Einstein Conspiracy

Dealing with the conspiracies around Einstein and the cover-up of the Unified Field theory (UFT). 

Einstein plagiarism

Top Secrets of Einstein

Einstein – illuminati connections

Boscovich lectures 

Sections

News 2012

          Einstein being wrong has been Top Secret

         Lectures for Boscovich on the Web

News Aug 2008

THE HISTORY OF UFT

INFORMATION ON THE WEB

LATEST RESEARCH ON WHY THE SUPPRESSION BERTRAND RUSSELL ON BOSCOVICH’S THEORY

FURTHER INFORMATION

          Others dealing with unified field theory: Nassim Haramein, Myron Evans             et al. Oberth Effect: faster than light speed achievable by rocket etc.

News at 2012:

Einstein being wrong has been Top Secret

Einstein is wrong and NASA knows that Einstein is wrong. NASA is famous as being also known as “Never A Straight Answer”. There are plenty of other conspiracies on the web about NASA; so why shouldn't they cover up about Einstein as well, and the answer is of course there is.

There is an elite in the Physics community that knows Einstein is wrong, and they are maintaining the false front that Einstein is still a genius; they don't care that those below them are deceived and working from a physics that is wrong.

All of this is of course just another small part of a vast cover-up. Einstein is there to cover-up a lot of other things. If there was no Einstein to divert physics enthusiasts then they might take Tesla related things more seriously. So Einstein is absolutely necessary to sit on top of the pyramid and cover up everything else they don't want you to know about in physics.

Before citing the evidence of the information sources, first a little history:

Einstein became famous in 1919 straight after World War 1, he fled to America before the start of World War 2 and backed the Allies against the Germans. He was on the winning side in both World Wars, he was hailed as genius, a hero a pacifist etc. etc. So he has an enormous fan base for being a hero. But most heroes turn out to have feet of clay.

Try now to look at it from another perspective: for us he was hero, but from the other side of the wars he looked different. During World War 1 instead of being a patriotic German, backing Germany; he was a pacifist during the war and he was with a group of fellow German pacifists blaming Germany for starting the war. He was not patriotic to his country, from his country's viewpoint he was a traitor. For us a hero, to the other side he was a traitor. He was on the winning side in both World Wars and history gets written by the winners not the losers, so the winners' view of him prevails – that of him being a hero, and the loser’s point of view gets ignored; hence massive publicity of just what a genius and hero Einstein is.

Taking the point-of-view that Einstein is wrong – well that's almost like taking the view that Hitler was right; so its not something his fans want to do.

Physics should not be about personalities. But sadly in Einstein's case it is; it is a political issue that he must be portrayed as a hero genius. So Einstein being wrong is not something his fans want. Einstein stumbled a bit on quantum theory with his clash with Bohr, allowance is made by his fans for that; but for Einstein's relativity theories – his personal theories – his fans don't want him wrong about that. Hence this fan-based support for this massive cover-up. The experimental evidence does not agree with Einstein, and an elite knows it does not agree, but because its political they cover it up. Every now and again an experimental result might break through claiming a result that disagrees with Einstein. But what “they” (who want to cover-up) then do is go back and cover it up, claiming the experiment was done wrong.

The cover-up is just massive, and it is not just about Einstein, it extends to the rest of the sciences. Results that are deemed politically incorrect are covered up.

As some conspiracy theorists say – it does not matter who you vote for, the government still gets in. The same corruption is applied to experiments – if experiments could actually prove something they didn't want us to know then they would be banned. Results they don't want get rejected.

What we have is the Corruption of Science – science has become a political football.

Einstein's relativity is a bit obscure, but for the sake of illustration, I will highlight how one aspect of it can be represented namely - Einstein's special relativity can be looked at it as two possible theories:

theory #1 the assumption that light-speed (in vacuum) is constant which needs to be checked by experiment


theory #2 the assumption that light-speed (in vacuum) is constant and experiments need to adjusted to conform to that assumption


The first theory is a proper scientific theory, while the second theory isn't.

And most people are deceived that Einstein's special relativity is theory#1 that it has been checked with experiment and found to conform to the theory.

However, for those elite - it is not theory#1, it is theory#2.

Given the raw data – the data shows light-speed (in vacuum) is not constant!

However that raw data is then manipulated so that it then conforms to theory#2 which is not a proper scientific theory.

People are being misled that theory#1 is being confirmed, they have totally the wrong perception of what the experiments really show.

And the raw data becomes classified top secret.

Only the processed data is allowed out, while the raw data before they do the manipulation is suppressed.

So that's how they are able to maintain Einstein as the hero genius.

Its as simple as that, and they don't just stop with Einstein, they do it with the rest of the sciences – because as I said – science is a political football.

If we look back at Galileo – the political establishment (allied with the Church) did not like the experiments and the observations that Galileo was making. Since then – things have moved on – the political establishment don't like certain experimental results so they suppress them. The political establishment learnt its lesson with Galileo and now takes a firmer control of experiments – stopping what it does not like.

This all sounds unbelievable to a politically naïve person, but it is how modern society has now been built – the control and suppression of undesired science.

Now for the evidence:

As per William H. Cantrell, Ph.D. : “That the speed of light is not constant in interplanetary space was first suspected by the late Bryan G. Wallace. Throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s, MIT Lincoln Laboratory operated a series of high-power radio transmitters spread across the United States. Technically, these sites held a SECRET classification during the height of the Cold War and the Space-Race, even though the researchers were doing pure science.”

One does not expect “pure science” research to be top secret, but that's what it turned out to be. The fact that speed of light in vacuum is not constant, and hence Einstein is wrong, Wallace discovered was top secret. (i.e. I mean theory#1 is wrong.)

William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.: “Wallace discovered that radar data for the planet Venus did not confirm the constancy of the speed of light. Alarmed and intrigued by these results, he noticed systematic variations in the data with diurnal and lunar-synodic components. He attempted to publish the results in Physical Review Letters, but he encountered considerable resistance. His analysis indicated a heretical "c + v" Galilean fit to the data, so as a result, he had no alternative but to publish elsewhere. To say that Wallace was less than tactful would be something of an understatement. He made heated claims that NASA had noticed the very same results and was using non-relativistic correction factors to calculate signal transit times. He also claimed that, despite his repeated requests, MIT Lincoln Lab refused to share the raw data from the Venus radar studies with him—that they were part of a government conspiracy to keep the Soviets in the dark about the true nature of the speed of light!”

And the conspiracy to keep the Soviets in the dark obviously must extend to everyone else or they would tell the Soviets. Wallace was then subjected to the usual treatment for anyone daring to speak the truth.

 

http://www.infinite-energy.com/iemagazine/issue59/adissidentview.html

Einstein was involved in conspiracy plans with his scientist friends that there should be a worldwide elite of scientists that held no loyalty to the countries they lived in so that they could control the world. I wonder if that group is suppressing scientific truth across the international boundaries.

This conspiracy was inspired by such things as HG Wells' book “The Open Conspiracy”.

For the conspiracy around Einstein, see for instance “The Einstein File” - ref:
http://www.theeinsteinfile.com/ quote: “he [Einstein] was in fact intensely interested in the larger society and felt it was his duty to use his worldwide fame to help advance the cause of social justice. Einstein was a fervent pacifist, socialist, internationalist, and an outspoken critic of racism (he considered racism America's "worst disease")” – all these things made him look like a security threat to the American FBI.

That deals with the special relativity. Next: general relativity.

The New Physics, ed. Paul Davies, Cambridge University Press 1989, Clifford Will p 7: “During the two decades 1960- 80, the subject of general relativity experienced a rebirth. Despite its enormous influence on scientific thought in the early years, by the late 1950s general relativity had become a sterile formalistic subject cut off from the mainstream of physics.”

Einstein died in 1955, “they” had a rebirth of general relativity – sometimes “they” call it a renaissance of general relativity straight after Einstein died. And “they” rewrote the theory!!


Professor Kip Thorne in his masterful book “Black Holes and time warps” 1994 p 111 : “Einstein calls it space-time curvature; Newton calls it tidal gravity. But there is just one agent acting. Therefore, space-time curvature and tidal gravity must be precisely the same thing, expressed in different languages.”

But that is a rewrite and not how Einstein originally had it. Due to Einstein making mistakes he had things different. The way that Thorne has it is – Newtonian physics and general relativity are the same thing expressed in different language. But Einstein had them as different things because of his mistakes. So Thorne (who is one of the elite) has revised Einstein's general relativity, corrected some of Einstein's mistakes; revised Einstein after Einstein has died. But as fan of Einstein, he amends Einstein's mistakes and does not make big publicity that he has amended Einstein. The headlines should be Einstein wrong and his theory amended. Yet the elite don't do that, “they” just amend Einstein to now make the theory the same as Newton's except for disguising it in a complicated language. They know they don't go by the original Einstein, and don't care that those beneath them in the hierarchy of the physics community are being left to not have proper grasp of the theories. It is update by subterfuge, leaving the ordinary ranks confused, with the elite not caring and having a different understanding of physics.

Further details on these issues are dealt with by my articles at:

 

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals-Papers/Author/449/Roger,%20Anderton


Link between special relativity and Newtonian physics is as follows 

Usual words by mainstream go something like this -  that Michelson-Morley experiment provides evidence for special relativity and light-speed constancy (in vacuum).

That is incorrect statement.

Correct wording is: Michelson-Morley experiment provides evidence that the maths based on assuming light-speed constancy (in vacuum) works. But maths based on variable light-speed also works.

Therefore no reason has been provided as to why do things the special relativity way instead of the Newtonian physics way.

