戴榕菁

今年3月我贴出了“当哲学被藐视之后。。。。”主要是介绍我去年贴出的英文文章“When Philosophy is Disparaged in World of Science”。最近我更新了那篇英文。下面是该文的更新版：

When Philosophy is Disparaged

Rongqing Dai

Contents

Abstract 2

1. Introduction. 3

2. The Shocking Acceptance of the Continuum Hypothesis. 4

2.1. The trick of abusing the abstract notion of infinity. 5

3. The Baffling Ignorance of the Irreversibility Entailed by  the 1^st Postulate of Special Relativity. 6

4. The Surprising Denial of the Rule of Velocity  Superposition for the Sake of the 2^nd Postulate of Special  Relativity  8

4.1. The influence of Sagnac’s goal and claim upon the  misinterpretation. 9

4.1.1. More profound causes. 10

5. The Jaw-dropping Relativistic Chronology. 10

6. The Misleading Diagnosis for the Apparently Longer  Lifespan of the Muon. 11

6.1. Reasonable considerations for investigating the muon  lifespan issue. 13

7. The Interesting Process of Denying the Absolute Space and  Time. 13

7.1. The amusing roles of the most famous failed experiment  and the nonexistent cosmic center. 14

7.2. Time is not as soft as people have thought for the past  century. 15

7.3. Inertial coordinate systems as the soft absolute  coordinate systems. 16

8. The Miscalculated Contribution of Mass to Energy (and  vice versa) 16

9. The Genetic Defect of Schrodinger's Cat 17

10. Sheer Mathematical Expressions with Classic Names for  Conservation Laws. 18

11. The Anti-Big-Bang Confusion. 19

12. Stunning Satisfaction of Hilarious  Natural Dependence upon Artificial Communication. 20

13. The Over-Confidence Resulting From the Ignorance of What  Energy Is About 21

14. Academic Philosophy --- A Declined Discipline. 21

14.1. The diagnosis for the academic philosophy. 22

14.2. The replacement of truth with arguments. 22

14.3. The hijack of the title “philosophy”. 23

14.4. Wisdom expelled by “knowledge”. 23

14.5. The need for a parallel new community of professional  philosophy. 24

15. Discussion. 25

Abstract

Human beings are paying a dire price for disparaging philosophy in all facets of life, especially in the field of natural science where the most intelligent explorations of nature for the survival and advance of Homo sapiens species are supposed to be conducted. In the mean time, the professional discipline crowned with the title “philosophy” has been haunted by its own collective and systematic pitfalls. Consequently, despite of the apparent rapid growing global prosperity, the earth civilization is indeed walking at a fast pace down to a deep crisis. To make matters much worse, due to its intelligent challenge, the weakened collective philosophical capacity in the world is not something that can be made up with some crash courses as for scientific and technological trainings.

If there were some kind interstellar competitions as claimed in some ufologist products, this hazardous trend in human mainstream philosophy would definitely put earth civilization in a scarily disadvantageous position; even if the interstellar competitions are only fairy tale, the collapse of human collective philosophical capacity would undoubtedly be hazardous for humans when facing expected or unexpected disastrous natural perils, let alone those created by humans due to the poor collective philosophical capacity.

This writing will demonstrate through examples how philosophically erroneous mistakes in mathematics and physics that were made at the turn of 20^th century could last for more than a century without being identified, as well as an issue that has lingered for several centuries and still confuses the whole world with its philosophical complexity. In those examples, we could see that scientists with the aura of the smartest people on earth could easily be convinced by “simple, straight, and brilliant ideas”, which could bring aesthetically attractive convenience but would lead to various kinds of false knowledge and wrong practices, and then defend those ideas with all their lives for a long time, simply because the scientific community has not been prepared with strong philosophical capacity of reasoning. In addition to the mistakes in mathematics and physics, this writing will also discuss the devastating stale status of the existing academia of philosophy as well as the need and vision of having a parallel new professional community of philosophy.

Keywords: Philosophy, Hilbert First Problem, Special Relativity, Energy Conservation, Metaphysics, Quantum

1. Introduction

From ancient times to the recent past, scientific researches were always operating as a tripod engine with observation (experiment), mathematics, and philosophy as its three supporting legs to enrich the repository of knowledge. As Aristotle pointed out more than two millenniums ago in Metaphysics (Aristotle 350BC) [[1]], all beings share common logic for being qua being, and thus philosophy as the steward of logic was always functioning as the agent to digest the knowledge acquired with mathematics and observations and thus became the tie to bind all scientific works together.

Sadly, after the civilization enters the modern times, science no longer operates as a balanced tripod machine, but instead a severely tilted bipedal robot with a shrunk philosophical tail. Metaphysical reasoning or speculative discourse in the scientific writings has gradually vanished over the past century. Despite varieties of hypotheses are certainly not scarce in nowadays scientific papers (especially those of theoretical physics), even the best of them can seldom be counted as good philosophical speculations since generally they are not the outcome of profound metaphysical reasoning but mainly out of imaginations, and human imaginations are often disconnected from reality.

In fact, even the scientific literature with philosophical style discourses around the turn of 20^th century as historical records were already at the end of the inertial flow of the ancient philosophical stream. That was the time period when scientists began to put their faith mainly in mathematical modeling and observational data (from lab experiments etc). Besides, the drastic decline of academic philosophy started almost right before the end of the era of the so-called classic science and the beginning of the so-called modern science. As a result, while the destitution of the capacity of high quality speculative thinking obviously accounts for the current stalemate status of the frontier physics as well as many other scientific fields, scientists are still collectively despise the role of philosophy in scientific endeavors simply because they have no idea what good philosophical thinking could do in scientific researches for they never tasted it since their school times. To make matters even worse, nowadays scientific workers would often try their best to defend some logically evident errors left by their antecedents, simply because of the dearth of the required philosophical capacity to make full sense of the logical complexities behind the pages of fancy mathematical expressions and observational data.

In this writing, I will demonstrate how philosophically erroneous mistakes in mathematics and physics that were made in history could last for decades to centuries. In addition, this writing will also discuss the devastating stale status of the existing academia of philosophy as well as the need and vision of having a parallel new professional community of philosophy.

2. The Shocking Acceptance of the Continuum Hypothesis

In 1870’s Georg Cantor developed his set theory by establishing the notion of the equal size of two infinity sets based on one-to-one correspondence between the sets: if we can find a one-to-one correspondence rule between two sets (i.e. matching the elements of those two sets through a seamless one-to-one correspondence), then they are considered to be equally long or have equally many elements, which means that they have the same cardinal number; or otherwise they are not equally long, but of different cardinal numbers. Along this Cantorian philosophical line, in 1878 Cantor proposed the continuum hypothesis (CH for its acronym) (Koellner 2019)[[2]], which could be expressed as "There is no set whose cardinality is strictly between that of the natural numbers and the real numbers." In 1900 Hilbert listed CH as the first of his 23 open problems, which has been considered unsolved by the academia of mathematics to today.

However, as discussed by Dai (2022a) [[3]], the real cause for the mathematical academics including the most famous ones to have failed to solve the Hilbert first problem is the illusive nature of the above mentioned Cantorian philosophy of measuring the length of an infinity set, or the Cantorian cardinal system.

In 1873, Cantor provided a proof (Veisdai, 2021) [[4]] that there are as many rational numbers as natural numbers, which can be briefly presented as follows:

Let us arrange all the rational numbers (ratios of natural numbers) in an infinite table as such:

1/1  1/2  1/3  1/4  1/5  ...                                                                                                          (1)

2/1  2/2  2/3  2/4  2/5  ...

3/1  3/2  3/3  3/4  3/5  ...

4/1  4/2  4/3  4/4  4/5  ...

5/1  5/2  5/3  5/4  5/5  ...

...    ...    ...    ...    ...

Next, starting in the upper left hand corner, move through the diagonals from left to right at 45 degrees, starting with 1/1, then 1/2 and 2/1, then 3/1, 2/2 and 1/3 and so on, write down every new number we come across. We will obtain the following ordering:

(1) 1/1,                                                                                                                                     (2)

(2) 1/2,

(3) 2/1,

(4) 3/1,

(5) 2/2,

(6) 1/3,

(7) 1/4,

(8) 2/3,

(9) 3/2,

(10) 4/1,

….

which is not just well-ordered, but also in one-to-one correspondence with the natural numbers in their natural order. This proves the countability of the rational numbers by natural numbers, and thus according to Cantorian philosophy, he proved that there are as many rational numbers as natural numbers. Based on the same philosophy of counting infinite sets by one-to-one correspondence with natural numbers, in 1874 Cantor proved that real algebraic numbers are countable (by natural numbers) as well.

In 1874 Cantor also provided a proof showing that real numbers are strictly more than natural numbers. Therefore, up to that point he had effectively divided the infinite series within the domain of real numbers into two categories, one is of the same size as natural number, and another is with all real numbers, and the continuum hypothesis says that there is no other infinite set strictly sitting between these two categories.

Once we accept the above conclusions of Cantor, it is then very hard for anyone to find an infinite set with its cardinality strictly greater than natural numbers but strictly smaller than real numbers. This is the reason why Hilbert’s first problem has been lingering for such a long time.

2.1. The trick of abusing the abstract notion of infinity

In the time of Johann Bernoulli and L'Hopital, humans already knew that the so-called infinity is not an empty abstract logo, but with real meanings that we can use to compare the magnitudes of different infinities (e.g. Wikipedia, 2022a) [[5]]. But Cantor used the notion of “infinity” as an endless repository for him to withdraw numbers whenever he needs for his schemes. By doing this, he effectively eliminated the difference in the speed to go to infinity as Johann Bernoulli and L'Hopital noticed.

