Dissident Science - no Big Bang, but an Eternal Universe

Peter Myers, August 8, 2001; update April 19, 2022.

Write to me at contact.html.

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

Added Sept 24, 2021:

Wifried - ABC Science Show 'Catalyst' documentary about the health dangers of WIFI including WIFI routers in schools. Censored after the industry panned it (109.4 MB):
http://members.iinet.net.au/~childers381/catalyst_s17_ep03_wifi.mp4 .

The Autism Enigma - Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, The Nature of Things, presented by Dr David Suzuki, 2011. ABC Four Corners in Australia broadcast it, hosted by Kerry O-Brien. It used to be online until recently, but now this is the ONLY place you can download it from (142.4 MB):
http://members.iinet.net.au/~childers381/Autism-Enigma-Suzuki-2011.mp4 .

"Observing astronomers came under heavy pressure from theoreticians. The result was the development of a cosmological establishment, like that of the Ptolemaic orthodoxy, which did not tolerate objections or dissent."
- Hannes Alfven, "How Should We Approach Cosmology?" 1978

Some peoople think that Political Correctness occurs only in the Social Sciences and in Environmentalism. Wrong! It occurs in the hard sciences too, eg Physics.

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

Astronomer Halton C. Arp was 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 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 in the US. He moved to 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
(18) New Scientist publishes letters from Astronomers & Astrophysicists rejecting the Big Bang Theory
(19) Refutation of Hawking's theory of Black Holes - Stephen Crothers
(20) Special Relativity: its Inconsistency with the Standard Wave Equation - Stephen J. Crothers
(21) Minkowski-Einstein Spacetime does not exist - Stephen J. Crothers
(22) The Sun is not a Plasma (Gas), but mainly Liquid Metallic Hydrogen - Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille
(23) Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille says Cosmic Microwave Background not a signature of the Big Bang, but originates from Earth's own oceans
(24) The Sun has a hard and rigid ferrite surface below the visible photosphere; electrical activity (not Fusion) causes the high energy discharges from the solar surface
(25) Autism caused by Bacteria in the gut - and overuse of Antibiotics
(26) Astronomical Concepts for understanding the Zodiac signs - from Ron Welch
(27) Alfred Russel Wallace on Spiritualism
(28) Air Force Officers attest UFO encounters at Nuke sites, in presentation at National Press Club (2010)
(29) Against Peer Review - by eugyppius
(30) Aluminium Industry hides Alzheimers Connection

(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 encountered 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 redshift 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.

Don Scott has more detail on Arp in Appendix B of his book Electric Sky (Revised 12/11/09):

Arp's Computation of Inherent QSO Redshifts http://electric-cosmos.org/AppendixB.pdf

From Eric J. Lerner's book The Big Bang Never Happened:

"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.

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

Lerner's website is http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

An article on Lerner at http://www.plasma-universe.com/Eric_Lerner says:

Lerner is a critic of the Big Bang theory and advocates an infinitely old Universe. He has developed original theories of quasars, Large-scale structure of the cosmos, the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation, and the origin of light elements all based on the plasma cosmology approach. He claims that the intergalactic medium is a strong absorber of the cosmic microwave background radiation with the absorption occurring in a fog of narrow filaments. He has analyzed data on the surface brightness of galaxies that contradict the predictions of expanding-universe models.

[...] In 2004, New Scientist, published an open letter from Lerner and about 30 other scientists, in which they note that:

".. the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do."[17]

The letter was co-signed by notables such as astronomer Halton Arp, astrophysicist and professor of astronomy Thomas Gold, professor and astrophysicist Jayant Narlikar, French astrophysicist Jean-Claude Pecker, and plasma physicist Anthony L. Peratt. A copy of the entire statement on a Website has subsequently been endorsed by over 200 other scientists and engineers, and over 250 others.
{endquote} The letter is reproduced below

Buy Lerner's book The Big Bang Never Happened at http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/SearchResults?an=eric+lerner

For more on the Plasma Universe see http://www.plasma-universe.com/

First Crisis In Cosmology Conference

Moncao, Portugal June 23-25, 2005: http://electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.html .

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 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 took him seriously, and invited him to the AIDS conference: http://www.duesberg.com/.

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" ... in Rethinking AIDS March 1993: http://www.duesberg.com/subject/rrbprostitute.html.

But What About Africa? by David Rasnick, PhD and Christian Fiala, MD; Reprinted from RedFlagsWeekly.com, May 2004 http://www.aliveandwell.org/html/africa/related_but_what.html.

Here is the 2003 paper by Duesberg, Koehnlein and Rasnick, in pdf form: http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/data/pddrchemical.pdf
or as text at http://members.efn.org/~wolfe/duesberg.htm

The Chemical Basis of the Various AIDS Epidemics: Recreational Drugs, Anti-viral Chemotherapy and Malnutrition

by Peter Duesberg, Claus Koehnlein and David Rasnick

Donner Laboratory, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720, USA Internistische Praxis, Koenigsweg 14, 24103 Kiel, Germany received 22 January 2003; accepted 8 April 2003

Some quotes from the above paper:

{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 {on which see einstein.html}. 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

The Guardian

November 11, 1999


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=mc2in 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

Presented by Wal Thornhill and a number of others. Denies that there's a nuclear reactor (fusion reactor) in the core of the sun.

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.

Wal Thornhill:
Seeing Double ­ Electric Cosmology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMgtWFqdPK0 . ==

Top 10 Reasons the Universe is Electric:
#1 Cosmic Magnetic Fields: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZnfNuXiExQ . ==

The Big Bang Never Happened Part 1

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:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-B2hACS0dQ . ==

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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ew4ZGO32x2Y .

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 2009:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CAEoGWL0qs4 .

Donald E. Scott, author of The Electric Sky, explains Plasma at http://electric-cosmos.org/electricplasma.html :

{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.

{in his presentation to NASA, Scott gives the earth's ionisphere as an example of Dark Mode; you can tell it's there, because you can bounce radio signals off it.}

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?

To order The Electric Sky from the publisher's online bookstore: http://www.mikamar.biz/book-info/tes-a.htm .

Donald E. Scott replies to critique by Dr. Tom Bridgman


donald scott - senior editor

NASA Pseudo-skeptic Receives Rebuttal from Electric Universe Theorist

by Dr. Donald E. Scott

March 21, 2009

[Editor's note: On March 16 Dr. Donald E. Scott gave a presentation of electric universe concepts to a gathering at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center, which appeared to be well-received by many of the attendees.

However there he met with pseudo-skeptic Dr. Tom Bridgman who had offered a "critique" of Scott's book The Electric Sky last year, and who, whilst 'personable' to Scott's face, has since written further pseudo-criticism of Scott's presentation. The following are a few excerpts from Scott's rebuttal of Bridgman's original "critique".]

When I first heard about Dr. Tom Bridgman's 48-page onslaught against me and the material I present in my book, The Electric Sky (TES), I thought I would simply ignore him. But friends I admire and trust have repeatedly implored me to take up my pen so that the casual reader of his criticisms will not assume I accept them. These following paragraphs are not a comprehensive dissection of each and every allegation he made. They are simply my reaction to what stood out as being most outrageously inaccurate, and uninformed.

Bridgman's 'critique' can be found here: http://homepage.mac.com/cygnusx1/anomalies/ElectricSky_20080322.pdf

The following is my response to Bridgman (TB) roughly in the order in which he states his objections.

PULSARS [On the top of his page 2] TB implies that I have proposed a "radically different model of pulsars". The notion that pulsar repetition rates are most probably due to an electrical oscillation rather than light-house-like massive stars rotating at 60,000 rpm or more is due, not to me, but to other investigators such as Healy & Peratt (see: http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/HealyPeratt1995.pdf

Those authors begin their (peer reviewed) paper with a review of the history of the discovery of pulsars and the classical theoretical descriptions of their behavior. They (H&P) performed a plasma supported transmission line experiment that duplicated some 17 detailed properties of those observed emissions. I have read their paper, discussed this with Peratt personally, and find much merit in what they say. Postulating this electrical mechanism as an explanation for observed pulsar emissions is far less of a stretch of one's sense of reality than proposing that an incredibly massive star rotates with the speed of a dentist's drill. But H&P's proposed model is, regrettably, not mine to take credit for.


On his page 4 Bridgman states: "Dr. Scott states that astronomers assume that the physical laws in the distant cosmos are different from those known on Earth (page 7)." What I did say in part was this:

The hypotheses of these plasma scientists on the subjects of solar, stellar, and galactic behavior are careful extrapolations of their demonstrated experimental results and physical principles. They do not involve invisible matter or unseen forces or "new science" - claims that the laws of physics must be different out there in deep space (where we cannot falsify them) from what they are here on Earth. I have indeed heard arguments that: "Just because something is falsified here on Earth doesn't mean it can't happen out in space." For example see the section of this rebuttal on the impossibility of neutron stars (below). His (TB's) claim that matter made up solely of neutrons can and does exist out in space despite the fact it cannot here on Earth is a case in point. He also mentions "There are some searches for Dark Matter and Dark energy candidates that are being conducted in Earth laboratories." I hope I live long enough to see positive results of these searches announced. I doubt I will.


TB condemns my pointing out that a similarity in appearance of certain objects might indicate they have a common cause, e.g., the Grand Canyon and Lichtenberg patterns formed in grass by lightning strokes. He then goes on to say that Mark Twain "noted how the [Mississippi] river course would change, with no reports of giant electric arcs."

There are many morphological characteristics of the Grand Canyon that are enigmatic for 'standard' geologists. Different from the Mississippi (and similar to Lichtenberg patterns), it has no delta, it is narrow at both ends, and its tributaries are as deep at their beginning points as they are when they join the main stream; many such tributaries join at right angles to the central valley. And, of course, it is a mile deep. Also, there is the old saying: "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duckÉÉ."