From my investigations – Newtonian physics properly means Boscovich's theory and from that Quantum theory was derived. Thus undo the mistakes of Einstein and we have the unified theory as Boscovich's.


Lectures for Boscovich on the Web


Boscovich lecture at Royal Society
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2vcb6x_50M

part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1wbgDQL0Mq8

Boscovich lecture at Royal Society 2012 by Ivica Martinovic.
Finishes Boscovich bio and starts on Boscovich's contributions to the natural sciences.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGqX2QXyH_4&feature=related

Boscovich lecture at Royal Society part 3 2012 by Martinovic.
Boscovich's theory and Boscovich's curve of force.
New insight into structure of matter.
Boscovich model of (chemical element) atom.
Boscovich on Relativity.
Boscovich changes Newton's 2nd law.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c03yreKAaPw&feature=related

part 4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrU538utit8&feature=related


Boscovich lecture at Royal Society 2012 part 5
Boscovich introduces quantisation into physics - first mention of quantisation ever.
Quantum physics beginnings in the 18th Century
Boscovich's metrology papers - Northern lights caused by substances from the Sun
Boscovich's contributions to technical sciences

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_xU42Y6Rxs4

Boscovich lecture at Royal Society 2012 part 6
Structural engineering
Humanities

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VswFkAZSh8c&feature=related

part 7

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsWl0Q6JmMU&feature=related

part 8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7owRwk4MXQ&feature=related

Boscovich exhibit at Royal Society 2012 part 1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7haFjGX1pw&feature=related

part 2

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERjgAspudDs&feature=related

part3

Other videos:

The Catholic Church - Builder of Civilization, Episode 3: Priests as Scientific Pioneers, by Thomas E Wood
15.59 –16.34 mentions Boscovich as Father of Atomic theory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsOo-W49kJo


The Catholic Church - Builder of Civilization, Episode 4: The Galileo Case, by Thomas E Wood
22.23- 22.40 Boscovich mentioned

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlE7xvc4LoY


James Burke: The day the universe changed
2.14- 4.00 says prohibition on Copernicus lifted mainly due to Boscovich

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPaZzixRGVM


Galileo and Boscovich by J.L. Heilbron
-comparisons in their careers.

http://vimeo.com/32286048

Boscovich 2011
--in foreign language, have to read subtext; lecture followed by operatic singer

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM5PY9H2d_o

Ivica Martinovic lecture on Boscovich audio:

http://downloads.royalsociety.org/audio/Boscovich.mp3

Further information on Boscovich:

There is an Institute named after him, he has a museum and his has statues.

If there had not been a massive diversion with Einstein circa 1919 then the physics community would have been dealing with Boscovich's theory.


 

Strong case that Einstein committed plagiarism for the theory of relativity 1905, but he could not do it unaided and had massive support:

Poincaré, Einstein and the Relativity: the Surprising Secret

C. Marchal 

http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf05/ps/c5-1.pdf

My video lectures:

The Devil's Advocate of Einstein: History of Relativity 2010-12-11

Description: There was strong resistance against Einstein's physics in May 1919, the date of the famous solar eclipse, with no proper agreement among the physics community. Then despite the Nobel committee's refusal to award Einstein based on Relativity, his 1921 Nobel Prize all but stamped approval for the type of theorizing Einstein had advocated in his early years. Ironically Einstein himself later rebelled against this line of reasoning, but to no avail.

In 1919 only a few experts specialized in Relativity. A proper debate over the merits and demerits of Einstein?s physics was planned, but blocked. On the side supporting Einstein was of course ? Eddington. But on the other side, opposing Einstein, was another expert in Relativity, who was nicknamed the Devil?s Advocate. He provided a strong case for retaining Newtonian physics, and argued against the need for a so called Einstein Revolution. That side of the 1919 controversy needs to be heard today.

http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=364

Einstein's Unified Field Theory 2009-09-12

Description: There has been so much distraction with claims that Einstein is wrong and such like; that we have been diverted from paying attention to Einstein's Unified Field Theory which he was working on; and there has not been much attention drawn to this. The ideas for Einstein's relativity theories comes from an 18th Century priest called Father Boscovich. Attention to Boscovich's theory has been diverted by the massive publicity directed at Einstein.

In the 18th Century Boscovich's theory was accepted as the natural extension to Newton's theory and was considered the first unified theory of physics since the Copernican revolution. Pre-Copernicus the unified theory of physics was Aristotle's theory, and the Copernican Revolution's replacement to Aristotelian unified physics was Boscovich's theory. Boscovich's theory is the Unified Field Theory and was considered proven up to World War II then after WWII it dropped out being mentioned. 

http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=225

Relationship between Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics  

The mathematical connection between Newtonian and Einsteinian physics will be explained. Essentially it can be viewed as the same bit of maths but subjected to a different language. Special relativity being an interpretation of the equation c'2t'2 = (c2 v2)t2 by setting c' = c with t not equal to t'. While Newtonian physics is interpretation of the same equation as instead: t' = t with c not equal to c'. Newtonian gravitational theory has primary and secondary gravitational effects. When both these effects are considered then Newtonian physics gives same maths as General relativity. It is only that the maths is interpreted by different languages. In the case of Newtonian physics it is interpreted in terms of forces while Einsteinian physics talks of it in terms of space-time curvature. On the experimental side it will be pointed out from a paper by a NASA scientist that Einstein's relativity has never been subjected to a direct experimental test; the tests have only ever been indirect. (Of course certain Einsteinians have deceived themselves to the nature of their experimentation and not realized they have only ever done indirect tests.) Thus it has always been a subjective issue as to whether the maths should be interpreted by Newtonian or Einsteinian language. As to the paradoxes of Einstein's relativity this has been in part caused due to the complicated language used by the Einsteinians obscuring the understanding; while in Newtonian language it is much clearer as to what is happening. Special relativity considers a symmetrical scenario of two observers at relative constant velocity motion, while general relativity breaks that symmetry. Newtonian physics has none of those conceptual problems from its outset. Thus the problems of modern physics can be placed down to the difficulty people have experienced upon learning a new language to describe physical reality. 

http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=524 

Otto E Rossler fears that high energy particle collision research that physicists are now engaged in are dangerous. That might be too alarmist. However when the Atom Bomb research was carried out it was not really know how dangerous that could be, same situation exists today with higher and higher energies – they don't really know until they do the experiment. 

Anyway, Otto Rossler also reports: “Einstein realized in the last decade of his life that only a world government can overcome war and hatred on the planet. And he believed he had acquired the right to demand this acutely – in view of the nuclear winter being a real threat in the wake of his own contributions to physics.”

 http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/04/einsteins-miracle

The new world order of one world government is of course the Illuminati agenda, so a clear indication of who Einstein was involved with.  

Applications of the Unified Field Theory can be found on the web such as to  the  Philadelphia Experiment, UFO technology and Nazi Bell experiment etc.  

News Aug 2008 

My History of UFT (unified field theory) has been Boscovich to Einstein to Whyte to Baranski to Watson.

It has been with regret that I have to drop the Watson link, leaving the history as:

Boscovich to Einstein to Whyte to Baranski.

This has been the result of my visit to America to meet Dr James Watson.

Dr James Watson (not the famous one about DNA helix discovery) of Cellular Dimorphism Institute (CDI) was going to go public with his work on Quantum Imaging, but suddenly changed his mind, for reasons I do not fully comprehend.

A website for some of James' images is at:

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/mysteries/life/quantum.html

James’ decision to not do the presentation of his work at the last moment was a very big disappointment.  

It leads me to be now suspicious of James' claims, but the theory still is true as being Boscovich - LL Whyte and Baranski; it’s just James that is now in doubt. He appears to not want anyone recheck his work, and by the scientific method replication of experimental claims is very important to confirm those claims are correct and not made by faulty experiments. i.e. he has chosen to be unscientific.

Even if James cannot get the images he claims (see link previously provided) at the subatomic level approaching the Planck scale of size, the theory still has that as possible.

This is contrary to some in the mainstream’s point-of-view where the belief is that imaging at this scale would be prevented by (1) Heisenberg Uncertainty and (2) the idea – that it is not possible to view objects smaller than wavelength of the wave being used to view them.

However - Heisenberg Uncertainty can be compensated for (New Scientist has dealt with this to a brief extent - “Quantum randomness may not be random”, 22 March 2008) and according to Baranski - waves are made of smaller waves; hence such imaging is possible by UFT.

So, that on the subatomic level which is thought of as obeying quantum rules, there is a level where classical rules come back to play once again- classical physics as per Einstein.

Einstein was opposed to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (highlighted in the famous clash of titans - Einstein versus Bohr debate and Einstein saying God does not play dice with the universe).
It is fairly obvious that Classical Newtonian -type physics still applies to the universe, despite the complicated way of Quantum mechanics has in talking about things. This is because in our daily lives we observe the universe obeying classical physics.

The claim by Quantum mechanics is that on the subatomic level, the physics is no longer obeying those simple classical physics rules of our daily lives. However given that Quantum mechanics applies on subatomic level, [*] as we go back to our level of size scale what Quantum mechanics says on the small scale, the physics must change to match what we observe on our scale.

[*] proviso here is that Quantum mechanics as viewed by the philosophy of Copenhagen Interpretation could be disputed, and instead viewed by a different philosophy.

In the case of a subatomic particle, Quantum mechanics likes to consider the scenario of one photon of light hitting the particle to be observed, and then says there is uncertainty. (The photon hitting the particle to be observed, nudges it making it move, so there is then uncertainty with the position of the observed particle etc.) However, on our scale of size we do not consider the effects of one photon on what we are observing, instead we have lots of photons hitting that observed object, hence what is uncertainty on subatomic level by one photon-observation gets swamped out on our scale by us using lots of photons for observation.


