Dissident Science - no Big Bang, but an Eternal Universe

Peter Myers, August 8, 2001; update December 28, 2011.

Write to me at contact.html.

You are at http://mailstar.net/science.html.

Physicists interested in Space specialize in either the mathematical side (becoming Astrophysicists) or the observational side (becoming Astronomers).

Astronomer Halton C. Arp is the new Galileo who disproved the "Redshift equals distance" assumption which is the key to the Big Bang theory.

Arp was Edwin Hubble's assistant. Working at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories in the US, he discovered that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by.

Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified.

Arp was systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. He is now at the Max Planck Institute in Germany.

Paul Marmet defends Newton, attacks Relativity & Big Bang; says Copenhagen Interpretation is absurd.

Professor Paul Marmet, Ph. D. (1932-2005), Order of Canada, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, President of the Canadian Association of Physicists (1981-82), too, defied Orthodoxy and was hounded for it; he was forced to publish in fringe journals like 21st Century Science and Technology.

Louis Essen, inventor of the Atomic Clock, exposed Einstein's errors in his "thought experiments". Essen went on to describe the threats made to force him to conform.

Essen determined the velocity of light by cavity resonator; he was awarded the Popov Gold Medal of the USSR Academy of Sciences and also the OBE.

Professor of Electrical Engineering Donald E. Scott's presents Plasma Cosmology (the Electric Universe) - a corrective to "Gravity only" models.

Read their stories, and their material, here.

The religions derived from Judaism have a linear concept of time, which they see as Salvation History. It has a starting point and an end point; it's very human-centred.

Abandoning the Big Bang and the Expanding Universe means abandoning this human-centred viewpoint. It's liberating, and frightening too; perhaps that is, secretly, a reason for the grip the Big Bang has, and the resistance to dissidents.

Strictly, Zoroastrianism was the first such religion; and it influenced Judaism: zoroaster-judaism.html.

(1) James Lovelock writes about the way Science is done now ... calls "peer review" a "self-imposed inquisition"
(2) Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe challenge the dogma that life spontaneously arose on earth from non-life; Paul Davies responds
(3) Halton Arp - the new Galileo who disproved the Big Bang theory
(4) Paul Marmet defends Newton, attacks Relativity & Big Bang; says Copenhagen Interpretation is absurd
(5) Evidence for trans-oceanic contact between ancient civilisations; and the case for Diffusion
(6) Redating the Sphinx
(7) Freud "discovered" that religion is a "mental illness"; yet he exempted the Jewish religion
(8) Peter Duesberg, AIDS dissident, says "peer review" is anonymous, does not allow the applicant representation, nor a say in the selection of the "jury"
(9) Relations between Indoeuropean and Afroasiatic (Semitic) Languages
(10) Lamarck Rehabilitated
(11) Bringing Einstein down to earth - Caroline Thompson's Physics
(12) Einstein a false god of science; copied relativity idea from Poincaré & Lorentz - C K Raju
(13) Is Ongoing Creation compatible with the Big Bang? Persecution of Dissident Scientists
(14) The return of Ether: Space is a medium, filled with matter that is normally transparent
(15) Plasma Cosmology - a corrective to "Gravity only" models
(16) Relativity theory not used in Apollo program, Nukes, or GPS - William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.
(17) Tesla critical of Einstein's relativity

(1) James Lovelock writes about the way Science is done now ... calls "peer review" a "self-imposed inquisition"

"Science, unlike other intellectual activities, is almost never done at home.  Modern science has become as professional as the advertising industry. And, like that industry, it relies on an expensive and exquisitely refined technique. There is no place for the amateur in modern science, yet, as is often the way with professions, science more often applies its expertise to the trivial than to the numinous. Where science differs from the media is in its lack of a partnership with independent individuals. ...

"You may think of the academic scientist as the analogue of the independent artist.  In fact, nearly all scientists are employed by some large organization, such as a governmental department, a university, or a multinational company. Only rarely are they free to express their science as a personal view. They may think that they are free, but in reality they are, nearly all of them, employees; they have traded freedom of thought for good working conditions, a steady income, tenure, and a pension.   They are also constrained by an army of bureaucratic forces, from funding agencies to the health and safety organizations.  Scientists are also constrained by the tribal rules of the discipline to which they belong. A physicist would find it hard to do chemistry and a biologist would find physics well-nigh impossible to do. To cap it all, in recent years the 'purity' of science is ever more closely guarded by a self-imposed inquisition called the peer review. This well-meaning but narrow-minded nanny of an institution ensures that scientists work according to conventional wisdom and not as curiosity or inspiration moves them.  Lacking freedom they are in danger of succumbing to a finicky gentility or of becoming, like medieval theologians, the creatures of dogma."

- from The Ages of Gaia (OUP, 2000), Preface pp. xvii - xviii.

His site is http://www.ecolo.org/lovelock/.

(2) Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe challenge the dogma that life spontaneously arose on earth from non-life; Paul Davies responds

In school textbooks, Evolution Theory is usually presented in terms of life arising on Earth, without any connection to life elsewhere in the cosmos, by a process of Spontaneous Generation. The Big Bang is usually taken as gospel.

Astrophysicists Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe challenge both of the above. They claim that the universe is eternal, without beginning or end, and that life on any planet is seeded from elsewhere in the cosmos, by bacteria etc. present in comets, meteorites, and even in interstellar dust or dark matter.

They claim that Life comes only from Life, not from Non-Life, i.e. they uphold the old Ontological distinction between Living and Non-Living Matter. They have written many books presenting their evidence for this cosmic lifeforce, which they call Panspermia. Here is some of it: http://www.panspermia.org/.

They write, in their book Our Place in the Cosmos,

"The popular belief is that the Copernican Revolution and the inquisition of Galileo are things of the past. Human societies, it is claimed, have progressed beyond the stage when such outrages could happen again. In this book we show that the Copernican Revolution is far from over, and that society has not improved since the sixteenth century in any important respect. If anything the situation may have got worse, with the successes of the Industrial Revolution conferring upon human beings a degree of arrogance not seen before. The dogma has shifted from an Earth-centred Universe to the equally unlikely idea that life, which is the most complex and amazingly intricate phenomenon in the entire cosmos, must be centred on the earth. The new dogma has Judeo-Christian roots, but today its custodians are scientists rather than the high priests of the church" (p.1).

Religious worldviews depict a world where Mind and Life are pre-eminent: the gods or ancestral spirits fashion Living beings as a potter makes vessels out of clay.

Today's children are taught a very different worldview. Standard textbooks depict Life as coming about by accident, not only without a creator but without an intrinsic place for Life or Mind in the universe.

Did Life evolve on earth, from non-life, or is Life (and Mind) a fundamental principle of the universe?

If so, does this restore God? Or, if not a theism, then Deism of a sort? Taoism perhaps?

In the following article, Paul Davies addresses these questions. He does not mention Hoyle, but his name appears in the bibliography.

Davies writes:

"The most obvious way to establish a link between life and cosmos is to postulate a 'life principle' (or, extending this to encompass observers, a 'mind principle'). Indeed, many scientists have suggested just such a thing. It is often claimed by astrobiologists that life is 'written into the laws of physics' or 'built into the nature of the universe.' ...

"Life is incredibly complex but the laws of physics are, in the algorithmic sense, simple. So life cannot be 'contained' in the laws of physics. Contrast this with another state of matter: crystals. The structures of crystals are determined by the symmetries of the electromagnetic force, and so they are built into the laws of physics. Basic geometry underlies them. Given the laws of physics, the structure of, say, common salt crystals may be deduced from purely geometrical considerations. Crystals are simple and have low information content, concordant with the low information content of the laws of physics. But one could not predict the structure of, say, a bacterium, nor even its genome sequence, from the laws of physics, because the genome has very high information content.

"... Assuming a link between laws and product states such as life amounts to slipping an element of teleology into physics. This is very unfashionable, but I believe it is unavoidable if we are to take life and mind seriously as fundamental rather than incidental features of the universe. And the bio-friendliness of the universe suggests they are fundamental."

These quotes are from

Multiverse or Design? Reflections on a 'Third Way'

Paul Davies

Paper delivered at the Stanford University workshop

'One Universe or Many?', March 28-29, 2003


"Most scientists concede that there are features of our observed universe which appear 'contrived' or 'ingeniously arranged' in their relationship to the existence of biological organisms in general, and intelligent observers in particular. I term this 'bio-friendliness, 'or 'biophilicity.' A popular explanation among non-scientists (and some scientists) for this 'contrived' nature of the universe is to invoke some sort of design principle, or more explicitly a 'Cosmic Architect' who selects a judicious set of laws in order that the universe might host intelligent life. A fashionable response among scientists to this re-vivified design argument is the many universes hypothesis combined with 'anthropic' selection. According to this explanation, what we call 'the universe' is but a small component in a vastly larger assemblage of 'universes,' or cosmic regions, among which all manner of different physical laws and conditions are somewhere instantiated. Only in those 'Goldilocks' regions where, by accident, the numbers come out just right, will observers like ourselves arise and marvel at the ingenious arrangement of things. Thus the reason why we observe a universe so suspiciously contrived for life is because we obviously cannot observe one that is inimical to life.

"In this essay, I shall argue that both the Cosmic Designer and multiverse explanations suffer from serious shortcomings. I shall then sketch some ideas that have been germinating in my mind for some time of a 'Third Way' to explain the bio-friendliness of the universe. ... "

(3) Halton Arp - the new Galileo who disproved the Big Bang theory

If you've ever heard a train whistle die away as it speeds past you, you've encoutered the concept of recessional velocity.

It was this idea that led scientists to the view that redshift in the spectral wavelengths of a distant heavenly body indicated that it was moving away. The fact that distant objects seemed to be moving away (in all directions) implied an Expanding universe. Extrapolating backwards, they postulated an earlier, condensed state - the Big Bang, a Creation ex nihilo (from nothing), before which Space and Time did not exist. Many concluded that the universe would also come to an end one day.

Einstein stated that his universe is finite in size - bounded.

The Big Bang became entrenched Orthodoxy, to which a confession of faith was demanded of those aspiring to grants, tenure etc in academic Physics departments.

The religions derived from Zoroastrianism (Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Marxism, and Feminism) have a linear concept of time, which they see as Salvation History. An act of Salvation or Redemption divides history into two stages - a time of sin, exile or slavery, and a time of liberation from it.

Abandoning the Big Bang and the Expanding Universe means abandoning this human-centred viewpoint. Perhaps that is, secretly, a reason for the grip the Big Bang has.

Space scientists fall into two groups - Astrophysicists, who specialize in theory, which requires mathematics - and Astronomers, who specialize in observation by means of telescopes (optical, radio etc).

Halton Arp is an Astronomer who, by his observations and the photos and galactic atlases he produced, has amassed evidence inconsistent with the recessional interpretation of Redshift.

He has thus undermined the Big Bang theory. Like Galileo before him, he has suffered persecution for daring to unsettle the orthodoxy. The Establishment's main defence against his data is to avert its gaze from it.

Arp has not worked alone. For decades he was a colleague of Fred Hoyle, a leading Astrophysicist who set out a powerful heterodox vision of an eternal and unbounded universe, one in which life does not arise from non-life but is seeded from live parts to dead parts.

Other Astronomers have also collaborated with Arp, sometimes at risk to their careers.

Arp says that, rather than there having been an initial Creation in the Big Bang, Creation and Destruction are ongoing and never-ending. Matter is constantly being recycled as old heavenly bodies die and new ones are born.

Fred Hoyle's last book (2000) presents the Quasi Steady-State theory of an eternal unbounded Universe: http://www.amazon.com/Different-Approach-Cosmology-Universe-through/dp/0521662230

What is the basic idea behind the Big Bang? Wikipedia says <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang>:

After Edwin Hubble discovered in 1929 that the distances to far away galaxies were generally proportional to their redshifts, as suggested by Lemaître in 1927, this observation was taken to indicate that all very distant galaxies and clusters have an apparent velocity directly away from our vantage point: the farther away, the higher the apparent velocity. If the distance between galaxy clusters is increasing today, everything must have been closer together in the past. ...

This page was last modified on 3 October 2010 at 19:32.

Donald E. Scott explains Redshift:


by Donald E. Scott, Ph.D. (Electrical Engineering)


What is redshift?

If the lines in the spectrum of the light from a star or galaxy appear at a lower frequency (shifted toward the red) than where they are observed in the spectrum of the Sun, we say this object exhibits 'positive redshift'. The accepted explanation for this effect is that the object must be moving away from us. This interpretation is drawn by analogy with the downward shift in the pitch of a train whistle as it passes through a railroad crossing and then speeds away from us. The question is: Is recessional velocity the only thing that can produce a redshift, as modern astrophysicists presume?  It has become clear that the answer to that question is an emphatic NO!