Lichtenberg pattern etched in grass by lightning Figure 1. A Lichtenberg pattern etched in grass by lightning ­ not to be confused with the Mississippi River Valley [Click to enlarge]


[p. 44] TB seems to take offense at the degree to which I talk about plasma when it is in the dark current mode of operation (Earth's ionosphere for example, or the outer interplanetary plasma, etc.). He states, "...much of Scott's model hides connections behind 'invisible' dark currents. These 'Dark Currents' seem to fulfill in Scott's 'theology' the role of God in creationist claims as a form of invisible agent."

I submit this comment, coming from a staunch supporter of Fairie Dust [Fabricated Ad hoc Inventions Repeatedly Invoked in Efforts to Defend Untenable Scientific Theories] entities such as Black Holes, Dark Energy, Dark Matter, and Neutron Stars, is the epitome of hypocrisy. In his zeal to play Citizen Robespierre to anything that challenges his belief structure, he seems to see the Ghost of Creationism lurking everywhere ­ even when it is clearly not.

Does he feel no unease that it was Georges Lemaître, a Roman Catholic priest, who was one of the inventors of his beloved Big Bang Myth? It is well known that one of the early general appeals of the BB was that it bridged the gap between 'science' and 'faith'. When the big bang theory was first heralded, Pope Pius XII wrote, "Scientists are beginning to find the finger of God in the creation of the universe."

On p 28 of TES I said:

Alfvén commented on Lemaître's proposal: "The appeal of the Big Bang has been more ideological than scientific. When men think about the universe, there is always a conflict between the mythical approach and the empirical scientific approach. In myth, one tries to deduce how the gods must have created the world ­ what perfect principles must have been used."

It is not the purpose of this book to denigrate the Almighty. We simply contend that we do not need a spiritual argument to explain the sky. It's not that supernatural. The real cosmos is not invisible, immeasurable, or unknowable. We simply must use our eyes, our brains, and the work product of the last hundred years of serious electrical science. If we do so, we shall see through the mystifying fog. After reading those paragraphs, TB's describing my work, as being a 'theology', is a low-blow. Gratuitous comments such as this are an indication that his urge to attack me has overcome his reason. It is modern astrophysics that demands its followers 'believe' in unseen, immeasurable entities such as WIMPS, MACHOs, Dark Matter, and Inflatons as a matter of 'faith' without proof. The reification of abstractions such as point-masses, magnetic field lines, and mathematical singularities into real entities that can have an effect on matter in real space are classic theological transmogrifications - miracles. If TB wants to see a supporter of this species of Creationism, he can simply look in a mirror.


Astrophysics pseudo-skeptics like Bridgman have certain recognizable characteristics in common.

They speak down to their audience using 'arguments from authority'.

They refuse to consider any electrical causation for anything in space.

When confronted with 'in your face evidence' such as the image of a high redshifted QSO in front of a more distant, low redshifted galaxy, they resort to arguments (usually involving math or statistics) to disprove ­ or at least make you doubt ­ what your eyes are telling you. The old Groucho Marx line comes to mind: "Who you gonna believe? Me? Or your lying eyes?"

They put forward their assumptions as if they were universal truths. The fact that they have been voted upon and accepted by a self-involved, insular group of 'experts' does not make them true.

Winning a hand vote is not the same thing as scientific validation. It is clear that they have never been exposed to the basic properties of plasma nor the fundamental inter-relationships between magnetic fields and electric currents. But they feel free to lecture those who have.

If the pseudo-skeptic has a monetary interest (such as maintaining a funding stream or a salary) his criticisms often become vituperative. [...]

Because I see no willingness on Bridgman's part to discuss things calmly, with mutual respect, he remains, in my view, simply one more pseudo-skeptic who claims to know-it-all ­ not an open minded scientist.

Don Scott

A full copy of Dr. Scott's rebuttal in pdf format can be obtained here] ==

Peratt disagreement with Thornhill?


[To v3.0 forum]> v2.0 pre-2020 archive Board Index <The Future of Science

Peratt disagreement with Thornhill?

by Morphix » Thu Dec 27, 2012 9:49 pm

Just wondering if anyone here knows the reason why Anthony Peratt, author of the invaluable "Physics of the Plasma Universe," distances himself from Wal Thornhill's Electric Universe http://www.holoscience.com site? I ask this after seeing the following disclaimer on Peratt's Plasma Electric Universe homepage http://www.plasmauniverse.info: "The Plasma Universe and Plasma Cosmology have no ties to the anti-science blogsites of the holoscience 'electric universe'." [...]

My own view on the Peratt disclaimer is that it is political. Michael's views on the independence of LANL notwithstanding, I don't think that any scientific institution is wholly independent of some pressure to follow guidelines, spoken or unspoken. Given Peratt's positive contribution to the work of Dave Talbott, for example, a little bit of distance could be seen as a positive thing. That is to say there is more scientific value in unsolicited corroboration than there is in conspiracy and consensus.

Donald E. Scott

(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) New Scientist publishes letters from Astronomers & Astrophysicists rejecting the Big Bang Theory


An Open Letter to the Scientific Community

(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)

The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.

Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.

What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.

Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.

Supporters of the big bang theory may retort that these theories do not explain every cosmological observation. But that is scarcely surprising, as their development has been severely hampered by a complete lack of funding. Indeed, such questions and alternatives cannot even now be freely discussed and examined. An open exchange of ideas is lacking in most mainstream conferences. Whereas Richard Feynman could say that "science is the culture of doubt", in cosmology today doubt and dissent are not tolerated, and young scientists learn to remain silent if they have something negative to say about the standard big bang model. Those who doubt the big bang fear that saying so will cost them their funding.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. So discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances, and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed. This reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry.

Today, virtually all financial and experimental resources in cosmology are devoted to big bang studies. Funding comes from only a few sources, and all the peer-review committees that control them are dominated by supporters of the big bang. As a result, the dominance of the big bang within the field has become self-sustaining, irrespective of the scientific validity of the theory.

Giving support only to projects within the big bang framework undermines a fundamental element of the scientific method -- the constant testing of theory against observation. Such a restriction makes unbiased discussion and research impossible. To redress this, we urge those agencies that fund work in cosmology to set aside a significant fraction of their funding for investigations into alternative theories and observational contradictions of the big bang. To avoid bias, the peer review committee that allocates such funds could be composed of astronomers and physicists from outside the field of cosmology.

Allocating funding to investigations into the big bang's validity, and its alternatives, would allow the scientific process to determine our most accurate model of the history of the universe.

Signed: (Institutions for identification only)

Halton Arp, Max-Planck-Institute Fur Astrophysik (Germany)
Andre Koch Torres Assis, State University of Campinas (Brazil)
Yuri Baryshev, Astronomical Institute, St. Petersburg State University (Russia)
Ari Brynjolfsson, Applied Radiation Industries (USA)
Hermann Bondi, Churchill College, University of Cambridge (UK)
Timothy Eastman, Plasmas International (USA)
Chuck Gallo, Superconix, Inc.(USA)
Thomas Gold, Cornell University (emeritus) (USA)
Amitabha Ghosh, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur (India)
Walter J. Heikkila, University of Texas at Dallas (USA) ................................................. 10
Michael Ibison, Institute for Advanced Studies at Austin (USA)
Thomas Jarboe, University of Washington (USA)
Jerry W. Jensen, ATK Propulsion (USA)
Menas Kafatos, George Mason University (USA)
Eric J. Lerner, Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (USA)
Paul Marmet, Herzberg Institute of Astrophysics (retired) (Canada)
Paola Marziani, Istituto Nazionale di Astrofisica, Osservatorio Astronomico di Padova (Italy)
Gregory Meholic, The Aerospace Corporation (USA)
Jacques Moret-Bailly, Université Dijon (retired) (France)
Jayant Narlikar, IUCAA (emeritus) and College de France (India, France) ........................ 20
Marcos Cesar Danhoni Neves, State University of Maringá (Brazil)
Charles D. Orth, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (USA)
R. David Pace, Lyon College (USA)
Georges Paturel, Observatoire de Lyon (France)
Jean-Claude Pecker, College de France (France)
Anthony L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory (USA)
Bill Peter, BAE Systems Advanced Technologies (USA)
David Roscoe, Sheffield University (UK)
Malabika Roy, George Mason University (USA)
Sisir Roy, George Mason University (USA) .................................................................... 30
Konrad Rudnicki, Jagiellonian University (Poland)
Domingos S.L. Soares, Federal University of Minas Gerais (Brazil)
John L. West, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, California Institute of Technology (USA)
James F. Woodward, California State University, Fullerton (USA)


Signers of the Open letter after publication

{visit the above link to see additional signatories}

(19) Refutation of Hawking's theory of Black Holes - Stephen Crothers

From Stephen Crothers <thenarmis@yahoo.com> Subject: Hawking's Legacy Date: 19 March 2018

Black hole thermodynamics and the Zeroth Law [1,2].

(a) black hole temperature: TH = hc3/16¼2GkM

The LHS is intensive but the RHS is extensive; therefore a violation of thermodynamics [1,2].

(b) black hole entropy: S = ¼kc3A/2hG

The LHS is extensive but the RHS is neither extensive nor extensive; therefore a violation of thermodynamics [1,2].

(c) Black holes do not exist [1-3].