Anyway, despite my disappointment with James, the UFT still holds. And this does not affect the other information such as - Proof of ETI that comes from Peter Cheasley, and the physical process of how life starts that comes from Dr Baranski showing that life is common throughout the universe. Baranski’s evidence has been scientifically peer reviewed and Cheasley’s results have been repeated by others to a lesser extent. Of course one would ideally like Cheasley and Baranski’s evidence checked many more times.

Baranski’s complicated science paper gives proof for ET (i.e. life outside earth), and Cheasley gives proof for ETI (i.e. intelligence outside the earth). ETI Music signals have been detected by Radio Astronomy, but in the context of unified theory that the mainstream has difficulty understanding.

Pythagoras talked about Music of the Spheres, and the proof of ETI is all tied into that tradition of physics investigation. Pythagoras was said to have been trained in ancient wisdom from Egypt and Babylon; so it’s a long tradition. It was picked up again in the Copernican Revolution.

I am now going issues some of which have already been dealt with in articles (1) to (5) below, but with latest information:

The History of Physics has been affected by religious, political and philosophic disputes and this Pythagorean tradition of theoretical physics have suffered from this.

The Film “The Da Vinci Code” deals with the idea that Jesus had descendants and that has been suppressed by Christian religion for thousands of years. Put that issue to one side. The film does deal with the science tradition that has been suppressed. There is a scene where a murdered man is found with a pentagram inscribed on his chest. The detective investigating the case says that it is a sign of the Devil. The hero of the film says it is a pagan symbol representing the unity of female and male. The Christian movement demonised a great deal of the pagan world; it was a revision – symbols like the pentagram were not originally satanic until the Christian movement said it was. (There is a side-issue that the pentagram one way is okay, but inverted is Satanic. Before Christianity invented the Devil, the pagan world without Devil would not have interpreted the symbol that way.)

And the pentagram was one of the symbols of the Pythagorean movement. Pythagorean movement was of course one of the pagan movements, and the Christian Church demonised it along with other pagan beliefs.

Galileo and Copernicus’ science was based upon a Pythagorean approach, and the Church did not like the Pythagorean version of religion that the Pythagorean science could be attached to; so those following it risked charges of heresy which was punishable by death.

The Catholic Church placed a Ban on the Copernican Revolution’s science following the Inquisition trial of Galileo. However, there was a protest movement against Catholic beliefs called the Protest-ants; this was still a Christian belief system, but the Protestants wanted a different version of Christianity to the Catholics. To the Catholics this Protestant Christianity was heresy; hence both religious groups were in Conflict.

It resulted in – that Protestant England there was more freedom to pursue beliefs that were heresy to the Catholic Church. Hence Newton was able to pursue Galileo’s ideas. Newton was an alchemist, which meant that he had beliefs in Ancient Egyptian wisdom called Hermeticism, and so he risked going to far and being a heretic from even a Protestant Christian country’s point-of-view. (And Ancient Egyptian wisdom Hermeticism is related to Pythagoreanism, because Pythagoras studied it.)

The Catholic Church despite its Ban on Galileo’s science had to because of Newton and others still raising the heretical science ideas then look again at the relevant science.

Leibniz on the Continent of Europe was pursuing the same science as Newton in England; but there arose a split between them. An argument between Newton and Leibniz as to who had priority to what discoveries. This split continued over many centuries. While the Catholic Church under the influence of such priests as Father Boscovich took away its Ban on this Newtonian science.

However, the version of Newtonianism that Continental Europe followed (under influence of Catholic Church) was mainly the Leibniz version taken up by Boscovich. While England with its national hero Newton wanted to stay faithful to Newton and reject the Continental version of Newtonianism based on Leibniz.

The main issue where this split occurred between the two versions of Newtonianism was over how gravity operated. Newton did not want to give an explanation, and left it as action-at-a-distance without saying how it worked. While on the continent this developed into the idea of a “field” through Boscovich – who called it a “sphere of influence”.

Scotland and England were not really on friendly terms either, so while England wanted to stick with their National hero Newton, Scotland was more prepared to go with the Continent ideas. Hence Maxwell the Scot took up the idea of “field” and applied it to electromagnetism.

The field idea applied to gravity is the gravitational field, while in electromagnetism it is the electromagnetic field. I will pick up anon how these fields are unified.

In the 20th Century there became an amazing confusion over fundamental concepts.

The correct science tradition should be based upon the Pythagorean tradition.

As noted - the Church didn’t like Pythagoreanism’s possible religious interpretations so when Galileo presented evidence for Pythagorean science, the Church wanted to deny that evidence. Eventually the Church conceded.

However, arising out of that denial was a philosophic tradition that wanted to deny evidence that contradicted its philosophic point-of-view. This philosophic point-of-view went by many names, but those following it wanted to cloak it with the appearance of being scientific.

When Galileo presented his astronomical evidence there were many who denied that evidence, and such people should more properly be called something like “Exclusionists” - because they excluded evidence that they did not like. Unfortunately these people are in the scientific community, the same as Galileo found in his day.

When it comes to experiments which are supposed to prove things, this body of Exclusionists have many techniques to ignore and exclude such evidence. Methods such as - believing for no good reason that the experiment was not done properly.

Politicians have latched onto this philosophy of Exclusionism, and adopted it as one of their favourite techniques of trying to ignore and/or exclude evidence that contradicts them.

These politicians also like science to back their politics, so they support science with this exclusionist philosophic point-of-view. - Politicians want science to say what agrees with their politics; i.e. science has become a political football.

Hence when it comes to approaches to science, the political backing is more for the exclusionists than the correct way of Pythagoreanism. Thus the Pythagorean- type approach from its beginnings with the Copernican Revolution has become mostly lapsed.

The way this has become lapsed has been quite easy done; because the Pythagorean approach requires science to be done in a certain way and maths to be done in a certain way, and maths education is so bad it’s no longer done in a proper way consistent with the Pythagorean approach. Meaning that maths is badly taught to would-be scientists and this gets carried over into their science being bad also.

I work-shadowed a maths teacher to see how the maths education is so bad.

The attempt by the maths education system is to make maths being taught as simple as possible to the students; this is resulting in “dumbing down”; and that results in corrupting the maths being taught; resulting in students getting an incorrect understanding of maths.

One example I came across was a class of pupils being taught that the square root of 49 was +7. They were not told about the negative root.

I brought this issue up with the maths teacher, he said it was about making maths as simple as possible for the pupils to understand, and at this age they did not bring in the complication of negative roots; but two years later they introduced negative roots. So, at this age they were taught the square root of 49 was +7 only and 2 years later they were taught the square root of 49 was +7 and -7.

I pointed out that at two years older they could interpret that they had been lied to when they were originally told it was +7 with no mention of -7. He admitted that it might be interpreted that way.

That is precisely my point --- from my perspective I view them as being lied to.

If I were told the square root of 49 was only +7 and then later told “well actually the square root is +7 and -7 not just +7” then I view it that I was lied to!

This is a Fundamental Point!

Some people might not care about this. It is the nature of what has become our political climate that this attitude of not caring is now held by many people. But maths if it is to be properly taught cannot be taught so that it’s one thing one moment and something else the next; because it just leads to confusion.


If you tell me something one moment and then later tell me something else; then you lied to me!

The way that maths is being taught is to lie to the student to make things simpler.

If it were just the square root issue then if would be trivial. But it is not just this square root lie; it’s the lie being repeated again and again with any mathematical concept.

The lie does not confine itself to maths; you are taught one thing one moment and then later taught something else as a supposed update.

Suppose for instance that these students only understood the lesson where they were told that the square root of 49 was +7 and missed the lesson where it was updated. Then they might go throughout life with believing the lie that the square root of 49 was +7, and never knowing the truth that it was +7 and -7.

Throughout the maths education system lies like this are being taught, and if you miss the lesson to update to the truth on a certain issue, or you do not understand the lesson that updates to the truth, then you can go through life believing mathematical lies.

And from my study of scientists, this is indeed what happens – there are numerous mathematical lies being taught, and different people still believe those lies throughout their life, never updating to the truth.

i.e. the scientists have not been given a Pythagorean understanding of maths, and instead have various different collections of mathematical lies that they believe in.

This corruption of education goes very deep according to Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt, former Senior Policy Advisor in the US Department of Education, blew the whistle on government activities, in her book “The Deliberate Dumbing down of America” there is a large group active in education whose agenda is to deliberately dumb down people so that they will accept the New World Order.
(http://www.deliberatedumbingdown.com/)

There is another aspect to this Education issue. Pythagoreanism – although I am interested in the science part; it is also attached to a religious point-of-view, and the religious point-of-view the Christians might disapprove. So, try teaching correct Pythagorean maths and there might be a backlash from Christian Fundamentalist parents opposed to it being taught to their children. At the moment the Fundamentalists are opposed to Darwin’s Evolution being taught, but there is little to stop them objecting to lots of things. Corruption of Education is what a lot of pressure groups want, and probably been one of the influences on why maths has been corrupted in the way it has been.

One goes through a Bad Education system, and one has to fight against what one has been told. (The politico-religious pressures that have be brought to bear on teaching you bad.)

In science itself without the maths corruption, there are other scientific concept corruptions.

For instance: the word atom originally meant a part of particle of matter that could not be split up to anything smaller. Come the 20th century a particle of matter was called an atom and then it was split into something smaller by the Atom Bomb; hence the word atom in the 20th Century was no longer referring to a particle of matter that could not be split into anything smaller.

You might wonder what the point of this is. Well the point is this – come the 20th Century the atom was referring to a particle that could be split, but if you were reading a theory written in an earlier century when the word atom was used it was referring to a particle that could not be split.