If the wavelength of an absorption line in an object's observed spectrum appears at a wavelength that is, say, 1.56 times its 'normal wavelength' (the wavelength at which it is observed in a laboratory experiment here on Earth), then we say this object has a positive redshift of z = 0.56. The 'z value' is simply the observed fractional increase in the wavelength of the spectral lines. The simple interpretation of this is to say that this object must therefore be receding from us at 56% of the speed of light or 0.56 x 300,000 km/sec.  Mainstream astrophysicists believe that recessional velocity, v = cz. This object, therefore, must be very far away from Earth.

But a high redshift value does not necessarily mean the object is far away. There is another, more important cause of high redshift values.

Halton Arp

Halton C. Arp is a professional astronomer who, earlier in his career, was Edwin Hubble's assistant. He has earned the Helen B.Warner prize, the Newcomb Cleveland award and the Alexander von Humboldt Senior Scientist Award. For years he worked at the Mt. Palomar and Mt. Wilson observatories. While there, he developed his well known catalog of "Peculiar Galaxies" that are misshapen or irregular in appearance.

Arp discovered, by taking photographs through the big telescopes, that many pairs of quasars (quasi-stellar objects) which have extremely high redshift z values (and are therefore thought to be receding from us very rapidly - and thus must be located at a great distance from us) are physically associated with galaxies that have low redshift and are known to be relatively close by. Arp has photographs of many pairs of high redshift quasars that are symmetrically located on either side of what he suggests are their parent, low redshift galaxies. These pairings occur much more often than the probabilities of random placement would allow. Mainstream astrophysicists try to explain away Arp's observations of connected galaxies and quasars as being "illusions" or "coincidences of apparent location". But, the large number of physically associated quasars and low red shift galaxies that he has photographed and cataloged defies that evasion. It simply happens too often

Because of Arp's photos, the assumption that high red shift objects have to be very far away - on which the "Big Bang" theory and all of "accepted cosmology" is based - is proven to be wrong! The Big Bang theory is therefore falsified.

NGC 4319 and Markarian 205

A prime example of Arp's challenge is the connected pair of objects NGC 4319 and Markarian 205.

Dr. Arp has shown in his book "Quasars, Redshifts and Controversies" that there is a physical connection between the barred spiral galaxy NGC 4319 and the quasar like object Markarian 205. This connection is between two objects that have vastly different redshift values. Mainstream astronomers deny the existence of this physical link. They claim these two objects are not close together - they are 'coincidentally aligned'. ...

Inherent Redshift

Arp believes that the observed redshift value of any object is made up of two components: the inherent component and the velocity component. The velocity component is the only one recognized by mainstream astronomers. The inherent redshift is a property of the matter in the object. It apparently changes over time in discrete steps. He suggests that quasars are typically emitted from their parent galaxies with inherent iredshift values of up to z = 2. They continue to move away, with stepwise decreasing inherent redshift. Often, when the inherent redshift value gets down to around z = 0.3, the quasar starts to look like a small galaxy or BL Lac object and begins to fall back, with still decreasing redshift values, toward its parent. He has photos and diagrams of many such family groupings. ...

Instead of nominating him for a prize (and simultaneously reexamining their assumption that "redshift equals distance"), Arp was (and continues to be) systematically denied publication of his results and refused telescope time. One would at least expect the "powers that be" to immediately turn the Chandra X-ray orbiting telescope, the Hubble space telescope, and all the big land based telescopes toward Arp's exciting discoveries in order to either confirm or disprove them once and for all. Instead, these objects have been completely excluded from examination. Official photographs are routinely cropped to exclude them. Those familiar with the Galileo story will remember the priests who refused to look through his telescope.

Evidence Says Arp is Right - A Quasar In Front of a Nearby Galaxy

The final irrefutable falsification of the "Redshift equals distance" assumption is the following image of galaxy NGC 7319 (Redshift = 0.0225). The small object indicated by the arrow is a quasar (Redshift z = 2.11) This observation of a quasar between the galaxy and Earth is impossible if the quasar is over ninety times farther away than the galaxy.

In fact, a higher magnification image of the quasar (below) shows a "jet" of matter extending out from the center of NGC 7319 toward the quasar.

So, Arp is correct in his contention that redshift is caused mainly by an object's being young, and only secondarily because of its velocity. Therefore, quasars are not the brightest, most distant and rapidly moving things in the observed universe - but they are among the youngest.

The Big Bang Theory is false - not because I or others claim it to be false - but because it has been scientifically falsified.

Halton C. Arp is now at the Max Planck Institute in Germany. Occasionally he returns to the United States to give lectures and visit family.

The Reluctant Copernicans

Halton Arp


{quote} This brings us to the conventional assumption of extragalactic redshifts as representing large recessional velocities versus the evidence for their being an intrinsic property of young matter. The key here is the rock upon which science is founded - the observations. Large redshifts differences are observed between whole extragalactic objects which are at the same distance. Intrinsic redshifts are required. But now what is the consequence of having low mass fundamental particles? It is simply that low mass electrons transitioning between atomic orbits will emit and absorb lower energy photons, i.e. they will appear redshifted compared to atoms with heavier particles.

What Narlikar showed is that the rigorous solution of the field equations (which in flat space are simply conservation of energy/momentum) requires the elementary particles to gain mass as m = t2. This actually requires that galaxies all born at the same time show a scatter free Hubble relation matching the observed slope of about 50 km/se/Mpc.4 Moreover, as we shall discuss briefly in the next section, it predicts that extragalactic objects should have high intrinsic redshifts when they are young and lose their excess redshift as they age.

Observations of Growth and Change in the Universe

When dark matter and dark energy become stale we can go back to the observations. Galaxies, like a group of animals, reveal at a glance all stages of birth, growth and maturity. Take one example. M87 is a famous galaxy near the center of our Local Super Cluster. In 1918, even before the recognition of galaxies, it was observed with a small telescope to have a blue spike coming out of its center5. With the most expensive modern day telescope, the Hubble Space Telescope, Fig. 1 shows this spike contains a number of small, compact objects. These objects are radiating a continuous spectrum of synchrotron (charged particle) radiation. The conventional view is that they are clouds of hot gas ejected from the nucleus with about the speed of light (observed from displacement over time).

But how do you accelerate a cloud of hot gas to velocity near c? How do you get a hold of it? And why does it not just go POOF and dissipate? Even more revealing, one sees these objects grow in size and luminosity as they move outward along the jet. What do we see further out along the jet? For one, a radio, X-ray galaxy (M 84) with swept back X-ray isophotes indicating travel out along the jet. It is closely accompanied by a high redshift (z ~ 1) quasar. Further out is a very bright radio, X-ray quasar with flanking quasars around z = 1. This is all set in an extended line of X-ray sources and older, more evolved galaxies 5.

So we have spread out before us a more or less complete empirical demonstration of how galaxies are born and evolve. As the variable mass theory requires, the emergence of new matter near m = 0 requires speeds of pure energy near c. As the particle masses grow they slow down in order to conserve momentum in the extragalactic rest frame. That means the elementary particles cool. Together with the increasing gravity the growing matter condenses into a proto quasar/galaxy. (No dark matter needed!) When atoms form they at first radiate weak, high redshifted photons. The redshift then decreases with time as it evolves into a more normal galaxy. The variable mass theory requires the younger galaxies to have intrinsic redshifts which diminish as they evolve. ...

Halton Arp's website: http://www.haltonarp.com/.

Arp's Anomalies
by Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and Brad Harrub, Ph.D. <http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2473>

{quote} Halton Arp is an astrophysicist at the Max Planck Institute for Astrophysics in Munich, Germany. He has been referred to by some of his colleagues as "the most feared astronomer on Earth" (see Kaufmann, 1981). Renowned physicist John Gribbin once wrote that "for 20 years or so" Arp has been "a thorn in the side of establishment astronomy" (1987, p. 65). ...

By way of summary, Arp has discovered entities (e.g., galaxies) that exhibit one redshift value (designated as "z" in the scientific literature) that are physically associated with other entities (e.g., quasars) with entirely different redshift values. As Gribbin wryly noted: "If a galaxy and a quasar are physically connected, but have different redshifts, something definitely is wrong.... Arp has enough evidence that he ought to be worrying more people than actually acknowledge the significance of his findings" (p. 65, emp. added). {endquote}

Fred Hoyle was a long-time colleague of Arp.

To buy Halton Arp's book Seeing Red: http://www.amazon.com/Seeing-Red-Redshifts-Cosmology-Academic/dp/0968368905.

Eric J. Lerner, The Big Bang Never Happened: http://www.users.fast.net/~aparise/bigbang.html

Lerner writes, "But determinism, which implies, at least in theory, that events can be exactly determined, has been thoroughly confused with a quite different notion, causality - the idea that all events occur as a result of some other events ... When determinism was rejected, causality was rejected along with it" (p. 368).

"To many in the Judeo-Christian tradition, the idea of a universe infinite in space and time is not allowed for the same reason Agustine argued two millenia ago: infinity is exclusive to the deity, and thus prohibited for the material universe" (p. 386).

First Crisis In Cosmology Conference

Moncao, Portugal June 23-25, 2005: http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm

SECOND CRISIS IN COSMOLOGY CONFERENCE (2008): http://www.cosmology.info/2008conference/

Professor Reginald T. Cahill (Reg Cahill) and other adherents of Process Physics reject Einstein's spacetime (in which neither space nor time are absolute) and assert that a dynamical 3-space (with absolute motion) has been detected many times: http://www.flinders.edu.au/science_engineering/caps/our-school/staff-postgrads/academic-staff/cahill-reg/process-physics/papers.cfm

(4) Paul Marmet defends Newton, attacks Relativity & Big Bang; says Copenhagen Interpretation is absurd

A rival explanation to Arp's is offered by Professor Paul Marmet, Ph. D. (1932-2005), Order of Canada, Fellow of the Royal Society of Canada, President of the Canadian Association of Physicists (1981-82). He, too, defied Orthodoxy and was hounded for it; he was forced to publish in fringe journals like 21st Century Science and Technology.

Discovery of H2 in Space Explains Dark Matter and Redshift
by Paul Marmet
Published in 21st CENTURY Science & Technology, Spring 2000


In papers published about a decade ago, the author and colleagues predicted the widespread presence of hydrogen in the molecular (H2) form in space (Marmet and Reber 1989; Marmet 1990a,b). Although hydrogen in the atomic form is easily detected through radioastronomy, the molecular form is difficult to detect. ...

Using the European Space Agency's Infrared Space Observatory, E. A. Valentijn and P. P. van der Werf recently detected huge amounts of molecular hydrogen (H2) in NGC 891 , an edge-on galaxy 30 million light-years away in Andromeda (Valentijn and van der Werf 1999). ...

Molecular hydrogen is rarely looked for in space. In most papers in astrophysics, the word hydrogen is mentioned without distinguishing whether it is atomic or molecular. Yet it is a well-known fact of basic chemistry that atomic hydrogen is extremely unstable, and that it reacts violently to produce molecular hydrogen, which is extremely stable. Given a bottle of pure atomic hydrogen, one would expect an immediate energetic explosion, producing molecular hydrogen at a very high temperature. ...

The presence of H2 also has important consequences regarding the origin of the universe and the interpretation of the cosmological redshift. This author has been arguing for several years that this huge amount of transparent H2 in space is interacting with light received from the cosmos (Marmet 1988, 1990a, b). ...

the redshift following the collision of a photon with H2 is indistinguishable from the phenomenon caused by the Doppler effect. ...

Big Bang Cosmology Meets an Astronomical Death

By Paul Marmet

Published by: 21st Century, Science and Technology, P.O. Box, 17285, Washington, D.C. 20041. Vol. 3, No. 2 Spring 1990, P. 52-59.


It is widely believed among scientists that the universe was created from an extremely dense concentration of material. The original expansion of this material is described as the Big Bang. ...

Prominent scientists like R. L. Millikan and Edwin Hubble thought that the Big Bang model created more problems for cosmology than it solved, and that photon energy loss was a simpler and "less irrational" explanation of the redshift than its interpretation as a Doppler effect caused by recessional velocity, in keeping with the Big Bang (Reber 1989; Hubble 1937). In more recent years, Nobel Laureate Hannes Alfvén, and other students of astrophysical plasma, have challenged the Big Bang with an alternative conception called Plasma Universe. In this cosmology, the universe has always existed and has never been concentrated in a point; galaxies and clusters of galaxies are shaped not only by gravity, but by electrical and magnetic fields over longer times that available in the Big Bang model (Peratt 1988, 1989; Bostick 1989). ...