If we actually count the series of rational numbers following the above Cantorian procedure, no need to go too many steps we will find that the natural number that is used to mark the largest rational number would be much bigger than its rational counterpart. This tells us two things:

1) if we count the numbers of elements for a given magnitude, the rational would go to infinity much faster than the natural; but 2) if we count the numbers one by one then the natural would go to infinity much faster than the rational.

Both of these two facts tell that rationals are much more than naturals, instead of being equal to naturals as Cantor demonstrated with his trick.

Obviously, the trick of the Cantorian scheme of measuring is to borrow from future for the current spending, and he did not have the need to worry about running out of resources as economists would do when dealing with deficit economies, because he had an endless repository of supply for his expenditure whenever dealing with infinity, even though obviously his expenditure would potentially outrun his storage whenever the infinity line of supply is cut off.

Then the audience might ask such a question: “does the Cantor's scheme of abusing the notion of infinity make any real sense?” The answer is “no” except for playing brain-burning games for fun or for idiotizing youngsters with meaningless tricks. In fact, we might expose the absurdity of the deficit spending that Cantor conducted for his counting game by cutting the series of rational numbers at a randomly large value, e.g. 1 quadrillion, and we will see that there are far great more rational numbers than natural numbers. This tells that the Cantorian counting scheme is meaningless for any real world thing except for his fictitious infinity, because all numbers involved in real life issues, no matter the count of money, population, or the particles in a block of matter, or the toners used to print a drawing etc are all finite instead of infinity, no matter how big the number is, and thus you will always find that rationals are way much more than naturals.

In fact, as demonstrated by Dai (2022a) [3], it is very easy to find an infinite series of rational numbers as follows:

1/2,1/3,1/4,...,1/m,1/(m+1),…2/2,2/3,2/4,...,2/m,2/(m+1),…m/2,m/3,m/4,...,m/m,m/(m+1),…(m+1)/2,(m+1)/3,(m+1)/4,...,(m+1)/m,(m+1)/(m+1),…

(3)

where m is a random natural number, with its cardinal infinitely greater than the cardinal of natural numbers. To ease the imagination, let’s just pick up 1 and 2, then we can find that there are infinitely many rational numbers between them (e.g. 1.1,1.2,1.3,…,1.999999,….).

3. The Baffling Ignorance of the Irreversibility Entailed by the 1^st Postulate of Special Relativity

For the past century, people have become familiar with basic features of the relativistic effects of motions prescribed by the special theory of relativity; but one important aspect of the effects that would be entailed by the theory of special relativity has been basically missing, which is the irreversibility of the relativistic processes. According to the mainstream claim of relativity, when the relative speed of two system decreases to zero, things would go back to the status at rest based on the Lorentz transformations. However, as discussed by Dai (2022b) [[6]], the first postulate of the special theory of relativity would logically dictate irreversible physical as well as chemical changes in the remote system, which is logically unreasonable and naturally impossible.

The first postulate of the special theory of relativity is also called as the principle of relativity, which states that all inertial coordinate systems are equivalent in describing natural laws. In the meantime, according to the two most important icons of the special theory of relativity, the Lorentz transformations and the Einstein mass-energy relationship, we know that when an object is in motion, it would contract by a factor of (1 - v²/c²)^1/2 in the moving direction while the sizes in the other two spatial dimensions remain the same:

L’ = L (1 - v²/c²)^1/2,     (4)

and also acquire an increase of mass as:

∆m =∆E/c²,                (5)

where ∆E is the acquired kinetic energy for the motion.

The increased mass and decreased volume would logically lead to the following conclusion:

[The density of the moving object increases as the result of its motion.]       (*)

The most troublesome thing is that according to the first postulate of special relativity, the above statement (*) is not pure imagination but rather physically real. This would entail irreversible physical and chemical changes that are impossible to happen in nature as demonstrated in the following two thought experiments:

Experiment one: Permanent plastic change of a cuboid of plasticine

Suppose we have a cuboid of plasticine with a longitudinal length of L and sectional area of A in a frame of reference K and there is an observer O’ in a frame of reference K’ that is moving at speed v relative to K in the direction parallel to L. Now according to FitzGerald–Lorentz contraction hypothesis (4) and Einstein mass-energy relationship (5), we would have a volume reduction A∆L and a mass augmentation of ∆m, and thus a density increment of

  ∆ρ = (∆Lm+L∆m)/AL²                                (6)

where both ∆L and ∆m are positive. However, according to the theory of solid mechanics, the deformation of a solid in one dimension would also cause the deformation of the solid in the other two dimensions (e.g. Wikipedia, 2022b; Wikipedia, 2022c)[[7],[8]]; but in the case of a cuboid of plasticine, the non-relativistic deformation in the other two dimensions would be permanent and would not disappear even though the length in the moving direction could be assumed to restore to the original L after the relative motion stops according to special relativity.

Experiment two: Melting wax

Suppose we have an insulated box filled with air consisting of molecular nitrogen and oxygen only (Based on example from Wikipedia, 2022d) [[9]] at 38˚C and also containing a wax bar that will melt at 40˚C. Now a spaceship at a distance away is launched and a while later it reaches the speed about 18% of the speed of light c. Then according to the special theory of relativity, the astronaut O’ in the spaceship who is knowledgeable of the insulated box would estimate that the density of the box and everything inside would have increased more than 1.6% due to the reduction of the volume and the addition of mass, and thus the temperature within the box should have adiabatically risen to exceed 40˚C, which means that the wax bar is melting. Since the melting of wax is thermodynamically irreversible, the melted wax in the insulated box “observed” by the astronaut O’ will never come back to its original intact state again. Then the astronaut returns to the launch site and go to check the insulated box after he has landed. When he opens the box, if the wax is melted as he “observed” in space according to the special theory of relativity, then the whole universe would be in a complete mess. But fortunately, as we can say with confidence, the wax in the insulated box would not melt simply because of the motion of some irrelevant spaceship faraway.

It is important to notice that in each of the above two examples, the observer O’ does not have direct connection with the observed object which could justify a cause and effect relationship, and thus O’ and the observed object could be just two randomly moving objects in the universe.

4. The Surprising Denial of the Rule of Velocity Superposition for the Sake of the 2^nd Postulate of Special Relativity

The second postulate of special relativity states that the speed of light in vacuum is constant to all observers. Because of this postulate, the speed of light has become one of the fundamental physical constants with a value that is exactly equal to 299792458 meters per second. It is exact because, by a 1983 international agreement, a meter is defined as the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1⁄299792458 second. This particular value was chosen in order to provide a more accurate definition of the meter that still agreed as much as possible with the definition used before. The time unit second is in turn defined to be the interval of time occupied by 9192631770 cycles of the radiation emitted by a caesium-133 atom in a transition between two specified energy states. (e.g. Wikipedia 2022e; NIST, 2019) [[10], [11]]

However, as discussed by Dai (2022c) [[12]], this postulate of invariant speed of light in vacuum is not only logically defective for its entailment of impossible results as demonstrated with a recently designed thought experiment, but also has been experimentally proved wrong more than a century ago by Sagnac and others.

The fate of Sagnac experiment and the corresponding Sagnac effect is worth our special attention because of its exemplar role for illuminating the importance of philosophy in scientific practices.

In 1913 French physicist Georges Sagnac conducted an experiment which substantially challenged the second postulate of the special theory of relativity. During the experiment, a beam of light is split into two beams which are made to follow the same path but in opposite directions, and on return to the point of entry the two light beams are allowed to exit the ring and undergo interference as recorded by an interferometer. When Sagnac (e.g. Wikipedia, 2022f; Sagnac, 1913) [[13],[14]] let the table on which the light paths were established to rotate slowly (1 to 2 revolutions per second), he recorded the difference between the paths of those two beams, which was a clear indication that the speed of light relative to the observers obeys the classic Galilean rule of superposition. The mechanism of the Sagnac experiment has been named as Sagnac effect and devices built with Sagnac effect are routinely used in guidance and navigation systems for commercial airliners, nautical ships, spacecraft, and in many other applications.

However, the physical revelation of the Sagnac experiment has been surprisingly misinterpreted for the past more than a century period of time as a typical example of the correctness of relativity. The most hilarious part of this is that the relativistic derivations of Sagnac effect would normally share the commonplace of first admitting that the speed of light of those light beams in opposite directions equal to c - v and c + v, and then managing to prove that the constant speed of light in vacuum makes sense in Sagnac experiment by citing the Lorentz transformations, as we might see in the work of Mathpages (2022) [[15]] when the author even admits that devices made of Sagnac effect are capable of detecting rotation rates as slight as 0.00001 degree per hour. Obviously, these people do not seem to realize that by assuming the speed of light of those beams in opposite directions to be c - v and c + v, they already deny the constancy of the speed of light in vacuum and thus deny the value of special relativity. This is a typical example how things could go wrong for a long time (more than a century) after the whole society losing the capacity of thinking in philosophically correct ways.

4.1. The influence of Sagnac’s goal and claim upon the misinterpretation

Respecting truth and denying untruth should always be the ultimate principle for scientific explorations and thus humans do not have any excuse for making collective mistakes such as misinterpreting the outcome of Sagnac experiment for more than one hundred years. Nevertheless, it might also be meaningful for us to notice the distractive effect of Sagnac’s goal for his experiment and correspondingly his claim of what his experiment proved.