Boscovich’s 18th Century theory of atoms is dealing with particles that cannot be split; however a 20th Century Atom theory is referring to particles that can be split.

From the perspective of someone taught 20th Century physics’ atoms, if they then look at Boscovich’s theory they can erroneously think well that theory must be wrong, because Boscovich’s atoms cannot be split, but I know that atoms can be split.

However, the truth is Boscovich when talking of atoms is not talking about 20th Century atoms, and that theory he is dealing with of an unsplittable particle is still valid.

Now, knowing this let us consider Bearden’s theory:

Bearden’s theory is based upon modern physics misunderstanding Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism. His claim is that Maxwell’s theory was originally based upon a quaternion—a sort of 4 dimensional vector, but it was subsequently simplified to make it easier to understand by having electromagnetic field theory deal instead with 3 dimensional vector and a scalar.

That ties in with what I have been saying about the corruption of maths education.

A three dimensional vector is merely 3 numbers collected together as (A, B,C) where A, B and C are three numbers - this three dimensional vector in electromagnetic field theory is called part of the vector field of electromagnetism. Along with that field there is another field called scalar field, which is merely a single number let us call it D.

So the simplified Electromagnetic Field theory consists of a three dimensional vector field (A,B,C) and a scalar field D.

Now the quaternion is merely a 4 dimensional vector, so the numbers A, B, C and D we could merely write in the form (A,B,C,D) and that is then a 4 dimensional vector called the quaternion; we could call it a Quaternion Field then we have the Electromagnetic Quaternion Field theory.

That is all the difference there is between the simplified Electromagnetic Field theory of vector field (A,B,C) and scalar field D and Electromagnetic Quaternion Field theory; just put the numbers in the form (A,B,C,D).

Of course associated with this simple process of re-arranging the numbers A,B,C, D can be a minefield of mathematical mistakes. And our bad maths education could make many mistakes with these numbers A,B,C,D when they start applying them to physics.

Anyway, that is the basis of Bearden’s theory.

He has I have read been heavily criticised by what appears to be a Professor having deep knowledge about mainstream Electromagnetic theory.

Now, the situation of this theoretical argument boils down to this:

In the standard physics education system, a student of physics gets taught about three dimensional vector fields and scalar fields in Electromagnetic Field theory, but that might be as far as his education goes, he might not be taught the next step; which is namely Relativity.

In mainstream Relativity, time is treated as a dimension, and so added to the three dimensions of space we can form in Relativity theory a 4 dimensional vector which is called a Relativistic vector. This is not necessarily the same as the four dimensional vector called the quaternion. But the point is Bearden’s theory deals with 4 dimensional vectors in electromagnetism.

A student of physics if they studied electromagnetism eventually gets to dealing with 4 dimensional vectors also. And this is where the professor argues against Bearden. The professor is already dealing with 4 dimensional vectors in electromagnetic theory, and all Bearden seems to be doing is essentially doing the same thing of dealing with 4 dimensional vectors in electromagnetic theory (though calling them quaternions). From the professor’s point-of-view Bearden is not offering anything new because he is already dealing with the same thing as him.

However, from a scientist who has not progressed from the simplified theory dealing only with three dimensional vector to the next step up of four dimensional vector, what is being offered is new to him. It might not be new to this professor who criticises Bearden, but to a scientist who has not gone far enough along the education process what Bearden says is new.

So, now let me summarise—the Electromagnetic Field Theory unifies the electric force and the magnetic force by a four dimensional vector.

The next question is how do we unify the gravitational force; and the answer is simple – we merely increase the number of dimensions of the vector. In Electromagnetic Field theory we have a four dimensional vector field. All we have to do to include gravity is introduce an extra dimension to get a five dimensional vector field. And if we want to go further, we can increase the number of dimensions even further.

It’s not too hard to find this theory - Kaluza and Klein have looked at the idea of unifying gravity with electromagnetism by five dimensions in the early 20th Century. But if we look back to the 18th Century, we can see that this was already done by Boscovich.

By looking back in the literature of science we can find a more advanced theory than the theories we so far have today. And the reason for this is the attempt to simplify.

The attempt to simplify has been the corrupting process of our education system. With each level of exam we are presented with an update upon what we have been taught before; such as the example we are taught for one exam we must answer +7 only as the square root of 49, while a few years later we have to answer in the next exam the update of +7 and -7. If we do not go far enough along the education process we do not get the subsequent updates and reside in theories with mathematical errors. But look to the past and there was no simplifying corrupting process and the complete theory is presented in one go, not in little chunks that need updates.

Based upon what our society needs. I believe what happens is that the students go through this piecemeal updating process, and the brightest students go beyond what is publicly academically taught, they are earmarked by the military and go into what is called Black Ops where they are taught far more than what is in the White Ops on public display in academia. And being in Black Ops they are of course held to oaths of secrecy to not talk about the science they know.

In Summary it’s our politics that has had this influence on Science; its serves the politicians that science should be a mess of scientists all with incomplete understanding, mistaken beliefs about maths and science. And in this political climate the exclusionists flourish. While the correct approach should be building upon one established fact in science to the next, what we have instead is a confusion of conflicting comments from confused scientists who have had an education that has made them confused.

I found that the Comic genius Charlie Chaplin summed up my position when he said to Einstein: "I am applauded, because everybody understands me; you are applauded, because nobody understands you."

Einstein was not understood during his lifetime; and a distorted version of his theories is being taught at University.

There are scientists Pro-Einstein, and there are scientists Anti-Einstein.

But my stance is that these people have not understood Einstein properly.

Einstein has to be understood from a context of Boscovich.

I think I am the only person taking the stance that Einstein is a Misunderstood Genius, who the Mainstream and Alternative Science communities have not properly understood.

i.e. that the theories of Einstein have been misunderstood by practically everyone.

Going back to the issue of the slapdash approach to maths that physicists have taken, i.e. most of their science papers are full of mathematical mistakes. But worst than that they don’t even correct the maths mistakes they make and instead cite maths that is faulty in one article and incorporate it into subsequent articles.

This bad maths seems to have started around the time Einstein became famous. Einstein was well known as not being very good and maths, and his articles are usually full of mistakes. He took a slapdash approach to maths, and subsequent physicists that followed after him took the same attitude. Whereas previously, before Einstein, a lot more care was generally taken.

My science papers to General Science Journal are dealing with the maths, so that when it comes to presenting the theory of UFT it is merely mostly existing physics with the maths mistakes corrected.

That does not mean there are no surprises- most significantly – both Galilean relativity and Special relativity are valid descriptive theories of physical reality.

This is contrary to what is believed.

It is generally believed that Einstein’s Special relativity replaced Galilean relativity, and that Galilean relativity does not work in as wide a range of physical observations as Special relativity.

But there is a fundamental slip in the maths for this, and once this is corrected then one sees that either theory works; a sort of relativity between theories- either view physical observations through the descriptive of Galilean relativity or Special relativity – because both work.

Of course, even correcting for that mistake, the relativists have made many more, so that really the Special relativity I am referring to needs a total overhaul to correct the mistakes added to it by what is essentially - too many cooks spoiling the broth.

As noted by someone at article Tesla's Dynamic theory of gravity (PowerPedia where such comments as these are transient.):

"............Einstein's general relativity (the original relativity theory came from R. Boscovich [1711-1787]), ......."

The point being the transition to Einstein's Relativity from Boscovich's Relativity as made by the mainstream was full of mistakes.


Arthur Schopenhauer, explained that a new idea goes through 3 Stages –First, it is ridiculed; second, it is violently opposed; and third, it is accepted as self-evident. (http://www-users.cs.york.ac.uk/susan/cyc/l/law.htm)

Schopenhauer however seems unaware of the influence of scientists making maths mistakes, and so after obtaining the UFT the scientists then engage in making maths mistakes which makes them wander away from it.

I think the stages are more like: (1) Ignored (2) Ridiculed (3) mess up the maths and (4) everyone making some additional maths mistake.

The true Unified Field Theory has been at Stage 1 and this has lasted over Hundreds of Years.

My articles dealing with the maths are at General Science Journal-

Added May 25, 2006: A Re-Examination of the Concept of Ether in Relativity
Theory [PDF]

 Explains that academia is mistaken when it says that the Ether does not exist, because a form of the Ether concept is still consistent with Special Relativity.

Added Oct. 10, 2006: Boscovich's Theory and Newton's Third Law [PDF]

 Explains that Boscovich’s theory is the next step from Newton’s theory.

Added Jan. 2, 2007: Einstein, Ether and Unified Field [PDF]

 Explains that Einstein’s Unified Field Theory is a type of Ether theory.

And

"An Analysis of Special Relativity from a Boscovichian Perspective"

 Explains how Boscovich’s theory is connected to Einstein’s theories of Relativity, with some of the mistakes in understanding that Academia have made with Einstein.

These articles are at:
http://www.wbabin.net/papers.htm



The debunkers have not been quiet, and they seem to now be starting a Campaign against Unified Field Theory; seems like they might not be interested with staying at Stage 1 and are preparing to move to Stage 2. They are the same type of people who attacked Galileo (i.e. the exclusionists ), and if they had their way we would still believe that the world was flat.


We have had our science messed up by these people. And of course some of it touches upon the religious issues around Evolution theory.

Some people "A" can look at evidence such as an eye and decide it was designed by God, and others "B" don’t see it that way. Something goes on in the head with thinking processes, and not everyone goes through the same type of thinking processes.

In the Unified Field Theory of Whyte and Baranski the universe has an organising process at work, some people interpret this as a natural part of the Universe, while others interpret it as God (i.e. Intelligent Designer). But the debunkers just want to go into denial.