Support for the Big Bang theory has been built upon three main kinds of evidence:

First, the Big Bang assumes that the observable universe is expanding. Proof of this is offered by interpreting the redshifts of remote galaxies and many other systems as Doppler shifts. Hence these redshifts "prove" that these systems are all flying away from each other.

Second, the Big bang theory predicts the cosmic abundance of some light elements like helium-4, deuterium, and lithium-7. The available evidence of cosmic abundances is said to confirm the predictions.

Third, Alpher, Bethe, and Gamow in 1948 used the Big bang theory to predict the existence of a low temperature background radiation throughout the universe at 25 K as a relic of the initial Big Bang explosion. A background radiation at a temperature of about 3 K (emitting radiation 5000 times less intense, see Planck's law) has indeed been discovered(2), and is being interpreted as the predicted relic.

Finally, in addition to these kind of evidence, it is claimed that the Big bang hypothesis agrees with Einstein's theory of relativity.

The support afforded by the Big bang model by these four arguments is, however, only apparent and does not withstand a serious detailed analysis. In fact, the observational evidence from astrophysics is more in keeping with the model suggested by this author of an unlimited universe. ...

Marmet's writings are at http://www.NewtonPhysics.on.ca/.

His books are

Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution (1993)

This attacks the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics:


Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics (1997)

From the Preface:

{quote} Preface

The aim of this book is to demonstrate that using "Conventional Wisdom" and "Conventional Logic", classical physics can explain all the observed phenomena attributed to relativity. The arbitrary principles of Einstein's relativity are thus useless.

It is very important to recognize the fundamental importance of the principle of mass-energy conservation. It took thousands of years of development for scientific thought to finally reject the magic of witchcraft. During the nineteenth century, scientists became convinced that matter cannot be created from nothing. Conversely, matter cannot be destroyed into nothing. It seems that even Einstein believed this, since he is the one who, at the beginning of the twentieth century, introduced the equation E = mc2 implying mass-energy conservation. However, he later developed general relativity which is not compatible with that principle. Indeed, according to Straumann [1], the:

"general conservation law of energy and momentum does not exist in general relativity".

Twentieth century science moved backward in accepting again the magical creation of matter or energy from nothing, even if this is hidden in complicated mathematics.

Contrary to what Einstein did, all the demonstrations in this book are compatible with the principle of mass-energy and momentum conservation. Using classical mechanics, we demonstrate that length contraction is a real physical phenomenon. We examine how this leads to the Lorentz equations. Then, we show how classical principles are sufficient to explain the advance of the perihelion of Mercury and derive Einstein's equation. The fundamental reason for this advance is illustrated with a classical apparatus. We also study the Lorentz transformations in three dimensions and the Doppler phenomenon. Then we see how the problems brought by the relativity of simultaneity and by the principle of equivalence can be explained using conventional logic. We also show how classical mechanisms produce perturbations in the internal structure of atoms and molecules. Finally, we show that the presence of intense gravitational potentials leads to degenerate matter corresponding to Schwarzschild's black holes.

Einstein's relativity principles are not needed in these demonstrations. The only principles used are the ones already existing in classical mechanics. All the solutions are based on a physical model compatible with conventional logic. ...

I wrote to Marmet as follows:

{quote} May 13, 1999 Dear Professor,

I have sent for your Einstein book, and will send off for the Absurdities one next week. However, just browsing the text on the Internet, it seemed that the Absurdities one was jettisoning Newton in favour of Relativity, while the Einstein one was jettisoning Einstein in favour of Classical Mechanics (which implies Newton). Can I ask, is there any contradiction between the two books? That is, did you change your mind at some point? If so, have you written anything elucidating that change in viewpoint?

Here is his reply:

{quote} Subject: Re: No contradiction

Date: Thu, 13 May 1999 11:52:51 -0400 From: Paul Marmet <pmarmet@joule.physics.uottawa.ca> To: Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au>

Dear Peter,

There are certainly no contradiction.

The main aim of my two last books is to prove that a description of nature is compatible with physical reality.

It is usually claimed in modern physics that both: "Quantum Mechanics" and "Relativity" cannot be described using conventional logic. That is wrong. In my two last books, I have shown that nature is compatible with physical reality. ----------------------

There are two main problems in physics.

One is related to Quantum Mechanics, and the other one is related to Relativity. The problems related to "quantum mechanics" do not have the same nature as the problem related to "relativity". Quantum mechanics is a part of physics for which the "mathematics" give correct predictions. The "mathematics" of quantum mechanics appears coherent. However, the physical interpretations of quantum mechanics (The Copenhagen Interpretation) (for example the Shroedinger's cat experiment and others) are totally absurd as shown in my book.

In the case of relativity, the problem is different because relativity is based on contradictory hypotheses and therefore the mathematics are NOT COHERENT (for example, mass-energy conservation and momentum are not conserved in general relativity). ----------------------

I could not explain these two huge problems simultaneously. In order to be understandable, I have decided to discuss Quantum Mechanics, using "momentarily" the standard understanding (and vocabulary) of Relativity. This book was published in 1993.

Then, four years later, in 1997, I described the second part, the problem of Relativity, to complete the logical description of physics and explain how classical physics can also explain all the phenomena usually attributed to Einstein's relativity.

Of course, there exists a chronological order. This could not be avoided because I cannot discuss two inter-related problems at the same time. I had to use (temporarily) the standard Einstein's vocabulary of relativity, in the first book (on quantum mechanics), otherwise there would be too much confusion. ---------------------

This cannot be avoided. It is the same thing as when you go to cinema and you see the second part of the film BEFORE the first. If the film makers in Hollywood know how to solve that problem, please let me know. I do not know how to do it. May be the book published in 1993 should be read before the one in 1997! -----------------------

However, both books are certainly coherent and show that "conventional logic"is compatible with physical reality. ...

Paul {endquote}

Marmet further wrote to me, in reply to my query about whether the universe is bounded:

{quote} Subject: Re: Implications of your theory Date: Fri, 25 Jun 1999 17:21:35 -0400 From: Paul Marmet <Paul.Marmet@Ottawa.com> To: Peter Myers <myers@cyberone.com.au>

Dear Peter Myers,

> Einstein stated that his universe (based on
> Relativity theory) is finite in size - bounded.
> What about yours?

I believe that the universe is unlimited in size and in time.

> What are the implications, i.e. what difference does
> it make whether the universe is bounded or not?

There are many implications.

1- Einstein Universe requires that it was created from absolutely nothing. Therefore, our universe has been created following a "cause" which had to exist before the beginning of time! No mass-nergy conservation.

2- Matter of the universe just after the Big Bang must had an enormous density (with the Big Bang Model) which corresponds to a gigantic Black Hole. According to Einstein, such a high concentration of matter cannot expand. It should collapse. There is the a lack of coherence in Einstein's relativity if the universe started with a Big Bang. Einstein changes his own laws when it seems fit to him.

3- Creation from nothing is not compatible with the principle of causality.

4- The "velocity interpretation" of the redshift by Einstein implies that the mass of some remote (but apparently normal galaxies) is so large that their mass must be equal to millions of time the mass of our galaxy. Furthermore, some remote stars have been seen to explode giving up an amount of light that requires mass of billion of times the Sun's mass. This is measured considering the extremely large amount of light emitted during the explosion. Again, according to relativity such a large mass cannot expode. It should be a perfect Black Hole for which even light cannot be emitted due to the enormous gravity.

5- It is observed that many clusters of galaxies are so large that the time required for their formation is much larger than the 15 billion of the universe.

6- Recently, NASA has reported the discovery of some "mature" galaxies with a redshift value of 8.0 This corresponds to an observation of an object formed LESS than one billion years after the Big Bang (as they say). However, it takes 5 to 10 billions years to form such a galaxy. Therefore the galaxy started its formation 4 to 9 billions years BEFORE THE BIG BANG. This is ridiculous.

7- 8- 9- ... etc...

Who needs more arguments?

The universe is without limits. Matter is continuously re-transformed after a period of about 15 billion years.


Paul Marmet {endquote}

I believe that I put Marmet in touch with Caroline H. Thompson, of similar spirit. She later displayed a letter from him on her website (see below). I did so because such dissidents feel isolated, and need mutual support. Both have since passed away.

Paul Marmet wrote to Caroline Thompson:

{start letter}
From: Paul Marmet
To: c.h.thompson
Subject: Re: Updating information.
Date: 28 October 1999 04:03

Dear Caroline,

When I am looking at your Web site, I particularly appreciate the papers and useful addresses of some scientists on your site.

As you know, I am retired from the physics department of the university of Ottawa. However, during the last three years, I still had an office at the university, as a voluntary professor, because I was the supervisor of a graduate student (completing his Ph. D. in electron spectroscopy). A few months ago, he completed his degree and I have been ordered to leave my office at the university. The head of the department explained that it was because I keep questioning the fundamental principles of physics. The exact words were: "Ton problème est que tu remets en question les principes fondamentaux de la physique".

I cannot stop doing it.

I am now working full time at home. ...

On your site, you mention my book: Absurdities in Modern Physics: A Solution. published in 1993. If you wish to add a link, there is a complete (free) copy of that book on the Web at the address: {updated - Peter M.} http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/heisenberg/index.html

For your information, there is a more recent book I have published in 1997 entitled: "Einstein's Theory of Relativity versus Classical Mechanics". It is also on the Web. You can make your Free Copy on the Web. In case you wish to add a link on the Web, the address is: {updated - Peter M.} http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/einstein/index.html

--- Congratulations for helping the communication between scientists. We appreciate your collaboration and we thank you.
Yours Paul Marmet
{end letter}

(5) Evidence for trans-oceanic contact between ancient civilisations; and the Case for Diffusion

Thor Heyerdahl, Diodorus of Sicily, Cyrus H. Gordon, G. Elliot Smith, Martin Bernal, Joseph Needham: before-columbus.html.

(6) Redating the Sphinx http://members.aol.com/davidpb4/sphinx2.html.

(7) Freud "discovered" that religion is a "mental illness"; yet he exempted the Jewish religion

The Thomas S. Szasz Cybercenter for Liberty and Responsibility: http://www.szasz.com/.

Szasz is a Jewish intellectual who promotes libertarianism, and has a link to Hayek, a leading advocate of privatization. Nevertheless Szasz has important contributions on "Mental Illness", and he is a major critic of Freud for anti-Gentilism. In his book The Myth of Psychotherapy, he brands Freud "the Jewish Avenger". Freud "discovered" that religion is a "mental illness"; yet he exempted the Jewish religion: freud.html.

If you talk to God, you are praying; If God talks to you, you have schizophrenia.

--Thomas S. Szasz, The Second Sin, Anchor/Doubleday, Garden City, NY. 1973, Page 113.

Antipsychiatry: Quackery Squared

Thomas Szasz

Cloth $24.95 | 978-0-8156-0943-8 | 2009


Description More than fifty years ago, Thomas Szasz showed that the concept of mental illness - a disease of the mind - is an oxymoron, a metaphor, a myth. Disease, in the medical sense, affects only the body. He also demonstrated that civil commitment and the insanity defense, the paradigmatic practices of psychiatry, are incompatible with the political values of personal responsibility and individual liberty. The psychiatric establishment's rejection of Szasz's critique posed no danger to his work: its defense of coercions and excuses as "therapy" supported his argument regarding the metaphorical nature of mental illness and the transparent immorality of brutal psychiatric control masquerading as humane medical care.

In the late 1960s, the launching of the so-called antipsychiatry movement vitiated Szasz's effort to present a precisely formulated conceptual and political critique of the medical identity of psychiatry and of psychiatric coercions and excuses. Led by the Scottish psychiatrist R. D. Laing, the antipsychiatrists used the term to attract attention to themselves and deflect attention from what they did, which included coercions and excuses based on psychiatric principles and power.

For this reason, Szasz rejected, and continues to reject, psychiatry and antipsychiatry with equal vigor. Subsuming his work under the rubric of antipsychiatry betrays and negates it just as surely and effectively as subsuming it under the rubric of psychiatry. In Antipsychiatry: Quackery Squared, Szasz powerfully argues that his writings belong to neither psychiatry nor antipsychiatry. They stem from conceptual analysis, social-political criticism, and common sense.

Author Thomas Szasz is professor emeritus of psychiatry at the State University of New York Upstate Medical University in Syracuse, New York. His books include Law, Liberty, and Psychiatry, The Manufacture of Madness, Ideology and Insanity, Ceremonial Chemistry, The Myth of Psychotherapy, Psychiatry, and The Medicalization of Everyday Life, all published by Syracuse University Press.

