Polska wersja
Here is the letter, regarding Kaziuk's Sequence, I sent to media around the world.

First, a brief introduction:
Imagine that somewhere in intergalactic space there is a huge launch platform. On this platform there is an observer who observes that the rest mass of the platform together with everything on it is 1,000,000 * 1,000,000x. On the platform there is a rocket with a cosmonaut and probe A on board. The observer observes that this whole set – that is, the rocket, the cosmonaut and probe A – has the rest mass of 1,000,000x, and the rest mass of probe A alone is 1x. Next to the set is another identical probe B, so the observer observes that its rest mass is the same as probe A's, i.e. 1x.

1st sentence:
Then force 1 000 000y was applied to the set, and force 1y was applied to probe B; as a result, the set and probe B reached the same speed 0.866c, and are now flying relative to the platform at the same constant speed 0,866c.
True or false?
Not showing by any professor of physics that the first sentence is false – that is, inconsistent with what special theory of relativity says – will be evidence to thinking people that it's consistent with what special theory of relativity says.
And when the first sentence is consistent with what special theory of relativity says, then its continuation is the second sentence.

2nd sentence:
So from the observer's point of view, the gamma factor

for the set and probe B is:
γ = 2
therefore, from the observer's point of view, the relativistic kinetic energy

of the set is:
E_k = 1 000 000x * mc² * (2 – 1) = 1 000 000x * mc²
and of probe B is:
E_k = 1x * mc² * (2 – 1) = 1x * mc²
True or false?
Not showing by any professor of physics that the second sentence is false – that is, inconsistent with what special theory of relativity says – will be evidence to thinking people that it's consistent with what special theory of relativity says.
And when the second sentence is consistent with what special theory of relativity says, then its continuation is the third sentence.

3rd sentence:
However, from the point of view of the cosmonaut in the rocket, the set is at rest and the platform is flying at the speed of 0.866c.
True or false?
Not showing by any professor of physics that the third sentence is false – that is, inconsistent with what special theory of relativity says – will be evidence to thinking people that it's consistent with what special theory of relativity says.
And when the third sentence is consistent with what special theory of relativity says, then its continuation is the fourth sentence.

4th sentence:
Then the cosmonaut observed that the force of 1y was applied to probe A, after which probe A has achieved the speed relative to the rocket of 0.866c, that's as is probe B's speed relative to the platform, so probe A is now flying relative to the rocket at the constant speed of 0.866c.
True or false?
Not showing by any professor of physics that the fourth sentence is false – that is, inconsistent with what special theory of relativity says – will be evidence to thinking people that it's consistent with what special theory of relativity says.
And when the fourth sentence is consistent with what special theory of relativity says, then its continuation is the fifth sentence.

5th sentence:
From the cosmonaut's point of view, probe A flies in the direction opposite to the direction of the platform's motion; therefore from the point of view of the observer on the platform, probe A has the speed of 0.9897c, which results from the relativistic velocity-addition formula:

u' = (0,866 + 0,866) / (1 + 0,866 * 0,866 / 1²) = 0,9897
True or false?
Not showing by any professor of physics that the fifth sentence is false – that is, inconsistent with what special theory of relativity says – will be evidence to thinking people that it's consistent with what special theory of relativity says.
And when the fifth sentence is consistent with what special theory of relativity says, then its continuation is the sixth sentence.

6th sentence:
So from the observer's point of view, the gamma factor

for probe A is:
γ = about 7
therefore from the observer's point of view, probe A has the relativistic kinetic energy

of:
E_k = 1x * mc² * (about 7 – 1) = about 6x * mc²
True or false?
Not showing by any professor of physics that the sixth sentence is false – that is, inconsistent with what special theory of relativity says – will be evidence to thinking people that it's consistent with what special theory of relativity says.
And when the sixth sentence is consistent with what special theory of relativity says, then its continuation is the seventh sentence.

7th sentence:
Before probe A left the rocket flying at the speed of 0.866c relative to the platform, from the observer's point of view, the gamma factor for probe A was the same as for the set and it was:
γ = 2
True or false?
Not showing by any professor of physics that the seventh sentence is false – that is, inconsistent with what special theory of relativity says – will be evidence to thinking people that it's consistent with what special theory of relativity says.
And when the seventh sentence is consistent with what special theory of relativity says, then its continuation is the eighth sentence.

8th sentence:
Therefore, from the observer's point of view, when probe A was launched from the rocket, the force of 2y was applied to it.
True or false?
Not showing by any professor of physics that the eighth sentence is false – that is, inconsistent with what special theory of relativity says – will be evidence to thinking people that it's consistent with what special theory of relativity says.
And when the eighth sentence is consistent with what special theory of relativity says, then its continuation is the ninth sentence.

9th sentence:
So from the observer's point of view, the total force was applied to probe A of:
1y (when probe A was one millionth part of the set launched from the platform) + 2y (when probe A was launched from the rocket) = 3y
True or false?
Not showing by any professor of physics that the ninth sentence is false – that is, inconsistent with what special theory of relativity says – will be evidence to thinking people that it's consistent with what special theory of relativity says.
And when the ninth sentence is consistent with what special theory of relativity says, then its continuation is the tenth sentence.

10th sentence:
So from the observer's point of view:

1. the force 1y that was applied to probe B resulted in the relativistic kinetic energy of probe B being:
E_k = 1x * mc²
2. and the total force 3y that was applied to probe A resulted in the relativistic kinetic energy of probe A being:
E_k = about 6x * mc²

True or false?
Not showing by any professor of physics that the tenth sentence is false – that is, inconsistent with what special theory of relativity says – will be evidence to thinking people that it's consistent with what special theory of relativity says.
And when the tenth sentence is consistent with what special theory of relativity says, then its continuation is the last sentence.

But first I'll quote professors of physics:
"We now take Einstein's special theory of relativity for granted." – fragment of the text that professors of physics posted on the website of University of Pittsburgh.

Last sentence, that's to professors of physics:
If you are unable to show that any sentence in Kaziuk's Sequence is inconsistent with what special theory of relativity says and at the same time you continue to take Einstein's theory for granted, or proclaim that it's the correct description of reality, thinking people will wheel you away to the madhouse.

But do thinking people even exist?
Since they may not exist, I wrote a letter to idiots – it's here.
In the letter to idiots you'll also find out what a wonderful prize worth

is waiting for professor of physics who proves that any sentence in Kaziuk's Sequence is false.

Kaziuk von Märchendorf
mail: kaziukvonmaerchendorf@gmail.com
P.S. If you have something to say about Kaziuk's Sequence, do it on my Facebook page Einstein miał rację (Einstein was right).

(11 October 2024)

www.cosmocomp.com