Mendel Sachs in his book “Relativity in Our Time” briefly mentions Boscovich as the starting point of Unified Field Theory since the Copernican Revolution, he says:

“In the 18th century, a Jesuit priest, Roger Boscovich, introduced a new approach to natural philosophy. He took the continuous manifestation of matter, that is its power to act on other matter in space, to form a fundamental starting point for a description of the material universe. About 100 years later, Michael Faraday adopted this view of the continuous field concept to describe electricity and magnetism most primitively.”

Thomas Bearden says about Mendel Sachs’ work:

“Sachs' theory essentially completes what Einstein started. It is a unified field theory, from the space-time approach. Electrodynamics is a part of it, so that for the very first time the interaction of gravitation and electrodynamics is in the actual theory, in a fashion where one now can speak of a model that will be usable for direct engineering.”

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/072900.htm



Boscovich’s theory is an extension to Newton’s theory, so those working on that are essentially also working on this theoretical tradition; often though they get confused over the relativity issue.

Now, let’s talk about Mind Control-- in THE KGB SECRET PARANORMAL FILES presented by Roger Moore (ex- James Bond).

They briefly mentioned Einstein's Unified Field Theory as how Mind Control works. It is such a brief a mention, that if you blinked then you missed it; only they called it Einstein's wave-particle theory. (The wave-particle being part of the unified field.)

Godel worked with Einstein on the Unified Field Theory, and apparently he believed in conspiracy to suppress it:

“After Einstein's death in 1955, G[o]del became increasingly tormented by fears of persecution, some of which were projected onto the great 17th century German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. Leibniz's work, G[o]del insisted, had been villainously suppressed in order to "make men stupid." He ate less and less, ostensibly for fear of being poisoned, until finally he died of malnutrition, weighing a mere 65 pounds.”

http://dir.salon.com/story/books/review/2005/03/23/goldstein/index.html?pn=2




The completed version of Leibniz’s theory according to Bertrand Russell was Boscovich’s theory (see Part 4 below). So, Godel was working on that aspect of the theory, and because not all of the work of Leibniz has been allowed into the public domain, Godel interpreted this as a conspiracy to “make men stupid.” Of course the debunkers would like to dismiss this as paranoia by Godel; but it probably happened the other way around he found out there was a conspiracy and then he developed paranoia. As is well known --- just because you are paranoid, it does not mean that people are not out to get you.

Since Boscovich was a Catholic priest, I have been interested in looking at what the modern Catholic Church is doing. There seem to be two groups: traditionalists (keep things as they are) and reformers (update the Church). However, whatever group a priest belongs to they are expected to conform and obey those higher up in the hierarchy The larger group seem to be the traditionalists and they have blocked most reforms. There also seems to be a Secret agent James Bond type branch to the Catholic priesthood; it seems very weird to think of priests involved in this sort of activity. They have secrets they want to remain as secrets. Presumably if the Catholic Church did reform then more would come out about the Unified Field; as the situation is at the moment there is some information.

Another issue is what is taught in science textbooks. Textbooks with each new edition seem to be incorporating more and more errors; instead of seeking to delete errors from previous books, the newer books seem to add more. Richard Feynman noted in “Surely You are Joking Mr Feynman” the bad quality of science textbooks.

It seems that the textbooks are controlled by what amounts to various monopolies. On the farther out fringes of the Conspiracy theorists the belief is that this corruption of textbooks is deliberate. It is this corruption of science that is taught to each new generation of students, and issues that should be considered as solved pointing to some conclusion are messed up to state something else.

One of my main issue is that the Ether exists, and these textbooks are erroneously saying it doesn’t exist. Looking at trying to explain this more clearly has led me to Aristotelian Logic - which Van Vogt called “null A” and became part of what was incorporated into Scientology. Unfortunately leading into more deeper areas which the ill-informed debunkers like to ridicule. (n.b. I am not agreeing with Scientology; from what I am told it is very expensive to get involved in; but some taboo ideas have entered into it.)

Aristotelian Logic is based upon there either being two answers – yes or no; true or false.

Non-Aristotelian Logic is to not restrict oneself to this two-value Logic.

There are for instance examples where a yes/no answer is not appropriate. For instance imagine a court case, a husband is asked to answer only yes or no to the question: “have you stopped beating your wife.”

If the defendant answers no then the implication is that he is continuing to beat his wife.

If he answers yes, then the implication is that he used to beat his wife.

Answers either yes or no, therefore condemns the husband.

It is an example of an inappropriate question.

i.e. it is an inappropriate question to ask in Aristotelian Logic system.

A similar situation occurs a lot in science.

In the case of the Ether— an experiment supposedly set up to say whether the Ether exist – yes or no; is often inappropriate, because it can be that the way that the Ether is being talked about is incorrect.

Thus in the famous Michelson- Morley experiment that supposedly disproves the Ether according to these corrupted textbooks; the question put as to wanting yes or no to question of Ether existence is inappropriate. As per my Ether paper (above) I explain that the Ether can be talked about in at least two different ways. It therefore depends upon how one talks about the Ether, as to what the Michelson- Morley experiment is showing.

In the case of Aristotle, I have talked to a few people who think that those following Aristotle (Aristotelian) have misunderstood Aristotle, so when it comes to Aristotelian versus Non-Aristotelian; the need for Non-Aristotelian is merely the fact that those following Aristotle have misrepresented it. Similarly the case for non-Einsteinian physics might be said merely to be because those of today setting themselves up as authorities on Einsteinian physics, have misrepresented Einsteinian physics.

Boscovichian physics has its roots with Pythagoras; and the dispute there with religion is that Pythagoras seems to be a version of pagan Sun worship. Mainstream Christianity has been opposed to the Sun god religion, despite Emperor Constantine believing that this was what Christianity was dealing with, when he adopted it as the religion of the Roman Empire. And despite it being known that Christianity adopted Christmas Day 25th December from pagan Sun-god religion, and adopted Sunday the holy day etc. Jordan Maxwell has looked into the issue and explains that Christianity is really the pagan Sun-god religion. Of course the majority of Christians do not treat their religion as pagan Sun-god, and are opposed to such a belief. So, it seems to be another case of people misunderstanding. Instead of Christianity having adopted certain pagan ideas as most believe, it might be that Christianity is a pagan religion that has been misunderstood and changed into something else.

As to Pythagoras, the point-of-view there is of the Universe being mathematical and musical – “the Music of the spheres.” In the quest for ETI communication I have pointed out on a SETI website that this communication might be being overlooked because it could be musical radio signals that we should be looking for. See:
http://www.setiuniverse.com/absolutenm/anmviewer.asp?a=207&z=7

So, what I am talking about here is quite incredible: a general scenario of people getting things wrong, and then authority figures setting themselves in these various areas to try to maintain the status quo of keeping it being wrong.

Ideally one would think if a textbook came out with a few mistakes in it, then the next textbook would try to correct those mistakes; but that’s not what happens instead the next textbook adds more mistakes. There are processes at work in society which wants more mistakes to be added to the existing mistakes.

There is none as weird as folk; the world is weirder than we can imagine; the folk in it all want to believe different things and when it comes to evidence that contradicts what one might want to believe, these strange folk either ignore it or pretend it means something else. It not just Einstein that’s been misunderstood to fit with what some strange people want to believe; but lots of other things as well. When it comes to issues like ETIs -- its too far-out from what these strange folk want to believe. I have discussed the issue with certain people and the conclusion is that if ETIs were definitely known about then a large number would panic. Rather than panic, strange people set about believing the contrary; evidence means nothing to them; because they are the exclusionists.

Roger Anderton Aug 2008  

The History of UFT

Whyte and Baranski were working with Einstein on the UFT. Whyte mentions in his literature that modern physics of Quantum mechanics and Relativity theories is based on Boscovich's theory.

Whyte was a theorist not too proficient in maths. Baranski was an all-rounder - experimentalist, mathematician and theorist; a sort of "Faraday" type of Genius (i.e. Genius of the highest calibre).

Einstein agreed to the UFT that Baranski developed. Einstein then died. Baranski died young and was forgotten. This so far is in the physics history literature; but is being ignored/suppressed.

Baranski was naive and got involved working on experiments for people, it would have been better not to have worked for.

Now, the missing link in Darwin's theory of how does life start is answered by Baranski. 

Boscovich's theory does not answer that question; it is a unified theory dealing with particles, but does not explain how some particles can be alive and others not. (This is as far as I know, not all of Boscovich’s work has been translated from Latin into English; hence not all has been read by me.)

Whyte dealt with the issue by what he called the Unitary Principle - basically it is how the particles form themselves into certain patterns that replicate themselves that gives life. When particles form themselves into a well-ordered structure such as crystal, then they are pretty much inert and no longer self-replicating; apart from merely continuing the process of crystallisation. (The Unitary Principle has gone by a lot of different names by other Researchers such as being called Life Force. Often it is interpreted in the Religious point-of-view as the work of a Higher Intelligence – i.e. God, while in the Ancient Astronaut hypothesis this Intelligence might sometimes be interpreted as an extremely advanced alien.)

So under Whyte's theory- Boscovich's theory gets extended to what can be called the Unitary Field Theory.

Baranski wrote a book on this which does not deal with the maths, and is very difficult to get hold of. He also did the experiment that showed how life began on Earth - radiation from the Sun acts as catalysis, causing atomic particles to engage in pattern forming that we call life. As a result he showed that the conditions for Life are common throughout the Universe.

He was working in the early stages of the Apollo Moon mission; his task was to find out how to protect the astronauts from space radiation once they had left the Earth's protective field.

Unfortunately not all of Baranski’s work seems accessible to the public.