(8) Peter Duesberg, AIDS dissident, says "peer review" is anonymous, does not allow the applicant representation, nor a say in the selection of the "jury"

AIDS/HIV Dissidents: Peter Duesberg is Duesberg is a Nobel Prize winner who says that AIDS is a Gay disease caused in part by drug cocktails Gays take; that HIV does not cause AIDS; that deaths put down to AIDS in Africa are actually caused by other diseases.

In America his funding was cut, but South African President Thomas Mbecki takes him seriously, and invited him to the AIDS conference: http://www.duesberg.com/.

Here is the new 2003 paper by Duesberg, Koehnlein and Rasnick, in pdf form: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pddrchemical.pdf.

A surgeon who worked in Zimbabwe in 1982-3 and 1990-1 told me that he noticed a different pattern of diseases in the latter period - due, he believed, to HIV/Aids, contrary to Duesberg's argument that Aids is merely a new label for old diseases. The surgeon has read a number of Duesberg's books, and says his case is well-argued but wrong.

Edward Hooper is a journalist who wrote a book called The River, claiming that AIDS is real, and that it was caused by contaminated polio vaccines developed for United Nations vaccination programs in Africa, vaccines using chimpanzee kidneys etc, from which AIDS entered the human population: http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/River/Observer.html.

The Prostitute Paradox, by Robert Root-Bernstein: "the almost complete absence of HIV among non-drug using prostitutes is not due to safer sex practices" ... Rethinking AIDS March 1993: http://www.duesberg.com/subject/rrbprostitute.html.

Some quotes from the above article:

{quote} ... In sharp contrast to its US/European namesakes, the African AIDS epidemic is randomly distributed between the sexes and not restricted to behavioural risk groups ... Hence sub-Saharan African AIDS is compatible with a random, either microbial or chemical cause.

The African epidemic is also a collection of long-established, indigenous diseases, such as chronic fevers, weight loss, alias "slim disease", diarrhea and tuberculosis ... However, the distribution of AIDS-defining diseases in Africa differs strongly from those in the US and Europe (table 2). For example, the predominant and most distinctive AIDS diseases in the US and Europe, Pneumocystis carinii pneumonia and Kaposi's sarcoma, are almost never diagnosed in Africa ...

(i) During the African AIDS epidemic, the sub-Saharan African population has grown, at an annual rate of about 2.6% per year ? from 378 million in 1980 to 652 million in 2000 (US Bureau of the Census International Data Base 2001). Thus Africa had gained since 1980 274 million people, the equivalent of the whole population of the US! Therefore, a possible, above-normal loss of 1 million Africans over a period in which over 200 millions were gained is statistically hard, if not impossible to verify ? unless the African AIDS diseases were highly distinctive.

(ii) However, the African AIDS-defining diseases are clinically indistinguishable from conventional African morbidity and mortality (see above).

(iii) Further the HIV-based definition of AIDS (see § 3) can not be used in Africa to distinguish AIDS-defining from otherwise indistinguishable diseases, because as of 1985 the WHO decided at a conference in Bangui, Africa, to accept African AIDS diagnoses without HIV-tests (see § 3). This was done because these tests are unaffordable in most African countries (World Health Organization 1986; Fiala 1998; Fiala et al 2002). Thus without the CDC's HIV standard (§ 3), the diagnosis of African AIDS is arbitrary. ...

2. 1981?1984: The "lifestyle"-AIDS hypothesis

Hardly anybody remembers now, that shortly after the origins of the AIDS epidemics in the US and Europe scientists had already discovered that illicit psychoactive and aphrodisiac drugs, consumed at massive doses, were the common denominators and probable causes of the new AIDS patients. Drugs such as cocaine, heroin, nitrite inhalants, amphetamines, steroids and lysergic acid had become widely available and popular in the US and Europe during and after the Vietnam war and the coincident era of "gay liberation" (legal indemnity of homosexuality) ...

5. Epilogue

5.1 Why is AIDS research not free to investigate non-HIV hypotheses?

The probable answer to the question, why HIV-AIDS researchers do not study or fund non-HIV-AIDS theories, lays in the structure of the large, government-sponsored research programs that dominate academic research since World War II (Duesberg 1996b). Such programs favour individual investigators who contribute to the establishment a maximum of data and a minimum of controversy. However, if individual researchers move into new directions, that threaten the scientific and commercial investments of the establishment, the establishment can impose various sanctions via the "peer review system". The most powerful of these are denial of funding and of publication. The peer review system derives its power from the little known practice of governments to deputize their authority to distribute funds for research to committees of "experts". These experts are academic researchers distinguished by outstanding contributions to the current establishment. They alone review the merits of research applications from their peers, and they have the right to elect each other to review committees. Outwardly, this "peer review system" appears to the unsuspecting government and taxpayer as the equivalent of a jury system ? free of all conflicts of interest. But, in view of the many professional and commercial investments in and benefits from their expertise, and even of the rewards from their universities and institutions for the corresponding overheads and partnerships ? all legal in the US since president Reagan ? 'peer reviewers" do not fund applications that challenge their own interests (Duesberg 1996b; Lang 1998; Zuger 2001). Since "peer review" is protected by anonymity, does not allow the applicant personal representation or an independent representative, nor a say or even a veto in the selection of the "jury", and does not allow an appeal, its powers to defend the orthodoxy are unlimited. The corporate equivalent of academia's peer review system" would be to give General Motors and Ford the authority to review and veto all innovations by less established carmakers competing for the consumer. Even the professional journals and the science writers of the public media comply with the interests of government-funded majorities because they depend on their monthly "scientific breakthroughs", the lucrative advertisements from their companies, and the opinion of their subscribers. For example, an early precursor of this article was written in response to an open invitation from a pharmacology-journal over 3 years ago. But, after considerable pressure on the journal from anonymous "AIDS experts", the editor requested a reduced article, which was neither accepted nor rejected. Instead, the editor simply dropped all further correspondence. Subsequently, the editor of a prestigious German-based science journal invited another precursor of this article 2 years ago, which received two favourable reviews in short order. But before the manuscript could be revised, the editor informed us that the publisher was concerned about losing subscribers if our paper were published and ceased all further correspondence. It is this passive resistance that can grind down even the most determined truth seeker.

{end of quotes}

"AIDS in Asia ? killer epidemic in sex paradise" - or just hype? http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/chrfthai.htm.

Myths and Lies about Aids ... Myth: AIDS is a disease of the immune system; Truth: AIDS is a disease of toxicity: http://www.healsd.org/lies.htm.

AIDS activists in South Africa march to try to force the Government to provide "life-extending" drugs to those with HIV (see the report below).

Some interesting questions arise.

1. Why quarantine SARS patients but not HIV patients? The official story is that HIV causes AIDS, and that it affects millions of people, yet HIV or AIDS patients have never been quarantined; nor is there any call for this to be done. If the early patients had been quarantined, many lives could have been saved. Why treat SARS differently? Is it because AIDS in the West was a Gay disease, and the Left Establishment wanted to promote the Gay lobby as part of its Minorities policy (and Feminist policy)?

2. Note the last sentence in the report, which says "it still drags its feet because President Thabo Mbeki remains in thrall to scientists who question the link between HIV and AIDS."

Specifically, Mbeki believes that Peter Duesberg is right. Notice that the sentence quoted above omits to mention the NAME of Duesberg. Instead, "scientists who question the link". I have noticed this repeatedly in reports involving Mbeki and Duesberg: Duesberg's name is omitted, as if he's been made a "non-person" ... something out of 1984.

Why the collusion by editors to blot him out? Whether he's right or wrong isn't the point; the implication is that the editors don't want the public to know that there are credible experts who deny the standard story. Mbeki is either a traitor to his people, or a man of great nous and courage in standing up to the Industry. Notice that the leader of the protesters is NOT a black, but Mark Heywood ... who is HE?

AIDS activists march to change state policy

The Age, Melbourne

Date: March 22 2003

By Rory Carroll Sharpeville http://www.theage.com.au/text/articles/2003/03/21/1047749935034.htm.

Hundreds of AIDS activists gathered illegally and marched into South African police stations yesterday to begin a campaign of civil disobedience against the Government for its refusal to provide life-extending drugs to those with HIV.

Chanting and waving banners, they laid accusations of manslaughter against two cabinet ministers they say are letting 600 people die every day by denying the medicine to South Africa's 4.7 million infected people, more than any other country.

They blame Health Minister Manto Tshabalala Msimang for denying anti-retrovirals to state hospitals and clinics, and Trade and Industry Minister Alec Erwin for blocking production of the drugs in South Africa. The accusations relate to 16 specific deaths. The Government continued to recommend people infected with the virus boost their immune systems with garlic, onions, olive oil and "African potato", an African corm, Hypoxis hemerocallidea, used in traditional healing which has attracted medical attention in recent years as a protection against the onset of AIDS.

The activists vowed to revive the African National Congress's tactic against apartheid of committing peaceful but illegal acts that prompt mass arrests and result in police detention cells overflowing. Police officers in Sharpeville, the township where their predecessors killed 69 apartheid protesters in 1960, were dumbstruck when 200 people in red T-shirts emerged from a nearby church and marched to the station door.

The campaign, expected to intensify in coming weeks, steps up the four-year effort by a coalition of civil groups to force the Government to abandon its view that AIDS drugs are too expensive and too toxic. "This is just the first shot in the campaign. Later on we will have sit-ins and occupy Government buildings," said Mark Heywood, who led the march in Sharpeville, chosen for its symbolism of struggle against oppression. At least 200,000 South Africans are expected to die from AIDS-related illnesses this year.

An international outcry against the South African Government for doing less than poorer neighbours such as Botswana and Namibia prompted the cabinet to change direction last April and promise to provide the drugs, but its critics say it still drags its feet because President Thabo Mbeki remains in thrall to scientists who question the link between HIV and AIDS. - Guardian {end}

(9) Relations between Indoeuropean and Afroasiatic (Semitic) Languages http://www.dabis.at/Anwender.htm/Alscher/afroasia.htm.

(10) Lamarck Rehabilitated

10.1 Ted Steele claims to show that adaptive changes in the immune system can find their way into the reproductive cells.

Evolution's barrier breaker

Whistle-blowing maverick researcher Ted Steele is the subject of an award-winning documentary, reports Bernard Lane

The Australian, June 12, 2003

TED Steele, evolutionist outsider, is at a curious point in his turbulent career. His long association with Bob Blanden, immunology group leader at the John Curtin School of Medical Research in Canberra, is about to come to an end. "Bob's got six months to retirement, then we lose his lab," Steele, 54, says. "We are, if you like, in the death throes of our collaboration." Yet there seems to be renewed vigour in their campaign to rehabilitate Jean Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829), the evolutionist victim of Charles Darwin's revolution. Lamarck had seemed to reward effort: the fruit of this life's struggle could be inherited by the next generation. Darwin interposed a genetic lottery: those lucky enough to end up with adaptive genes would be more likely to survive.

Steele and his Canberra collaborators feel their efforts are about to be rewarded. Their PhD student Andrew Franklin has reportedly made an important breakthrough. They hope to publish it within six months. They promise to show precisely how an adaptive mutation - Lamarck's signature, as it were - is written in the white blood cells. The timing is good. Tonight, the ABC screens a sympathetic documentary - Ted 's Evolution, produced by Film Australia - which this week won an award at Canada's Banff Television Festival. Steele's appears to be an evolution of ever-greater self-confidence. "I know of no scientist who's actually sat down and confronted [our neo-Lamarckian] data ... without coming away saying: 'Yeah, you're right,' " he insists, speaking from the research office that he runs from his Wollongong home. Perhaps the classic Lamarckian image is the giraffe, its elegant neck stretching up to feed, its effort not wasted for the next generation. But Darwin would have the giraffe species wait until a random, neck-stretching mutation occurs in the reproductive cells. Steele's work is more abstract. It proves, he says, that adaptive changes in the human immune system - in response to a virus, for example - can find their way into the reproductive cells. If so, the barrier said to stand between body cells and reproductive cells - the Weismann barrier, an edifice of Darwinian evolution - is far from intact. Steele was first attracted to Lamarck by literature: Arthur Kostler's advocacy. Darwinian evolution can seem unpalatable, lacking a human scale or purpose. For Steele, a Lamarckian correction is good science but he acknowledges its pyschological appeal: "It certainly allows you to think of evolution having velocity - that is, speed and direction." Steele believes there is more than science in the anti-Lamarckianism of diehard Darwinians such as Oxford University's Richard Dawkins, as if they fear anything that "open the gates to religious creationism". Dawkins proved camera-shy as soon as Steele's name was mentioned, according to director Lou Petho.

