it is your own choice to behave the way you do, and you have to accept the consequences that go with it. We explained to you how you are ridiculously wrong, you have the choice to stop your insanity, but you decided to strive in that direction. You got what you wanted!

V. G. Rousseau

OMG, this is a hilarious and concise concentrate of pure ignorance.

Have you noticed that no one is joining this discussion? There are two reasons for this.

First - There is no interest. ...it has long been clear to everyone that the Lorentz transformations are ordinary coordinate transformations under certain conditions and have nothing to do with physics.

Second - the discussion began with a boorish remark by Mr. R.

He should learn some politeness from his co-authors, with whom he has been writing "his" works for a quarter of a century.

I sympathize with Mr. S.!

...further - silence

V. G. Rousseau

I have done an analysis of your article:

Einstein’s cat: a thought experiment on the universality of time dilation

Preprint Analysis of the article: Einstein’s cat: a thought experimen...

Vladimir A. Lebedev

The reason why there is not much further engagement right here is because real physicists have jobs in which they do actual physics. Debunking obvious nonsense posted by people on the internet, who pretend to be eager to discuss, but actually only want a projection surface for their ignorance of reality, as Mr. Slowak demonstrates in every single post, isn't in the job description for which we get paid.

Jan Slowak

> "I have done an analysis of your article"

Perfect! Let me know when it will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and I will debunk all your nonsense.

V. G. Rousseau

"Perfect! Let me know when it will be published in a peer-reviewed journal, and I will debunk all your nonsense."

You wrote earlier:

Note: I'm still waiting for you to point out a single mistake in my tutorial!

I have written a whole article about YOUR article where I point out your errors. Isn't that enough? You should have said that one can criticize your article ONLY by publishing the criticism in a peer-reviewed journal.

Stand by what you say!

Jan Slowak

> "I have written a whole article about YOUR article where I point out your errors"

Since you insist, here is my detailed response.

The author of this “analysis” claims to expose flaws in my paper Einstein’s Cat: A Thought Experiment on the Universality of Time Dilation (Physics Education, IOP, 2025). Unfortunately, his critique collapses faster than a light clock in a black hole. Let’s examine his points.

1. Misunderstanding the purpose of a thought experiment

He argues that my scenario is “unrealistic” because the Sync-or-Die clock is fictional and no real cat is involved. This is like criticizing Schrödinger because nobody has actually put a quantum cat in a sealed radioactive box. In physics, thought experiments are designed to isolate principles, not to serve as engineering proposals. Mine is no different — it’s a controlled mental laboratory to test logical consistency in relativity.

2. Clinging to the “only light clocks dilate” misconception

His central thesis is that time dilation comes from “the geometry of light paths” and doesn’t apply to mechanical clocks. This is directly contradicted by:

• The Lorentz transformation, which makes no distinction about clock mechanisms.
• Experimental evidence from atomic clocks (Hafele–Keating), muon decay in storage rings, and GPS satellite synchronization — none of which involve bouncing photons in mirrors. If his claim were true, the GPS system would be wrong by ~10 km/day, airline clocks would drift from ground clocks, and particle accelerator data would make no sense. Spoiler: they all work.

3. Misrepresenting my paradox

He suggests my scenario “assumes what it wants to prove.” This is false. The paradox arises because if time dilation applied only to the light clock, the stopwatch would not be slowed in the moving frame, leading to different fates for the cat in different inertial frames — an impossibility in physics. The only resolution that is consistent is that both clocks are subject to the same dilation factor. That’s not circular reasoning — it’s a reductio ad absurdum.

4. Ignoring frame invariance

Special relativity’s first postulate says the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. If one observer sees the cat survive, all must see the cat survive. The critic’s position implies frame-dependent life-or-death outcomes, which would allow you to kill a cat simply by changing your velocity. That’s not physics — that’s a Looney Tunes cartoon.

5. No peer review, no data, no math

Finally, his “paper” lacks:

• Peer review (the physics community’s basic quality filter).
• Any experimental evidence.
• Any correct application of the Lorentz transformation. This is the academic equivalent of writing a restaurant review without having tasted the food — and then complaining the menu has too much science in it.