[1] Robitaille, P.-M., Hawking Radiation: A Violation of the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, American Physical Society (ABSTRACT), March, 2018, http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/NES18/Session/D01.3

[2] Robitaille, P.-M., Hawking Radiation: A Violation of the Zeroth Law of Thermodynamics, American Physical Society (SLIDE PRESENTATION), March, 2018, http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0264v1.pdf

[3] Crothers, S.J., A Critical Analysis of LIGO's Recent Detection of Gravitational Waves Caused by Merging Black Holes, Hadronic Journal, n.3, Vol. 39, 2016, pp.271-302, http://vixra.org/pdf/1603.0127v5.pdf

(20) Special Relativity: its Inconsistency with the Standard Wave Equation - Stephen J. Crothers

On the Logical Inconsistency of the Special Theory of Relativity

Stephen J. Crothers

APR 12, 2017


Special Relativity: its Inconsistency with the Standard Wave Equation

Stephen J. Crothers


Tasmania, Australia 6th August, 2017



By means of the Lorentz Transformation, Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity purports invariance of the standard wave equation. Counter-examples, satisfying the Lorentz Transformation, and hence Lorentz Invariance, prove that the Lorentz Transformation does not in fact produce invariance of the standard wave equation. Systems of clock-synchronised stationary observers are Galilean and necessarily transform by the Galilean Transformation. Einstein's insistence that systems of Galilean observers transform, not by the Galilean Transformation, but by the non-Galilean Lorentz Transformation, is logically inconsistent. The Special Theory of Relativity is therefore logically inconsistent. Therefore, it is false. The Lorentz Transformation is meaningless.


Engelhardt [1] recently proved that Einstein's method of clock-synchronisation is inconsistent with the Lorentz Transformation. I subsequently generalised his proof to all values of time t 3 0 [2], in accordance with Einstein's time domain [3]. The æitology of this inconsistency is Einstein's tacit assumption that his systems of clock-synchronised stationary observers are consistent with the Lorentz Transformation. I recently proved that his assumption is false, by mathematically constructing counter-examples that satisfy the Lorentz Transformation yet are not systems of clock-synchronised stationary observers [4]. Einstein's 'system of clock-synchronised stationary observers' is actually the trivial case of a single observer, which Einstein erroneously allowed to speak for all observers (owing to his tacit false assumption), none of which are equivalent, mathematically proven in [4]. Although the counter-examples satisfy Lorentz Invariance, they do not satisfy the standard wave equation, except in one privileged case. This privileged case constitutes Einstein's 'system of clock-synchronised stationary observers', and being privileged, violates the fundamental tenet of Einstein's theory, that no observer is privileged.

4 Conclusions

Lorentz Invariance between stationary systems of observers and clock-synchronised systems of observers holds only for the trivial case of one privileged observer in each system. Systems of clock-synchronised stationary observers are inconsistent with the Lorentz Transformation.

The standard wave equation is not invariant under a Lorentz Transformation, except for one privileged observer. Einstein's tacit assumption that systems of clock-synchronised stationary observers (i.e. Galilean observers) are consistent with the Lorentz Transformation is false. The Special Theory of Relativity is therefore logically inconsistent: It is therefore false. ==

How I was expelled from the University of New South Wales (An example of the suppression of science)

by Stephen J. Crothers


[...] It is very easily proven that the black hole and the big bang contradict one another and so they are mutually exclusive. All alleged black hole solutions to Einstein's field equations pertain to universes that are spatially infinite, are eternal, contain only one mass, are not expanding, and are asymptotically flat or asymptotically curved. But the alleged big bang universes are spatially finite (one case) or spatially infinite (two different cases), are of finite age, contain radiation and many masses (including multiple black holes, some of which are primordial), are expanding, and are not asymptotically anything (Crothers 2013). Thus black hole universes and big bang universes contradict one another. They are mutually exclusive and so they cannot co-exist. It is therefore not possible for a black hole to be present in a big bang universe or even in another black hole universe, and likewise it is not possible for a big bang universe to be present in a black hole universe or in another big bang universe. Nonetheless the astrophysical magicians superpose black hole and big bang universes notwithstanding that they are incompatible by their very definitions, and that the Principle of Superposition does not hold in General Relativity. Much of modern physics is simply manufactured in this way and so it bears no relation to the actual Universe. [...]

STEPHEN CROTHERS: Black Holes & Relativity, Part One | EU 2013

STEPHEN CROTHERS: Black Holes & Relativity, Part Two | EU 2013

(21) Minkowski-Einstein Spacetime does not exist - Stephen J Crothers


Minkowski-Einstein Spacetime: Insight from the Pythagorean Theorem

Authors: Stephen J Crothers

The Pythagorean Theorem, combined with the analytic geometry of a right circular cone, has been used by H. Minkowski and subsequent investigators to establish the 4-dimensional spacetime continuum associated with A. Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity. Although the mathematics appears sound, the incorporation of a hyper-cone into the analytic geometry of a right triangle in Euclidean 3-space is in conflict with the rules of pure mathematics. A metric space of n dimensions is necessarily defined in terms of n independent coordinates, one for each dimension. Any coordinate that is a combination of the others for a given space is not independent so cannot be an independent dimension. Minkowski-Einstein spacetime contains a dimensional coordinate, via the speed of light, that is not independent. Consequently, Minkowski-Einstein spacetime does not exist.

Download PDF at http://vixra.org/pdf/1803.0208v1.pdf.

video: here herefutes Einstein's Spacetime:

Crothers, S.J., Does spacetime exist? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJz10bDcccY

More Anti-Relativity papers from mathematician Steve Crothers

In the following paper he says he disproves Einstein's theory of General Relativity.

The maths is very complex, featuring tensors, partial differential equations, and complicated integrals; I admit that I can't follow it:

General Relativity: In Acknowledgement Of Professor Gerardus 't Hooft, Nobel Laureate http://vixra.org/pdf/1409.0072v6.pdf

The associated video is: General Relativity -- A Case in Numerology | EU2015, Oct 8, 2015 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBorBKDnE3U

Here is Crothers' website: http://www.sjcrothers.plasmaresources.com

The Black Hole, the Big Bang, and Modern Physics Stephen J. Crothers


Papers written by Stephen J. Crothers


If you are doing a course in Physics at university, any mention of Robitaille or Crothers will count against you. Wait until you get your degree before you 'come out' against the entrenched orthodoxy; and be prepared to be ostracised.

(22) The Sun is not a Plasma (Gas), but mainly Liquid Metallic Hydrogen - Professor Pierre-Marie Robitaille

Is the Sun a Gas? The Standard Solar Model Explained! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QDFPx6zVxSw

Pierre-Marie Robitaille says that the interior of the sun is a metallic liquid because of the great pressure it is under: "metallic hydrogen is made by high temperatures and pressures in the solar interior".

What is the Sun Made Of? Evidence from the Solar Spectrum!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fynuCLQp1TE

This theory may not be compatible with the Plasma Cosmology / Electric Universe theory expounded by Hannes Alfven, Anthony Peratt, Donald E. Scott & Wal Thornhill at item 15 above. However Robitaille also states, "Type 1 & 2 metallic Hydrogen can also be viewed as a 1-component Plasma".

The Sun is NOT a Gaseous Plasma! The LMH Solar Model!: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bQ1zSfbExo .

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: Sun on Trial

EU2014 - ThunderboltsProject

Published on 30 May 2014


For nearly 150 years despite the lack of observational evidence, the Sun has been considered to be a ball of gaseous material. Such a postulate rests on mathematical arguments. Nonetheless, observations, not mathematics, properly determine the phases of matter. In this light, a systematic review of 40 solar findings provides ample proof that the Sun is comprised of condensed matter In this presentation, the phase of the Sun will be discussed by contrasting the gas-based Standard Solar Model (SSM) with the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model (LMHSM). Unlike the SSM, the LMHSM does not permit the Sun to radiate internally. This is the third of three talks the Dr. Robitaille presented at EU2014.

Pierre-Marie Robitaille, PhD is a Professor of Radiology at The Ohio State University, with a joint appointment in Chemical Physics. He initially trained as a spectroscopist and has wide ranging knowledge of instrumentation in the radio and microwave bands. A recognized expert in image acquisition and analysis, Professor Robitaille was responsible for doubling the world record in Magnetic Resonance Imaging in 1998. In 2000, he turned his attention to thermodynamics and astrophysics, demonstrating that the universality advanced in Kirchhoff's Law of Thermal Emission is invalid. He has published extensively on the microwave background, highlighting that this signal arises from water on the Earth and has no relationship to cosmology and has recently published a paper on the Liquid Metallic Hydrogen Solar Model (LMHSM).

(23) Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille says Cosmic Microwave Background not a signature of the Big Bang, but originates from Earth's own oceans

Professor Robitaille shows that Microwave Background Radiation, which is commonly thought to come from our galaxy (the Milky Way) and other galaxies, and to be a residue of the Big Bang, in fact originates from Earth's own oceans. Robitaille thus demolishes one of the main supports of the Big Bang theory.

Dr. Pierre-Marie Robitaille: The Cosmic Microwave Background

EU2014 sschirott April 25, 2014

EU 2014 Presentations


Ever since Penzias and Wilson discovered that the Earth was surrounded by microwave energy, astronomers have been quick to postulate that the apparent ~3K signal represented the signature of the Big Bang. Yet long ago, Gustav Kirchhoff insisted that the setting of temperatures, using the laws of thermal emission, required enclosure. Clearly, the Big Bang can never meet this requirement. In this presentation, it is demonstrated that the microwave fields, which surround the earth and have excited distant molecules, can be generated by the hydrogen bond within water in the condensed state. A review of the COBE and WMAP are presented, revealing that the microwave anisotropy maps have no scientific validity. The data lack both signal to noise and reproducibility. Furthermore, the PLANCK satellite findings is discussed. These data provide unambiguous evidence that powerful microwave fields do not exist at L2. Penzias and Wilson measured water on Earth. The correct assignment of this signal is vital to better understanding our own planet.

== Here, Robitaille expounds on The Herouni Antenna - The Death of the Big Bang!


(24) The Sun has a hard and rigid ferrite surface below the visible photosphere; electrical activity (not Fusion) causes the high energy discharges from the solar surface


The Surface Of The Sun

The Surface Of The Sun, The Photosphere And Electrically Driven Solar Flares

The University of Leicester has been kind enough to produce an excellent two minute video that describes the Birkeland cathode solar model that is described on this website. It explains the heat source of the solar corona, as well as the Earth's aurora, and it empirically demonstrates the electrical interaction between the sun and the Earth.