Sagnac was trying to prove the existence of the luminiferous aether and claimed that he succeeded in doing so while the connection between his results and the existence of aether was not soundly convincing. As we could see from the above discussions, the need to assume the velocities of light to be c + v and c - v by the relativistic scholars has already proved that the constancy of speed of light in vacuum is wrong. That is to say, the result of Sagnac experiment could be well explained without the need of the superfluous notion of aether that is attached to extra unneeded attributes. However, more than one hundred years ago, when the scientific focus was still not completely off the topic whether space was filled with the luminiferous aether, Sagnac’s goal of searching for aether and his claim of having found it could have practically played a role of distracting the attention of scientists and caused them to ignore the fact that Sagnac experiment had offered a good example that speed of light in vacuum is not constant to all. 

4.1.1. More profound causes

But on the other hand, humans should not use any excuse to shed off the collective responsibility for such a long-lasting mistake, just like that a failed student cannot blame some intentional distractions of tricky questions in a test. We need to introspect about our worldwide culture in the scientific community to find more profound social cultural causes behind this phenomenon. By looking into the century long misinterpretation of the Sagnac experiment, we might find at least three profound philosophical causes behind.

First, we might see from this phenomenon that people often defend something simply because the big name of the thing makes them feel that they should defend it instead of that they really understand what they are defending. This mindset of placing social benefits above truth is against the fundamental principle of philosophy which values truth above utilitarian needs.

Second, despite that human intelligent capacity (especially the intelligent capacity of scientific elites) is often unrealistically exaggerated, intellectually humans are indeed quite weak in general, vulnerable to various kinds psychological distractions, and could even be collectively under some distractions for very long time without being able to pull out from the social psychological trap.

Third, more importantly, the misconception of the separation of science from philosophy has sadly caused the social disparagement of philosophy in the scientific community for the past centuries, which has severely crippled the human collective scientific capacity in general while human self-puffing-up confidence in human scientific capacity has reached its pinnacle. This issue is at the root of the above two issues.

5. The Jaw-dropping Relativistic Chronology

At the core of special relativity lies the peculiar light-seeing-based philosophy which claims that the happening of event P is meaningful to event Q only when the (imaginary) light emanating from the spot of P could reach the spot of Q according to the speed of light in vacuum c; vice versa. According to this special logic, to anyone in the spot of Q, P never happens until the light emanating from the spot of P could reach the spot of Q. If event P and event Q cannot “see” each other, they are considered as irrelevant in the universe. Both relativistic simultaneity and relativistic causality are established on top of this peculiar philosophy of determining the mutual reality of things. We might call this philosophy as relativistic chronological logic because it determines how a relativistic scholar should think of the sequential influence between things, including how to determine simultaneity and causality.

The most famous manifestation the relativistic chronological logic might be the definition of light cone that was conceived by Minkowski (e.g. Wikipedia, 2021a) [[16]], which describes the path that a flash of light, emanating from a single event at a single point in space and a single moment in time and traveling in all directions, would take through spacetime; but the most astonishing application of the relativistic chronological logic could be found in cosmology where we often hear claims that it is meaningless to even talk about the happening of a cosmological event before we can virtually see it (according to the calculation based on speed of light).

This would lead to the hilarious conclusion that the explosion X of a celestial body of 1000 light-year away 999 years ago happened later than the explosion Y of a celestial body of 5 light-year away 5 years ago, despite that the relativistic cosmologists would still study the explosion X as 994 years earlier than the explosion Y because they know that if they do not do so, the whole cosmological causality chain network would be messed up so that it would be impossible for them to correctly study the cosmological history and dynamics.

Obviously, the light-seeing-based relativistic chronology creates a cracked logical framework that cannot be consistent with itself or with the logical and semantic systems of the general culture. As a matter of fact, even from the most utilitarian point of view, the abovementioned relativistic causality view is problematic because even before the observer sees the light from a cosmological event, physical events within each celestial body and interactions between all celestial bodies never cease to happen, which is not determined by whether it is possible for an observer to see anything of them at all. On the contrary, only if the observer respects the objective happenings before he could see them he could possibly understand them correctly.

6. The Misleading Diagnosis for the Apparently Longer Lifespan of the Muon

In this section let’s look into a famous claim among the so-called experimental testing of time dilation that the apparent elongated lifespan of muons travelling through the atmosphere is the result of time dilation. The theory normally goes like this (e.g. Wikipedia, 2022g)[[17]]:

The emergence of the muons is caused by the collision of cosmic rays with the upper atmosphere, after which the muons reach Earth. Suppose T is the lifespan of the muon measured in the earth inertial frame S, and T’₀ is the lifespan of the muon according to the proper time of a clock in the inertial frame S’ comoving with the muon, corresponding with the mean decay time of the muon in its proper frame, then because of time dilation we have

 T = γT’₀ > T’₀,                                                (7)

where γ = 1/√(1- V²/c² ), from which the relativistic scholars conclude: the reason why the muon can pass through the thickness of earth atmosphere within its supposedly very short lifespan is because when observing from the earth inertial frame S its lifespan becomes longer thus it can move farther with the same value of the supposed lifespan at the same relative speed v.

Then when stepping from S into S’, the relativistic scholars would use time dilation no more but shift to length contraction as follows

 L = L’₀ /γ < L’₀,                                              (8)

where L’₀ is the proper distance in S’ that the muon could travel within its lifespan, and L is the distance that the muon can travel in S when calculated in S’, from which the relativistic scholars conclude: the reason why the muon can pass through the thickness of earth atmosphere within its supposedly very short lifespan is because when observing from muon’s inertial frame S’, the earth atmosphere becomes thinner thus muon needs shorter time to pass through it at the same relative speed v.

Here we should take heed of the typical asymmetric uses of the Lorentz transformations: time dilation is cited when the discussion is based on the observation from S while length contraction is cited when the discussion is based on the observation from S’.

This asymmetric uses of Lorentz transformations in S and S’ when explaining the seemingly longer lifespan of the muon is not accidental but due to inevitable causes:

If they continue to use time dilation when stepping into S’, since the relative speed v would not change with the Lorentz transformation, we would have

L = vT = vT’₀/γ = L’₀ /γ < L’₀                                           (9)

Although (9) and (8) look exactly the same, they actually read very differently because with (8) we are focusing on the relativistic change of spatial span while with (9) we are focusing on the relativistic change of temporal duration. More specifically, (8) reads as “the thickness of the earth atmosphere in S that the muon needs to pass through becomes thinner when observing from S’”, but (9) reads as “the distance L that the muon can travel in S within its lifespan is shorter than the distance L’₀ that the muon can travel in its own frame S’ within its lifespan”.

Obviously, the effect indicated by (9) would logically cancel out the effect indicated by (8): even though now the muon only needs to travel a shorter distance in order to pass through the earth atmosphere, it would also die within a shorter distance therefore it might still not be able to pass through that shorter distance.

Here the catch that causes this confliction is that the speed v and the lifespan T’₀ of the muon in S’ are two constants for the analysis. Therefore, when we make observation from S, we might conclude that the muon can travel a longer distance at the same speed v because the earthly observed lifespan is longer than T’₀, but when we make observation from S’, we would find that a shorter period of time T in S would be corresponding to T’₀ in S’ according to Lorentz transformation for time dilation, which entails that the muon would only travel a shorter distance in S within its lifespan T’₀. Obviously, these two conclusions contradict each other.

This need of asymmetric treatment due to the difficulty of symmetric treatment is a common problem with special relativity. In fact, if we cite length contraction instead of time dilation when observing from S, it would right away lead to the opposite conclusion of a longer lifespan for a moving muon: we might find that when observed in S whatever distance the muon travels would become shorter and thus the muon would die within a shorter distance than calculated in S’.

6.1. Reasonable considerations for investigating the muon lifespan issue

Obviously, it is logically unsound to assume that time dilation is the cause of the apparent longer lifespan of muons in the earth atmosphere. Philosophically speaking, the reasonable approach to investigate the said phenomenon should be conducted by taking into consideration of the following two aspects:

1) Given that air density is much higher in the lower atmosphere than the  upper atmosphere while cosmic rays are constantly penetrating the atmosphere with high magnetic rigidity (Viel, 2021)[[18]], it would be more reasonable to question the validity of the assumption that muons in the atmosphere are solely created at the upper atmosphere. This is because the increase of air density near the ground compared to the upper boundary of atmosphere is tremendous while the reduction of cosmic rays due to the influence of earth magnetic field is only a small portion as pointed by Viel (2021) [18], and thus there would be more chances for the cosmic ray to create muons in the lower region with higher air density.

2) It would also be meaningful to investigate the impact of the dynamics of moving in the earth gravitational field upon the lifespan of muons until some definite knowledge can be obtained for the issue.

7. The Interesting Process of Denying the Absolute Space and Time

In 1687, Isaac Newton formally put forth the notion of absolute space and time in his masterpiece Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica, it then became the backbone of the classic mechanics until it was banished and replaced by the relativistic spacetime at the turn of 20^th century. The failed efforts of searching the luminiferous aether and the cosmic center played an important role in the process of denying the absoluteness of space and time (Dai, 2022d)[[19]]; however, the logic behind this process is very amusing and thus philosophically interesting as we might see from this section. Nevertheless, in the end of this section we will also learn the unintentional role of this process in a semiotic scaffolding practice that helped humans to reach a meaningful destiny of knowing the nature of space and time.