By this UFT - structures on the large scale are repeating themselves on the small scale; reality is fractal, and on the Planck scale of size there are mini-wormholes as per what John Wheeler says. Also as per string theory at that scale - one is looking at higher dimensions where energy comes in from a higher dimension through these mini-wormholes, and that means it is free energy as far as our "perceived universe" is concerned.

My interest with all of this: I checked the mathematics of modern physics and came up with a very simple theory; I checked back in history and the theory was first proposed by an 18th century Catholic priest Father Roger Boscovich. I then looked into what happened to this theory, and began digging up the Forgotten/ Suppressed Past. I suspect that others have to a certain extent come up with the same type of theory; but the first person to propose the theory as far as I am aware was Father Boscovich; and these "others" try to say that their theory is "new"--- ignoring the past history of who was FIRST with the proposal for the Unified Field theory, and ignoring how that theory was built upon by Einstein and his associates.

THE MAIN THREAD OF UFT IS:
Boscovich ->Faraday ->Maxwell->Einstein->LL Whyte -> Baranski

However many other scientists are involved for instance David Bohm was working on the ideas of LL Whyte, Thomas Bearden was working on the ideas of Maxwell, and Tesla’s theory is related to this because his education was Boscovichian.


Web site:
http://www.faculty.fairfield.edu/jmac/sj/scientists/boscovich.htm


says: “Two hundred years ago February 13, 1787 the Croatian Jesuit mathematician Roger Boscovich,S.J. died. He developed the first coherent description of atomic theory in his work Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis , which is one of the great attempts to understand the structure of the universe in a single idea.”

I say: Boscovich’s theory is the start to Unified Field Theory (UFT).


What is not widely known is that the leading physicists of the 20th Century were working from Boscovich's theory; because Boscovich's theory was the Foundation of 20th Century Atomic physics.

The information for all of this is hidden away in obscure places.

Boscovich was a Catholic priest-cum- scientist, and there are still lots of priest-scientists around doing their own scientific researches "outside" of the mainstream of the science community.

One of these priest-cum-scientists says Boscovich is the founder of 20th Cent. Atomic physics:

Peter Henricis priest, PhD Professor of Philosophy says in his article: The Theory of Knowledge of Ruder Boskovic in his time:

"Boskovic (aka Boscovich) made real atom physics possible and therefore he is rightly regarded as its actual forerunner or founder."

One of the scientists working on UFT was Whyte, this is mentioned at site dealing with Whyte’s diaries; which unfortunately has now removed that information (philosphere.com site); it did say :

“Lancelot Law Whyte was not appreciated in Great Britain but was celebrated in the US. He fought in the First World War, and was a brilliant mathematical physicist employed in industry, investment banker and scientific consultant on financing new inventions, chairman and managing director of Power Jets, Ltd. which developed the Whittle jet engine, as well as serving as Director of Statistical Enquiries in the Ministry of Supplies. But his main interest was as a philosopher of science and as a postulator of human inquiry and development. …Whyte appeared to know all of the authors here who were within his generation. He gave a keynote memorial address for the Institute of General Semantics in honour of Korzybski, and corresponded with Bois. Bohm knew and admired him and carried on the work of expressing the unified theory in physics after Whyte died.”


What is to note is that they mention David Bohm was working from Whyte's ideas. And site:

http://www.fdavidpeat.com/bibliography/books/infinite.htm 

says of David Bohm:
“This is the first biography of David Bohm, brilliant physicist, explorer of consciousness, student of Oppenheimer, friend of Einstein, and enemy to the House Un-American Activities Committee. As both his friend and fellow physicist, no one is better positioned than F. David Feat to tell the story of this extraordinary scientist, one of the most original thinkers of the second half of the twentieth century, a man who made influential contributions to physics, philosophy, consciousness, psychology, language, and education.”

One of the things to note is that David Bohm is mentioned as an ‘enemy’ --- Bohm became unpopular with quite a few people; and it seems to be this among other reasons why there is prejudice against UFT from an Academia that would prefer to block all of this information on UFT by simply not talking about all the scientists that have been working on it.

There have been a great number of scientists working on UFT, and Academia responds by ostracising them whenever possible.

All of the scientific issues raised by this theoretical development touch upon issues such as the paranormal and ETs that academia wishes to be in a state of denial about.


I have now been in contact with various people that have been working on these theoretical ideas either directly or indirectly; and was amazed to be informed that Scientific Academia had made a deal a long time ago with the Religious Priesthood that “they” have an agreed censorship between them. This agreed censorship seems to be another reason why UFT is not allowed to be talked about too much; because it would impinge upon religious beliefs. 

Information on the Web

Dr Douglass White has become interested in the Unified Field Theory; he sees the connection with his work, and has placed a lot of information on his web site:

http://dpedtech.com

On this web site there is now -

Douglass White’s book Observer Physics which is an extremely impressive book that connects many diverse areas of maths and physics.

A rough copy of Baranski’s book on UFT.

Books by Lancelot Law Whyte dealing with UFT.

Plus a great deal more. 

When I contacted Hal Puthoff, he told me that he had read Boscovich’s theory and was very impressed by it. Hal Puthoff has dealt with ideas such as Zero Point Energy which is really just essentially extraction of energy from the Unified Field.

For information on Hal Puthoff see for instance:

www.parapsych.org/members/h_puthoff.html

When I contacted Jack Sarfatti he told me he was quite capable of working out UFT for himself, and wondered if Boscovich was a time traveller. I have some information on this issue that I hope to add to this site at a later date. Sarfatti among other things deals with the Star Trek type physics of warped field space; this is of course part of UFT see for instance:

www.stardrive.org/title.shtml

Jon Bjerknes accuses Einstein of plagiarist in his book Albert Einstein the Incorrigible Plagiarist, because Einstein does not provide any references in his science papers that revolutionised 20th Century physics. What Bjerknes seems to fail to realise is that Einstein did not have the same restrictions in his era that modern science papers make, so he was allowed not to provide references. He was in a different era and allowed different freedoms. However the historical record of where the ideas that Einstein was working on came from Einstein’s co-worker on UFT, namely Lancelot Law Whyte, and that is mainly Boscovich, whom Bjerknes has suspected of as being very important.

Bertrand Russell at the time of when Einstein became famous (i.e. 1919) was one of the few people that at the time was able to understand Einstein’s Relativity Theories, and Russell was working on the UFT. I provide now an article by Russell explaining how Newton’s ideas are connected to Leibniz’s ideas through Boscovich’s theory; hence in other words Boscovich’s theory extends Newton’s theory (as already stated):

Information from A critical exposition of the philosophy of Leibniz, Bertrand Russell

My Comments

The points that Bertrand Russell raises are:

1. Leibniz had troubles completing his theory of dynamics.

2. Boscovich’s theory is the completed theory of Leibnizian dynamics.

3. Boscovich’s theory is a continuation of Newton’s theory.

It is better to look at Boscovich than Leibniz because Leibniz had problems.

The three great types of dynamical theory that Russell gives are:

1. There is the doctrine of hard extended atoms, for which the theory of impact is the appropriate weapon.

2. The doctrine of the plenum, of an all-pervading fluid.

3. The doctrine of unextended centres of force, with action at a distance, for which Newton supplied the required Mathematics.

Russell says that Boscovich’s theory is type 3.

Now, I say that Boscovich’s theory is more than just that.

Boscovich’s theory is about regions of influence around particles which Faraday called field. This field acts like a substance, hence it is the all-pervading fluid of type 2 theory. Now this field acts in both a repulsive and attractive thing depending upon conditions, particularly when two particles become too close together they are repelled by this field, hence the particles are acting like they are extended and are thus type 1 theory.

i.e. Boscovich’s theory covers all three types of dynamic theory.

Finally we have from Leibniz: “There is no last little body, and I conceive that a particle of matter, however small, is like a whole world, full of infinity of still smaller creatures.” ---- i.e. nature is what we would now call fractal -- because patterns keep repeating themselves on smaller and smaller scales.

For a more detailed analysis of what Bertrand Russell says see further down.

Latest Research on why the Supression

The simple answer to the question of “Why the Suppression of this Unified Field Theory and its Historical development” seems to be that MOST people are just not mentally able to handle the theory and the issues that it raises, and are then acting in denial.

Instead of meeting the facts of issues straight on, when people are unhappy with those facts “they” tend to react by trying to pretend the facts do not exist. (The facts of the existence of this THEORY exist in the scientific records, but few bother to actually look in the records, and then act by pretending the records do not exist.) This behaviour of the Human species is extremely strange, but seems very common place; this type of Conspiracy of Silence happens a great deal.

Thus the Conspiracy is --- a Conspiracy of Silence by the Mainstream to deal with this THEORY. And the Cover-Up is merely people saying the Conspiracy does not exist.

It is as simple as that SILENCE, and DENIAL.

 

The Human species has been engaged in numerous wars because of political, religious and other beliefs.

Despite some people wanting physics to be divorced from these beliefs, it has been unable to do so; and has become part of the warfare that goes on between peoples of differing beliefs.

The rough outline of this Conflict is thus as follows:

Physics has been embroiled in religious, political and philosophic arguments that it has been unable to escape from and thus confuse the scientific issues. Different people have wanted scientific beliefs to justify their other beliefs, and this has made physics a Battleground for ideologies that it has been unable to escape from.

It is my contention that the proper approach to physics is from the philosophy of Pythagoreanism. There are other philosophies and one could form different versions of physics from interpreting through different philosophies. But I want to outline physics as from a Pythagorean interpretation, hence a Pythagorean physics.

