Questions and Answers

The interview was conducted by 

Kirk Roderick Williams

Why are you dedicating this book to your brother and why are you writing this for your brother? Have you had a long-standing discussion about this topic? 

My older brother is a retired sea captain and a trained nautical officer. In discussions about planetary movements and astronomy, in which I expressed my views and doubts about current astrophysics, he recommended that I write an essay about this subject. Finally, I agreed, and it became a tool to organize my thoughts much better than before. I had no intention of writing a book, especially since I didn't initially knew how extensive it would become. 

What made you delve so profoundly and unconventionally into this rather complex topic? 

Among other things, I had read two unconventional paperbacks from the 1990s by a supposed group of scientists from former East Germany. The first book was a detailed overview on everything science had researched up to 1905. It contained a calculation of the mass of a planet and its gravitational pull. I tried to recalculate it and failed. Despite several attempts on different days, I always got the same wrong result. It was like in math class when I didn't understand something and was utterly frustrated at being too stupid. Finally, I called a friend who is a mathematician and asked him for help. To my great surprise, he confirmed that my calculations were correct. It was like an accolade that inspired and motivated me to get into this scientific topic. The second book dealt with Einstein's theory of relativity as the error of the century. 

How long have you been interested in this topic?

My Big Bang happened when the ultimate genius of the last century, Albert Einstein, was presented for the first time in my physics class and 24 young talents were collectively degraded to idiots. 

What was the impetus of the above-mentioned specialist publications?

Interpretations of physical phenomena according to current teachings are, in my opinion, partly superficial, incorrect, and evasive. 

Do you deal with fundamental physics questions in your private life and work, or do you experiment with concrete, practical machines for generating energy?

Yes, I call my project the organization of molecular movement or, to keep it simple, it is about flow. For example, why does a sailboat experience the fastest propulsion when sailing close to the wind, almost against the wind? Or, how does a trout manage to stand motionless in the middle of a strong current with its mouth open without being swept away? And when it flees, it swims against the current.

What initiated your general doubts?

1. That the Earth, with its strong magnetic field, is supposed to have a liquid iron core. Because if you make a magnet glow, it loses its magnetic properties. 

2. The time-lapse images of solar flares shown in the media are actually hangouts in space for several days or weeks before slowly sinking back to the surface of the sun. I only came across this information purely by chance. 

3. When the International Astronomical Union (IAU) downgraded Pluto to a dwarf planet in 2006 because its orbit did not fit with scientists' idea of gravity. There were similar considerations about Mercury, the planet closest to the sun, but that would obviously have been pure scientific madness. So it was better not to do it. How critical are you of official academic astrophysics? Very critical. Basically, all research is aimed at confirming the existence of black holes, e.g. with LEGO, where they believe they have detected gravitational waves or the recently sighted so-called gravitational lenses through the James Webb Telescope. 

Do you find the natural sciences very dogmatic? 

Yes, because if you don't follow the path laid out, you will quickly become an outlaw. And if you only think within self-imposed barriers, such as the laws of physics, you will hardly be able to discover what is behind them.

Do you feel that scientific discourse is disconnected from the general public?

Yes, it is a world of its own, but financed by the general public. Just look at the chaos at CERN. At least, that's what I have heard and read about it.

Do you wish for a broader discourse?

Absolutely! Society treats this topic in a way that is far too detached, so very few people have access to it, and the majority develop an inner rejection because they cannot, should not, or do not want to understand it anyway.

How bad was your physics class? 

It was too long ago to give an assessment. Of course, the teachers always tried hard, more or less. I only got into physics when I was more mature, out of my own interest and not because I had to. That makes a big difference. 

How do you feel about the media on these issues?

Sometimes, I almost feel like it's brainwashing. They recite what we thought we had known for 300 years. In media-friendly, attractive images and animations, black holes are aesthetically prepared by video artists to pimp up boring scripts. Most recently, again in the Oscar-winning film Oppenheimer. I switched off at that point. It made me very angry. It is as if they wanted to justify the enormous expenditure on research into it by having a lot of media coverage.

Do you want to make readers doubt?

Absolutely! But I don't want to convince readers of my opinions. Everyone should believe what they want. After all, it's very difficult to leave familiar things behind you and it is even more difficult to open up for new things. 

Would you locate astrophysics in an ivory tower of science?

Not just astrophysics but the other disciplines, too. It seems to me as if society, with its technical achievements, is sitting under a glass bell jar, and at the top, there is a nub that you can lift - covered by a portrait of Einstein with his tongue sticking out. At least, that's how I feel here in Germany. 

What exactly do you want to achieve with your book?

I very much hope that established scientist happens to read this book. I would be delighted if they came across one or two ideas that could inspire their work. I think it would be great if this led to an open discourse on this topic. I have sent this book to five renowned scientists, including a Nobel Prize winner's office I dealt with during my work. Apart from one, an expert in extraterrestrials, who was very helpful and open to my questions, no one responded. 

What do you think needs to change in the natural sciences?

Undoubtedly the natural sciences and their far-reaching achievements have made our lives much more comfortable. Life expectancy and expectations have increased enormously. However, 250 years of technological development have also turned this planet into a garbage dump. That has to change, and in physics, the goal must absolutly be efficiency (h )  > 1.

Do we need more and better school lessons in the natural sciences?

No! Those who want to will find ways; those who don't want to will find reasons. Some time ago, a professor at the HAW (Hochschule für Angewandte Wissenschaften) in Hamburg even suggested completely abolishing mathematics as a teaching subject and converting it into an elective humanities subject.  Instead of burdening students with dubious mathematical equations, I believe multiplication tables and a little algebra would be sufficient for everyday life. In Finland, new approaches are being taken in teaching. For example, mathematics is taught using practical, real-life tasks. The PISA study results seem to prove the Finns right. 

Are you a modern heretic or a heretic?

I am probably a heretic, but I don't want to be burned as one. 

How relevant are these questions for the future of humanity?

It depends on how many people will follow the answers to these questions and whether there are scientists who accept these answers. Only when there is enough mass attention this will become relevant for humanity. In any case, the Earth will continue to revolve around the sun once every 365 days.