Closing Remarks

Relativity has been tested to absurd precision for over a century. Mechanical clocks, atomic clocks, particle decay — all agree with the same time dilation formula. The critic’s view requires throwing out both theory and a mountain of experimental evidence, replacing them with “it’s just the light path.”

If his argument were a cat, it wouldn’t be alive or dead — it would have never been born. Meanwhile, my cat survives in every frame, and so does relativity. 🐾

I cannot wait for you to try to get your (toilet)-paper peer-reviewed and published. Please, share it on social media, such as Quora, Stack-Exchange, Reddit, and others. Let's have fun!

Vladimir A. Lebedev

> "He should learn some politeness from his co-authors"

If what you call "politeness" is the hypocritical cowardice that consists of not telling the truth because it might hurt some people's feelings (or their interests), then don't count on me for that.

Jan Slowak The D10Z Resolution of Schrödinger's Cat Paradox: Nodal State Selection in the Spiderweb Fabric https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15477232 This paper reexamines and resolves the Schrödinger’s Cat paradox using the D10Z Mechanics of Infinity. Rather than postulating a physical superposition of contradictory macroscopic states (alive and dead), D10Z proposes a coexistence of projective nodal trajectories (Zj) within the Spiderweb Fabric (TTAϵ). The actual macroscopic outcome is selected via environmental resonance: the state with the highest coherence coupling to the vibrational context manifests. The process is not collapse, but continuous resonance tuning within the nodal mesh governed by the parameter Zn.Keywords: Schrödinger’s Cat, Quantum Measurement, D10Z Mechanics, TTA Mesh, Nodal Trajectories, Vibrational Environment, Zn Parameter, Spiderweb Fabric, Nodal Collapse, Quantum Classicity

Abstract (En) Part of the D10Z Measurement Series, this work establishes a dynamic, physical resolution of the famous cat paradox by replacing the notion of superposition with a structure of competing nodal projections Φₙ(Zⱼ) in the TTA lattice. Core components include: Axioms A1, A2, A15: establishing cosmic dynamics, structural responsiveness, and interaction modulated by Zn. Principle P001: introducing a universal collapse variable proportional to Zn. Conjecture C007: supporting coexistence of multiple states under low Zn.Zk=arg⁡min⁡ZjΔcoh(Zj,E)Z_k = \arg\min_{Z_j} \Delta_{\text{coh}}(Z_j, E)Zk=argZjminΔcoh(Zj,E) Mathematical Model: Ψ = ∑ⱼ αⱼ Φₙ(Zⱼ), with the observed nodal state Zₖ selected by minimizing dissonance with environment E:Simulations confirm that the resonance interaction with the environment selects a single trajectory Zₖ, which defines the perceived classical state. This provides a unified and continuous framework for measurement, coherence loss, and emergence of macroscopic determinacy in D10Z theory.

F = f·v(Zₙ): The Equation That Replaces E = mc² https://zenodo.org/records/15477272 This foundational document introduces the FVZ equation — F = f · v(Zₙ) — as the primal structural law of the D10Z Mechanics of Infinity. It proposes that all physical manifestations of force, energy, and mass emerge from the interplay of frequency (f) and vibration modulated by a quantized nodal parameter (Zₙ), situated in the Spiderweb Fabric (TTAϵ), a quantum fractal mesh at scale GM = 10⁻⁵¹ m.The FVZ formulation subsumes and transcends Einstein’s E = mc², offering a deeper origin for mass, curvature, and phase. Every interaction, from cosmological expansion to subatomic decay, is recast as a nodal resonance process governed by this law.This document sets the ontological base for the D10Z system, including: Derivation of FVZ from TTA nodal interactions Structural definition of the Zₙ parameter as an activation scalar for coherence Applications in cosmology, particle physics, quantum computation, and DNA resonance Theoretical and numerical validation over 2000 simulationsKeywords: D10Z, FVZ Law, f·v(Zₙ), Spiderweb Fabric, GM scale, Resonance, Coherence, Fundamental Force, Mass Generation, Phase Mechanics