Steele certainly seems to live in an institutional exile. He left England's Medawar lab - Peter Medawar won a Nobel prize - after a convoluted dispute about data he invoked in support of Lamarck. And he left Wollongong University after denouncing soft marking. This was a formidable distraction from Lamarck. Sacked, Steele won an unfair dismissal case but nonetheless left the campus. "That was the toughest battle of my life," he says. "Much tougher than penetrating Weismann's barrier."

Edward J. Steele


Steel's theory provided the first mechanism to explain Lamarckian evolution: when successful somatic (body) cell changes occur due to environmental changes, copies of the copious new messenger-RNA that have been produced by the successful cells are picked up by harmless retroviruses acting as gene shuttles and transported across the tissue barrier ­ the Weismann Barrier ­ to the germline. Finally, the new genetic information is integrated into the DNA by a process involving reverse transcription. This process of writing or translating new information into the DNA provides the essential precursor to acquired changes being passed on to progeny; to the next generation, thereby demonstrating Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characters. Darwinian natural selection then goes to work on the progeny and subsequent generations: those fit for survival do so and those not fit die out. This recombination of Darwin and Lamarck by Steele has been described as meta-Lamarckism[2].

This page was last modified on 13 July 2010 at 09:58. ==

10.2 Is Lamarckian evolution relevant to medicine?

Adam E Handel   and Sreeram V Ramagopalan


200 years have now passed since Darwin was born and scientists around the world are celebrating this important anniversary of the birth of an evolutionary visionary. However, the theories of his colleague Lamarck are treated with considerably less acclaim. These theories centre on the tendency for complexity to increase in organisms over time and the direct transmission of phenotypic traits from parents to offspring.


Lamarckian concepts, long thought of no relevance to modern evolutionary theory, are enjoying a quiet resurgence with the increasing complexity of epigenetic theories of inheritance. There is evidence that epigenetic alterations, including DNA methylation and histone modifications, are transmitted transgenerationally, thus providing a potential mechanism for environmental influences to be passed from parents to offspring: Lamarckian evolution. Furthermore, evidence is accumulating that epigenetics plays an important role in many common medical conditions.


Epigenetics allows the peaceful co-existence of Darwinian and Lamarckian evolution. Further efforts should be exerted on studying the mechanisms by which this occurs so that public health measures can be undertaken to reverse or prevent epigenetic changes important in disease susceptibility. Perhaps in 2059 we will be celebrating the anniversary of both Darwin and Lamarck. ==

10.3 Lamarckism


Interest in Lamarckism has recently increased, as several studies in the field of epigenetics have highlighted the possible inheritance of behavioral traits acquired by the previous generation. A recent such study examined foraging behavior in chickens as a function of stress [8], concluding:

{quote} Our findings suggest that unpredictable food access caused seemingly adaptive responses in feeding behavior, which may have been transmitted to the offspring by means of epigenetic mechanisms, including regulation of immune genes. This may have prepared the offspring for coping with an unpredictable environment.... Transmissions of information across generations which does not involve traditional inheritance of DNA-sequence alleles is often referred to as soft inheritance [9] or 'Lamarckian inheritance'.[8]

The evolution of acquired characteristics has also been shown in human populations who have experienced starvation, resulting in altered gene function in both the starved population and their offspring [10]. The process of methylation is thought to be behind such changes.

In October 2010, further evidence linking food intake to traits inherited by the offspring were shown in a study of rats conducted by several Australian universities[11]. The study strongly suggested that fathers can transfer a propensity for obesity to their daughters as a result of the fathers' food intake, and not their genetics (or specific genes), prior to the conception of the daughter. A "paternal high-fat diet" was shown to cause cell dysfunction in the daughter, which in turn led to obesity for the daughter. ...

This page was last modified on 31 October 2010 at 00:16.

(11) Bringing Einstein down to earth - Caroline Thompson's Physics

Caroline Thompson's Physics

Also see the archive of her site:

Started August 27, 2000

Forgotten History


{start} Whether or not there is conscious effort by "the establishment" to support the reigning paradigms by presenting distorted versions of history, the fact is that the text books and popular literature abound with misleading statements and occasional outright falsehoods. If established scientists believe in something, why should they tell historians and science writers the whole truth? After all, it will only confuse them!

In my opinion, the false reporting of the Michelson-Morley result was the worst error in scientific history! ...

Did the Michelson-Morley experiments prove there was no "aether wind"?

Probably not! They have been accepted by almost everyone as giving a "null" result, but in point of fact they showed a very interesting periodic variation indicating something. If it was the presence of an aether wind, then it was not behaving in the way they expected, but it was definitely something that needed further investigation, and Dayton Miller, working at first with Morley, undertook the task. The variations proved to be reproducible and to show systematic changes with time of year and some other factors. He also showed, incidentally, that the effect disappeared if you put the apparatus in a thick-walled enclosure, which nullifies several of the more recent tests. He summarised his work in great detail in a review paper in 1933 (Miller, Dayton C, "The Ether-Drift Experiments and the Determination of the Absolute Motion of the Earth", Reviews of Modern Physics 5, 203-242 (1933)). For a much shorter version written in 1940 (the year before he died) see his article for the Cleveland Plain Dealer.

He interpreted his results as showing relative motion of the aether. It could either be that the solar system was moving pretty fast (about 200 km/sec, faster than the earth moves around the sun) in a direction roughly perpendicular to the plane of the ecliptic, or the aether was moving in the opposite direction at that speed. The aether seemed to be moving like a fluid, going with much slower relative velocity near solid bodies, thus accounting for the apparently modest speed (about 10 km/sec) indicated by Miller's experiments.

These facts about Miller were drawn to my attention by James DeMeo, who continues to research the subject. It appears that there was a major difference of opinion between Miller and Einstein. Einstein's Special Relativity theory demanded that the Michelson-Morley experiments must have been null! The aether was not acceptable. DeMeo reports (January 2001) that he has now found evidence that Einstein was more directly involved than he had thought. Much new material has been added to his original paper, which concentrated on Shankland's 1955 report, written in consultation with Einstein. (Shankland had been an assistant to Miller in 1932-3. )

As Miller said, in an article in a local paper:

The trouble with Professor Einstein is that he knows nothing about my results. ... He ought to give me credit for knowing that temperature differences would affect the results. He wrote to me in November suggesting this. I am not so simple as to make no allowance for temperature. (Cleveland Plain Dealer January 27, 1926. )

It was evidently a power struggle between the two, the odds tipped in favour of Einstein by the media-enhanced "victory" of his General Relativity theory after the 1919 eclipse. By 1955 the aether had become a dirty word. Even in 1940 or so, I can find no reference to Miller's existence in Herbert Ives' papers (see The Einstein Myth in my book list). The 1979 Brillet and Hall experiment*, currently accepted as an accurate confirmation of Michelson and Morley's "null" result, appears to have been conducted in ignorance of Miller's work. They seem to have been unaware of Miller's conclusion that the aether wind can only be detected in the open. Their temperature-controlled Fabry-Perot interferometer would have had little chance!

DeMeo is not the only person to have spotted Shankland and Einstein's error! See notes by Prof Allais to the French Academy of Sciences, 1997, 1999 and 2000 at http://allais.maurice.free.fr/English/Science.htm.

However, let us not jump to conclusions! Could Miller in fact have been seeing the same thing as Gershteyn et al. , who reported in February 2002** that there was an apparent periodic variation in the value of G? The data was not quite conclusive but appeared to show that its main variations followed a sidereal cycle, not a solar one. Could it be that a gravitational effect caused the arms of Miller's apparatus to bend and vary slightly in effective length?Or could it be that what he saw was merely an ordinary wind effect?Whatever it was, it should not have been ignored. Even if there was no sign of drift, this should not have been used to dismiss the idea of an aether, since all it means is that some wrong assumptions have been made about its properties.

*A. Brillet and J. L. Hall, Physical Review Letters 42, 549 (1979)

**Mikhail Gershteyn et al, "Experimental Evidence That the Gravitational Constant Varies with Orientation", http://www.arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0202058

Have Einstein's relativity theories ever been "generally accepted"?

Many prominent scientist have expressed their doubts, but one in particular should have been listened to. Louis Essen, professional metrologist, inventor of the atomic clock and co-author of a book on the experimental estimation of the speed of light thought Einstein's ideas ridiculous. He may well have forfeited a Nobel Prize for saying this rather too publicly. As he said, Einstein's theories arbitrarily made "space and time intermixed by definition and not as the result of some peculiar property of nature ... If the theory of relativity is regarded simply as a new system of units it can be made consistent but it serves no useful purpose".

See his essay, http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html

{also see RELATIVITY - joke or swindle?, (1988) by Essen: http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm}

Whilst on the subject, see also:

New Scientist book review, May 13, 2002, page 48: Margaret Wertheim reviews Robert Marc Friedman's "The Politics of Excellence" (Time Books):

"Seen as a purveyor of metaphysical nonsense that would corrupt the vigorous strain of experimental physics admired by conservative Nobel committee members, Einstein's nomination provoked an extraordinary depth of hostility. "

[Though his nomination for the Nobel prize was not for his relativity ideas, these would have contributed to the impression of "metaphysical nonsense". ]

Dingle, H, "The Case Against Special Relativity", Nature 216, 119-22 (1967)

McCrea, W H, "Why the Special Theory of Relativity is Correct", Nature 216, 122-4 (1967)

and later correspondence: Nature, vol 217, Jan 6 1968, p19

Did Einstein discover E=mc2?

Well, no! I received the following from Theo Theocharis, August 23, 2000, and relayed it to APS News on his request:

In the APS News, Vol. 9, No. 8, August/September 2000, p. 2, the "This Month in Physics History" column was entitled "September 1905: Einstein's Most Famous Formula", and it stated:

"But it was later that year [1905], in a paper received by the Annalen der Physik on September 27, applying his equations to study the motion of a body, that Einstein showed that mass and energy were equivalent, a startling new insight he expressed in a simple formula that became synonymous with his name: E=mc2. However, full confirmation of his theory was slow in coming. It was not until 1933, in Paris, when Irène and Frédéric Joliot-Curie took a photograph showing the conversion of energy into mass."

The "100 YEARS AGO" item in the 6 April 2000 issue of Nature (Vol. 404, p. 553) is taken from the 5 April 1900 issue of Nature (note the dates), and it states:

"The calculations of M. Henri Becquerel show that this energy is of the order of one ten-millionth of a watt per second. Hence a loss of weight of about a milligram in a thousand million years would suffice to account for the observed effects, assuming the energy of the radiation to be derived from the actual loss of material."

The assumption that accounts for the stated (in the 5 April 1900 issue of Nature) figures is E=mc2. But according to APS News, this is "Einstein's most famous formula" which in September 1905 was "a startling new insight".

I think that there is a problem that ought to be resolved.

Did quantum theory "predict" that "back body radiation curve"?

Well, not exactly! This is what Planck -- the reluctant co-inventor of the "photon" -- had to say:

From his 1919 Nobel Prize address, "The Origin and Development of the Quantum Theory":

But even if the radiation formula should prove to be absolutely accurate it would after all be only an interpolation formula found by happy guesswork, and would thus leave one rather unsatisfied. I was, therefore, from the day of its origination, occupied with the task of giving it a real physical meaning ...

It is down to you to judge whether or not he succeeded.

Does the photoelectric effect prove the existence of photons?

No! Listen to Millikan on the subject -- and he should know! He is probably best known for his "oil drop" experiment, but he also made a vital contribution to photoelectric theory. His experiments confirming that Nature really does seem to obey the law that Einstein had predicted in 1905 are still taken as definitive. In his main paper on the subject, (Millikan, R A, "A Direct Photoelectric Determination of Planck's 'h'", Physical Review 7, 355-388, 1916) he says in the introduction:

It was in 1905 that Einstein made the first coupling of photo effects and with any form of quantum theory by bringing forward the bold, not to say reckless, hypothesis of an electro-magnetic light corpuscle of energy h?, which energy was transferred upon absorption to an electron. This hypothesis may well be called reckless, first because an electromagnetic disturbance which remains localised in space seems a violation of the very conception of an electromagnetic disturbance, and second because it flies in the face of the thoroughly established facts of interference. [My emphasis]

Millikan's concluding discussion includes fascinating ideas about what really happens, some sounding remarkably similar to my own [see my faq file]! He repeats several times his vehement objection to the idea of localised packets of light. For example:

... if the equation be of general validity, then it must certainly be regarded as one of the most fundamental and far reaching of the equations of physics; for it must govern the transformation of all short-wave-length electromagnetic energy into heat energy. Yet the semi-corpuscular theory by which Einstein arrived at his equation seems at present to be wholly untenable . . .