Once faced with the results of an experiment we are stuck with having to interpret the data from a point-of-view; this point-of-view is a philosophy. The correct interpretation is Pythagorean. What has happened is different people have attempted interpretation through different philosophies creating what is modern physics based upon a mess of different points-of-view that are not necessarily always logically consistent.

Pythagoras was a legendary figure, whether he historically existed is difficult to say, and the type of philosophy he had can be traced back to possible other legendary sources. He had followers called Pythagoreans, who definitely existed.

Ancient people combined philosophy, religion and science all into their point-of-view; so Pythagoreanism was a mix of religious belief and scientific belief. I want to only emphasis the Pythagorean point-of-view towards Science, and exclude the religious things.


Plato took up many ideas of the Pythagoreans. One of the important ideas was that the Earth was a planet that moved. A “planet” in those days meant a star that wandered. Aristotle was a pupil of Plato, and went against many of the ideas of his teacher Plato.

One of the divisions that happened was between Plato and Aristotle. Plato’s point-of-view was seen as mystical, and Aristotle’s point-of-view was often seen as more practical being based upon observations, hence being scientific.

This was the first of many examples of defining things incorrectly. Plato’s mysticism was true science (when one excludes religious issues) and Aristotle’s point-of-view was not science.

In the case of the Earth’s motion there were no observations readily available to Aristotle and many of Aristotle’s later followers that the Earth moved, so erroneously they thought the Earth did not move. (Of course - later evidence of Earth motion came from Galileo+co) The Pythagorean belief of Earth motion was hence not readily based on observations, but rather on philosophic interpretation of what science should be like. This immediately clashes with some modern people’s point-of-view that science is Empirical; there are parts of science from the Pythagorean approach to science which is non-Empirical.

The three main Revolutions in Science are supposed to be Copernican, Einsteinian and Quantum.

In the Copernican Revolution it was a Pythagorean approach to science that latched onto the idea of the Earth’s motion. This was in conflict with the Aristotelian point-of-view that was being endorsed by the Christian Church.

Some of those in Christianity interpreted the Bible in such a way that it was telling them that the Earth did not move. There were other issues. But essentially the science issues that Galileo was raising was coming into conflict with some people’s religious beliefs. Eventually Galileo went before the Inquisition and had to recant his religious heresies inspired by his scientific point-of-view.

The idea that the Earth moved was banned by the Catholic Church. However, this did not stop intellectuals investigating this idea, and so the Catholic Church was finding itself in an increasingly embarrassing situation of opposing an idea that had a lot of evidence for it.

Eventually the Catholic Church backed down on its Ban of the idea of the Earth’s motion through the main influence of Father Boscovich. A meeting was held in the Catholic Church which decided to lift the Ban, and this allowed Newton’s theory to be taught in Catholic countries.

At the same time that the Church had a problem with the idea that the Earth moved, it had a similarly problem with the Atomic theory. The Atomic theory goes back to Ancient times, in the usual way that it is presented it is particles moving around at random. The religious problem with this idea is that the atoms are moving around without intelligent control; an intelligent control that would deem to be God. So, saying that atoms moved at random instead of being organised by a higher intelligence, amounted to denying the existence of the higher intelligence known as God; this was atheism.

Christianity had tried to Ban the pagan idea of Atoms. However, with the Ban being lifted on the idea that the Earth moved, the Ban on the Atomic idea was also lifted. The Atomic theory that was allowed was that presented by Boscovich. Others before him had tried presenting Atomic theories, but Boscovich’s was the first that Christianity allowed free from charges of heresy.

The basic idea of Boscovich’s theory was that point-particles had a sphere of influence around them that influenced other point-particles; this sphere of influence was later called “field”; hence it was a field Theory, and Boscovich deemed there was only one field, hence it is what we would call unified field. i.e. Boscovich’s Atomic theory is the unified field theory.

Boscovich also dealt with higher dimensions, non-Euclidean geometry, relativity and many other issues. These physics issues were ahead of how far the mathematicians had got. i.e. it was physics theory ahead of the mathematics it needed.


A large number of scientists up to the start of the 20th Century were working on Boscovich’s theory.


The Copernican Revolution had led to Boscovich’s theory; the Copernican idea of the Earth moving first being Banned and then the Ban cancelled had given us the Science of Boscovich.

The relativity issues had not been fully decided, there was Newton’s theory that was not able to answer those issues, and there was Boscovich’s theory which was acting like the next step from Newton’s theory and dealing with the relativity issues.

Einstein became famous for the relativity issues in the 20th Century. He wrote his famous relativity paper of 1905, and in 1919 famously had a prediction confirmed from his relativity theory applied to gravity. This was deemed a Revolution in physics from Newton’s theory.

However, Einstein was still working within Boscovich’s theory.

Shortly after 1919 there was another revolution in physics of the Quantum Revolution.

This was really a reinterpretation of physics from another philosophic point-of-view from the classical point-of-view, and was called the Copenhagen Interpretation.

Einstein was opposed to this new philosophic point-of-view and stayed within the classical point-of-view, namely that of Boscovich’s theory. Although he was open minded enough to try other things.

Since the 1920s other philosophic interpretations of quantum physics have been proposed. Some of these different points-of-view are dealing with things from Boscovich’s point-of-view; so that Boscovich’s version of quantum physics is partially reconstructed.


The Atomic theory was associated with atheism. Karl Marx studied Atomic theory, and the atheism he followed he created his political philosophy of Communism. Similarly Nietzsche based his atheist philosophy from Atomic theory.

This was conflict in politics between Communists and non-Communists. Part of that conflict led to Hitler’s Nazism. And there were other political conflicts.

Science could not escape people following non-scientific beliefs from interpreting science.

Einstein was involved with Communism. A lot of Atomic scientists in the Manhattan Project were communists. Eventually America in the Cold War era did not like the communists living among them.

Karl Popper decided to reinterpret the Philosophic basis of science. He was well aware of Boscovich’s theory. He was also well aware that parts of Boscovich’s theory had not been experimentally tested. He then formed his idea of dividing things into physics and metaphysics. The physics part had been experimentally tested, and the metaphysics had not been tested; so he placed Boscovich’s theory into metaphysics.

NOTE: Before Popper’s reclassification, Boscovich’s theory was within physics.

Popper was forming physics from a different philosophic approach to the philosophy that had formed Boscovich’s theory from the Copernican Revolution.

I shall repeat there have been of course many philosophic points-of-view. So, Popper’s philosophy is merely one of many. But approaching physics from his philosophy is creating a break with the philosophy that led to the Copernican Revolution; and as earlier stated I think that philosophy was the correct one.


Hence Popper muddies the philosophic issues around physics.

He is not alone, next comes Kuhn and his philosophic belief that Revolution is a natural part of physics. In his scheme of things the Copernican Revolution, the Einstein Revolution and the Quantum Revolution are all natural parts of scientific progress and the expectation is of yet more revolutions. This is contrary to my point-of-view as stated I believe the philosophy of the Copernican Revolution is the correct one; the subsequent changes in the philosophic interpretation of physics are thus all to me merely wandering away from the correct philosophy.


As physics progresses what we get is more and more different philosophic interpretations and greater diversity of opinion, and an amnesia that physics as from the Copernican Revolution is based upon Pythagorean Commitment which led to the Unified Field theory of Boscovich.

 

Bertrand Russell on Boscovich's Theory

Bertrand Russell says:

“There are, speaking broadly, three great types of dynamical theory. There is the doctrine of hard extended atoms, for which the theory of impact is the appropriate weapon. There is the doctrine of the plenum, of an all-pervading fluid, for which the modern doctrine of the ether— the theory of Electricity, in fact— has at last partially forged the necessary weapons. And finally, there is the doctrine of unextended centres of force, with action at a distance, for which Newton supplied the required Mathematics. Leibniz failed to grasp these alternatives, and thus, from his love of a middle position, fell between, not two, but three stools. His view of impact as the fundamental phenomenon of Dynamics should have led him to the theory of extended atoms, supported by Gassendi, and, in his own day, by Huygens. His belief in the plenum and the fluid ether should have led him to the second theory, and to the investigation of fluid motion. His relational theory of space, and his whole doctrine of monads, should have led him, as it led Boscovich, Kant1 and Lotze, to the theory of unextended centres of force. The failure to choose between these alternatives made his Dynamics a mass of confusions.

 

The true Leibnizian Dynamics is not his own, but that of Boscovich2. This theory is a simple development of the Newtonian Dynamics, in which all matter consists of material points, and all action is action at a distance. These material points are unextended like the monads, to which Boscovich appeals as analogous3; and in order to preserve their mutual independence, it is only necessary to regard the attraction or repulsion as due to the perception of one monad by the other, which, as a matter of fact, Leibniz actually does. Why, then, was this theory not that of Leibniz ?

“There was, I think, to begin with, in later life, a personal reason. Leibniz had quarrelled with Newton concerning the Calculus, and he did not choose to admit that Newton had anything to teach him4. He therefore rejected gravitation as an ultimate account of things, giving as his reason that action at a distance is impossible. But this personal reason can only have operated after the publication of the Principia in 1687, by which date Leibniz had constructed both his philosophy and his dynamics. It becomes necessary, therefore, to search for more objective reasons.

“Leibniz rejected atoms, the vacuum, and action at a distance.

“His grounds for these three rejections must be now examined.