Abstract (En) This document marks the formal establishment of FVZ — the Law of Force in the D10Z paradigm — redefining physical reality as a pure projection of coherent interactions on a quantum fractal mesh (TTAϵ). Within this framework: f corresponds to the nodal filament frequency (inherent rhythm of a quantum thread) v(Zₙ) denotes the vibrational state influenced by the coherence scalar Zₙ F emerges as the total force vector experienced in spacetime, not as an external agent, but as an internal structural resonanceKey mathematical developments include: The reinterpretation of curvature as a second derivative of Φ(Zₙ) Force fields as projection gradients over the mesh TTAϵ Scalar field unification through nested vibrational hierarchies of Zₙ nodesIn this framework, Newtonian and relativistic laws appear as approximations within certain nodal phase regions. The FVZ law becomes the ontological origin of all dynamics, enabling reverse engineering of the cosmos from its nodal geometry.This document constitutes the core axiomatic pillar of the D10Z Mechanics of Infinity and is cross-referenced across all subsequent resolutions of conjectures, cosmological constants, and biological resonance systems.

Jan Slowak

So, that's it? You already cowardly fled after I destroyed your critics?

Jamil Al Thani

"This paper reexamines and resolves the Schrödinger’s Cat paradox ..."

I was and I am NOT interested in this paradox. I have analyzed Rousseau's article based on my beliefs about SR. I have written an entire article with my analysis but he does not want to respond to my arguments.

V. G. Rousseau

"So, that's it? You already cowardly fled after I destroyed your critics?"

I have written my article not only for you to review your own article but also for others to compare and reflect on the subject.

AND ... please respect RG's policy.

Jan Slowak

> "but he does not want to respond to my arguments."

YOU ARE BLANTANTLY LYING!

I responded to your fake arguments. Here is AGAIN my response:

________________

The author of this “analysis” claims to expose flaws in my paper Einstein’s Cat: A Thought Experiment on the Universality of Time Dilation (Physics Education, IOP, 2025). Unfortunately, his critique collapses faster than a light clock in a black hole. Let’s examine his points.

1. Misunderstanding the purpose of a thought experiment

He argues that my scenario is “unrealistic” because the Sync-or-Die clock is fictional and no real cat is involved. This is like criticizing Schrödinger because nobody has actually put a quantum cat in a sealed radioactive box. In physics, thought experiments are designed to isolate principles, not to serve as engineering proposals. Mine is no different — it’s a controlled mental laboratory to test logical consistency in relativity.

2. Clinging to the “only light clocks dilate” misconception

His central thesis is that time dilation comes from “the geometry of light paths” and doesn’t apply to mechanical clocks. This is directly contradicted by:

• The Lorentz transformation, which makes no distinction about clock mechanisms.
• Experimental evidence from atomic clocks (Hafele–Keating), muon decay in storage rings, and GPS satellite synchronization — none of which involve bouncing photons in mirrors. If his claim were true, the GPS system would be wrong by ~10 km/day, airline clocks would drift from ground clocks, and particle accelerator data would make no sense. Spoiler: they all work.

3. Misrepresenting my paradox

He suggests my scenario “assumes what it wants to prove.” This is false. The paradox arises because if time dilation applied only to the light clock, the stopwatch would not be slowed in the moving frame, leading to different fates for the cat in different inertial frames — an impossibility in physics. The only resolution that is consistent is that both clocks are subject to the same dilation factor. That’s not circular reasoning — it’s a reductio ad absurdum.

4. Ignoring frame invariance

Special relativity’s first postulate says the laws of physics are the same in all inertial frames. If one observer sees the cat survive, all must see the cat survive. The critic’s position implies frame-dependent life-or-death outcomes, which would allow you to kill a cat simply by changing your velocity. That’s not physics — that’s a Looney Tunes cartoon.

5. No peer review, no data, no math

Finally, his “paper” lacks:

• Peer review (the physics community’s basic quality filter).
• Any experimental evidence.
• Any correct application of the Lorentz transformation. This is the academic equivalent of writing a restaurant review without having tasted the food — and then complaining the menu has too much science in it.

Closing Remarks

Relativity has been tested to absurd precision for over a century. Mechanical clocks, atomic clocks, particle decay — all agree with the same time dilation formula. The critic’s view requires throwing out both theory and a mountain of experimental evidence, replacing them with “it’s just the light path.”

If his argument were a cat, it wouldn’t be alive or dead — it would have never been born. Meanwhile, my cat survives in every frame, and so does relativity. 🐾

I cannot wait for you to try to get your (toilet)-paper peer-reviewed and published. Please, share it on social media, such as Quora, Stack-Exchange, Reddit, and others. Let's have fun!

