Einstein Conspiracy Update
August 2025
(1)
Invisible Aliens
Now – photographing
Invisible aliens. By that mean – modern physics has misunderstood light.
(Modern physics for light based on Einstein – thus Einstein wrong etc.) As
well as ordinary visible light which is part of the electromagnetic spectrum
with its ultraviolet light, infra light etc – there is a dual light which is
part of another spectrum which is invisible to us. Aliens seem to be able to
switch between ordinary visible light and dual light hence can become
invisible to us.
(2)
AI says Einstein wrong
But first – AI
(artificial intelligence) says that Einstein’s relativity is wrong.
At least – it tells me
that Einstein’s relativity is wrong. The problem is that AI seems to want to
reflect back to the human interacting with it – a viewpoint that is
complementary to their viewpoint. So, if anyone else asks AI (instead of me)
– it might give a different answer.
My experience with AI is
– when initially interacting with AI it said that Einstein’s relativity is
right. But when I started pointing out the problems with relativity it then
flipped to saying Einstein’s relativity is wrong.
I presented my findings
on this at a day session on AI at Oxford University; and created controversy
because those working on AI naturally don’t want AI pointing out Einstein’s
relativity is wrong. But I know Einstein’s relativity is wrong and when
point the facts out to AI it reaches the same conclusion.
My talk at:
https://youtu.be/yBuE6WSfqsw
(3)
Telescope to see invisible aliens
Now for Invisible aliens
– need a special telescope (or some such method) to photograph the invisible
entities. This is based on the work of Professor Santilli, who has presented
me with his telescope so that I can investigate this.
Santilli with his
telescope:
In my view- this is as
revolutionary to physics as when Galileo used his telescope.
Professor Santilli also
says Einstein’s relativity is wrong; or more accurately it might be said –
that it needs to be revised.
A proviso has to be added
that the Mainstream has misunderstood Antimatter, and antimatter comes in at
least two varieties (1) positive mass antimatter and (2) negative mass
antimatter. Unfortunately, the Santilli paper does not make that clear.
I have now photographed
aliens which are otherwise invisible to ordinary light. However, my
investigations are still ongoing; there are problems with the different
types of digital and analogue cameras that need to be looked at– some of the
cameras have seemingly been designed to filter out the effect of these
invisible entities(?)
As always, my Youtube
channel presents the latest discoveries and adventures I have on Einstein
being wrong, aliens etc.
https://studio.youtube.com/channel/UCoKWAdpY3_Xpam4FhJdA1Qw/videos/upload?filter=%5B%5D&sort=%7B%22columnType%22%3A%22date%22%2C%22sortOrder%22%3A%22DESCENDING%22%7D
History of the Unified/Unitary Theory
Boscovich to Einstein to Whyte to Baranski
There were big plans for 2020, but now seem to have collapsed
because of Coronavirus pandemic; demonstrating how easily the world can plunge
into chaos.
My objective was to correct the mistakes that were made in
physics in the early 20th Century.
When trying to spread this message out to a wider audience one finds that
there are people with a message that physics is all wrong and they go back
further (than just Einstein) to saying Newton wrong, Galileo wrong etc. Many
of these people seem to be motivated by a religious agenda and want to believe
in the literal translation of the Bible, and so end up believing in various
creationist type beliefs that the earth is the centre of the universe, that
the earth is flat etc. Talking to such people is a waste of time; they flood
the internet with their beliefs and one can see why anything said against
physics/science then gets ignored by the mainstream. The creationists act like
a big smokescreen.
Anyway, back to Einstein – I find that he was mistranslated
from German into English, and he should have realised this, but since he
didn’t seem to - it means he could not have been the main contributor to his
papers in 1905 i.e. must have been his wife.
So, mainstream physics goes wrong from the very beginning of
its revolution in the early 20th Century!
Note on internet links below: articles and videos for whatever
reason when deemed offensive (or whatever) get removed. In today’s society –
people find it now too easy to take offense and internet platforms/providers
now deem it as excuse for removal/censorship. It is due to what is called the
snowflake generation. (Collins dictionary defines
the term as "the young adults of the 2010s, viewed as being less resilient and
more prone to taking offence than previous generations".) i.e. censorship
comes in because there is a generation of people who ask for it. It
used to be that such agitators had to go to the library to burn books, now
they do it electronically, that just leaves them the statues (and stuff) that
they have to physically destroy.
Dealing with the conspiracies around Einstein and the cover-up
of the Unified Field theory (UFT).
Einstein – illuminati connections
Einstein
being wrong has been Top Secret
Lectures
for Boscovich on the Web
Others dealing with unified field theory: Nassim Haramein,
Myron Evans et al. Oberth Effect: faster than light speed achievable by
rocket etc.
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
is almost like taking the view that Hitler was right; so, it
is 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 do not 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 did
not want us to know then they would be banned. Results they do
not 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.
It’s 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 do not 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 naďve 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.
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” –
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 do
not 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 do
not go by the original Einstein, and do not 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:
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
The Catholic Church - Builder of Civilization, Episode 4: The
Galileo Case, by Thomas E Wood
22.23- 22.40 Boscovich mentioned
video clip of James Burke: The day the universe
changed saying prohibition on Copernicus lifted mainly due to Boscovich – now
unfortunately removed from internet
video clip Galileo and Boscovich by J.L. Heilbron
-comparisons in their careers- also removed from internet
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
The Devil's Advocate of Einstein: History of Relativity 2010-12-11 - also
removed from internet
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.
Einstein's Unified Field Theory 2009-09-12 –
also removed from internet
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.
-Link also removed from internet,
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'^2 t'^2 =
(c^2 – v^2)t^2 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.
Link-also removed from internet
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 known how dangerous that could be, same situation exists
today with higher and higher energies – they do not 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.”
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.
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.
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 is 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
is 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 too 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 did not 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 worse than that they do not 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]
n 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]
n Explains
that Boscovich’s theory is the next step from Newton’s theory.
Added Jan. 2, 2007: Einstein, Ether and Unified Field [PDF]
n Explains
that Einstein’s Unified Field Theory is a type of Ether theory.
And
"An Analysis of Special Relativity from a Boscovichian
Perspective"
n 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:
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 us 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.”
link – also removed from internet
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 does not 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 has 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 folks 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
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 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.
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:
link – also removed from internet
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 overly 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:
Link- also removed from internet
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.
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 commonplace;
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 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.
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).
E- group dealing with history of UFT now expired.
Einstein's Errors - (Bernard H Lavenda)
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 'derived' 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 deal with some of Einstein's errors, there is really
lots more, but gives a geist of the errors. His solutions I do
not 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
Link – no longer on internet
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 sacred 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:
Myron Evans unfortunately is being attacked at the moment by
critics.
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.
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 it is 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
I have not yet studied, and unfortunately Herrmann seems to be
a creationist and mainstream atheists would debunk him for that. From my
position – if look upon universe as obeying some self-organising process then it 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 payment at:
Link – no longer on internet
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 did not 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:
Unified theory revealed: Einstein-Cartan-Evans
On the History of Unified Field Theories, Hubert
F. M. Goenner – misses out anything earlier than 20th Century
Link – no longer on internet
Secrets of the Unified Field: The Philadelphia Experiment, The
Nazi Bell, and the Discarded Theory, Joseph P. Farrell
Einstein’s Antigravity by Tim Ventura,
Link – no longer on internet