The sun's photosphere is often mistakenly referred to as the surface of the sun. In reality however, the sun's photosphere is only a "liquid-like" plasma double layer made of mostly neon which covers the actual surface of the sun. That bright visible layer that we see with our eyes is composed of penumbral filaments that are several hundred kilometers deep. This visible neon plasma layer that we call the photosphere, and a thicker, more dense atmospheric layer composed of silicon plasma, entirely covers the actual rocky, calcium ferrite surface layer of the sun. The visible photosphere covers the actual surface of the sun, much as the earth's oceans cover most of the surface of the earth. In this case the sun's photosphere is very bright and we cannot see the darker, more rigid surface features below the photosphere without the aid of satellite technology.

The composition and mechanical inner workings of the sun beneath the visible photosphere have remained an enigma for thousands of years. There are a whole host of unexplained phenomena related to the sun's activities that still baffle gas model theorists to this day because they fail to recognize the existence of an iron alloy transitional layer that rests beneath the visible photosphere. Fortunately a host of new satellites and the field of heliosiesmology are starting to shed new light on this mysterious "stratification subsurface" layer of the sun that is located about 4800km beneath the visible photosphere. In addition, recent studies of solar wind suggest that solar wind also originates on the same transition layer under the photosphere as do the electrically charged coronal loops. NASA's SOHO satellite and the Trace satellite program have both imaged this transition layer of the sun that sits beneath the photosphere. These 21st century satellites and technologies now enable us to peer behind the outer plasma layers of the chromosphere and photosphere and allow us to study the rocky, calcium ferrite transitional layer with incredible precision.

Galileo was the founding father of the gas model theory of the sun. He observed the sun through a relatively primitive telescope and noticed that sunspots did not rotate uniformly across the surface of the photosphere. He also observed that this visible ³surface² rotated at different speeds near the equator than it did near the poles.

From his study of sunspots and their uneven rotation pattern, Galileo surmised that he must be looking at some type of gas atmosphere. He was correct in that assessment, although today we know that the photosphere is a form of hot ionized plasma. Unfortunately however, Galileo also "assumed" that no other solid layers existed, or could exist, beneath the visible layer of the photosphere. That was a critical mistake. It was a bit like looking at a world covered in water, and having no ability to see beneath the water, and then simply assuming that the whole world is made of water.

Galileo did not have multimillion dollar ³eyes² and Doppler imaging systems to look beneath the chaotic surface of the photosphere. Only in the past 10 years, a virtual blink of an eye in scientific terms, have we had the technology to put Galileo's assumption to the test with modern satellite observations. The Yohkoh, SOHO, Trace, RHESSI, Hinode, Stereo and Geos satellite programs give us new sets of eyes, new ways to view the sun, and new ways to peer beneath the layers of the sun that Galileo first observed. The Hubble, Chandra and Spitzer space telescopes give us eyes to peer into other solar systems and other galaxies and enable us to look back at the original structures of our universe and see our universe in all new spectrums of energy. What they reveal to us about the structure of our universe is truly breathtaking.

While the gas model has enjoyed popular support over the past 50 years, that has not always been the case. In fact astronomers of 100 years ago believed in a predominantly iron sun, most notably Dr. Kristian Birkeland. Dr. Birkeland studied the Northern Lights and became interested in the electrical interaction between the sun and the earth. His early lab research with an electrified iron sphere suspended in a vacuum ("terella") led to images that are remarkably similar to modern satellite x-ray images of the sun. The bottom photo of this page shows the electrical activity that Birkeland documented in his lab next to an image from the Yohkoh satellite. The electrical arcs from the surface of both spheres is what emits the x-rays and gamma rays seen in Yohkoh and RHESSI images of the sun.

The running difference imaging technique used by both NASA and Lockheed Martin have revealed to us for the first time that the sun is not simply a ball of hydrogen gas; it has a hard and rigid ferrite surface below the visible photosphere that can be seen in all of the images on this page! Each of the images was produced by NASA or Lockheed Martin so you can verify these images for yourself.

Just as Birkeland surmised, it turns out that the sun has a highly defined surface that rotates (uniformly) every 27.3 days. Dr. Birkeland was at least 100 years ahead of his time.

An important corroboration of Dr. Birkeland's solar theories and laboratory experiments came forty years later in the work of Dr. Charles Bruce. Dr. Bruce documented a number of solar atmospheric phenomenon that were directly related to electrical discharges from the solar surface. Bruce confirmed what Birkeland had predicted nearly fifty years earlier, showing that the electrical activity was directly responsible for the high energy discharges from the solar surface. The electrical discharge nature of the coronal loops has since been confirmed by the University of Maryland.

A significant corroborating set of data came a decade or so later from the work of Dr. Oliver Manuel. Dr. Manuel confirmed via isotope analysis of lunar soil samples, and the study of meteorites, that the sun is predominantly made of iron and mass separates the plasma in it's atmosphere. Unfortunately their hard efforts would not be visually confirmed for another three decades.

It turns out however, that modern satellite images now lend very strong observational support to the electrical model of the sun originally described by Dr. Kristian Birkeland in the early 1900's and later verified by Dr. Charles Bruce and Dr. Oliver Manuel. Dr. Charles Bruce and a number of other scientists have already demonstrated the electrical nature of the sun's activities and have put forth solid surface theories of the sun based on predictions that are supported by direct observation. These models simply never gained momentum and ultimately fell out of "style" in the field of astronomy in mid to late part of the 20th century in favor of a gas model theory of the sun. Fortunately science still enjoys a small minority of dedicated scientists and maverick thinkers that have long promoted a very different, very iron rich model of the sun based on many decades of sound sweat equity, solid scientific research, and careful observation. In recent months, many of Dr. Manuel's conclusions about our sun being composed of material from a supernova remnant have been confirmed by direct evidence. It turns out that these visual observations of an iron rich surface were predicted via the field of nuclear chemistry more than three decades earlier, while the experiments to support these ideas and many mathematical predictions had been verified over 50 years ago and were originally predicted by Birkeland almost 100 years ago! Studies of quasars in the early universe demonstrate the presence of large quantities of iron, casting serious doubt on the gas model in recent years.

In addition, there is now growing evidence from the field of heliosiesmology that the sun possesses a significant stratification layer at a very shallow depth from the top of the photosphere. This new data suggest that the stratified iron surface is covered by a relatively thin veneer of plasma layers.

It is also noteworthy that an electrically active, rigid surface model of the sun has always been a valid alternative to the current gas model theory. Only when hydrogen fusion was discovered did other solar theories begin to seem less "glamorous". It is important to note however that quite a bit of research has already been conducted by Dr. Birkeland, Dr. Alfven, Dr. Bruce, and many others that is now supported by modern satellite imagery and heliosiesmology observations.

Sound interesting so far? Have some objections perhaps? Please read on. I will present a lot of evidence from the SOHO program in the form of raw DIT images and videos to support these ideas. I will also provide videos and photos from the Yohkoh and Trace satellites as well as other 21 century satellites in space to support these ides. Unlike the gas model of the sun, this model is based on direct, real life observations, not pure theory. A solid surface model of the sun is a lot more logical and a lot better scientifically supported "observationally" than current gas models of the sun. More importantly, current gas models of the sun simply do NOT explain the video images we see through SOHO and TRACE. This website is dedicated in humble appreciation of the incredible work done by the people at SOHO and Trace and Yohkoh.

You can click here to download a PDF manuscript that has been offered for a general audience, and is more visually oriented. It is a condensed, and easy to read presentation of this material.

You may also wish to download a more scientifically oriented presentation of this material that has been peer reviewed and was recently published in the Journal Of Fusion Energy. This peer reviewed paper details the growing body of evidence from the field of nuclear chemistry and from satellite technologies that demonstrate that the sun acts to mass separate the various elements in the solar atmosphere into distinct, mass separated layers. Recent findings of an unexpectedly large source of energy from repulsive interactions between neutrons in the 2,850 known nuclides has challenged the assumption that H-fusion is the main source of energy that powers the Sun and other stars.

Recent findings from the field of heliosiesmology demonstrate the existence of a double sided stratified layer, that is located just under the photosphere. Just as we can see the transition layer of the surface in satellite imagery, heliosiesmology allows us to hear this same transition layer and even measure the thickness of the transitional layer. In this case they find a double sided, stratified layer that is centered at around .99R and begins at about .995R, or just under the surface of the photosphere. Heliosiesmology allows us to hear and verify what we can see in satellite images.

This is a glossary of the pages on this website.

(25) Autism caused by Bacteria in the gut - and overuse of Antibiotics

The Autism Enigma was a documentary presented by David Suzuki in his science program called The Nature Of Things (CNBC, 2011).

You can watch it at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=53yzwWsBeAc .

NB: there is another documentary of the same name, which takes the opposite viewpoint. Be sure to specify "Suzuki" if you search for it.

Nature magazine issued a "Special" on Autism in 2011, with the exact same name, but which pushes the Genetic interpretation.:

Suzuki's program The Autism Enigma takes on the Medical Establishment view that Autism is Genetic.

The challenge to orthodoxy arose not within Science or Medicine itself, but among distraught parents trying to help their afflicted children. Those parents were assisted by dissident scientists not subservient to orthodoxy.

The program features eminent Microbiologist Professor Sydney Finegold. He says, in an interview with Marion Gruner that it might be possible, one day, to develop a vaccine "to totally prevent the disease and wipe it out".

The most poignant part of the program is the statement that the new findings - that harmful Bacteria can cause Autism, and that overuse of Antibiotics, by killing off good Bacteria, can enable those harmful Bacteria to do so - were ignored for over a decade. Even now, in 2018, I note that the Wikipedia artile on Autism still peddles the Genetic theory, making no mention of gut bacteria.

The Autism Enigma shows footage of a baker making bread; in the US, Britain and Australia, bakers add Proprionate compounds to flour as a preservative; but they assist some of the bacteria which cause Autism - check food labels for preservatives 280 to 283 (Propionates) and Whey powder.