7.1. The amusing roles of the most famous failed experiment and the nonexistent cosmic center

19^th century was the time when physicists were exploring the electromagnetic world by making analogies to the classic mechanics. Naturally, they had the idea of supposing a medium to support light just like air or water as media to carry sound waves or surface water waves, and they called that medium as luminiferous aether as an analogy to the ancient notion of aether for the medium of gravity (van Lunteren, F.H., 2002) [[20]]. This idea instigated a surge of researches trying to prove the existence of the luminiferous aether or even to find a way to measure it. This goal failed badly, and the most famous of those efforts was the experiment conducted by American physicists Albert A. Michelson and Edward W. Morley in 1887 and published in November of the same year (e.g. Wikipedia, 2022h)[[21]]. Since then the Michelson-Morley experiment has been called the most famous failed experiment in history because it became an important catalyst for the birth of the special theory of relativity.

Starting from 1880’s, a peculiar aesthetical fondness drove scientists to demand that the Maxwell equation should look the same in all inertial frame of references, which is undoubtedly the origin for the first postulate of the special theory of relativity, i.e. the principle of relativity, which could be deemed as an extension of the Galileo's principle of relativity (e.g. Wikipedia, 2021b) [[22]].

But even if the Maxwell equation looks the same in all inertial frames of reference, the need of a media for light to propagate might become an important reason for people to think that the actual speed of light could change with respect to the observers of different velocities. Therefore, the missing of aether shown by the failed Michelson-Morley experiment made many to believe that it was the straw that broke the camel’s back because they thought that the missing aether is the proof that the speed of light should be constant in vacuum to all observers, which became the second postulate of the special theory of relativity.

The establishment of the special relativity in turn caused the denial of the notion of absolute space and time by claiming that space and time are relatively relating to each other through the Lorentz transformations. As we have seen since early 2022, the special theory of relativity is wrong and the failed outcome of the Michelson-Morley experiment could be easily and definitely explained by the following equation based on the revised postulate of speed of light in vacuum (Dai, 2022e) [[23]]:

c_ab = c + ∆v_ab                                       (10)

where c_ab is the speed of light in vacuum between two objects a and b, c is the speed of light in vacuum given by the Maxwell formula, and ∆v_ab = v_a// - v_b// is the relative speed between objects a and b. From (10) we can see that the reason why the Michelson-Morley experiment failed is because with their experimental set up, ∆v = 0, and thus in theory we should have c_ab = c; of course, since the surface of earth is not in pure inertial motion but with slight acceleration, with high precision Michelson-Morley style experiments, we might still detect the tiny ∆v caused by the acceleration of earth.

Another important reason for the notion of absolute space and time to be banished at the turn of 20^th century accompanying the birth of theories of relativity, as indicated by Einstein (1916) [[24]], was the thought that Newton’s absolute space and time would require a centre of universe with a maximum density of stars. The failure of identifying such kind of cosmic center became another reason for denying the notion of absolute space and time.

However, as discussed by Dai (2022d; 2022e) [19, 23], we do not need any fixed coordinate system, not to mention a universe center, for us to make sense of absolute space and time.

Now when we look back to the whole thing, we might find that the above logic of using the failed Michelson-Morley experiment and the unfound cosmic center as the reason of denying the absoluteness of space and time is amusingly ill-founded. Here we see such a strange role of the failed Michelson-Morley experiment and the unfound cosmic center in the banishment of the notion of absolute space and time: people first artificially fabricated the concepts of aether and cosmic center and tried hard to prove their existences, then the failures of proving their existences were used as the evidences that the space and time should not be absolute but rather relatively relating to each other. In other words, scientists first created some nonexistent things so that they could prove their nonexistence and then used those proofs to conclude that space and time are not absolute. If this type of logic is allowed in everyday life, we could imagine what might happen to this world.

7.2. Time is not as soft as people have thought for the past century

In addition to the Lorentz time dilation, Einstein’s general relativity proposed that time could be impacted by gravity. Nevertheless, Einstein himself provided contradictory pictures about the gravitational impact upon time. In the framework of general relativity, it has been commonly known that time is assumed to go slower with a greater gravity influence; however, in a 1912 paper, Einstein (1912 [[25]]) himself provided an excellent example to contradict his own theory of gravitational impact upon time in which what is called by Einstein as the “gravitational clock” would run faster when the gravity is greater.

Therefore, as discussed by Dai (2022 [[26]]), the notion of time dilation depicted by either special or general relativity is problematic. Nevertheless, here I would not completely deny the possible change of the tempo of time, rather, I would just point out that time would not be dilated in the ways that the special and general theories of relativity have told us. But on the other hand, if the variation of the tempo of time in certain way could be scientifically proved someday, we could once again appreciate the semiotic scaffolding roles of the special and general theories of relativity.

7.3. Inertial coordinate systems as the soft absolute coordinate systems

Now we know that special relativity is incorrect because both of its postulates are wrong, and the gravitational time dilation of the general relativity is wrong, but we do not seem to be entitled to claim that we have come back to the old Newtonian absolute space and time.

First, traditionally, the notion of absolute space and time was deemed to be tied to the notion of an absolute coordinate system or preferred coordinate system. Now as pointed out by Dai (2022e) [23], we find that all inertial systems that move with regard to each other at constant speeds without the impact of gravity are absolute coordinate systems. In this soft absolute space and time, light would still travel rectilinearly in all inertial systems (i.e. absolute systems) and the speed of light relative to the vacuum between two moving objects would also be the same to all inertia systems. This might sound a lot like the second postulate of special relativity, but it differs from the latter in that the speed of light between two objects varies with the relative speed between those two objects. Further, the speed of light in vacuum is no longer the limit of speed in this 4 dimensional space and time universe.

Second, although the invalidation of special relativity would lead to the separation of space and time, so far we do not have sufficient reason to deny the softness of the 3 dimensional space in the gravitational field as claimed by the general theory of relativity. Further, as mentioned earlier, despite that we know time dilations claimed by special and general relativities are not correct, we do not have sufficient reason to deny the possibility of the softness of time in some other unknown conditions. Here, by “softness” of a dimension I am referring to the possible variability of the measure of the dimension. Personally, I tend to accept that both space and time are not absolute rigid except that they are not coupled to each other as claimed by the special theory of relativity. As for space, it sounds reasonable for us to continue to accept the gravitational impact described by the general relativity after it is decoupled from time and after the gravitational impact upon time is denied.

8. The Miscalculated Contribution of Mass to Energy (and vice versa)

In 1905 Einstein (1905 [[27]]) proved the famous mass-energy relationship E=mc² in a clear and easy to comprehend mathematical procedure; however, the idea of the convertibility between mass and energy had been floating around for a while. In 1881 J.J. Thomson provided the formula of E = (4/3)mc² (Rothman 2015 [[28]]; Ricker 2015 [[29]]). In 1900 Poincaré (1900 [[30]]) deduced the equivalent of E = mc². In 1904 Hasenöhrl (1904 [[31]]) deduced m = (8⁄3)E/c² and Abraham (1904[[32]]) worked out E = (4/3)mc².

In addition to the abovementioned mathematical derivations, Mayer (1867 [[33]]) made the following remark even earlier:

[If a mass M, originally at rest, while traversing the effective space s, under the influence and in the direction of the pressure p, acquires the velocity c, we have ps = mc². Since, however, every production of motion implies the existence of a pressure (or of a pull) and an effective space, and also the exhaustion of one at least of these factors, the effective space, it follows that motion can never come into existence except at the cost of this product, ps = mc². And this it is which for shortness I call ‘force’]

Preston (1875 [[34]]) mentioned in his book “Physics of the Ether”:

[To give an idea, first, of the enormous intensity of the store of energy attainable by means of that extensive state of subdivision of matter which renders a high normal speed practicable, it may be computed that a quantity of matter representing a total mass of only one grain, and possessing the normal velocity of the ether particles (that of a wave of light), encloses a store of energy represented by upwards of one thousand millions of foot-tons, or the mass of one single grain contains an energy not less than that possessed by a mass of forty thousand tons, moving at the speed of a cannon ball (1200 feet per second); or other wise, a quantity of matter representing a mass of one grain endued with the velocity of the ether particles, encloses an amount of energy which, if entirely utilized, would be competent to project a weight of one hundred thousand tons to a height of nearly two miles (1.9 miles).]

Later, Olinto de Pretto (1903 [[35]]) decalred:

[Ma tale deduzione ci conduce a delle conseguenze inattese ed incredibili. Un chilogrammo di materia, lanciato con la velocità della luce, rappresenterebbe una somma di tale energia da non poterla nè anche concepire.

La formula mv² ci dà la forza viva e la formula ci dà, espressa in calorie, tale energia.

Dato adunque m = 1 e v uguale a trecentomila chilometri per secondo, cioè 300 milioni di metri, che sarebbe la velocità della luce, ammessa anche per l'etere, ciascuno potrà vedere che si ottiene una quantità di calorie rappresentata da 10794 seguito da 9 zeri e cioè oltre dieci milioni di milioni.

A quale risultato spaventoso ci ha mai condotto il nostro ragionamento? Nessuno vorrà facilmente ammettere che immagazzinata ed allo stato latente, in un chilogrammo di materia qualunque, completamente nascosta a tutte le nostre investigazioni, si celi una tale somma di energia, equivalente alla quantità che si può svolgere da milioni e milioni di chilogrammi di carbone; l'idea sarà senz'altro giudicata da pazzi.]