Finally, he says that a modification of Planck's latest idea [in which light is not in packets of h? but of nh?, where n is any integer]

"... seems to me able to account for all the relations thus far known between corpuscular and ethereal radiations ... If any particular frequency is incident upon [a substance containing oscillators of every conceivable frequency] the oscillators in it which are in tune with the impressed waves may be assumed to absorb the incident waves until the energy content as reached a critical value when an explosion occurs and a corpuscle is shot out with an energy h? ...

It is to be hoped that such a theory will soon be shown to be also reconcilable with the facts of black body radiation. "...

Has it ever been proved that gravity is proportional to mass?

No! This was an assumption that Newton made and others followed, but since nobody pretends to have actually weighed the Sun or the planets it has never been checked. ...

Did Hubble think the cosmological red shift was a Doppler shift?

No! In fact he thought some of his data proved it could not be. He had little use for Einstein's cosmological ideas. Hubble right from the start kept an open mind about the cause of the red shift. ...

Did Quantum Theory help in the discovery of the laser?

Well, certainly the discovery owed nothing to Niels Bohr!

See http://www.spectator.org/AmericanSpectatorArticles/carver.htm, where Carver Mead makes some outspoken criticisms of the status quo. ...

{end Caroline Thompson's Physics}

Caroline H Thompson wrote to me (Peter Myers):

Date: Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:16:05 +0100 From: "Caroline H Thompson" <chelen.thompson@virgin.net>

Einstein the scientist was a very different person from Einstein the man. As far as I can tell, he was ruthless, for example, in suppressing Dayton Miller's work on aether drift, and in asserting his own precedence over Paul Gerber re his prediction for the precession of Mercury's orbit. (Gerber had published the same formula in 1898. The subject has been a matter for debate ever since.) He may well have acted in good faith, believing completely in his own model, but the net result was that false theories have dominated physics for nearly 100 years.

APS News published Caroline Thompson's "Did Einstein discover E=mc2?" as a letter, and replied as follows:

{quote} The author is quite correct that specific instances of the relation between mass and energy predated Einstein's work in 1905. To put this in proper perspective, we offer a quote from the book "Inward Bound" by the late physicist and historian of physics Abraham Pais: "...the strength of (Einstein's equations relating mass, energy and velocity) lies in their generality, their independence of dynamical details, in particular their independence of the origin and nature of the mass m. For specific forms of energy the relation E-->mc2 as v-->0 had been known well before 1905. Already in 1881, J.J. Thomson (see this month's This Month in Physics History-ed.) had noted the energy-mass equivalence for the case of an electrically charged body. Shortly thereafter, the first theoretical E-m-v relations appeared, based on a specific model of a charged particle: its shape shall be a rigid little sphere, whatever its velocity. This was the model studied in great detail by Max Abraham, theorist in Goettingen."

{end letter} http://www.aps.org/publications/apsnews/200010/letters.cfm

However, no mention was made of Einstein and Olinto de Pretto, the true discoverer of E=mc2:

Einstein's E=mc2 'was Italian's idea'

Rory Carroll in Rome Thursday

November 11, 1999 The Guardian


The mathematical equation that ushered in the atomic age was discovered by an unknown Italian dilettante two years before Albert Einstein used it in developing the theory of relativity, it was claimed yesterday.

Olinto De Pretto, an industrialist from Vicenza, published the equation E=mc2 in a scientific magazine, Atte, in 1903, said Umberto Bartocci, a mathematical historian.

Einstein allegedly used De Pretto's insight in a major paper published in 1905, but De Pretto was never acclaimed, said Professor Bartocci of the University of Perugia.

De Pretto had stumbled on the equation, but not the theory of relativity, while speculating about ether in the life of the universe, said Prof Bartocci. It was republished in 1904 by Veneto's Royal Science Institute, but the equation's significance was not understood.

A Swiss Italian named Michele Besso alerted Einstein to the research and in 1905 Einstein published his own work, said Prof Bartocci. It took years for his breakthrough to be grasped. When the penny finally dropped, De Pretto's contribution was overlooked while Einstein went on to become the century's most famous scientist. De Pretto died in 1921. ... ==

Michael Falotico's review of Umberto Bartocci's book

A review by Michael Falotico of the book written by Professor Umberto Bartocci


Umberto Bartocci, Professor of Mathematics at the University of Perugia, Italy, in his book, "Albert Einstein e Olinto De Pretto: la vera storia della formula piu' famosa del mondo" (Albert Einstein and Olinto De Pretto, the true history of the most famous formula in the world) has shown to us what can happen if one digs long enough through old Italian archives. His book literally re-writes the history of science in the 20th Century. Professor Bartocci proves that an Italian first formulated the famous equation E=mc^2.

An industrialist named Olinto De Pretto, a native of the Veneto region of Italy, published an article in which he gave, in its final form, the equation E=mc^2. This article was published on June 16, 1903, and published again in February 27, 1904, the second time in the Atti of the Reale Instituto Veneto di Scienze. De Pretto thereby preceded Einstein's famous 1905 "E=mc^2" paper by at least a year-and-a-half.

To Professor Bartocci's credit, he attaches the complete text of the De Pretto article as an appendix to his book so that the reader can decide for himself/herself if De Pretto was a true precursor to Einstein.

In the article, Olinto De Pretto actually comments on how amazing his discovery is. De Pretto could hardly believe his mathematical discovery. ...

De Pretto himself understood the significance of his discovery. Speaking of E=mc^2 he wrote (my translation), "To what astonishing result has our reasoning brought us? Nobody would easily admit that stored in a latent state, in a kilogram of whatever material, completely hidden from our investigations, there comes into play such a sum of energy. The idea would be adjudged crazy!" De Pretto was 46 years old when he made this discovery. ...

{endquote} More of this at

The Apotheosis of Albert Einstein: einstein.html.

(12) Einstein a false god of science; copied relativity idea from Poincaré & Lorentz - C K Raju

Einstein got it wrong, and how!

C K Raju

12 June 2010

http://www.vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=1259 http://www.scribd.com/doc/32557667/Ckr-TGA-Acceptance-Speech

[Today, 12 June 2010, Dr C. K. Raju, Distinguished Professor and Director (Academic), Inmantec, receives the Gold Medal for the year 2010 from the Telesio-Galilei Academy of Science, at the University of Pécs, in Pécs, a city in Hungary declared the European Capital of Culture for 2010. The award is being conferred on Prof. Raju, among other reasons, for pointing out a mistake made by Einstein and correcting it. The full citation is at


In physics, he defined a product of Schwartz distributions, and proposed an interpretation of quantum mechanics, dubbed the structured-time interpretation, and a model of physical time evolution. He also noted that every aspect of special relativity was published by Poincaré in papers between 1898 and 1905, and that Einstein made a mistake on which much of modern physics rests. He has proposed appropriate corrections. This award is in recognition of these deep insights into these areas of physics.

Prof. Raju played a key role in building India's first supercomputer Param, and is well known for his path-breaking work on mathematics and the calculus. .... (See http://ckraju.net, for more details.) - Editor] *

Acceptance speech for the TGA Gold Medal Award, 2010

Dignitaries on the dais, fellow Laureates, friends,

I am indeed honoured to be here today to receive this award in this august assembly in this historic city and cultural capital of Europe.

Bernardino Telesio and Galileo Galilei are both symbols of resistance to authority. Therefore, it is apt that a key reason why the award is being given to me is for having pointed out Einstein's mistake, and for having corrected it - for Einstein is one of the greatest figures of scientific authority today.

At the outset I would like to state that the issue is not so much the special theory of relativity, which is a very fine theory, even though it is counter to Newtonian intuition. There is no doubt at all that the theory was the work of a genius. The question is who was that genius: Poincaré or Einstein? The second question follows naturally from the first: compared to Poincaré, a mathematician, did Einstein, a non-mathematician, even understand the full mathematical implications of the theory of relativity?

The third question brings us back to the large mass of people who blindly follow scientific authority: following in the footsteps of Einstein, have they fully understood the special theory of relativity? If not, how should its understanding be corrected today? And what possible practical value does that correction hold for us tomorrow?

Unfortunately, instead of approaching these questions in the spirit of scientific enquiry, people react to them emotionally. Einstein is, for them, the biggest symbol of scientific authority, and they want to somehow hang on to the story they have heard about him from childhood. The less they know about the theory of relativity and its history, the stronger their belief, and the greater their distress that this symbol of scientific authority is being attacked. The issues could be easily settled in many ways: for example, the historical issue could be settled by reading the papers of Poincaré, Lorentz, and Einstein.

Somehow, most people cannot or will not read those papers, and instead proceed in a roundabout way, by reliance on authority, and through dubious guesswork. They guess that scientific authority cannot make such a mistake, exactly as people in Galileo's time guessed that religious authority was infallible. They start questioning the motives of the critic, and so on.

Physics texts play their own role in propagating such myths. Most physics texts (fortunately, not all) maintain that the Michelson-Morley experiment proved the absence of ether. The simple fact, which anyone can check (but most do not) is that the Michelson-Morley experiment was performed to discriminate between two ether theories: those of Fresnel and Stokes. The experiment came out in support of Stokes theory, which involved a mathematical absurdity, and was hence rejected by Lorentz. The whole myth of the Michelson-Morley experiment obscures the key point of relativity, which is that Newtonian physics never defined a proper clock; therefore it was impossible for the experiment to have measured the speed of light! Why Newtonian physics never defined a proper clock is another story, and I won't go into that here.

If we follow Poincaré's line of thought from 1898 to 1904, this point about the need to define a physical measure of time comes out with great clarity. Authoritative sources would tell us that Poincaré believed in ether or that he "waffled". However, those are plain falsehoods, as anyone can check by reading Poincaré, or even reading just the extensive quotes from him that I have provided in my books. It was Poincaré who coined the phrases "principle of relativity", and "Lorentz transform". In his celebrated 1904 paper he spoke of an entirely new mechanics, which would be, above all, characterized by this fact, that no velocity could surpass that of light, any more than any temperature can fall below absolute zero. That is the theory of relativity in a nutshell.

Could Einstein have arrived independently at the theory of relativity? Such claims of "independent rediscovery", just when a dependent discovery was possible, are a scandalous part of current history of science. However, let us look at Einstein's case on its individual merits. It is well known that Einstein had read Poincaré's work on relativity from 1898 until 1902 with great excitement, and had discussed it with his friends. The only question is whether he read Lorentz's 1904 paper and Poincaré's 1904 paper. He denied reading those. However, as Whittaker first pointed out, Poincaré used the word "relativity" for the first time in his 1904 paper (he had earlier used the term "principle of relative motion"). Since Einstein's paper contained no new idea or formula, and repeated that word, Whittaker concluded that Einstein had borrowed his ideas. I further pointed out that Einstein casually used the strange terms "longitudinal mass" and "transverse mass" introduced very circumspectly by Lorentz in the very paper Einstein later denied reading. Whittaker's arguments, and mine, have been met with great hostility by those in scientific authority, though no one so far could address the points raised.

Cases where one student copies from another, but denies it, are commonplace for a teacher. The simple way to resolve such cases is to test the understanding of the students verbally. The one who does not understand has copied. One cannot thus interrogate the past, but mistakes are proof of lack of understanding. If a person claiming "independent rediscovery" shows lack of understanding through a mistake, that is proof of copying according to my "epistemic test". That is exactly what happened in this case: Einstein failed to understand what Poincaré, the mathematician, understood: namely, that relativity changes also the character of the equations of physics. They can no longer be the ordinary differential equations of Newtonian physics, but must be functional differential equations (which, Poincaré took for granted, must be retarded). Einstein never understood this aspect of relativity till his death. That settles the matter: Einstein published later, his claims of "independent rediscovery" are seriously suspect, and he never fully understood the implications of relativity. Possibly as a patent clerk he realized that he could copy ideas from frontline thinkers, for there is no legal patent on ideas. For almost a century now, it would seem, people have worshipped a false god of science. ...

Thank you!

C. K. Raju ==

E = mc2 is Not Einstein's Discovery

Robert A. Herrmann

9 SEPT 2000. Revised 1 JAN 2004



(13) Is Ongoing Creation compatible with the Big Bang? Persecution of Dissident Scientists

A reader wrote, "I don't see why you suggest that an ongoing creation view, rather than a big bang view, requires any change in how one views time. Hawking in his 'Brief History of Time' argues that the big bang theory was consistent with ongoing creation - because the universe could expand and collapse repeatedly. And a non-big-bang view of ongoing creation does not mean that there was never a beginning to that process."

Reply (Peter M.):

Paul Marmet <Paul.Marmet@Ottawa.com> wrote to me (see above):

{quote} Einstein Universe requires that it was created from absolutely nothing. Therefore, our universe has been created following a "cause" which had to exist before the beginning of time! No mass-nergy conservation.