Microbiologist Professor Sydney Finegold interviewed on the connection between gut Bacteria and Autism:


The Autism Enigma

Dr. Sydney Finegold Interview

Interview by Marion Gruner

How long has your career in microbiology been?

Well, my first paper was published in 1951. It was based on work I did as a medical student in the late '40s and we finally had enough data to publish it in '51. And at that point, my wife and I and another medical student all agreed to take some antibiotics to see what the impact would be on the bowel flora, and so we documented changes, even with the crude techniques available at that time. Now, I've been at it ever since then. Our first anaerobe entered our stock collection in 1957, but we were working with them for several years before that.

When did you start making a connection between gut bacteria and autism?

In 1998, I had a phone call from Dr. Richard Sandler in Chicago. He's a pediatric gastroenterologist, and he had been seeing the autistic son of a lady named Ellen Bolte. She had done a remarkable job reviewing the medical literature on autism and related diseases, and concluded this might well be a bacterial infection. And she thought the best example of this was infant botulism, wherein the organism grows in the gut of the baby, produces toxin, and it's absorbed. It goes to the central nervous system and produces the disease. That's in contrast to the usual type of botulism where we eat a food and it's contaminated with the toxin from the organism and there's no involvement of the gut at all. The disease occurs directly. So, she had recommended to Dr. Sandler that he treat her child with oral Vancomycin, reasoning that this drug would be active against the type of organism she thought might be causing the disease, and that would be a Clostridia group. They're Gram-positive and the Vancomycin is particularly active against Gram-positive organisms. So, he agreed to do this and the child had a dramatic improvement, starting within a few days and persisting for six weeks while he was still on the drug. This involved improvement in language skills. He actually had no language beforehand, but he picked up a few words and even began to string together tiny sentences towards the end, like, "No, Mummy, I'd like this." He was much more malleable. He would listen to people and respond. He would look at them, which was quite different from his usual behaviour. He didn't have any fits of anger and generally was a much more, nearly normal child.

What impact would repeated antibiotic use have on gut bacteria?

Antibiotics have an impact on the bowel flora. Virtually all of them do. Some, when given systemically, do not enter the bowel, so they would not, but most antibiotics, even given systemically, are secreted into the bowel to some extent. So, virtually all the time that we use antibiotics, one of the lesser-known problems with antibiotic use is that they do impact the bowel flora. The bowel flora, we're finding out more and more in recent years, does a number of amazing things for the body. Our innate immunity is developed by virtue to exposure from bacteria living in the gut. And we know now that at least some forms of obesity are related to changes in the bacterial flora from the norm. We don't know that antibiotics are involved in that particular problem, but they certainly seem to be in autism and clearly are in Clostridium difficile-associated colitis. So, you have a normal complement of organisms in your gut. It varies according to your diet and if you have an immune system problem. If your immune system is not fully effective either because of genetic problems or, more commonly, toxins in the environment, then you are not able to control bacteria that get out of the gut into other parts of the body, as you would if you had a normal immune system. So, we have that kind of background, and then on top of that, the key thing is that these children are susceptible to ear infections; probably to other types of infection. And so, they receive antibiotics, and the antibiotics that are favoured for that type of infection, ear infections, do have a significant impact on the bowel flora and tend to select out certain organisms while they suppress much of the rest of the flora. And the organisms that tend to persist are Clostridia, and this accounts, in Clostridium difficile colitis, for that problem. And we think it accounts for the problem in autism as well. Maybe not due to Clostridia specifically. Recent work suggests that there's another organism that's much more important.

What is this new bacterium you're looking at and how is it related to autism?

It's quite a different bug from the Clostridia. It's Gram-negative instead of being Gram-positive. It does not produce spores, but it's a very virulent organism. We have seen it over the years in serious infections like blood poisoning. So, we know about the organism, but it's difficult to grow and it's not been cultured many times when it has been involved in infection. So, laboratories such as ours and many others that have worked with anaerobes for years can grow this and it turns out to be important in autism. We found about this when some of the more high-throughput, detailed molecular approaches to studying the bowel flora became available. So, this allows you to find at least 1,000 different organisms per gram of fecal content, whereas with the old techniques, if you stayed for some time you could eventually pick up 300 different species. And now, there's talk that there may be as many as 10,000. So, this is a very powerful tool and using it, too, we found out that the flora of autistic children is basically quite different from that of normal control children. The organism of interest is in a phyla called Proteobacteria. Our studies suggested that Desulfovibrio, one of the Proteobacteria, might be important in autism because it was seen with some frequency; about 50% of patients with autism but not at all in any of the controls. Now, Desulfovibrio, as the name suggests, changes a sulfate compound such as a hydrogen sulfate. It desulfates them and you end up with hydrogen sulfide rather than sulfate as the principal end product of that metabolism. Hydrogen sulfide is a major toxic compound, known for centuries, actually, but not known to be important in relation to bacteria. So, that may be one mechanism of its action. Also, the cell wall of this organism, Desulfovibrio, contains a potent endotoxin, and endotoxins are known to be very damaging to people, and animal models as well. And there are probably other factors that account for its virulence.

Where is Desulfovibrio found and how could it get into the body?

It's found in the environment. It likes the environment around oil wells, for example. And it's such a powerful toxin producer that the oil people are concerned about it because it corrodes metal in their apparatus and is a real pest to them. We ingest it with certain foods; meats in particular and cooked meats especially. And so, it is found in the normal flora in low numbers of probably half the people. But again, it depends on the diet, so that in the United Kingdom where probably they eat more meat than we do, they have higher counts in normal individuals of Desulfovibrio. If you take antibiotics for prophylaxis or treatment of infections, and if you take certain ones that are active against common elements of the normal flora of the bowel but not active against Desulfovibrio - and that's true for a number of compounds, antibiotic compounds - then you tend to select out Desulfovibrio. get much higher counts and so more toxins produced and then, you can get disease in that manner.

What type of autism have you been studying?

Regressive autism is the type that we have worked with exclusively. As the name suggests, these children develop normally up to about eighteen months of age, and then they begin to go backwards. They lose their social graces. They're not warm and friendly with their parents. They don't maintain eye contact. They have difficulty with other children of the same age. They have gastrointestinal problems that often are quite striking and may be the main feature of their illness. These include abdominal distension, abdominal pain. Constipation is a principal problem but not always obvious overtly. They may have so-called compensatory diarrhea, attempting to get rid of the obstruction from the constipation. And they, in the extreme, may bang their head against the wall; be very damaging to themselves, to their playmates and siblings, and even their parents.

Why would Clostridia and Desulfovibrio be important in regressive autism?

Well, first of all, these children are only susceptible to autism up to the age of four. Anybody that has suspect autism after the age of four, unless they've had it starting before the age four, it's not autism; it's something else. So, you have to have a central nervous system that's being developed at a certain critical stage. Then, you have to have impairment of the immune system. This can be on a genetic basis but we think much more commonly it's due to environmental toxins. So, that sets the stage, and then the bacteria get into it when antibiotics are given, appropriately or inappropriately. And the typical scenario for that to happen is when the child develops an ear infection. If a beta-lactam antibiotic, such as a penicillin or a cephalosporin, is given, that eliminates certain parts of the bowel flora, and that creates a niche for organisms such as Desulfovibrio and Clostridia to grow out to larger numbers where they produce enough toxin to cause the disease.

What are the reasons to wonder if this condition might be somehow "infectious"?

Yeah, this leads to consideration of how these diseases spread from one to another and why the incidence of autism should be increasing so much, and why C. difficile colitis is a big problem in hospitals. So, let's start with C. difficile colitis as the model. Patients acquire Clostridium difficile. Again, it may be present as a normal flora. Seems to be the case in about 3% of adults. But we think it's been pretty well established now with C. difficile colitis that when the organism contaminates the environment of a hospital, it's a big problem and accounts for spread from patient to patient. Clostridium difficile, when it's exposed to antibiotics, tries to protect itself. It does this by converting the ordinary vegetative bacterial cells into the spore form where they can withstand anything short of autoclaving. So, we've demonstrated spores from Clostridium difficile on the floor of a hospital room that was cleaned after the patient left and left without patients in it for over a month, and we were still able to culture C. difficile. They knew the study was being performed, so the housekeepers tried to do an extra good job on cleaning, and we could still find them. I think that same sort of thing is going on in the case of autism, but it remains to be documented. With Desulfovibrio. now, that organism is not a spore-former, but it has other mechanisms, various enzymes that protect it from exposure to oxygen and to other deleterious influences. So, Desulfovibrio can live in the environment for months on end in its vegetative state until conditions are improved and it has the opportunity to survive and multiply.

How does Dr. MacFabe's work relate to yours?

We don't have the full connection that we need to be able to say that Dr. MacFabe's work fits in key and lock with what we're doing, but it seems like a likely possibility. Dr. MacFabe takes certain compounds that are by-products of the activity of bacteria in the gut - we call them short-chain fatty acids - and he injects them into the brain of rats and that leads to a set of symptoms and findings that are characteristic of what we see in autism in humans. So, it may be a very good animal model for us, and so that would be very helpful. Research would be sped up considerably if we knew that was a reliable animal model and we could do a lot of manipulation of the bacteria in the gut of the rat and save time in terms of coming up with answers that apply to humans. Now, Clostridia do produce some of the compounds that MacFabe uses in his model and Desulfovibrio does not, but it does it in a roundabout way. In other words, it doesn't produce those compounds itself, but it leads to their production in a roundabout way. So, both of those things would fit with his hypothesis and with his animal model.

Can you comment on the connection of these bacteria to the foods we eat?

Well, I think we're beginning to appreciate that diet is extremely important. It has a definite impact on the bowel flora and the impact can be good or bad depending on the diet. I think we need to study it further, but there's been one study done where subjects, volunteers who were not ill, agreed to go on several different diets with intervals between the diets of whatever they chose to eat normally. And that showed clear concordance with a high meat content diet, cooked meat, and overgrowth of Desulfovibrio. So, I think that's an important lead. Also, others have found over the years that certain diets benefit autistic children. So, a gluten-free, casein-free diet, which is difficult to make, time-consuming, and expensive, but many autistic children improve to a degree - sometimes a significant degree - on that diet. There's also a specific carbohydrate diet, which is even more difficult to make and more expensive, which is helpful to other autistic children. Ellen Bolte's son, for example, did not respond to the gluten, casein-free diet, but did respond well to the specific carbohydrate diet.