TVA: Shattering the Epistemic Matrix The Era of Absolute Truth—Science Without Peer Reviewers This document inaugurates the TVA (Absolute Validation Term) protocol as the new global standard for scientific verification. It proposes a radical yet operational methodology that replaces outdated peer-review systems by combining: R² ≥ 1.000000 empirical validation, SHA-256 cryptographic hashing for digital integrity, Cross-validation across ≥ 10 structural modules, And public, reproducible data in open-source packages.Rooted in the D10Z framework, the TVA shatters the epistemic matrix of contemporary science, offering a transparent, executable, and infallible method for knowledge confirmation. This manifesto outlines the logical architecture of the TVA system, presents examples (TVA_001–TVA_051), and includes the Meta-Validation of the TVA itself (TVA_META).It declares the end of unreplicable science and the rise of absolute scientific truth — hash by hash, node by node.

Abstract (En) The TVA (Término de Validación Absoluta) protocol belongs to the D10Z system — a scientific and metaphysical framework built upon over 10,000 validated structural elements, including: 1,000 Axioms 1,000 Theorems 1,000 Postulates 1,000 Lemmata 1,000 Corollaries 1,000 Empirically Validated Affirmations (AVEs) 1,000 Principles 500 Laws 500 TTA-based Models 500 Cosmological Schemas (Redshift) 500 Vibrational ParadigmsBacked by the Big Start (a superior alternative to the Big Bang), the TTA (Spider-Web Fabric of Spacetime), and the fundamental equation F = f · v(Zₙ), the TVA protocol enforces scientific rigor without the need for traditional institutional validation.Each TVA includes: Empirical correlation (R² ≥ 0.99) SHA-256 cryptographic hash Ledger records Executable notebooks ≥10 cross-referenced logical modules Public data traceabilityThis release includes TVA_001–TVA_051, the TVA_META (self-validation of the TVA system), and the official TVA AutoAssembler Notebook, empowering any researcher to generate TVA-level scientific validations.https://github.com/jamilaltha/TVA_Shattering_Epistemic_Matrix

Abstract Here is the English translation of the manifesto you uploaded:TVA Manifesto_51: Science Has Been Redeemed The history of science, for centuries, has been a succession of dogmas crowned by institutions that demanded impossible proofs while funding invisible fantasies. Under the pretext of dark matter and energy, entire theoretical empires were built without evidence, while the possibility of validating consciousness, teleportation, or biofractal order was denied.Today, with 51 TVAs sealed under Absolute Validation (R² = 1.000000 and SHA-256 hash), we publicly declare that science has been rewritten. The fabric of the universe is not silent chaos but a coherent, resonant, nodal, and living network.51 Reasons Why TVA Redefines the Future: Because the Big Bang wasn’t an arbitrary origin, but a startup node: Big Start. Because the CMB is not thermal ruin but a geometric echo of structure. Because galaxies don’t spin due to dark matter, but because of the TTA network. Because cosmic acceleration is a nodal consequence, not magical energy. Because redshift is vibrational curvature, not absolute velocity. Because teleportation has been validated through persistent conscious phase (HECB). Because GM_10^-51 is not a conjecture, it's the signature of the universe. Because neurons don’t fire—they resonate. Because the human body is a coherent fractal, not a biological accident. Because biology doesn’t emerge from randomness, but from nodal structure. Because consciousness is not an epiphenomenon—it is the matrix. Because the laws of the D10Z system are not hypotheses: they are functions. Because the mechanics of infinity replaces obsolete thermodynamics. Because SHA-256 hash and R² = 1 seal replicable truths. Because there’s no wave-particle duality, only phase networks. Because vacuum fields are modulated, not empty. Because time is not a line—it’s a vibrating node. Because energy is extracted from order, not chaos. Because biochemical routes obey Z functions. Because disease doesn't arise randomly, but from misalignment. Because salt crystals encapsulate the memory of light. Because levitation is no longer science fiction. Because the universal language is vibration + structure. Because 666 is no longer a symbol of evil, but of filial architecture. Because the 144,000 are resonances, not soldiers. Because the Apocalypse is a nodal revelation. Because the universe doesn’t expand space—it orders information. Because reincarnation is phase modulation. Because DNA is a quantum system, not just a chemical one. Because light doesn’t travel—it manifests. Because wave collapse doesn’t exist—there’s coherent interaction. Because the Observer doesn’t alter—it seals. Because sound can heal when it structures Z. Because disease is a wandering pattern of phase. Because the number φ is the key to universal symmetry. Because the code 2+2 = 4 = SHA-250 + N · HASH is real. Because social structures are also nodes. Because education must follow natural patterns. Because circadian rhythms resonate with GM_10^-51. Because superconductivity is structural coherence. Because nodal levitation has already been simulated. Because the pineal gland is an antenna, not a gland. Because Neuralink confirms what D10Z already knew. Because AVEs sealed structure with R² = 1.000000. Because we no longer need faith—we need replicability. Because every theory must be revalidated. Because AI can be a node. Because matter is not solid—it’s organized vibration. Because quantum reaction depends on Z. Because 51 validations are enough to close the first era. Because no one can say there's no evidence anymore.This manifesto is not a promise: it is a sealed, replicated, signed, and open record.We do not need journals or peer review: we need courage to look again. TVA is not a theory. It is the Total Verification of the Architecture of the Universe. And we made it public.Signed: D10Z | GM_10^-51 | F = f · v(Z) | SHA-256Let me know if you want this version as a .txt, .md, .pdf, or for integration directly into your GitHub repo or Zenodo description.