Ongoing creation - an eternal universe - is the idea behind Hoyle's rival Quasi-Steady-State theory.

Academia requires Imprimaturs and Nihil Obstats just as the Catholic Church did.

Halton Arp was forced to leave Caltech - and the US - for defying Big Bang orthodoxy. He had to move to the Max Planck Institute in Germany.

Louis Essen, inventor of the Atomic Clock, exposed Einstein's errors in his "thought experiments", in his article Relativity <http://www.btinternet.com/~time.lord/Relativity.html>

"The other glaring mistake occurred in the course of one of his thought experiments. Einstein had never made any actual experiments, as far as I can find, and he certainly had no idea of how to compare clocks."

He gives a succinct explanation of the errors in his later article RELATIVITY - Joke or Swindle? <http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/Essen-L.htm>

But, returning to the earlier article, Essen there describes the threats made to force him to conform:

I had rather naively thought that scientists would be glad to have an explanation of the confusion which had existed for so long and would at least pay some attention to my explanation, since I had more practical experience in these matters than all the relativitists put together. But I was wrong. No one attempted to refute my arguments although they justified Einstein by repeating his thought experiment and his mistakes in different forms. I was, however, dropped some pretty broad hints that if I continued to criticise the theory my reputation and career prospects were likely to suffer. It was only a sideline to my experimental work but I found it so interesting that I did not feel like dropping it, and felt that it was very important that the theory should be exposed. My Director was good about it and said he had no objection himself as long as I did not involve the NPL. I was beginning to realise that scientists could be just as irrational as anyone else and having accepted the theory as a faith without understanding it they closed their minds to argument. They also tried to suppress opposition and two of my papers after being accepted by the referees were mysteriously never published.

I was not entirely without support and was invited to write an article by the Oxford University Press. It was not so comprehensive as they hoped, since I was not able to devote as much time to it as I would have liked, and lacked the secretarial assistance of my department, but it was accepted and published as one of their Research Papers (No. 5). The Director of the Royal Institution also invited me to give one of their Friday Evening Discourses. This was quite enthusiastically received and I had many letters of congratulation, although, as I noticed with some amusement, most of them were written on private notepaper and not on the paper of their organisations as one would normally expect.

(14) The return of Ether: Space is a medium, filled with matter that is normally transparent


GUT-CP Gravity

by JohnEB on April 8th, 2010, 3:41 pm

The following is from Robert Laughlin's published book entitled A Different Universe: Reinventing Physics from the Bottom Down (2005)


{Laughlin is Professor of Physics at Stanford University; he was awarded the Nobel Prize in physics in 1998}

A Different Universe

... It is ironic that Einstein's most creative work, the general theory of relativity, should boil down to conceptualizing space as a medium when his original premise was that no such medium existed. The idea that space might be a kind of material substance is actually very ancient, going back to Greek Stoics and termed by them ether. Ether was firmly in Maxwell's mind when he invented the description of electromagnetism we use today. He imagined electric and magnetic fields to be displacements and flows of ether, and borrowed mathematics from the theory of fluids to describe them. Einstein, in contrast, utterly rejected the idea of ether and inferred from its nonexistence that the equations of electromagnetism had to be relative. But this same thought process led in the end to the very ether he had first rejected, albeit one with some special properties that ordinary elastic matter does not have.

The word "ether" has extremely negative connotations in theoretical physics because of its past association with opposition to relativity. This is unfortunate because, stripped of these connotations, it rather nicely captures the way most physicists actually think about the vacuum. In the early days of relativity the conviction that light must be waves of something ran so strong that Einstein was widely dismissed. 8 Even when Michelson and Morley demonstrated that the earth's orbital motion through the ether could not be detected, opponents argued that the earth must be dragging an envelope of ether along with it because relativity was lunacy and could not possibly be right. The virulence of this opposition eventually had the scandalous consequence of denying relativity a Nobel Prize. (Einstein got one anyway, but for other work.) Relativity actually says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of matter pervading the universe, only that any such matter must have relativistic symmetry.

It turns out that such matter exists. About the time relativity was becoming accepted, studies of radioactivity began showing that the empty vacuum of space had spectroscopic structure similar to that of ordinary quantum solids and fluids. Subsequent studies with large particle accelerators have now led us to understand that space is more like a piece of window glass than ideal Newtonian emptiness. It is filled with "stuff" that is normally transparent but can be made visible by hitting it sufficiently hard to knock out a part. The modern concept of the vacuum of space, confirmed every day by experiment, is a relativistic ether. But we do not call it this because it is taboo.

Book Review of: The Israel Test by George Gilder (2009) published by Richard Vigilante Books reviewed by Robert Sungenis

The Bellarmine Report

Monday 18th July 2011


{p. 17} But Special Relativity was soon found to be inadequate. As physicist Lee Smolin writes:

"Special relativity was the result of 10 years of intellectual struggle, yet Einstein had convinced himself it was wrong within two years of publishing it. He rejected his own theory, even before most physicists had come to accept it, for reasons that only he cared about ..."51

Simply put, Einstein failed to include the phenomenon of gravity in his Special Theory and without it the solution he proposed to Michelson's experiments was as good as false. So Einstein had to invent another theory. He called it the General Theory because it was supposed to be more comprehensive. But two things happened on the way to the theatre. First, Einstein found that in order to give the General Theory any semblance of coherence, he needed to include the ether he had rejected in his Special Theory. In 1916 (the year after he invented GR) Einstein wrote:

"... in 1905 I was of the opinion that it was no longer allowed to speak about the ether in physics. This opinion, however, was too radical, as we will see later when we discuss the general theory of relativity. It does remain allowed, as always, to introduce a medium filling all space and to assume that the electromagnetic fields (and matter as well) are its states ... once again 'empty' space appears as endowed with physical properties, i.e., no longer as physically empty, as seemed to be the case according to special relativity. One can thus say that the ether is resurrected in the general theory of relativity."52 ...

{p. 18} Second, Einstein's math also told him that the speed of light that he said was constant in the Special Theory (so that he could keep the Earth "non-constant," i.e., moving) could no longer be constant in the General Theory, for gravity can make light reach any speed it desired. As Einstein himself said: "In the second place our result shows that, according to the general theory of relativity, the law of the constancy of the velocity of light in vacuo, which constitutes one of the two fundamental assumptions in the special theory of relativity and to which we have already frequently referred, cannot claim any unlimited validity. ... its results hold only so long as we are able to disregard the influences of gravitational fields on the phenomena (e.g., of light)"53 ...

There's more. Einstein then discovered that the equations in his General Theory led to an unstable universe. Einstein's original formula kept the universe from collapsing (with a little help from the infamous fudge factor L that he dubbed as the "cosmological constant"), but this solution was unstable, since the adjustment would then result in an expansion of the universe, which in turn would increase the repulsive force and decrease gravity, and thus increase the expansion exponentially. Conversely, the slightest contraction would result in a premature collapse of the universe. Nobel laureate Robert Laughlin explains the problems in terms of our old friend, ether:

"The closet of general relativity contains a horrible skeleton known as the cosmological constant. This is a correction to the Einstein field equations compatible with relativity and having the physical meaning of a uniform mass density of relativistic ether. Einstein originally set this constant to zero on the grounds that no such effect seemed to exist. The vacuum, as far as anyone knew, was really empty. He then gave it a small nonzero value in response to cosmological observations that seemed to indicate the opposite, and then later removed it again as the observations improved."55

... Laughlin reveals the inherent problems such theories will face:

"The view of space-time as a nonsubstance with substance-like properties is neither logical nor consistent. It is instead an ideology that grew out of old battles over the validity of relativity. At its core is the belief that the symmetry of relativity is different from all other symmetries in being absolute. It cannot be violated for any reason at any length scale, no matter how small ... This belief may be correct, but it is an enormous speculative leap."56 ...

51 Lee Smolin, Discover Magazine, September 2004, p. 38. 52 Albert Einstein, "Grundgedanken und Methoden der Relativitätstheorie in ihrer Entwicklung dargestellt," Morgan Manuscript, EA 2070, as cited in Ludwik Kostro, Einstein and the Ether, Aperion, 2000, p. 2. For a good summation of Einstein's reasoning in regard to reviving the ether concept, see Galina Granek's "Einstein's Ether: Why Did Einstein Come Back to the Ether?" Apeiron, vol. 8, no. 3, July 2001; "Einstein's Ether: Rotational Motion of the Earth," Apeiron, vol. 8, no. 2, April 2001; Ludwik Kostro, "Einstein and the Ether," Electronics and Wireless World, 94:238-239 (1988). Kostro writes: "the notion of ether was not destroyed by Einstein, as the general public believes" (ibid., p. 239); "Lorentz wrote a letter to Einstein in which he maintained that the general theory of relativity admits of a stationary ether hypothesis. In reply, Einstein introduced his new non-stationary ether hypothesis" (ibid., p. 238). ... 53 Albert Einstein, Relativity: The Special and the General Theory, authorized translation by Robert W. Lawson, 1961, p. 85. ... 55 Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe, p. 123. 56 Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe, pp. 123-124. ...

(15) Plasma Cosmology - a corrective to "Gravity only" models

The Electric Universe Pt1 of 4

Presented by Wal Thornhill and a number of others. As an example of the Electrical Model of the solar system, a comet is seen as a charged object moving through an electric field. Objects fired into asteroids, even into Jupiter, elicit a flash (of discharge) just before impact. It's worth watching all four parts.

The Big Bang Never Happened Part 1

A series of 9 Parts; I viewed 5. Features leading astronomers including Fred Hoyle, Halton Arp and Margaret Burbidge.

It shows that Halton Arp is the new Galileo who has undermined the Big Bang theory. Very important to watch this series.

Electric Sun Theory - A CAPACITOR:

Argues that, while the sun contains a nuclear fusion reactor, that reactor causes a voltage buildup on the surface, such that the solar surface acts as a condenser (capacitor), attracting charge from across the solar system. The solar wind is a voltage equalizer; the solar wind would not flow out without a charge imbalance.

Don Scott is the author of the book The Electric Sky, from which excerpts are presented below. It's a book that I've just bought, and which I urge others to buy.

But before risking your money, watch his presentation to NASA Goddard center:

Plasma Physics' Answers to the New Cosmological Questions
by Dr. Donald E. Scott

This is a presentation given by Don Scott to NASA, in 7 parts. They should play sequentially:

In case they don't, Part 2 starts here:

Donald E. Scott, author of The Electric Sky, explains Plasma at <http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm>:

{quote} Plasma

... An electrical plasma is a cloud of ions and electrons that, under the excitation of applied electrical and magnetic fields, can sometimes light up and behave in some unusual ways. The most familiar examples of electrical plasmas are the neon sign, lightning, and the electric arc welding machine. The ionosphere of Earth is an example of a plasma that does not emit visible light. Plasma permeates the space that contains our solar system. The cloud of particles that constitutes the solar 'wind' is a plasma. Our entire Milky Way galaxy consists mainly of plasma. In fact 99% of the entire universe is plasma!


During the late 1800's in Norway, physicist Kristian Birkeland explained that the reason we could see the auroras was that they were plasmas. Birkeland also discovered the twisted corkscrew shaped paths taken by electric currents when they exist in plasmas. Sometimes those twisted shapes are visible and sometimes not - it depends on the strength of the current density being carried by the plasma. Today these streams of ions and electrons are called Birkeland Currents. The mysterious sprites, elves, and blue jets associated with electrical storms on Earth are examples of Birkeland currents in the plasma of our upper atmosphere. ...

There are three distinctly different steady state modes in which a plasma can operate:

1.Dark Current Mode - The strength of the electrical current (flow of charged particles) within the plasma is very low. The plasma does not glow. It is essentially invisible. We would not know a plasma was there at all unless we measured its electrical activity with sensitive instruments. The present day magnetospheres of the planets are examples of plasmas operating in the dark current mode.

2.Normal Glow Mode - The strength of the electrical current (flow of charged particles) is significant. The entire plasma glows. The brightness of the glow depends on the intensity of the current in the plasma. Examples: Any neon sign. Emission nebulae. The Sun's corona.

3.Arc Mode - The strength of the electrical current in the plasma is very high. The plasma radiates brilliantly over a wide spectrum. Current tends to form twisting filaments. Examples of this mode of operation are: An electric arc welding machine. Lightning. The Sun's photosphere.

In all three modes of operation, plasmas emit measurable electromagnetic radiation (radio frequency noise). At any given time, the current density (Amps per square meter) existing in the plasma, determines which particular mode a plasma is operating in. The atomic structure of the gas that became ionized to form the plasma in the first place also is a factor in this.

