It is little-known that Einstein did NOT receive Nobel Prize for relativity. He had ALREADY received 1921 prize in 1922 for PHOTOELECTRICS. Yet even a distinguished scholar like Einstein can be snubbed when theories become too extravagant.

Subsequently, his relativity theory - within its narrow, specialised constraints - was proven to be true.

At my website I show principles behind REAL anti-gravity. You can read it from http://wehner.org/agrav .

The concept is simple. However, science CAN ONLY advance by small steps. Elaborate conjectures based upon such ideas as "Gravitron" particle - without SOLID proof that they actually exist - are doomed to fail.

The simple idea is that Moon is held to Earth by gravity, and experiences due to its orbit a repulsive force known as "centrifugal force". These two forces balance, to produce a stable system that has survived since pre-historic times. So much is KNOWN.

Then we imagine "Man in Moon". He has lived on "illuminated" side of Moon since pre-historic times, and knows that Moon is held to Earth by gravity. But counterbalancing force cannot be explained as "centrifugal force". The "Man in Moon" sees only ROTATION of Earth - one degree every FOUR MINUTES - and has to use this fact to explain stability of system.

So "Man in Moon" would use IDENTICAL mathematics to those on Earth who compute ORBIT. However, sums would be UPSIDE DOWN. He would compute how much thrust (ANTI-GRAVITY) is delivered by SPIN of a body.

I have done this on my website, and show that upside-down equations reveal a thrust that increases LINEARLY with distance for any constant spin.

This is surprising, because thrust increases INVERSELY with distance for any constant orbital velocity.

So, if in our dreams we could create an anti-gravity machine (NO!!! I DO NOT HAVE ANY DESIGN-PLANS!), it would not lift off CARPET, but off some distant place, such as centre of Earth. The further away object, greater thrust - and carpet is too near.

In our imagining, we can visualise some machine lifting away from carpet, and pile of that carpet IMMEDIATELY standing erect - because anti-gravity "footprint" would be far away.

The mathematics shows us what WOULD happen, but not how to build a machine. The "Action at a Great Distance" conclusion from anti-gravity equations suggests that building such a machine would not be easy.

Einstein had been working as an assistant to an eminent Swiss astronomer when he found that Newtonian mechanics broke down when applied to astrodynamics. This was origin of new mechanics that was to become known as "Relativity".

My own conjectures on ANTI-GRAVITY come up against similar problems, and deliver a similar solution.

The Moon travels around Earth at about 65,000 miles per hour. This is equivalent, as stated, to a spin of just 15 arc-seconds per minute.

Astrodynamicists have FREQUENTLY ignored tiny rotational motion of bodies in solar system, because they SEEMED to be NEGLIGIBLE. The new discovery shows, however, that such small rotations are NOT TO BE DISCOUNTED, because when mathematics is turned around they represent sizeable orbital velocities.

This leads to question as to whether ALL equations can be turned around. Can EVERY spin be translated into an orbit?

Jostein Gaarder in "Sophie's World", a bestselling philosophy textbook for adolescents published in Oslo, Norway, in 1991 and, afterwards, throughout world, having been translated to dozens of languages.

The Nazis regarded murder of feeble-minded and mentally insane - intended to purify race and maintain hereditary hygiene - as a form of euthanasia. German doctors were enthusiastic proponents of an eugenics movements rooted in 19th century social Darwinism. Luke Gormally writes, in his essay "Walton, Davies, and Boyd" (published in "Euthanasia Examined - Ethical, Clinical, and Legal Perspectives", ed. John Keown, Cambridge University Press, 1995):

"When jurist Karl Binding and psychiatrist Alfred Hoche published their tract The Permission to Destroy Life that is Not Worth Living in 1920 ... their motive was to rid society of 'human ballast and enormous economic burden' of care for mentally ill, handicapped, retarded and deformed children, and incurably ill. But reason they invoked to justify killing of human beings who fell into these categories was that lives of such human beings were 'not worth living', were 'devoid of value'"

It is this association with hideous Nazi regime that gave eugenics - a term coined by a relative of Charles Darwin, Sir Francis Galton, in 1883 - its bad name. Richard Lynn, of University of Ulster of North Ireland, thinks that this recoil resulted in "Dysgenics - genetic deterioration of modern (human) population", as title of his controversial tome puts it.

The crux of argument for eugenics is that a host of technological, cultural, and social developments conspired to give rise to negative selection of weakest, least intelligent, sickest, habitually criminal, sexually deviant, mentally-ill, and least adapted.

Contraception is more widely used by affluent and well-educated than by destitute and dull. Birth control as practiced in places like China distorted both sex distribution in cities - and increased weight of rural population (rural couples in China are allowed to have two children rather than urban one).

Modern medicine and welfare state collaborate in sustaining alive individuals - mainly mentally retarded, mentally ill, sick, and genetically defective - who would otherwise have been culled by natural selection to betterment of entire species.

Eugenics may be based on a literal understanding of Darwin's metaphor.

The 2002 edition of Encyclopedia Britannica has this to say:

"Darwin's description of process of natural selection as survival of fittest in struggle for life is a metaphor. 'Struggle' does not necessarily mean contention, strife, or combat; 'survival' does not mean that ravages of death are needed to make selection effective; and 'fittest' is virtually never a single optimal genotype but rather an array of genotypes that collectively enhance population survival rather than extinction. All these considerations are most apposite to consideration of natural selection in humans. Decreasing infant and childhood mortality rates do not necessarily mean that natural selection in human species no longer operates. Theoretically, natural selection could be very effective if all children born reached maturity. Two conditions are needed to make this theoretical possibility realized: first, variation in number of children per family and, second, variation correlated with genetic properties of parents. Neither of these conditions is farfetched."

The eugenics debate is only visible extremity of Man vs. Nature conundrum. Have we truly conquered nature and extracted ourselves from its determinism? Have we graduated from natural to cultural evolution, from natural to artificial selection, and from genes to memes?

Does evolutionary process culminate in a being that transcends its genetic baggage, that programs and charts its future, and that allows its weakest and sickest to survive? Supplanting imperative of survival of fittest with a culturally-sensitive principle may be hallmark of a successful evolution, rather than beginning of an inexorable decline.

The eugenics movement turns this argument on its head. They accept premise that contribution of natural selection to makeup of future human generations is glacial and negligible. But they reject conclusion that, having ridden ourselves of its tyranny, we can now let weak and sick among us survive and multiply. Rather, they propose to replace natural selection with eugenics.

But who, by which authority, and according to what guidelines will administer this man-made culling and decide who is to live and who is to die, who is to breed and who may not? Why select by intelligence and not by courtesy or altruism or church-going - or al of them together? It is here that eugenics fails miserably. Should criterion be physical, like in ancient Sparta? Should it be mental? Should IQ determine one's fate - or social status or wealth? Different answers yield disparate eugenic programs and target dissimilar groups in population.

Aren't eugenic criteria liable to be unduly influenced by fashion and cultural bias? Can we agree on a universal eugenic agenda in a world as ethnically and culturally diverse as ours? If we do get it wrong - and chances are overwhelming - will we not damage our gene pool irreparably and, with it, future of our species?