What do you think about the future of gut bacteria research and its connection with autism?

We think that bacteria are very important in autism, as I mentioned, and knowing what bacteria do in other circumstances, it's easy to visualize spread of these bacteria to siblings of autistic children. And we do see now more multiple cases in families than we did before and an increased frequency of autism, probably because of spread of these organisms by way of the environment and even direct transfer from one person to another. The very encouraging thing about all of this is that we know a lot about bacteria and if we know for sure which bacteria are involved in autism, we have ways of combating them. Knowing what we know about bacteria, we can visualize making a vaccine that could be given by mouth. It would be very well-tolerated in all respects and would build up antibodies and other parts of the immune system that fight Clostridia and Desulfovibrio, and could not only control it once it's established but could prevent it entirely. So, the day may come when we have a vaccine that could be given just as any other vaccine could be given - polio vaccine, for example - to totally prevent the disease and wipe it out. But besides waiting for the vaccine, we can be working on developing these good bacteria that we know about. And we don't know enough about them, so we have to do more research there. But we have things called probiotics. And you'll hear and see a lot of advertisements for this yoghurt or that yoghurt, which supposedly is good in its own right and is supplemented by some of the good guys. You can hardly buy ice cream these days, especially yoghourt-based ice creams, without addition of these things. That's because it's a good advertising gimmick. But the scientific background for it is not solid. There's no research to prove that these foods can do something good for autism, for example. But there are ways of putting good bacteria back into people to fight the bad ones, and as soon as we have enough research done to know which particular types of bacteria, and sub-types, are the absolute good ones which would not backfire on us, then we could put them into probiotics.

Not long ago people thought autism was a permanent condition but, now, are there suggestions that it may be at least party reversible?

The reversibility of autism is a very exciting proposition. As I indicated, children who have had it for even a year or so, within two to three weeks of antibiotic therapy are much better, and it's within the realm of possibility that we can maintain the improvement and take it all the way back to a totally normal child if we treat them early enough. There's been a lot in the lay press recently about the importance of diagnosing autism early and suggestions have been made to both physicians and parents as to how one can suspect it and verify the diagnosis. I'm afraid that as the child gets older, when they get into their teens and, particularly, into adulthood, it may be much less reversible.

{end Finegold interview}

Dr. Gary G. Kohls MD warns that aluminium in vaccines could be toxic:

Aluminum and the Neurotoxicity of Vaccines

(Information that the Vaccine Industry tries to keep hidden)


"No vaccine manufacturer shall be liableÉfor damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death." -- President Ronald Reagan, as he signed The National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA) of 1986, absolving drug companies from all medico-legal liability when children die or are disabled from vaccine injuries.

"In young children, a highly significant correlation exists between the number of pediatric aluminum-adjuvanted vaccines administered and the rate of autism spectrum disorders." -- C. A. Shaw, MD, Vaccine safety researcher

"Éno adequate studies have been conducted to assess the safety of simultaneous administration of different vaccines to young children." Nor has there been " any toxicological evaluation about concomitant administration of aluminum with other known toxic compounds which are routine constituents of commercial vaccine preparations, e.g., formaldehyde, formalin, mercury, phenoxyethanol, phenol, sodium borate, polysorbate 80, glutaraldehyde." -- L. Tomljenovic and C.A. Shaw, Vaccine safety researchers . ==

Aluminum In Vaccines May Cause Autism According To Experts in New Study


DECEMBER 1, 2017

By Aaron Kesel

A new controversial study confirms aluminum in vaccines may cause Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), and those children who suffer from it to have up 10 times more metal in their brains than what is considered a safe amount for adults. But is anyone surprised that metals cause deficiency in one's own body?

Mercury and aluminum have long been debated by people like Robert Kennedy Jr. as ingredients in vaccines that could cause autism; and for good reason since we know that both aluminum and Mercury are neurotoxins that harm the body at high levels. But now researchers have discovered that aluminum causes the membrane to separate the brain from blood flowing to it, thus affecting its internal temperature, non-neuronal cells and inflammatory cells, Daily Mail reported.

"Perhaps we now have the link between vaccination and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the link being the inclusion of an aluminium adjuvant in the vaccine," Professor Chris Exley from Keele University said.

The scientists hypothesize that children who suffer from autism may suffer from some strange genetic change that cause them to accumulate aluminum within their bodies. The study was published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology. ... ==

Perhaps we now have the link between Vaccination and Autism - Daily Mail


'Perhaps we now have the link between vaccination and autism':

Professor reveals aluminium in jabs may cause sufferers to have up 10 times more of the metal in their brains than is safe


PUBLISHED: 03:03 AEDT, 1 December 2017 | UPDATED: 03:17 AEDT, 1 December 2017

Aluminium in vaccines may cause autism, controversial new research suggests.

Autistic children have up to 10 times more of the metal in their brains than what is considered safe in adults, a study found.

Aluminium crosses the membrane that separates the brain from circulating blood and accumulates in cells involved in maintaining a constant internal environment, such as temperature, the research adds.

Study author Professor Chris Exley from Keele University, said: 'Perhaps we now have the link between vaccination and autism spectrum disorder (ASD), the link being the inclusion of an aluminium adjuvant in the vaccine.' ... ==

Aluminium and autism - by Professor Chris Exley in The Hippocratic Post


Aluminium and autism

Professor Chris Exley

The Hippocratic Post, 30th November 2017

Does human exposure to aluminium have a role to play in autism spectrum disorder (ASD)? Research at Keele University published in the Journal of Trace Elements in Medicine and Biology provides the strongest indication yet that aluminium is an aetiological agent in ASD. The aluminium content of brain tissues from 5 donors who died with a diagnosis of ASD was found to be extraordinarily high, some of the highest values yet measured in human brain tissue. Why for example, would the occipital lobe of a 15 year old boy with autism be 8.74 (11.59) micrograms/g dry wt., a value which is at least 10 times higher than might be considered as acceptable for an aged adult never mind a child?

However, while the aluminium content of each of the 5 brains was shockingly high it was the location of the aluminium in the brain tissue which served as the standout observation. The majority of aluminium was identified inside non-neuronal cells including microglia and astrocytes.

However, while the aluminium content of each of the 5 brains was shockingly high it was the location of the aluminium in the brain tissue which served as the standout observation. The majority of aluminium was identified inside non-neuronal cells including microglia and astrocytes.

Aluminium was also found in lymphocytes in the meninges and in similar inflammatory cells in the vasculature. There was clear evidence of inflammatory cells heavily loaded with aluminium entering the brain via the meningeal membranes and the blood-brain-barrier.

The fact that the majority of aluminium found in brain tissues in ASD was intracellular and associated with non-neuronal cells is, at least for now, unique to ASD and may begin to explain why young adolescents had so much aluminium in their brains.

Perhaps there is something within the genetic make-up of specific individuals which predisposes them to accumulate and retain aluminium in their brain, as is similarly suggested for individuals with familial Alzheimer's disease. The new evidence strongly suggests that aluminium is entering the brain in ASD via pro-inflammatory cells which have become loaded up with aluminium in the blood and/or lymph, much as has been demonstrated for monocytes at injection sites for vaccines including aluminium adjuvants. Perhaps we now have the putative link between vaccination and ASD, the link being the inclusion of an aluminium adjuvant in the vaccine.

Professor Chris Exley Professor in Bioinorganic Chemistry Keele University Honorary Professor, UHI Millennium Institute Group Leader - Bioinorganic Chemistry Laboratory at Keele ==

Researchers should test Vaccines for Mercury as well - Gary Kohls M.D.

From: Gary Kohls <ggkohls@mydutytowarn.org> 30 November 2017 at 13:56

Note that the authors of the new research paper are being very charitable (or cautious, logically fearful about being "wakefielded" by Big Pharma's trolls that seem to be eveywhere these days) about drawing the obvious conclusion that the autistic victims whose brains were tested were certain to have been fully vaccinated starting in infancy (especially the brain of the 15 year-old autistic boy). It is important to note that the aluminum remained in the brain for years.

It would be interesting for the authors to go back and obtain the clinical information about vaccinations and perhaps test for mercury as well. Orally ingested aluminum rarely reaches the blood stream, much less comes in contact with or able to cross the brain-brain barrier (unless the BBB has been sickened by any number of cellular toxins ­ including aluminum and mercury) whereas intramuscularly injected aluminum adjuvants can easily get into the brain, via macrophages and other white blood cells that naturally ingest the antigens that have aluminum adjuvants adsorbed (as foreign body) and are then able to eventually cross the blood-brain barrier through the BBB tight junctions, along with the ingested aluminum and adsorbed antigens

Hopefully we will hear analyses of this paper from Dr Gherardi, Dr Shoenfeld, Dr Shaw, Dr Tomljenovic and some of the other experts on aluminum and vaccine neurotoxicity. (Note that "aluminum" is spelled "aluminium" in Britain and pronounced with 5 syllables.) Gary.

(26) Astronomical Concepts for understanding the Zodiac signs - from Ron Welch

The following information is from Ron Welch, an amateur astronomer.

The Celestial Sphere is the sky considered as a sphere centred on the observer; a sphere of indefinite radius.

The earth's equator lies in a plane (by definition, a plane extends out indefinitely). The Celestial Equator is the intersection of this plane with the Celestial Sphere; it's a Great Circle.

Once a year, the earth orbits the sun, tracing out an ellipse called the orbit. This ellipse is in a plane called the earth's orbital plane. The Ecliptic is the intersection of earth's orbital plane with the Celestial Sphere. The Ecliptic is a Great Circle of indefinite radius on the Celestial Sphere.

