Einstein Conspiracy

Dealing with the conspiracies around Einstein and the cover-up of the Unified Field theory (UFT).
Einstein plagiarism
Top Secrets of Einstein
Einstein – illuminati connections
Boscovich lectures
Sections
News 2012
Einstein being wrong has been Top Secret
Lectures for Boscovich on the Web
News Aug 2008
THE HISTORY OF UFT
INFORMATION ON THE WEB
LATEST RESEARCH ON WHY THE SUPPRESSION BERTRAND RUSSELL ON
BOSCOVICH’S THEORY
FURTHER INFORMATION
Others dealing with unified field theory: Nassim Haramein, Myron Evans et al. Oberth Effect:
faster than light speed achievable by rocket etc.
News at 2012:
Einstein being wrong has been Top Secret

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And the raw data becomes classified top secret.

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

So that's how they are able to maintain Einstein as the hero genius.
Its as simple as that, and they don't just stop with Einstein, they do it with the rest of the sciences –
because as I said – science is a political football.

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

This all sounds unbelievable to a politically naive 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-syndic components. He attempted to publish the results
in Physical Review Letters, but he encountered considerable resistance. His analysis indicated a
heretical "c + v" Galilean fit to the data, so as a result, he had no alternative but to publish elsewhere.
To say that Wallace was less than tactful would be something of an understatement. He made heated
claims that NASA had noticed the very same results and was using non-relativistic correction factors
to calculate signal transit times. He also claimed that, despite his repeated requests, MIT Lincoln Lab
refused to share the raw data from the Venus radar studies with him—that they were part of a
government conspiracy to keep the Soviets in the dark about the true nature of the speed of light!”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Link between special relativity and Newtonian physics is as follows

Usual words by mainstream go something like this - that Michelson-Morley experiment provides
evidence for special relativity and light-speed constancy (in vacuum).
That is incorrect statement.
Correct wording is: Michelson-Morley experiment provides evidence that the maths based on
assuming light-speed constancy (in vacuum) works. But maths based on variable light-speed also
works.
Therefore no reason has been provided as to why do things the special relativity way instead of the
Newtonian physics way.
From my investigations – Newtonian physics properly means Boscovich's theory and from that
Quantum theory was derived. Thus undo the mistakes of Einstein and we have the unified theory as
Boscovich's.

Lectures for Boscovich on the Web

Boscovich lecture at Royal Society

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2vcb6x_50M

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

Boscovich lecture at Royal Society 2012 by Ivica Martinovic.

Finishes Boscovich bio and starts on Boscovich's contributions to the natural sciences.

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

Boscovich lecture at Royal Society part 3 2012 by Martinovic.

Boscovich's theory and Boscovich's curve of force.
New insight into structure of matter.
Boscovich model of (chemical element) atom.
Boscovich on Relativity.
Boscovich changes Newton's 2nd law.

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

part 4

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

Boscovich lecture at Royal Society 2012 part 5

Boscovich introduces quantization into physics - first mention of quantization ever.
Quantum physics beginnings in the 18th Century
Boscovich's meteorology papers - Northern lights caused by substances from the Sun
Boscovich's contributions to technical sciences

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

Boscovich lecture at Royal Society 2012 part 6

Structural engineering
Humanities

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

part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dsWl0Q6JmMU&feature=related

part 8

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

Boscovich exhibit at Royal Society 2012 part 1

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

part 2

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

part3

Other videos:

The Catholic Church - Builder of Civilization, Episode 3: Priests as Scientific Pioneers, by Thomas E
Wood
15.59 –16.34 mentions Boscovich as Father of Atomic theory
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsOo-W49kJo

The Catholic Church - Builder of Civilization, Episode 4: The Galileo Case, by Thomas E Wood
22.23- 22.40 Boscovich mentioned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlE7xvc4LoY

James Burke: The day the universe changed

2.14- 4.00 says prohibition on Copernicus lifted mainly due to Boscovich

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPaZzixRGVM
Galileo and Boscovich by J.L. Heilbron
-comparisons in their careers.

http://vimeo.com/32286048

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

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

Ivica Martinovic lecture on Boscovich audio:

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

Further information on Boscovich:

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

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

Strong case that Einstein committed plagiarism for the theory of relativity 1905, but he could not do
it unaided and had massive support:
Poincaré, Einstein and the Relativity: the Surprising Secret
C. Marchal
http://web.ihep.su/library/pubs/tconf05/ps/c5-1.pdf
My video lectures:
The Devil's Advocate of Einstein: History of Relativity 2010-12-11