Nevertheless, as pointed out by Dai (2023a [[36]]), all the abovementioned mass-energy relations, including the famous E = mc², failed to provide the correct equation between mass and energy. Compared to all the precedent works, the derivation of Einstein provided a viable approach for the derivation of a correct equation between mass and energy after the special theory of relativity is dropped out. By replacing the relativistic Doppler’s formula with the non-relativistic one, Dai worked out the correct mass-energy equation as:

 E = mc²/2                                           (11)

9. The Genetic Defect of Schrodinger's Cat

In 1935, Schrödinger proposed his famous superposed cat (e.g. Wikipedia 2023 [[37]]). Since then it has become a household legend. While Schrödinger’s original motive for fabricating his cat was to challenge the idea of quantum superposition, the seemingly rigorous logic in Schrödinger’s argument has made his cat a favorite intellectual artifact for the study and education of quantum mechanics around the world for the past century.

However, in fact, as Dai (2023b [[38]]) pointed out, there was a logical defect in Schrödinger’s cat thought experiment which has fascinatingly evaded the attention of the academic elites: Schrödinger was implicitly assuming that the macroscopic cause-effect relationships could be directly applied to the quantum superposition states.

If it is just a fairy tale, we do not need to be picky for its logical details. But obviously that is not what Schrödinger's Cat was about and that is not how the scientific community has treated the Schrödinger's Cat in the past century. Because of its scientific significance we need to be very careful about the rigorousness of the logic that makes up the cat story. In fact, the missing proof of the above logic in Schrödinger’s making of his cat could potentially be a pitfall for researches in general in the quantum area.

Of course, Schrödinger could have made his implicit assertion as a postulate or assumed axiom. But unfortunately he never did that either, and the whole world has not seemed to notice the necessity of having that kind of presumption in order to have the Schrödinger’s cat to be a logically meaningful scientific model before scientists started their passionate quests of a proper interpretation for the cat’s ending. During the century long quest for a reasonable interpretation of Schrödinger’s cat, no one seems to have come up with a proposal of how to prove that the scientific knowledge of cause and effect relationships that humans acquired from macroscopic practices could be directly applied to the quantum superposition states.

Sadly Schrödinger fabricated a genetically defective cat, and it has been a scientific darling cat of the whole world without being questioned about its genetic fitness since then.

10. Sheer Mathematical Expressions with Classic Names for Conservation Laws

From late 17^th century to the beginning of 20^th century, the theories of energy and momentum conservations experienced more than two hundred years extensive empirical verifications from transportation vehicles to war weaponries and countless engineering and technological applications all over the globe. But in early 20^th century, those two conservation laws were extended to the following relativistic energy and momentum expressions:

E = γmc²,                                                                     (12)

p = γmv,                                                                      (13)

E is the so-called total relativistic energy, m the mass, p the relativistic momentum with its magnitude being p, and v the velocity of the object with its magnitude being v, and accordingly, the magnitude of momentum is:

p = γmv,                                                                      (13a)

and γ is the Lorentz factor.

While physicists have the liberty to call those two mathematical expressions (12) and (13) whatever they want, they do not have the liberty to apply the conservation laws that were established empirically in the classic mechanics unless they could provide the same level of empirical verifications for those two mathematical expressions as for their supposed classic counterparts or they could demonstrate the intrinsic logical deductions from the said classic quantities to their relativistic counterparts, which unfortunately hold for none of the cases.

As pointed by Dai (2023c [[39]]), the main problem of the conservation of the relativistic momentum p was that the relativistic momentum p can never be meaningfully reduced back to its classic counterpart except for a single point when p = 0. In other words, the so-called relativistic momentum is utterly a new definition with the above expression (13) instead of a physical extension from the classic notion of momentum. As for the conservation of the relativistic total energy, in addition to the lack of empirical establishment, as we know from the above discussion in section 8, it will face the issue that the total energy at rest should be E = mc²/2 instead of E = mc², even though the so-called relativistic total energy does meaningfully reduce to its classic counterpart for a particle at rest.

11. The Anti-Big-Bang Confusion

The weakened collective philosophical thinking capacity does not only affect the mainstream way of thinking, but also impact the way of thinking of those who intend to challenge various mainstream or official theories. The anti-big-bang ferment (especially after James Webb space telescope sent back the images that are supposed to be from the earliest part of the universe) is one example of how academic rebellion activities could be spoiled by poor philosophical capacity as well. Although the existing big bang theory may be defective in some details, it lacks philosophical rationality to try to prove (as many have been trying) that the big bang or big band like event never happened.

Unlike when the big bang theory was proposed nearly a century ago, today, in order to completely deny that the big bang ever happened, one would have to deny not only the expansion of the universe, but almost all of today's theories about the universe.

For example, he needs to deny that the sun shines by burning its internal energy through nuclear reactions. Why do you say that? This is because if he admits that the sun shines by burning its internal energy in nuclear reactions, then he will admit that the sun will have an end because of the exhaustion of energy, and if he admits that the Sun has an end, then he will admit that the sun has a beginning. But if he admitted that the sun had a beginning, he would have to face how it began.

In addition, he also has to deny that there are billions of sun-like stars in the universe. If he did not deny this, and in the meantime admitted that the sun had a beginning, then he would have to face the question of how countless stars like the sun began.

Now the philosophy of having a big bang provides the most inclusive and consistent theory for the beginning of all the celestial bodies in our four-dimensional universe. One can revise the details of the theory, but to philosophically disprove the big bang or any big bang like event, they would have to either completely deny the knowledge that the sun needs energy to burn, or replace the big bang with infinite incompatible “small bangs” to explain the origins of the stars in our four-dimensional universe. This is obviously undesirable.

12. Stunning Satisfaction of Hilarious Natural Dependence upon Artificial Communication

Entanglement at a distance has been known as a core element of quantum theory, according to which if two very distant particles A and B are in entanglement, when a change of status happens to A, then B would sense the change instantly. Physicists in general seem to agree on this. However, in the meantime they would always add a hilarious annotation to this natural phenomenon, whenever they talk about it publicly, that instant information transfer between A and B does not violate the speed limit prescribed by special relativity because some artificial act of communication would be required from a person (or system) in the place of A to notify the person (or system) in the place of B to complete the information transfer in a controllable fashion (e.g. Lincoln 2020; Lykken 2023) [[40],[41]].

Worse than the abovementioned hilarious statement that mixes the assumed natural speed limit with artificial communication is the satisfaction of the professionals in the community of physics with this kind of hilarious statement, which is a typical symptom of collective philosophical weakness. We might even call this particular symptom as the apparently collectively hypnotized symptom.

As we have learned from the discussions earlier in this writing, the so-called natural speed limit as the speed of light in vacuum prescribed by special relativity is wrong. However, even without the knowledge that special relativity is wrong, we could clearly see how philosophically wrong to mix the speed of information transportation during the quantum entanglement related processes with the speed limit prescribed by special relativity:

1) A common claim familiar to the public because of the popular science programs of quantum physicists is that quantum physics is fundamentally different from classic kinematics, while the so-called speed limit as the speed of light prescribed by special relativity is a (erroneously) assumed kinematical law which did not have any logical or empirical root at all in the quantum field during its development.

How could anyone even come up with the idea that the entanglement process must not violate that assumed kinematical law? Even with the consideration that there should be some fundamental space and time connection between quantum and kinematic processes, a philosophically rational mind would suggest to modify the assumed kinematic law based on the empirical evidences instead of the opposite.

2) Even if it was true that the information transfer with quantum entanglement cannot be fulfilled in a controlled manner faster than the speed of light in vacuum, it has nothing to do with the natural speed of information transfer during quantum-entanglement related processes at all. How could the professionals from the community of physics unexceptionally relate these two things together only for defending the validity of special relativity?

The stunning behavior of the scientific community discussed here is much graver than the quantum-entanglement related natural phenomena themselves. This is because this kind of philosophically hilarious behavior of the scientific community would severely ruin its credibility. If this philosophical weakness of the community cannot be changed, we could expect much more ridiculous things to come in the scientific world.

13. The Over-Confidence Resulting From the Ignorance of What Energy Is About

Over-confident of the existing textbook knowledge is a common philosophical error over human history. One typical example is about the notion of energy conservation, which was first established by Émilie du Châtelet in 18^th century based on the transfer between kinetic energy and potential energy in mechanics, and was later extended to all forms of energy and the transfer between different forms of energy (e.g. Wikipedia, 2022i)[[42]].

While the notion of energy conservation and the corresponding equations have been one of the critical composing part of scientific derivation in any branches of modern science (especially physics), scientists are not as sure about the meaning of energy itself as the public might have supposed. So far the scientific notion of energy has been completely constructed on top of the concept of conservation established by Émilie du Châtelet, and thus it is almost impossible for scientists to think about energy beyond the conservation of that invisible and intangible natural vigor. Nevertheless, nature could always surprise us by going beyond the best imaginations that humans can have. As discussed by Dai (2021a; 2022g)[[43],[44]], while energy seems always conserved in the subatomic world explored by quantum physicists where boundary configurations for the potential energy are always simple, in the complicated macroscopic world, energy conservation could be violated under certain special dynamic configurations of the system. Further, as discussed by Dai (2021b)[[45]], the common familiar natural phenomena like redshift and blueshift are constantly violating energy conservation with or without the influence of the expansion of universe.