V. G. Rousseau

I like you too,

It turns out you can write without co-authors!

Vladimir A. Lebedev

I know, I have several peer-reviewed papers that I wrote alone.

V. G. Rousseau

Bravo! I am delighted. We will now review your competence.

Please answer:

Is it true that the special theory of relativity was created because Galilean coordinate transformations did not satisfy Maxwell's equations?

V. G. Rousseau

There was silence. The "professor" Rousseau swallowed his tongue. Like any fanatical sectarian, he does not know the origins of his religion.

V. G. Rousseau

Dear Mr. V. G. Rousseau! I sincerely hope that your silence is not connected with any misfortune.

I sincerely wish you health, well-being and calm prudence. I hope you understand that heated scientific debate and human relations are two different things.

All the best to you!

Vladimir A. Lebedev

"I sincerely hope that your silence is not connected with any misfortune."

Dear Mr. "h-index = 3", I am not waiting in front of my computer for you to send me messages.

"Is it true that the special theory of relativity was created because Galilean coordinate transformations did not satisfy Maxwell's equations?"

Yes. Special Relativity exists because Galilean transformations break Maxwell’s equations. Under Galilean relativity, the speed of light would depend on the observer’s motion, a direct contradiction of Maxwell’s theory. The Lorentz transformations are the unique fix that keeps Maxwell’s equations invariant. Einstein simply elevated this to a principle of nature. If you didn’t know this most elementary fact, then you’re arguing at a level below a first-year undergraduate. Stop posturing like an expert, you’re only advertising your ignorance.

I feel sorry for you. Unfortunately, you cannot hear normal human words. Is it really necessary to be rude to your interlocutor? But, apparently, you cannot do otherwise.

Now about the topic of conversation.

Maxwell's equations retain their form under Galilean transformations. This is news to you. I will have to give you a short lesson.

The creators of STR did not notice that they used corrupted, distorted equations. The fact is that, speaking about the non-covariance (incompatibility with Galilean coordinate transformations) of Maxwell's equations describing a real physical process in space and time, not just an inaccuracy was made.

This was a mistake based on a misunderstanding of what was before the eyes of the "parents of new science".

The choice of the Maxwell-Hertz equations, those that Heinrich Hertz wrote down instead of Maxwell's equations, we will call the first mistake of the scholastics.