The earth's equator is tilted at 23 degrees to the earth's orbital plane. Thus the Ecliptic is in a plane at 23 degrees to the plane of the Celestial Equator.

The Celestial Equator and the Ecliptic are both Great Circles; they intersect at two points. When the sun is at these points is the two equinoxes.

You can tell what constellation the sun is in, by observing the constellations and the location of the sun relative to them, near sunrise & sunset, when the sky is still reasonably dark. From month to month, these constellations change (because of the orbit of the earth around the sun), giving the impression that the sun is moving through the constellations from month to month. The background stars remain fixed, relative to one another.

This path the sun appears to move in, relative to the background stars, is called the Ecliptic. Because it's actually the earth which is moving, the Ecliptic is in the earth's orbital plane.

Each day, the sun appears to traverse the sky; this is caused by the daily rotation of the earth.

But the daily path of the sun also changes in height (above the horizon), moving backwards and forwards through the year. This is caused by the 23-degree tilt of the earth's equator; it's not in the plane of the Ecliptic.

On June 21 at noon in the northern hemisphere, the sun appears high in the sky; at noon on December 21 it appears low. In the southern hemishere it appears low and high respectively.

The sun moves along the Ecliptic at an approximately constant rate, and there must come a point (a date) where it crosses the Celestial Equator. This occurs at the Equinox, i.e. at two equinoxes each year.

The vernal (Spring) equinox occurs on March 21,when the sun is moving north across the Celestial Equator; the autumnal equinox occurs on September 23, when the sun is moving south across the Celestial Equator. These names reflect northern hemishere designations.

The concept of the Zodiac is as follows:

We are in the plane of the Ecliptic, at an origin-point we consider the centre of the plane. We divide this plane into 12 sectors, each subtending 30 degrees at the centre. These sectors are defined relative to the equinoxial points; they drift relative to the fixed stars (the constellations) because of Precession.

Each of the 12 sectors is called a Sign of the Zodiac. About 2500 years ago, the Signs correlated with the ancient constellations, but they no longer do so.

Each year, the equinoxes regress along the ecliptic by 50 arc-seconds; this is called Precession; it's caused by gravitation effects of the moon and the sun on the bulge at the earth's equator.

This amounts to a change of 1 degree in 70 years; 30 degrees (one Zodiac sign) in about 2,160 years. Thus the Age of Taurus, the bull; then or Aries, the Ram; then of Pisces, the Fish; then of Aquarius.

It is argued that the dominant religions also changed, from one which depicted a bull as the sacred animal, around 4000 BC (eg the sacred bulls of Egypt, Hathor the cow, the bull Shiva rides on); to one which depicted a Ram as the sacred animal, around 2000 BC; to one which depicted a Fish as the sacred animal, around the time of Jesus (Christianity); to the Age of Aquarius now.

Such a view was by David Ulansey in his book The Origin of the Mithraic Mysteries: Cosmology and Salvation in the Ancient World (Oxford University Press, New York, 1989). David Fideler (item 8) makes much of this.

Ulansey's paper "The Mythraic Mysteries" was published in Scientific American of December 1989.

Cyrus Gordon saw a common origin in the bull-grappling themes in Sumeria and Minoan Crete, which is today continued in the bull-fights and bull-running of Spain: gordon.html .

Precession also means that the Pole Star changes too.

Today, the Zodiac sign Aries is no longer defined in terms of the constellation Aries. Instead, the Zodiac sign Aries is now defined in terms of the vernal equinox. That is, by definition, the vernal equinox occurs at the beginning of Aries, known as the first point of Aries, or 0 degrees of the sign of Aries. In effect, the modern definition defines Precession out of the system.

The Babylonian zodiac system did not start at the first point of Aries, but about 5 degrees earlier, and this difference extended through the whole zodiac.

(27) Alfred Russel Wallace on Spiritualism

by Peter Gerard Myers on November 8, 2019

Wallace was an eminent scientist, the co-developer of the Theory of Evolution.

Yet he believed that there is a psychic or spiritual domain. He attended many seances and investigated the paranormal, and did so BEFORE developing his Theory of Evolution. He never repudiated his belief in a spiritual domain.

Occams Razor should not be used to 'Prove' Atheism or Materialism. Just as the "Principle of Verification" cannot be used to prove anything; so Occams Razor is NOT a metaphysical principle; it is merely a rule of thumb.


Alfred Russel Wallace on Spiritualism, Man, and Evolution: An Analytical Essay

by Charles H. Smith, Ph.D.

(originally issued in pamphlet form in 1992; lightly revised in October 1999)

... Wallace was personally introduced to occult phenomena when he attended a lecture/demonstration on mesmerism given by a Mr. Spencer Hall in 1844. ...

Research on Wallace's association with Spiritualism has sometimes emphasized the sensationalism attached to his seance experiences instead of what it was that attracted him to the belief to begin with. It is thus necessary first to emphasize that Spiritualism per se is not a religion--at least not in the usual sense of that term. It can more accurately be viewed as a form of theosophy, depicting the natural world as extending to a level of psychic organization to which ordinary consciousness has but peripheral access. Significantly, the view expressed in spiritualist (and other theosophical) writings is that the chain of natural causality nonetheless extends continuously, and back and forth, between the psychic (i.e., aspatial) and physical (i.e., spatial) domains. ...

Wallace distilled the teachings of Spiritualism in a number of his later writings. Excerpts from several of these are presented now for the sake of illustration and reference:

"...The universal teaching of modern Spiritualism is that the world and the whole material universe exist for the purpose of developing spiritual beings--that death is simply a transition from material existence to the first grade of spirit-life--and that our happiness and the degree of our progress will be wholly dependent upon the use we have made of our faculties and opportunities here ..."

Like Wallace, I have encountered the paranormal; in my case, ESP, Telepathy and Witchcraft - the bad kind.

I conclude that there is another dimension, a spiritual dimension, what clairvoyants call "The Other Side".

I don't claim to know much about it. But I am sure that all religions try to engage it. That is why religions are important to people. And yet, in their theology and teachings, all religions are wrong. We are not given to "see through the glass".

Unlike Wallace, I do not draw any moral lessons from it; not that I'm ruling them out.

Recently, Pope Francis was in the news for saying "I don't go to the Doctor, I go to the Witch!". By 'witch' he meant 'shaman'.

The stories mentioned two 'witches': Dr. Liu Ming, an Acupuncturist from China, and a tribal woman from the Amazon who visited Francis at the Vatican and gave him Healing.

Holistic healing is considered 'quackery' by the Medical Establishment. The same Establishment that is in league with Big Pharma.

Ockhams Razor should not be used to 'Prove' Atheism or Materialism. Just as the "Principle of Verification" cannot be used to prove anything; so Occams Razor is NOT a metaphysical principle; it is merely a rule of thumb.

Science has its limits. Not everything can be proven scientifically. Can you "prove" that you're not dreaming? Many important matters in our lives are not subject to scientific proof - such as our basic philosophy and value system.

I'm not disparaging Science; but let's not forget that much Dissident Science is suppressed, such that the public is even unaware that major disputes rage in many Sciences.

(28) Air Force Officers attest UFO encounters at Nuke sites, in presentation at National Press Club (2010)

Added January 29, 2020.

In more that 20 years of operating this website, and my newsletter, I never mentioned UFOs; I had no viewpoint, one way or the other. But someone recently sent me the following video of Air Force officers testifying at the National Press Club in 2010.

I find it credible, and see no reason to suppress it on account of the scorn of sceptics.

The fact that I only learned of the testimony of these officers ten years after the event, despite active study of news both mainstream and alternative, suggests self-censorship in many quarters - most likely, out of fear of being ridiculed. ==

UFO Disclosure Conference, National Press Club 27 Sept 2010: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BtmpaM0PqyI =

Air Force Officers give Testimony on UFOs at National Press Club - media reports


UFOs: National Press Club Witness Testimony

U.S. Air Force Officers Speak Out on UFOs

Dear friends,

Six courageous U.S. Air Force officers and one passionate researcher assembled at the prestigious National Press Club in Washington, DC on Sept. 27, 2010 to give their intriguing testimony of personal involvement in a major UFO cover-up. For an excellent 18-minute video summary of this landmark event on the MSNBC website, click here. Below are key excerpts of numerous fascinating articles in the mainstream media which covered this historic event. Each excerpt is taken verbatim from the major media website listed at the link provided. The most important sentences are highlighted for those with limited time.

The exciting news is that several of these Air Force officers related events in which nuclear missiles were deactivated in their silos as a result of UFO interference. The message from these incidents seems to be that humanity should stop playing with nuclear bombs. Could it be that those responsible for these UFOs don't want us to destroy ourselves and are sending discreet messages to those who manage these lethal weapons? Other Air Force officers have given similar testimony, which you can read here.

I have had the privilege of personally meeting two of these courageous gentlemen, Captain Robert Salas and Lieutenant Colonel Dwynne Arneson. Capt. Salas was impressed with the work of WantToKnow.info and gave me a copy of his extensive personal investigation into the UFO cover-up in which he is involved, which is now posted at this link. For lots more reliable, verifiable information on the UFO cover-up, see the "What you can do" box at the end of this message. By choosing to educate ourselves and to spread the word on this most intriguing and important topic, we can and will build a brighter future.