Double Layers

One of the most important properties of any electrical plasma is its ability to "self-organize" - that is, to electrically isolate one section of itself from another. The isolating wall is called a double layer (DL). ...

If the voltage difference from one electrode to the other becomes large enough, a DL will form in a narrow cross-section somewhere in the middle of the tube. Almost all the voltage drop that is applied across the electrodes will fall across this DL. The plasma on one side of the DL (the side toward the anode) will have approximately the same voltage as the anode. The plasma on the cathode side of the DL will have essentially the same voltage as the cathode. The two halves of the plasma are then electrically isolated from one another by the DL. ...

If a foreign object is inserted into a plasma, a DL will form around it, shielding it from the main plasma. This effect makes it difficult to insert voltage sensing probes into a plasma in order to measure the electric potential at a specific location. This is a well known property of plasmas. Various methods have been developed in the laboratory to overcome it.

In space, it is impossible to send a spacecraft to measure the voltage of the solar plasma at some point. Voltage is a relative measure (like velocity, for example); it must be measured with respect to some datum. A spacecraft will start out having the same voltage as the surface of Earth. As it penetrates the plasmasphere and enters the solar plasma it will slowly accumulate charge and thus alter its voltage. The strength of an electric field, however, can be measured in space.

The Z-Pinch

Electric current, passing through a plasma, will take on the corkscrew (spiral) shape discovered by Birkeland. These Birkeland currents most often occur in pairs. ...

Now we know that there can be slight voltage differences between different points in plasmas. Plasma engineer Hannes Alfvén pointed out this fact in his acceptance speech while receiving the Nobel Prize for physics in 1970. ...

Because plasmas are good (but not perfect) conductors, they are equivalent to wires in their ability to carry electrical current. It is well known that if any conductor cuts through a magnetic field, a current will be caused to flow in that conductor. This is how electric generators and alternators work. Therefore, if there is any relative motion between a cosmic plasma, say in the arm of a galaxy, and a magnetic field in that same location, Birkeland currents will flow in the plasma. These currents will, in turn, produce their own magnetic fields.

Plasma phenomena are scalable. That is to say, their electrical and physical properties remain the same, independent of the size of the plasma. Of course dynamic phenomena take much less time to occur in a small laboratory plasma than they do in a plasma the size, say, of a galaxy. But the phenomena are identical in that they obey the same laws of physics. So we can make accurate models of cosmic sized plasmas in the lab - and generate effects exactly like those seen in space. In fact, electric currents, flowing in plasmas, have been shown to produce most of the observed astronomical phenomena that are inexplicable if we assume that the only forces at work in the cosmos are magnetism and gravity.

Why Do Astrophysicists Ignore Electrical Phenomena?

When such a firm foundation has been laid for continued work in the electrical properties of the universe, why do "mainstream" astrophysicists continue to ignore this field of study and, instead, patch up their failing "gravity only" models with more and more arcane, invented theoretical fictions? ...

The American Institute of Physics has just recently announced that they will now officially recognize the Plasma Universe as an official field of study in physics! Eighty years late! But better late than never.

Dark (Missing) Matter

What Was Missing

Dutch astronomer Jan Oort first discovered the 'missing matter' problem in the 1930's. By observing the Doppler red-shift values of stars moving near the plane of our galaxy, Oort assumed he could calculate how fast the stars were moving. Since the galaxy was not flying apart, he reasoned that there must be enough matter inside the galaxy such that the central gravitational force was strong enough to keep the stars from escaping, much as the Sun's gravitational pull keeps a planet in its orbit. But when the calculation was made, it turned out that there was not enough mass in the galaxy. And the discrepancy was not small; the galaxy had to be at least twice as massive as the sum of the mass of all its visible components combined. Where was all this missing matter?

In addition, in the 1960's the radial profile of the tangential velocity of stars in their orbits around the galactic center as a function of their distance from that center was measured. It was found that typically, once we get away from the galactic center all the stars travel with the same velocity independent of their distance out from the galactic center. (See the figure below.) Usually, as is the case with our solar system, the farther out an object is, the slower it travels in its orbit. ...

The dilemma presented by the fact that Newton's Law of Gravity does not give the correct (observed) results in most cases involving galaxy rotation can only be resolved by realizing that Newton's Law of Gravity is simply not applicable in these situations. Galaxies are not held together by gravity. They are formed, driven, and stabilized by dynamic electromagnetic effects.

The Real Explanation:

Dynamic Electromagnetic Forces in Cosmic Plasmas

Ninety nine percent of the universe is made up of tenuous clouds of ions and electrons called electric plasma. Plasmas respond to the electrical physical laws codified by James Clerk Maxwell and Oliver Heaviside in the late 1800's. An additional single law due to Hendrick Lorentz explains the mysterious stellar velocities described above.

d/dt(mv) = q(E + v x B)Simply stated, this law says that a moving charged particle's momentum (direction) can be changed by application of either an electric field, E, or a magnetic field, B, or both. Consider the mass and charge of a proton for example. The electrostatic force between two protons is 36 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational force (given by Newton's equation). It's not that Newton's Law is wrong. It is just that in deep space it is totally overpowered by the Maxwell-Lorentz forces of electromagnetic dynamics.

Notice, in the equation in the previous paragraph, that the change in a charged particle's momentum (left hand side of the equation) is directly proportional to the strength of the magnetic field, B, the particle is moving through. The strength of the magnetic field produced by an electric current (e.g., a cosmic sized Birkeland current) falls off inversely as the first power of the distance from the current. Both electrostatic and gravitational forces fall off inversely as the square of the distance. This inherent difference in the spatial distribution of electromagnetic forces as compared to gravitational forces may indeed be the root cause of the inexplicable velocity profiles exhibited by galaxies.

Electrical engineer Dr. Anthony L. Peratt, using Maxwell's and Lorentz's equations, has shown that charged particles, such as those that form the intergalactic plasma, will evolve into very familiar galactic shapes under the influence of electrodynamic forces. The results of these simulations fit perfectly with the observed values of the velocity contours in galaxies. No missing matter is needed - and Newton can rest easy in his grave. The electromagnetic force is many orders of magnitude stronger than the force due to gravity and it distributes itself more widely throughout space. But present day astronomy refuses to recognize the existence of any cosmic force other than gravity. That error is the cause of their mystification. ...

In 1986, Nobel laureate Hannes Alfven postulated both an electrical galactic model and an electric solar model. Recently physicist Wal Thornhill has pointed out that Alfven's circuits are really scaled up versions of the familiar homopolar motor that serves as the watt-hour meter on each of our homes. The simple application of the Lorentz force equation ("crossing" the direction, v, of the current into the direction, B, of the magnetic field) yields a rotational force. Not only does this effect explain the mysterious tangential velocities of the outer stars in galaxies, but also (in scaled down version) the observed fact that our Sun rotates faster at its equator than at higher (solar) latitudes.

Up to now astronomers and cosmologists have not given serious consideration to any sort of electrical explanation for any of the above observations. ...


Present day astronomy/cosmology seems to be on the horns of a very painful dilemma. This dilemma is caused by the fact that Newton's Law of Gravity does not give the correct (observed) results in most cases involving galaxy rotation. The "missing matter" proposal attempts to balance the equation by increasing one of the variables (one of the mass terms). The second proposal (MOND) is to change Newton's equation itself. (If you are losing the game, change the rules.)

But, the ultimate resolution of the dilemma lies in realizing that Newton's Law of Gravity is simply not applicable in these situations. Maxwell's equations are! Why do astrophysicists grope wildly for solutions in every possible direction except the right one? {end}

To order The Electric Sky from the publisher's online bookstore: http://members.cox.net/dascott3/index.htm.

Published in 2006. One sign that this is a good book is that the second-hand price (at Abebooks and Addall) is much higher (double) than the new price from the above online shop. Further, second-hand copies are rare.

(16) Relativity theory not used in Apollo program, Nukes, or GPS - William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.

A Dissident View of Relativity Theory

William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.

Infinite Energy Editorial, Issue 59


[...] Special relativity theory (SRT) contains two postulates. The first postulate is a restatement of Galileo's relativity principle which says that the laws of physics apply equally well for all inertial frames, whether at rest or in uniform rectilinear motion (no acceleration). The second postulate says that the velocity of light is independent of the speed of its source. This postulate by itself is not strange or unexpected. When a train whistle blows, the speed of sound is independent of the speed of the train, but not of the velocity of the wind carrying the sound to the observer. Here, the air molecules are the medium and they play the equivalent role of an aether-wind for electromagnetism. But with relativity theory, we have no aether. ...

But what about alternative theories? Are they better? And what of aether-based theories? High school science students are conditioned to ridicule the concept of a nineteenth-century luminiferous aether with eye-rolling and giggling. But is this really a contemptible idea when compared with the "new and improved" terminology of gravitational masses "warping" the fabric of "space-time"? Sounds a little like an über-aether in another guise. Given that the nothingness of a perfect absolute vacuum is bestowed with the physical properties of a permittivity, eo 8.854 pF/m, a permeability, mo 4p x 10-7 H/m, and a characteristic impedance of 377 ohms, is the concept of an aether really that outlandish?

{now going to an earlier part of the article}
No doubt the average citizen assumes that relativity theory is vital to our modern society. In truth it has almost no role to play, except in a few narrow branches of science. For example, the Apollo program to land a man on the moon was a complete success as a result of the physics of Sir Isaac Newton - relativity theory did not play a role. Einstein's work on Brownian motion and the photoelectric effect was far more important than relativity.

This may come as a shock, but Einstein's theory of relativity is not part of the design of nuclear weapons! As proof, here is an excerpt from The Los Alamos Primer: The First Lectures on How To Build an Atomic Bomb, "Section 2. Energy of Fission Process," page 7:

Somehow the popular notion took hold long ago that Einstein's theory of relativity, in particular his famous equation E = mc2, plays some essential role in the theory of fission. Albert Einstein had a part in alerting the United States government to the possibility of building an atomic bomb, but his theory of relativity is not required in discussing fission. The theory of fission is what physicists call a nonrelativistic theory, meaning that relativistic effects are too small to affect the dynamics of the fission process significantly."

This primer3 is a collection of lecture notes taught by Berkeley theoretician Dr. Robert Serber to the young physicists arriving at Los Alamos beginning in 1943. The purpose of Serber's lectures was to bring the new arrivals up to speed quickly, so that the Manhattan Project could produce a "practical military weapon" in the shortest possible time. It contains a considerable amount of information on weapon design and the differential equations to be solved to calculate neutron flux. Serber explains that the energy released from the nucleus during fission is simply that of electrostatic repulsion between protons. A considerable amount of potential energy is stored by cramming the positively charged protons together in a nucleus and this is what gets released when it splits. Einstein's famous equation is not involved.

By the time the Manhattan Project started, Einstein was in his sixties. His contribution consisted of signing a letter composed by physicist Leo Szilard and addressed to FDR. His role as scientific icon was needed to ensure that the scientists could capture the attention of the President and the War Department. Needless to say, it worked.

{Now moving towards the bottom of the article}
The mainstream authorities are fond of saying that GPS would not work if it weren't for Einstein's relativity. Clifford Will of Washington University has been quoted31 as saying:

SR has been confirmed by experiment so many times that it borders on crackpot to say there is something wrong with it. Experiments have been done to test SR explicitly. The world's particle accelerators would not work if SR wasn't in effect. The global positioning system would not work if special relativity didn't work the way we thought it did.

Oh really? What does one of the world's foremost experts on GPS have to say about relativity theory and the Global Positioning System? Ronald R. Hatch is the Director of Navigation Systems at NavCom Technology and a former president of the Institute of Navigation. As he describes in his article for this issue (p. 25, IE #59), GPS simply contradicts Einstein's theory of relativity. His Modified Lorentz Ether Gauge Theory (MLET) has been proposed32 as an alternative to Einstein's relativity. It agrees at first order with relativity but corrects for certain astronomical anomalies not explained by relativity theory. (Also see IE #39, p. 14.)

(17) Tesla critical of Einstein's relativity


Tesla was critical of Einstein's relativity work, calling it:

...[a] magnificent mathematical garb which fascinates, dazzles and makes people blind to the underlying errors. The theory is like a beggar clothed in purple whom ignorant people take for a king ... its exponents are brilliant men but they are metaphysicists rather than scientists ...[78]

Tesla also argued:

I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view.[79]

This page was last modified on 9 October 2011 at 07:24.

(18) Have you been a victim of Scientific Fraud or Plagiarism? Let me know at contact.html; if you have a reasonable case, I will link to your site here, so you can tell your story:

Michael Pyshnov says that his biological research at the University of Toronto was appropriated by his supervisor: http://ca.geocities.com/UofTfraud/.

Write to me at contact.html.