“(1) Against extended atoms he had, I think, fairly valid grounds. These are best set forth in his correspondence with Huygens, who maintained atoms. (See G. M. II. pp. 136, 145, 155—7). In the first place, the extended atom is composed of parts, since extension is repetition; it cannot, therefore, afford a metaphysical solution of the composition of matter. Moreover, if the laws of motion are to be preserved, the atom must be perfectly elastic, which is impossible since it must also be perfectly hard, and can contain no " subtle fluid." Again there is a breach of the law of continuity in assuming infinite hardness and absolute indivisibility to emerge suddenly when a certain stage is reached in division. And primitive rigidity is, in any case, a quality wholly without reason, and therefore inadmissible. In short, infrangible atoms would be a perpetual miracle. These arguments have been urged many times since, and are, one may suppose, on the whole valid.

“(2) With regard to the vacuum, Leibniz relied mainly on the argument from what he called metaphysical perfection. He admitted that a vacuum is conceivable (N. E. 157; G. V. 140), but held that, wherever there is room, God might have placed matter without harm to anything else. Since, generally, the more existence the better, God would not have neglected the opportunity for creation, and therefore there is matter everywhere (D. 240, 253; G. VII. 356, 378). This principle of metaphysical perfection will be discussed later; for the present I confine myself to less theological arguments. A very weak argument, which Leibniz sometimes permits himself, is, that there could be no sufficient reason for determining the proportion of vacuum to filled space, and therefore there can be no vacuum at all (D. 253; G. II. 475; VII. 378). The only argument which attempts to be precise is one which is fatally unsound. If space be an attribute, Leibniz says, of what can empty space be an attribute (D. 248; G. VII. 372) ? But space, for him, is a relation, not an attribute; his whole argument against the view that space is composed of points depends, as we shall see in Chapter IX., upon the fundamental relation of distance. He has, in fact, no valid arguments whatever against a vacuum. He seems to regard a belief in it as necessarily associated with a belief in extended atoms—" atoms and the void " are always spoken of together. In fact, when action at a distance is rejected, the two are necessarily connected; since unextended atoms must act at a distance, if there is to be any dynamical action at all5.

“(3) This brings me to Leibniz's grounds against action at a distance. I cannot discover, on this point, anything beyond vulgar prejudice. Both on this and on the previous point, his immediate followers, under the influence of Newton, abandoned the views of their master, which seem to have been mainly due to a lingering Cartesian prejudice. The spatial and temporal contiguity of cause and effect are apparently placed on a level. " A man will have an equal right to say that anything is the result of anything, if that which is absent in space or time can, without intermediary, operate here and now" (D. 115; G. IV. 507). With regard to time, though a difficulty arises from continuity, the maxim may be allowed; but with regard to space, it is precluded, as a metaphysical axiom, by the denial of transeunt action. For since nothing really acts on anything else, there seems no possible metaphysical reason why, in monads which mirror the whole universe, the perception of what is distant should not be a cause, just as much as the perception of what is near. There seems, therefore, in Leibniz's system, no metaphysical ground for the maxim; and in his time (which was that of Newton), there was certainly no dynamical ground. The denial of action at a distance must, therefore, be classed as a mere prejudice, and one, moreover, which had a most pernicious effect upon the relation of Leibniz's Dynamics to his Metaphysics.”

Russell’s References

From A critical exposition of the philosophy of Leibniz, Bertrand Russell, George Allen and Unwin, London, original 1900, third impression (second edition) 1949, p 90- 92

1 That Kant's theory of space in the Metaphysische Anfangsgrunde der Naturwissenschaft is different from that of the Kritik, has been often observed. See Vaihinger's Commentar, p. 224 ff.

2 Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis. See esp. Part I, § 138 ff.

3 Venetian edition of 1763, p. xxv. Boscovich differs from Newtonian Dynamics chiefly in assuming that, at very small distances, the force between two particles is repulsive. He differs from the Newtonian philosophy by regarding action at a distance as ultimate.

4 It has even been suggested— and the suggestion appears very probably correct— that Leibniz never took the trouble to read the Principia. See Guhrauer, op. cit. Vol. I. p. 297.

5 On one minor point, however, namely the possibility of motion in a plenum, Leibniz is unquestionably in the right. Locke had maintained that there must be empty space, or else there would be no room for motion. Leibniz rightly replies (N. E. pp. 53—4; L. 385; G. V. 52), that if matter be fluid, this difficulty is obviated. It should indeed be obvious, even to the non-mathematical, that motion in a closed circuit is possible for a fluid. It is a pity philosophers have allowed themselves to repeat this argument, which a week's study of Hydrodynamics would suffice to dispel. The complete answer to it is contained in what is called the equation of continuity.

G. M. = Leibnizens mathematische Schriften, herausgegeben von C. J Gerhardt. Halle, 1850- 63.

Further Information

As more information on UFT becomes available, this website will be updated.

Some of the Information I have been gathering I have added to Wikipedia (Internet Reference Library).

But for latest information join: e-group expanding on the history of UFT

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/unitaryscience

unitaryscience@yahoogroups.com

Einstein Conspiracy at:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/einstein-conspiracy.htm

Part of Conspiracy website:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~hubbca/index.htm

Boscovich unified field theory conspiracy:

http://www.nso.lt/history/boscovic.htm

 

Einstein's Errors - (Bernard H Lavenda)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3qC-ehDTzU 

video lecture says: More often than not Einstein contradicted his principles and those of Poincaré. Calculating the deflection of light in 1911, the speed of light was allowed to vary in a static gravitational field which was 'derved' from an incongruous Doppler effect. The increase in the circumference of a uniformly accelerating disc was obtained from incorrect reasoning about the contraction of rulers placed tangentially on the periphery. His 'gedanken' experiments resulted in paradoxes like the twin paradox, which implicitly implied acceleration, and, consequently, was beyond the limits of his special theory. The aether he abolished from his special theory made a come-back in his general theory.  

The videos  deals with some of Einstein's errors, there is really lots more, but gives a geist of the errors. His solutions I don't always agree with and although deals with Poincare's theory misses out what is an important feature of conventionalism, so far from being perfect. On the issue of acceleration in context of special relativity, special relativity can be modified to deal with acceleration, just in its usual form it does not deal with acceleration. Lavenda needs correction on issues such as that.  

Nassim Haramein gives unified field theory of point particle theory 

http://www.awiserworld.com/?tag=unified-field-theory 

But does not seem aware that Boscovich gave a unified field theory of point-particles, then starts to get on to far-out subjects like secared geometry and crop circles. His explanation is quite good on the theory. Many people often refuse to accept that point-particles are physical and deem them unphysical, but Nassim explains how from being unphysical they can become physical.  

Myron Evans gives unified field theory at: 

http://aias.us/index.php?goto=showPageByTitle&pageTitle=Fundamental_Errors_In_The_Einstein_Field_Equation

Myron Evans unfortunately is being attacked at the moment by critics.  

at: http://aias.us/index.php?goto=showPageByTitle&pageTitle=AIAS_staff 

he has a list of fellows supposedly interested in his theory. Stephen Crothers is listed there but has revealed to me that he has never even read Evan's theory, so it makes one wonder about the other fellows. 

At: http://aias.us/index.php?goto=showPageByTitle&pageTitle=Fundamental_Errors_In_The_Einstein_Field_Equation

Evans says: “In this book [on his unified field theory] , several chapters have shown rigorously that the Einstein field equation is incorrect due to its arbitrary neglect of a fundamental property of spacetime called torsion.” 

Now Einstein's method was to update SR to GR so what SR ignores - or in other words not able to deal with properly - is then to be dealt with GR. So GR is a better theory than SR. 

Then by Einstein's method he was to update GR to unified field theory (UFT), so what GR was deficient in was to be explained by UFT. 

Of course Einstein is said to have never got his UFT. 

So Myron Evans claims the problem with GR is that it ignores torsion. 

Simply add torsion and its a correction to the problems with GR, by Myron Evans' UFT. 

The method is mathematical modelling start with a simple mathematical model and then update it. 

So SR gets updated to GR and Myron Evans wants GR updated to his UFT. 

Of course Myron Evans is not perfect, but that is roughly the procedure.  

Dr. Robert A. Herrmann also deals with unified field theory  

at: http://www.raherrmann.com/books.htm 

I have not yet studied, and unfortunately Herrmann seems to be a creationist and mainstream aethists would debunk him for that. From my position – if look upon universe as obeying some self-organising process then its is subjective as to whether that is God. However, creationists often go further and believe things like the earth is only 6000 years old that seem nonsense. 

Gottfried  Gutsche has some good video lectures – what little I have seen, because to fully see them needs paymnet at:http://www.mindbites.com/series/1278-newtons-unfinished-theorem-the-inertial-drive 

Apparently rocket scientist Oberth pointed out an effect to Einstein that rockets could be accelerated to faster than light and Einstein went silent on answering. Well I am mainly looking at the problems that Einstein had with things and I think he probably didn't understand Oberth effect and hence why he went silent. Looking at Einstein's maths mistakes and stuff, Newtonian physics can be recovered as still working, then the Oberth effect in that context of Newtonian physics means faster than light is possible.

Einstein's papers on unified field theory:

http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/ae70.htm 

Unified theory revealed: Einstein-Cartan-Evans

http://www.atomicprecision.com/ 

On the History of Unified Field Theories, Hubert F. M. Goenner – misses out anything earlier than 20 th Century 

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2004-2/download/lrr-2004-2Color.pdf 

Secrets of the Unified Field: The Philadelphia Experiment, The Nazi Bell, and the Discarded Theory, Joseph P. Farrell 

http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Unified-Field-Philadelphia-Experiment/dp/1931882843 

 

Gabriel Kron  

http://www.quantum-chemistry-history.com/Kron_Dat/KronGabriel1.htm#publicat 

Einstein’s Antigravity by Tim Ventura,  

http://www.signallake.com/innovation/Einstein-Antigravity.pdf 

My Contact: R.J.Anderton@btinternet.com

c.RJAnderton2008

c.RJAnderton2012