Therefore, the claim that the law of energy conservation can never be violated is incorrect; but since the scientific notion of energy has been constructed based on the concept of conservation and transfer, the above mentioned discoveries of cases in which energy is not conserved have exposed the ignorance of the scientific community about either the true essence of energy or the mechanism of its creation and annihilation which has not been clearly taught in textbooks.

14. Academic Philosophy --- A Declined Discipline

The use of a past participle in the title of this section might make some people feel uncomfortable. But unfortunately that is a proper wording for this section despite it is a sad reality. The game has come to the end for the current academia of philosophy, and it is impossible to restart it from within.

This is not to say that philosophy is ended as Heidegger (1969 [[46]]) pronounced many decades ago, this just means that the game is almost over for the current academia of philosophy. The reason why it is not completely over yet is not because this academia still has academic vigor or potentially bright future. No, this current academia of philosophy has no future at all and the reason why it is not completely over is because it is still a huge global enterprise with hundreds of thousands of people to be taken care of and huge resources including a colossal teaching team and large quantity of facilities and platforms.

14.1. The diagnosis for the academic philosophy

The correct diagnosis for the current academia of philosophy should be the academic autism, which makes the academia indulged in its own fabricated games while utterly disconnected from the real social, natural, and humanistic courses. Professional philosophers are no longer able to carry out the ancient task of philosophically troubleshooting real life problems in natural science, technological development and engineering projects, economics and finance, cultural dynamics, domestic and international politics, industries and supplies, education and humanity, etc. They are even incapable of comprehending the descriptions of problem in real life social sectors beyond their own familiar language so that we are witnessing such awkward situation that philosophers are less understanding than ordinary people in the public while the opposite was supposed to be the case in ancient times.

This academic autism is incurable because it is fortified by the existing interest-based power structure, which is not something that can be resolved through any academic or even political efforts.

14.2. The replacement of truth with arguments

Truth has become not important for the academia of philosophy since long time ago. The academia has ingeniously deprived itself off the demand of truth by declaring that there is no common standard of truth in philosophy and everything is open to be argued without the need to reach any conclusion. The term “argue” has been assigned a new significance and “argument” has taken the place of truth to become the ultimate goal of philosophy. This leads to the systematic dishonesty of the academia of philosophy.

One of the most important factors that have led the academia of philosophy come to this sad ending is the collective poor reading capacity. It might stagger the general public if they are told that the academia is collectively incapable of correctly reading some classics of Hegel, Kant, Aristotle, Plato, Lao Tzu, and so on. But unfortunately, that is the sad fact (see Dai, 2019, 2020 a-b, 2021c) [[47], [48], [49], [50]]. This simple fact should have utterly disqualified the whole academia from the title of “philosophy” if we would gauge the academia with the same standard as we gauge high school students in their reading class. Of course, that will not happen since the society has fully entrusted the profession with the title of “philosophy” to handle anything that is related to philosophy with a faith that people in that profession would excellently handle the business of philosophy in the best possible way. Therefore, no one outside the academia would come to gauge the academia of philosophy as a profession with any standard; in the meantime, the academia itself would not admit the embarrassing reality of not able to read difficult classics. With this general background, we can see how much the replacement of truth with “arguments” could help the academics of philosophy to extricate themselves from the embarrassment of poor reading capacity.

14.3. The hijack of the title “philosophy”

Because of the reasons laid out above, we can see that the academia of philosophy is ruining the mainstream philosophy and misleading bright young academics generations after generations. They achieve this not by dictating a social doctrine and forcing everyone to repeat it as happened historically in some authoritarian nations, and they are not misleading the generations after generations of bright youngsters by pointing guns at their heads. They cause the damages through hijacking the title “philosophy”.

The open society has endorsed the academia of philosophy generously because they expect that people in the profession with the title of “philosophy” would do the best for philosophy as the foundation of human civilization, and the youngsters enter the profession of philosophy because they assume that the profession with the title of “philosophy” would be the best place for them to serve the civilization with authentic philosophy.

Therefore, what the society is really endorsing with high respect and rich resources are not those particular people in the profession of philosophy, but rather the name of “philosophy”. Accordingly, when people in the profession with the name of “philosophy” cannot live up to the name but still enjoy the prestige and resources brought by the name of “philosophy”, it would be indeed in a sense a hijack of the name of “philosophy”.

Of course, the students would be finally molded into the same shapes as their professors by the selection mechanism of the educational system....anyone who does not agree with what their professors taught would not pass the examinations so that cannot be endorsed with the social resources that are supposed to endorse people work for the name of "philosophy".....even after they graduate, if they do not follow the steps of those who are controlling the platforms and resources  that the society offers to people with the name of "philosophy", they would not be able to publish papers, and they cannot promote what they think to be correct but against the stale culture of the academia of philosophy, and they might not even hold their professional positions very long.

14.4. Wisdom expelled by “knowledge”

One logical consequence of the academic autism and poor collective reading capacity plus systematic dishonesty is that wisdom that are supposed to be loved by philosophers has been expelled by “knowledge” in the professional writings of philosophy. One important reason that we need to put the quotation marks around the word knowledge here is because the academia has a culture of making up their own knowledge with collections of isms and names of famous players in the game.

14.5. The need for a parallel new community of professional philosophy

Despite of the disparagement of philosophy by the academia of science in the past few centuries, fundamentally humans indeed vitally need a good mainstream philosophy due to the foundational role of philosophy in the development of earth civilization. No need to mention how potentially dangerous this civilization is now facing with a demising profession of philosophy.

The long term solution for boosting the global societal capacity of philosophical thinking would undoubtedly involve revolutionary changes in philosophy education at all levels (from grade to graduate). However, fundamental educations would not suffice for meeting the global demands for advanced philosophical capacity in helping with practical needs in scientific, economical, political, environmental, and all other cultural areas. We need to have professionals of advanced capacity of metaphysical thinking in various decision making bodies to help avoiding detrimental actions, which the existing academia of philosophy is obviously incompetent of.

The challenge here is that we need a new specialty to help the world with widespread demands while it is impossible for us to train people with this specialty like we train other professionals. This new specialty would require its professionals to be not only proficient in math and science but also in philosophy (metaphysics). This requirement determines that it would be like building another ivory tower in the academic world. Nevertheless, since we need it we have no other choice but start to build it so that we might get over the barrier of societal weak capacity of philosophical thinking.

However, the existing academia of philosophy would not be able to carry out this task at all and this academia cannot be changed from within. In the meantime, it is not practically realistic to attempt to replace the existing academia of philosophy with another one, for the reasons that I discussed above.

This brings up a call to those who really cares about the wellbeing of this civilization and understands the vital role of a good academia of philosophy to the civilization: we need to form a parallel community of philosophy to battle the existing one.

Of course, it is impossible for any group of people to form another academia of philosophy in one shot. Ideally, the best approach would be to first have an independent school of philosophy outside the existing educational system which is tightly bound to the existing academia of philosophy. In this school, natural and social sciences would be merged with general philosophy once again as they were many centuries ago. High level practical trainings targeting at real life issues would be parallel to the teachings of advanced new philosophy knowledge, and new platforms for publishing would be established.

Accordingly, we need to have revolutionary curriculums for the students and high standards for the qualifications of the teachers, and we need to start with a small scale and to have it grow through practices. Most importantly, the new school would not be influenced by the interest based political structure of the existing academia of philosophy.

15. Discussion

Human beings are paying a dire price for disparaging philosophy in all facets of life, especially in the field of natural science where the most intelligent explorations of nature for the survival and advance of Homo sapiens species are supposed to be conducted. In the examples discussed in this paper we could see that scientists with the aura of smartest people on earth could easily be convinced by “simple, straight, and brilliant ideas” that would lead to various kinds of false knowledge and wrong practices, and then defend those ideas with all their lives for a long time, simply because they do not possess the capacity to discern simple philosophically wrong ideas.

Very often those “simple, straight, and brilliant ideas” could bring aesthetically attractive convenience with its logical defects hidden in various camouflages that could be easily identified if the society has been prepared with strong philosophical capacity of reasoning.

In the meantime, the academic capacity of philosophical thinking has been severely crippled by the collective misunderstanding and disparaging of the role of philosophy for the past few centuries as well. It is the outcome of complicated historical developments of both academic philosophy and academic science with profound causes in both prescribed and accidental forms. On the academic philosophy side, the collectively poor reading capacity and systematic dishonesty have led to the academic autism, which cannot be changed from within due to its tight connection to the interest-based political structure including the educational selection mechanism.

History is full of coincidences. A few decades before the academic world accepted Cantor’s set theory, Danish author Hans Christian Andersen published his famous writing “The Emperor's New Clothes” (e.g. Wikipedia, 2022j) [[51]], and then a few decades later, as we have witnessed from the examples discussed above, the community of scholars in mathematics and physics and philosophy, a group of elites that would be least possible to be connected by the public to that folktale of Andersen, started to put on the real life show simply because of their collective dearth of strong capacity of philosophical thinking.

Obviously we cannot go back in history to fix the historical causes but rather have to face the current challenges coming with it if we do want to have a change of the status quo with the academic philosophical weakness.

One of the biggest challenges at this point of history for the world to deal with the fallout of disparaging philosophy for a long time is to admit that collectively disparaging philosophy has done huge harms to the civilization. This would be much more difficult to the academia than it might sound because it is always a popular tendency for people to focus on particular technical or conditional reasons for their mistakes or failures instead of the defects in their fundamental ways of thinking (i.e. their philosophical thinking) since hardworking people would always think that they have tried their best to muster up their good logical ability to take care of all the necessary aspects. Consequently, although due to the undeniable directional errors when we look back over the century-long course it would be very hard for serious readers to deny the philosophical causes behind the mistakes discussed in this writing, when similar situations occur in the future practices, people would most probably repeat the same mistakes if the negative societal mindset about the role of philosophy remains the same and academia of philosophy remains to be the same society as it is today.