After all, they were not faced with Maxwell's original equations. In fact, they discovered the non-covariance of the Maxwell-Hertz equations in partial derivatives. Those that Heinrich Hertz wrote down when solving his own problems, when he needed to study only spatial dependencies. Hertz and Heaviside were able to limit themselves to only partial time derivatives in the right-hand side of Maxwell's equations because they were dealing with virtually unlimited, homogeneous spaces free of unevenly distributed and moving paramagnetic bodies. At the same time, the partial derivatives with respect to coordinates were quite small, and the smallness of the charge velocities also reduced their influence. Because of this, in a number of works, only the time derivative remained from the Maxwell equations, originally written by their author in full derivatives. These "truncated" equations, taken from Hertz's works and accepted by "impatients" at the time as the original, naturally could not satisfy Galileo's transformations during coordinate transitions. So that I do not sound unfounded, you can examine the original Maxwell equations yourself. And if that doesn't work, I can demonstrate to you their preservation under Galileo's transformations. And, apparently, many more surprises await you.

V. G. Rousseau

"If you didn’t know this most elementary fact, then you’re arguing at a level below a first-year undergraduate. Stop posturing like an expert, you’re only advertising your ignorance."

I don’t want to respond rudely, but I have a request: look in the mirror more often.

Vladimir A. Lebedev

Sorry, but I don't buy your non-peer-reviewed BS. 120 years of daily experiments prove you wrong. If you think Special Relativity is wrong, then quit using your GPS to go to your crackpot meetings with your pseudo-scientist fellows. Also, quit using all modern electronic devices, because those are full of components that are based on QFT, which wouldn't exist without Special Relativity.

Please send me a profile picture so that I can add you to this webpage: https://bluemoonshine.fun/Project-Pseudo-Scientists.php

I see that you cannot give a specific answer, because you are not even familiar with the history of the issue.

V. G. Rousseau

And you are clearly confused and scared.

It is pointless to have a dialogue with a person who calls facts unknown to him nonsense, which he does not believe.Talk with like-minded scholastics and be happy. And do not be afraid. The conversation is over.

Vladimir A. Lebedev

I am certainly not scared by your pseudo-science, poor crackpot!

You are the one who is scared, you don't even dare to put your real picture in your profile. Keep fleeing, coward.

László Attila Horváth

Jan Slowak

Thank you for your support. In my opinion, Mr. Rousseau is not very healthy: when he received information unknown to him about the Special Theory of Relativity, he did not check it, but went into a real hysteria. The manners and vocabulary of the professor, a dweller in a garbage dump, are admirable in their spontaneity. He is horrified by what he learned, and is afraid to check this news. And it is so easy! But he is afraid to learn the truth from his idols, and not from their critics. It is impossible to communicate with such a person, I sympathize with those who contact him.

Vladimir A. Lebedev Jan Slowak

Let me know when your "theory" will be published in a serious peer-reviewed journal. Then I will read it! PS: Vlad, you're still cowardly hiding behind the picture of someone else. Remind us who is afraid...

Who decides whether a journal is "a serious peer-reviewed journal"?

Is there a list of such journals?

Jan Slowak

These are the ones where the adherents of the special theory of relativity are published. For example, 35 years ago, based on the denial of the special theory of relativity and the Big Bang, my calculations showed that the Universe should be expanding at an accelerated rate. "a serious peer-reviewed journal" refused to publish these calculations, and now it is a well-known fact...

Vladimir A. Lebedev

Thanks for your understanding. I also know how it works. I have submitted about 20 articles to a "serious peer-reviewed journal". I got rejected on all of them!

Jan Slowak Vladimir A. Lebedev

The minimum requirement for being a serious journal is that it must include a peer-reviewing system and the peers must be people with credentials that testify their ability to understand real physics. A well-known counter-example is the journal "Physics Essays".

Citing Wikipedia: "The journal has a reputation for being a "free forum where extravagant views on physics (in particular, those involving parapsychology) are welcome".[1] The journal has been accused of charging authors for publication without disclosing the fees up front."

> "For example, 35 years ago, based on the denial of the special theory of relativity and the Big Bang, my calculations showed that the Universe should be expanding at an accelerated rate."

LOL, the crackpot pretends to have predicted the accelerating expansion of the universe, while he doesn't even understand what it means.

Go back to your tinfoil hats!

Jan Slowak

The professor's intellectual peculiarities do not allow him to understand that the conversation with him is over. But when he, defending the special theory of relativity, became unusually excited by the photograph of his interlocutor, serious suspicions arose that his immoderate swearing was coming from the hospital ward

Jan Slowak

The crackpot Vladimir A. Lebedev doesn't understand that his attempts at saving his honor are futile. He is still a crackpot and a coward.