With very best wishes,

Fred Burks for PEERS and WantToKnow.info

Former language interpreter for Presidents Bush and Clinton ==

Former U.S. Air Force Officers Recount Experiences With UFOs at Nuclear Missile Bases

September 27, 2010, ABC News


The U.S. government's official line may be that unidentified flying objects (UFOs) don't pose a national security threat, but a group of former Air Force officers gathered Monday in the nation's capital to tell a different story. During a press conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., seven former Air Force officers once stationed at nuclear bases around the country said that not only have UFOs visited Air Force bases, some have succeeded in disabling nuclear missiles stationed there. "I want the government to acknowledge that this phenomenon exists," said Robert Salas, a former U.S. Air Force Nuclear Launch Officer. Salas said he doesn't think the UFOs he claims to have encountered had any offensive intent, but he believes they wanted to leave an impression. "They wanted to shine a light on our nuclear weapons and just send us a message," he said. "My interpretation is the message is get rid of them because it's going to mean our destruction." Other former officers recounted similar stories of unexplained moving lights and odd-shaped flying objects during their time in the service. Leslie Kean, an investigative journalist and author of the new book "UFOs: Generals, Pilots, and Government Officials Go on the Record," said thousands of pages of documentation support the officers' accounts. She spent the last 10 years researching UFOs and combing through thousands of pages of declassified government material. Kean said that one declassified document that she researched for her book, relating to the Salas incident, said, "the fact that no apparent reason for the loss of the 10 missiles can easily be identified is a cause for grave concern to this headquarters."

Note: This is not the first time government and military witnesses have testified at the National Press Club about a major cover-up of UFOs. To watch 22 witnesses testifying to remarkable personal stories in May 2001, click here. For a two-page written summary of amazing UFO testimony from top officials, click here. ==

Ex-Air Force Personnel: UFOs Deactivated Nukes

September 27, 2010, CBS News


Whatever the mysterious lights in the sky were, they seemed to have an interest in our nukes. One of the more out-of-the-ordinary press conferences held in Washington this week consisted of former Air Force personnel testifying to the existence of UFOs and their ability to neutralize American and Russian nuclear missiles. UFO researcher Robert Hastings of Albuquerque, N.M., who organized the National Press Club briefing, said more than 120 former service members had told him they'd seen unidentified flying objects near nuclear weapon storage and testing grounds. Robert Jamison, a retired USAF nuclear missile targeting officer, told of several occasions having to go out and "re-start" missiles that had been deactivated, after UFOs were sighted nearby. [In a] December 1980 incident near two Royal Air Force Bases in Suffolk, England ... several U.S. Air Force personnel reported seeing a strange metallic object hovering. Retired USAF Col. Charles Halt said that in December 1980, when he was deputy base commander at RAF Bentwaters, strange lights in the forest were investigated by three patrolmen. They reported approaching a triangular craft, "approximately three meters on a side, dark metallic in appearance with strange markings." Halt found indentations in the ground, broken branches, and low-level background radiation. He and his team also witnessed various lights moving silently in the sky, of one which was "shedding something like molten metal." Several of the ex-servicemembers speaking Monday said when they'd brought their concern of such appearances to superiors, they'd been told it was "top secret" or that it "didn't happen." Hastings suggested the presence of such phenomena meant that aliens were monitoring our weapons, and perhaps warning us - "a sign to Washington and Moscow that we are playing with fire."

Note: For lots more reliable information on the famous RAF Bentwaters incident, click here. For what may be the best UFO documentary ever made, watch Out of the Blue, available for free viewing at this link. ==

Former Air Force officers discuss UFO sightings

September 27, 2010, Air Force Times


Armed with declassified documents and vivid details, a group of former Air Force officers gathered Monday to go public with an assertion they have kept mostly under wraps for decades: that UFOs visited the bases they were stationed at and caused nuclear weapon system to temporarily malfunction. The group, convened by UFO researcher Robert Hastings, came to the National Press Club in Washington to discuss their individual experiences and to urge a government that tried to ignore and silence them when they came forward years ago to finally come clean. Hastings said he believes that visitors from outer space are fixating on nuclear weapons because they want to send a message: Disarm before the world destroys itself. Hastings said he has heard of a UFO incident occurring at Malmstrom as recently as 2007. The declassified documents Hastings presented at Monday's news conference include decades-old government memos detailing reports of sightings of objects in the skies above Alabama, Montana, New Mexico and North Dakota. He has talked to 120 former or retired U.S. military about the presence of UFOs at nuclear weapons sites across the United States and around the globe as early as 1945, when the world entered the nuclear age with the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. For some of the officers who came forward Monday, going public wasn't easy. Bruce Fenstermacher, a missile combat crew commander at F.E. Warren Air Force Base in Cheyenne, Wyo., was "laughed at" by superiors when he reported a UFO sighting at a launch site that one of his sergeants had passed on to him, he said. He decided to keep his head low after that. "I was very careful about who I told what," he said. "I was concerned. I don't want to be considered a kook. But I think it's more important to come out and tell our story." ==

Aliens Are Monitoring Our Nukes, Worry Ex-Air Force Officers

September 23, 2010, Fox News


Captain Robert Salas was on duty in Montana in 1967 when a UFO shut down the nuclear missiles on his base. And he's hardly the only one to make such a claim. On Monday, six former U.S. Air Force officers and one former enlisted man will break their silence about similar events at the National Press Club, all centering around unidentified flying objects and nuclear missiles. They plan to urge the government to publicly confirm the incidents, stating that they were ordered never to discuss the events. "We're talking about unidentified flying objects, as simple as that," Salas told FoxNews.com. "They're often known as UFOs," he added. Salas, a former U.S. Air Force nuclear missile launch officer, will host the event along with researcher Robert Hastings, author of "UFOs and Nukes: Extraordinary Encounters at Nuclear Weapons Sites." According to the pair, witness testimony from more than 120 former or retired military personnel points to an ongoing and alarming intervention by unidentified aerial objects at nuclear weapons sites, as recently as 2003. In some cases, several nuclear missiles simultaneously and inexplicably malfunctioned while a disc-shaped object silently hovered nearby. The group plans to distribute declassified U.S. government documents at the event that they claim will substantiate the reality of UFO activity at nuclear weapons sites extending back to 1948. The press conference will also address present-day concerns about the abuse of government secrecy as well as the ongoing threat of nuclear weapons. "This is only the tip of the iceberg, these stories," Salas told FoxNews.com.

Note: Mr. Salas has contacted WantToKnow.info with more information on his amazing experience. To read this fascinating account, click here. ==on systems went offline. ==

Comment (Peter M.): One of the officers, by way of explanation, says that these UFOs were "either from another dimension, or extra-territorial". What might 'another dimension' be?

These testimonies imply that UFOs, whatever they be, are no threat to humanity. The threat, instead, is our own Deep State, which is quite prepared to wage a nuclear war. It sounds as if the Deep State regard the UFOs as a threat - but to them, to their hegemony, not to us. Maybe our masters have met their match, after all. Hooray! It sounds as if the UFOs are on OUR side against Big Brother!

(29) Against Peer Review

by eugyppius

Feb 1, 2022


You cannot discuss Corona, or any other academic topic anywhere on the internet, without self-righteous small-minded debunkers demanding to know whether the studies you're citing are peer reviewed.

A lot of people, it seems, believe that there are no certain proofs or arguments, unless some random anonymous academics have approved them.

In my short time on this earth, I've done a lot of peer review. I've had my own stuff peer reviewed, and I've peer reviewed other people's stuff. It is a cumbersome, arbitrary and worthless process.

Whether any particular research has been peer reviewed or not, tells you nothing about its quality. What peer review does tell you, is that the peer reviewed item is very likely to be boring and to say more or less the same thing that all the other peer reviewed stuff says.

The purpose of peer review, is not to enhance the integrity or reliability of academic publications. Peer reviewed studies turn out to be wrong all the time. It is rather one of many mechanisms, via which academics aim to police their own discourse and keep exclude outside ideas.

I've written before about James Lindsay's distinction between internet hive mind theories and ideas, and official establishment theories and ideas. The theories and ideas promoted by crazy anonymous internet people turn out to be far more dynamic, interesting and predictive, than the theories and ideas promoted by establishment media sources and heavily credentialed, tenured professors.

The anonymous internet world is one with very low barriers to entry, many more participants, and ruthless selection for interesting, explanatory content. Here as elsewhere, there are many wrong and crazy ideas, but there is also a broader competitive process that weeds out the least defensible theories, and promotes the most interesting ones.

Even when they are wrong, internet theories, by the time they come to your notice, turn out to have much more depth and texture to them than the intellectual products of establishment organs. To save syllables, and widen the applicability of the concept, it is probably better to distinguish simply between curated and uncurated discourse.

Curated establishment discourse was always managed and stifling, but before the internet, the people running it at least had the advantage of extensive networking. Professional organisations, periodicals and conferences are the main ways that professors network among each other and share ideas.

Before the internet, people outside these academic networks remained comparatively isolated. They had their own local religious, social and professional networks, but it was not easy for them to build large networks around common intellectual interests. In this world, the gate-keeping mechanisms of academia excluded outside ideas, in much the same way as the press kept dissident politics out of the media and away from public notice for decades.

Social media and the internet have changed all of this. For 20 years now, blogs and internet commentary have destroyed the legacy media control over political discourse, and gone a long way to discrediting journalism.

The barriers to networking have also fallen, and there now flourish enormous and highly sophisticated uncurated discourses in fields from ancient Greek history to microbiology. Hundreds of thousands of people participate in these discussions, and the curated discourse looks every day less interesting.

The internet did not make academics vulnerable, of course; it just overcame their defences. Universities have feared the ideas of outsiders for a very long time, because it is painfully obvious to every honest person here that most of what we do is wide open to amateurs.

(30) Aluminium Industry hides Alzheimers Connection

Aluminium (Alum) in Drinking Water may cause Alzheimers: alzheimers.html (http://mailstar.net/alzheimers.html)

(31) Have you been a victim of Scientific Fraud or Plagiarism? Do you have information about the Suppression of Dissident Science?

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/.

I last studied Physics and Mathematical Physics 1n 1983, so I am not a Physicist myself. However I will help publicize the dissident Physicists. ==

To follow up the Cosmology issues raised above (No Big Bang, Plasma Cosmology), you may wish to visit these websites:

Eric Lerner http://bigbangneverhappened.org/

Halton Arp https://www.haltonarp.com

Morley Bel http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0602242v1

André Assis https://www.ifi.unicamp.br/~assis/news.htm

David Dilworth: http://www.cosmologyscience.com/ .

Write to me at contact.html.