A change of the mindset of disparaging philosophy by admitting the important role of philosophy in scientific endeavors and admitting the stale status of the academia of philosophy is of the utmost importance for us to improve human societal capacity of philosophical thinking. We need a revolution of the academic philosophy and we need to have a new professional community of philosophy parallel to the existing academia of philosophy.

References

Abraham, M. (1904). Ann. d. Phys. 14. p. 244. 1904. I found this entry from Hasenöhrl’s paper, but I did not find the original by myself.

Aristotle (350BC). Metaphysics. (W. D. Ross Trans). Provided by The Internet Classics Archive. Retrieved from http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/metaphysics.html

Dai, R. (2019). How to Distinguish Dialectics from Sophistry? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337632025_How_to_Distinguish_Dialectics_from_Sophistry

Dai, R. (2020a). The Difficulty of Reading Classic Works of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350592341_The_Difficulty_of_Reading_Classic_Works_of_Philosophy

Dai, R. (2020b). The Imperfection of Hegelian Ontology. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342992318_The_Imperfection_of_Hegelian_Ontology

Dai, R. (2021a). Self-feedback Perpetual Motion and Violation of Thermodynamics Laws, Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357032292_Self-feedback_Perpetual_Motion_and_Violation_of_Thermodynamics_Laws

Dai, R. (2021b). The Random Energy Loss and Creation in a Nonexpanding Universe. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350086785_The_Random_Energy_Loss_and_Creation_in_a_Nonexpanding_Universe

Dai, R. (2021c). How to Read Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349387162_How_to_Read_Hegel's_Phenomenology_of_Spirit

Dai, R. (2022a). Solution to Hilbert First Problem against the Illusion of Cantorian Cardinal System. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362271041_Solution_to_Hilbert_First_Problem_against_the_Illusion_of_Cantorian_Cardinal_System

Dai, R. (2022b). Why the First Postulate of Special Relativity Is Not Right. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362907398_The_First_Postulate_of_Special_Relativity_Can_Not_Be_Correct

Dai, R. (2022c). Invalidating the Postulate of Constant Speed of Light with a Thought Experiment. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362080277_Invalidating_the_Postulate_of_Constant_Speed_of_Light_with_a_Thought_Experiment

Dai, R. (2022d). Absolute Space and Time Versus Aether. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363795935_Absolute_Space_and_Time_versus_Aether_or_Cosmic_Center_Rongqing_Dai

Dai, R. (2022e). The Fall of Special Relativity and The Absoluteness of Space and Time. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363582341_The_Fall_of_Special_Relativity_and_The_Absoluteness_of_Space_and_Time

Dai, R. (2022f). “What Is Time?”. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366723983_What_Is_Time.

Dai, R. (2022g). Deequilibrium State & Perpetual Motion Machine. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358575784_De-equilibrium_State_Perpetual_Motion_Machine_Rongqing_Dai

Dai, R. (2023a). Modifying Mass-Energy Relationship. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370288880_Modifying_Mass-Energy_Relationship

Dai, R. (2023b). The Genetic Defect of Schrödinger's Cat. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371948820_The_Genetic_Defect_of_Schrodinger's_Cat_Rongqing_Dai

Dai, R. (2023c) The Faulty System of Relativistic Momentum and Energy. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368357262_The_Faulty_System_of_Relativistic_Momentum_and_Energy

Einstein, A. (1905). Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy-content?. Retrieved from: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

Einstein, A. (1912) The speed of light and the statics of the gravitational field. Translated by D. H. Delphenich.“Lichtgeschwindigkeit und Statik des Gravitionsfeldes,” Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 38 (1912), 355-369. Available at: http://neo-classical-physics.info/uploads/3/4/3/6/34363841/einstein_-_speed_of_light_and_grav.pdf

Einstein, A (1916). Relativity: The Special and General Theory, Section XXX: Cosmological Difficulties of Newton’s Theory. (R.W. Lawson Trans). London, UK: Methuen & CO. LTD. Retrieved from https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5001/5001-h/5001-h.htm

 Hasenöhrl, F. (1904). On the Theory of Radiation in Moving Bodies. Retrieved from: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Theory_of_Radiation_in_Moving_Bodies.

Heidegger, M. (1969). The End of Philosophy and the Task of Thinking. in Martin Heidegger Works, Ed by J. Glenn Gray and Joan Stambaugh, translated by Joan Stambaugh, HARPER TORCHBOOKS Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, Hagerstown, San Francisco, London, pp55-73. Retrieved from https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/sussexphenomenology/files/2013/05/Martin-Heidegger-Joan-Stambaugh-Translator-On-Time-and-Being-1977.pdf

Koellner, P (2019). The Continuum Hypothesis, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/continuum-hypothesis/.

Lincoln, D. [Fermilb]. (2020, Feb 12) "Quantum Entanglement: Spooky Action at a Distance" [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFozGfxmi8A&t=7m44s

Lykken, J. [Fermilab]. (2023, Mar 3) “Wormholes in the laboratory – Public lecture by Dr. Joe Lykken” [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGBQW4z0qW8&t=25m25s

Mathpages (2022). The Sagnac Effect. Retrieved from https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

Mayer, J. R. (1867). Remarks on the Mechanical Equivalent of Heat. The Correlation and Conservation of Forces, translated by J. C. Foster, pp. 331, 336

NIST (2019). Definitions of the SI base units. physics.nist.gov. Retrieved from https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.htmlRetrieved 8 February

Olinto de Pretto, D.D. (1903). Ipotesi Dell'Etere Nella Vita Dell'Universo. Retrieved from: http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/st/mem-depr-vf.htm

 Poincaré, H. (1900). The Theory of Lorentz and The Principle of Reaction. Retrieved from: http://www.physicsinsights.org/poincare-1900.pdf

Preston, S. T. (1875). Physics of the Ether, E. & F. N. Spon, London, 1875, #165

Ricker, HH. (2015). The Origin of the Equation E = mc2. Retrieved from: http://www.dankalia.com/delloro/gravity-cone/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Equation%20E%20=%20mc2.htm

Rothman, T. (2015). Was Einstein the First to Invent E = mc2?. Retrieved from: http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/05/23/the-origin-of-the-equation-e-mc2/

Sagnac, G. (1913). The luminiferous aether demonstrated by the effect of the wind relative to the aether in a uniformly rotating interferometer. Comptes Rendus, 157: 708-710. translated from French by Wikisource. Retrieved from https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:The_Demonstration_of_the_Luminiferous_Aether

Veisdai, J. (2021). Cantor and Dedekind's Early Correspondence, Privatdozent newsletter. Retrieved from https://www.privatdozent.co/p/cantor-and-dedekinds-early-correspondence

Viel, D. (2021). Muons atmospheric time dilation experiment. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/66182321/Muons_atmospheric_time_dilation_experiment

van Lunteren, F.H. (2002). Nicolas Fatio de Duillier on the Mechanical Cause of Universal Gravitation. Retrieved from https://www.academia.edu/28429712/Nicolas_Fatio_de_Duillier_on_the_Mechanical_Cause_of_Universal_Gravitation

Wikipedia (2021a). Light cone. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone. Last edited on 10 October 2021, at 12:27 (UTC).

Wikipedia (2021b). Galileo's principle of relativity. Retrieved from https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity. Last changed on 6 July 2021, at 18:20.

Wikipedia (2022a). L'Hôpital's rule. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s_rule. Last edited on 10 October 2022, at 15:58 (UTC).

Wikipedia (2022b). Deformation (engineering). Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_(engineering). Last edited on 26 July 2022, at 07:43 (UTC).

Wikipedia (2022c). Poisson's ratio. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson%27s_ratio. Last edited on 21 August 2022, at 08:53 (UTC).

Wikipedia (2022d). Adiabatic process. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adiabatic_process. Last edited on 14 October 2022, at 11:46 (UTC).

Wikipedia (2022e). Speed of light. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light. Last edited on 24 August 2022, at 20:06 (UTC).

Wikipedia (2022f). Sagnac effect. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect. Last edited on 28 March 2022, at 18:02 (UTC).

Wikipedia (2022g). Experimental testing of time dilation. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Atmospheric_tests. Last edited on 31 March 2022, at 05:29 (UTC).

Wikipedia (2022h). Michelson–Morley experiment. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Most_famous_%22failed%22_experiment. Last edited on 9 October 2022, at 18:58 (UTC).

Wikipedia (2022i). Conservation of energy. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy. Last edited on 10 August 2022, at 06:59 (UTC).

Wikipedia (2022j). The Emperor's New Clothes. Retrieved from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes. Last edited on 27 August 2022, at 21:32 (UTC).

Wikipedia (2023). Schrödinger's cat. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat. Last edited on 16 May 2023, at 19:45 (UTC).

[[1]] Aristotle (350BC), Metaphysics, Translated by W. D. Ross, Provided by The Internet Classics Archive. Available at http://classics.mit.edu//Aristotle/metaphysics.html

[[2]] Koellner, P (2019), “The Continuum Hypothesis”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Spring 2019 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2019/entries/continuum-hypothesis/.

[[3]] Dai, R. (2022a) “Solution to Hilbert First Problem against the Illusion of Cantorian Cardinal System”, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362271041_Solution_to_Hilbert_First_Problem_against_the_Illusion_of_Cantorian_Cardinal_System.

[[4]] Veisdai, J (2021) “Cantor and Dedekind's Early Correspondence”, Privatdozent newsletter. https://www.privatdozent.co/p/cantor-and-dedekinds-early-correspondence

[[5]] Wikipedia (2022a)  “L'Hôpital's rule”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27H%C3%B4pital%27s_rule. Last edited on 10 October 2022, at 15:58 (UTC).

[[6]] Dai, R. (2022b) “Why the First Postulate of Special Relativity Is Not Right”, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362907398_The_First_Postulate_of_Special_Relativity_Can_Not_Be_Correct

[[7]] Wikipedia (2022b) “Deformation (engineering)”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deformation_(engineering). Last edited on 26 July 2022, at 07:43 (UTC).

[[8]] Wikipedia (2022c)  “Poisson's ratio”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisson%27s_ratio. Last edited on 21 August 2022, at 08:53 (UTC).

[[9]] Wikipedia (2022d) “Adiabatic process”. Last edited on 14 October 2022, at 11:46 (UTC).

[[10]] Wikipedia (2022e) “Speed of light”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light. Last edited on 24 August 2022, at 20:06 (UTC).

[[11]] NIST (2019) "Definitions of the SI base units". physics.nist.gov. https://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/current.htmlRetrieved 8 February

[[12]] Dai, R. (2022c) “Invalidating the Postulate of Constant Speed of Light with a Thought Experiment”, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362080277_Invalidating_the_Postulate_of_Constant_Speed_of_Light_with_a_Thought_Experiment

[[13]] Wikipedia (2022f) “Sagnac effect”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sagnac_effect. Last edited on 28 March 2022, at 18:02 (UTC).

[[14]] Sagnac, G. (1913) “The luminiferous aether demonstrated by the effect of the wind relative to the aether in a uniformly rotating interferometer”. Comptes Rendus, 157: 708-710. translated from French by Wikisource. https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:The_Demonstration_of_the_Luminiferous_Aether

[[15]] Mathpages (2022). “The Sagnac Effect”. https://www.mathpages.com/rr/s2-07/2-07.htm

[[16]] Wikipedia (2021a) “Light cone”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_cone. Last edited on 10 October 2021, at 12:27 (UTC).

[[17]] Wikipedia (2022g). “Experimental testing of time dilation”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Experimental_testing_of_time_dilation#Atmospheric_tests. Last edited on 31 March 2022, at 05:29 (UTC).

[[18]] Viel, D (2021) “Muons atmospheric time dilation experiment”. https://www.academia.edu/66182321/Muons_atmospheric_time_dilation_experiment

[[19]] Dai, R. (2022d) “Absolute Space and Time Versus Aether”, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363795935_Absolute_Space_and_Time_versus_Aether_or_Cosmic_Center_Rongqing_Dai

[[20]] van Lunteren, F.H. (2002) "Nicolas Fatio de Duillier on the Mechanical Cause of Universal Gravitation", https://www.academia.edu/28429712/Nicolas_Fatio_de_Duillier_on_the_Mechanical_Cause_of_Universal_Gravitation

[[21]] Wikipedia (2022h) “Michelson–Morley experiment”. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment#Most_famous_%22failed%22_experiment. Last edited on 9 October 2022, at 18:58 (UTC).

[[22]] Wikipedia (2021b). “Galileo's principle of relativity”, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_relativity. Last changed on 6 July 2021, at 18:20.

[[23]] Dai, R. (2022e) “The Fall of Special Relativity and The Absoluteness of Space and Time”. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363582341_The_Fall_of_Special_Relativity_and_The_Absoluteness_of_Space_and_Time

[[24]] Einstein, A (1916) “Relativity: The Special and General Theory” Section XXX: Cosmological Difficulties of Newton’s Theory. Available at https://www.gutenberg.org/files/5001/5001-h/5001-h.htm

[[25]] Einstein, A. (1912) “The speed of light and the statics of the gravitational field”. Translated by D. H. Delphenich.“Lichtgeschwindigkeit und Statik des Gravitionsfeldes,” Ann. Phys. (Leipzig) 38 (1912), 355-369. Available at: http://neo-classical-physics.info/uploads/3/4/3/6/34363841/einstein_-_speed_of_light_and_grav.pdf

[[26]] Dai, R. (2022f) “What Is Time?”. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366723983_What_Is_Time.

[[27]] Einstein, A. (1905). “Does the Inertia of a Body Depend Upon Its Energy-content?”. Retrieved from: https://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/einstein/E_mc2/e_mc2.pdf

[[28]] Rothman, T. (2015). “Was Einstein the First to Invent E = mc2?”. Retrieved from: http://www.naturalphilosophy.org/site/harryricker/2015/05/23/the-origin-of-the-equation-e-mc2/

[[29]] Ricker, HH. (2015).  “The Origin of the Equation E = mc2”. Retrieved from: http://www.dankalia.com/delloro/gravity-cone/The%20Origin%20of%20the%20Equation%20E%20=%20mc2.htm

[[30]] Poincaré, H. (1900). The Theory of Lorentz and The Principle of Reaction. Retrieved from: http://www.physicsinsights.org/poincare-1900.pdf

[[31]] Hasenöhrl, F. (1904). “On the Theory of Radiation in Moving Bodies. Correction”. Retrieved from: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:On_the_Theory_of_Radiation_in_Moving_Bodies.

[[32]] Abraham, M. (1904). Ann. d. Phys. 14. p. 244. 1904. I found this entry from Hasenöhrl’s paper, but I did not find the original by myself.

[[33]] Mayer, J. R. (1867) “Remarks on the Mechanical Equivalent of Heat,” The Correlation and Conservation of Forces, translated by J. C. Foster, pp. 331, 336

[[34]] Preston, S. T. (1875). “Physics of the Ether”, E. & F. N. Spon, London, 1875, #165

[[35]] Olinto de Pretto, D.D. (1903) “Ipotesi Dell'Etere Nella Vita Dell'Universo”. Retrieved from: http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/st/mem-depr-vf.htm

[[36]] Dai, R. (2023a). “Modifying Mass-Energy Relationship”. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/370288880_Modifying_Mass-Energy_Relationship

[[37]] Wikipedia. (2023) “Schrödinger's cat”. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schr%C3%B6dinger's_cat. Last edited on 16 May 2023, at 19:45 (UTC).

[[38]] Dai, R. (2023b). “The Genetic Defect of Schrödinger's Cat”. Retrieved from: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/371948820_The_Genetic_Defect_of_Schrodinger's_Cat_Rongqing_Dai

[[39]] Dai, R. (2023c) “The Faulty System of Relativistic Momentum and Energy”. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/368357262_The_Faulty_System_of_Relativistic_Momentum_and_Energy

[[40]] Lincoln, D. [Fermilb]. (2020, Feb 12) "Quantum Entanglement: Spooky Action at a Distance" [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFozGfxmi8A&t=7m44s

[[41]] Lykken, J. [Fermilab]. (2023, Mar 3) “Wormholes in the laboratory – Public lecture by Dr. Joe Lykken” [Video]. YouTube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cGBQW4z0qW8&t=25m25s

[[42]] Wikipedia (2022i). “Conservation of energy”, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_of_energy. Last edited on 10 August 2022, at 06:59 (UTC).

[[43]] Dai, R. (2021a) “Self-feedback Perpetual Motion and Violation of Thermodynamics Laws”, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357032292_Self-feedback_Perpetual_Motion_and_Violation_of_Thermodynamics_Laws

[[44]] Dai, R. (2022g) “Deequilibrium State & Perpetual Motion Machine”, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/358575784_De-equilibrium_State_Perpetual_Motion_Machine_Rongqing_Dai

[[45]] Dai, R. (2021b) “The Random Energy Loss and Creation in a Nonexpanding Universe”, https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350086785_The_Random_Energy_Loss_and_Creation_in_a_Nonexpanding_Universe

[[46]]Heidegger, M. (1969). The End of Philosophy and the Task of Thinking. in Martin Heidegger Works, Ed by J. Glenn Gray and Joan Stambaugh, translated by Joan Stambaugh, HARPER TORCHBOOKS Harper & Row, Publishers, New York, Hagerstown, San Francisco, London, pp55-73. Retrieved from https://blogs.sussex.ac.uk/sussexphenomenology/files/2013/05/Martin-Heidegger-Joan-Stambaugh-Translator-On-Time-and-Being-1977.pdf

[[47]] Dai, R. (2019). How to Distinguish Dialectics from Sophistry? J Huma Soci Scie, 2019 Volume 2 | Issue 2 | 1 of 4, Retrieved from https://www.opastpublishers.com/open-access-articles/how-to-distinguish-dialectics-from-sophistry.pdf

[[48]] Dai, R. (2020a). The Difficulty of Reading Classic Works of Philosophy. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350592341_The_Difficulty_of_Reading_Classic_Works_of_Philosophy

[[49]] Dai, R. (2020b). The Imperfection of Hegelian Ontology. Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342992318_The_Imperfection_of_Hegelian_Ontology

[[50]] Dai, R. (2021c). How to Read Hegel's Phenomenology of Spirit? Retrieved from https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349387162_How_to_Read_Hegel's_Phenomenology_of_Spirit

[[51]] Wikipedia (2022j) "The Emperor's New Clothes", https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Emperor's_New_Clothes. Last edited on 27 August 2022, at 21:32 (UTC).