Description: There was strong resistance against Einstein's physics in May 1919, the date of the
famous solar eclipse, with no proper agreement among the physics community. Then despite the
Nobel committee's refusal to award Einstein based on Relativity, his 1921 Nobel Prize all but
stamped approval for the type of theorizing Einstein had advocated in his early years. Ironically
Einstein himself later rebelled against this line of reasoning, but to no avail.
In 1919 only a few experts specialized in Relativity. A proper debate over the merits and demerits of
Einstein?s physics was planned, but blocked. On the side supporting Einstein was of course ?
Eddington. But on the other side, opposing Einstein, was another expert in Relativity, who was
nicknamed the Devil?s Advocate. He provided a strong case for retaining Newtonian physics, and
argued against the need for a so called Einstein Revolution. That side of the 1919 controversy needs
to be heard today.
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=364
Einstein's Unified Field Theory 2009-09-12

Description: There has been so much distraction with claims that Einstein is wrong and such like;
that we have been diverted from paying attention to Einstein's Unified Field Theory which he was
working on; and there has not been much attention drawn to this. The ideas for Einstein's relativity
theories comes from an 18th Century priest called Father Boscovich. Attention to Boscovich's theory
has been diverted by the massive publicity directed at Einstein.
In the 18th Century Boscovich's theory was accepted as the natural extension to Newton's theory and
was considered the first unified theory of physics since the Copernican revolution. Pre-Copernicus
the unified theory of physics was Aristotle's theory, and the Copernican Revolution's replacement to
Aristotelian unified physics was Boscovich's theory. Boscovich's theory is the Unified Field Theory
and was considered proven up to World War II then after WWII it dropped out being mentioned.
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=225
Relationship between Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics
The mathematical connection between Newtonian and Einsteinian physics will be explained.
Essentially it can be viewed as the same bit of maths but subjected to a different language. Special
relativity being an interpretation of the equation c'2t'2 = (c2 v2)t2 by setting c' = c with t not equal
to t'. While Newtonian physics is interpretation of the same equation as instead: t' = t with c not equal
to c'. Newtonian gravitational theory has primary and secondary gravitational effects. When both
these effects are considered then Newtonian physics gives same maths as General relativity. It is only
that the maths is interpreted by different languages. In the case of Newtonian physics it is interpreted
in terms of forces while Einsteinian physics talks of it in terms of space-time curvature. On the
experimental side it will be pointed out from a paper by a NASA scientist that Einstein's relativity has
never been subjected to a direct experimental test; the tests have only ever been indirect. (Of course
certain Einsteiniums 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 Einsteinian
obscuring the understanding; while in Newtonian language it is much clearer as to what is happening.
Special relativity considers a symmetrical scenario of two observers at relative constant velocity
motion, while general relativity breaks that symmetry. Newtonian physics has none of those
conceptual problems from its outset. Thus the problems of modern physics can be placed down to the
difficulty people have experienced upon learning a new language to describe physical reality.
http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Events&tab1=Display&id=524

Otto E Rossler fears that high energy particle collision research that physicists are now engaged in are
dangerous. That might be too alarmist. However when the Atom Bomb research was carried out it
was not really know how dangerous that could be, same situation exists today with higher and higher
energies – they don't really know until they do the experiment.
Anyway, Otto Rossler also reports: “Einstein realized in the last decade of his life that only a world
government can overcome war and hatred on the planet. And he believed he had acquired the right to
demand this acutely – in view of the nuclear winter being a real threat in the wake of his own
contributions to physics.”
http://lifeboat.com/blog/2012/04/einsteins-miracle
The new world order of one world government is of course the Illuminati agenda, so a clear
indication of who Einstein was involved with.
Applications of the Unified Field Theory can be found on the web such as to the Philadelphia
Experiment, UFO technology and Nazi Bell experiment etc.
News Aug 2008
My History of UFT (unified field theory) has been Boscovich to Einstein to Whyte to Baranski to
Watson.

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

Boscovich to Einstein to Whyte to Baranski.

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

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

http://www.hiddenmysteries.org/mysteries/life/quantum.html
James’ decision to not do the presentation of his work at the last moment was a very big
disappointment.
It leads me to be now suspicious of James' claims, but the theory still is true as being Boscovich - LL
Whyte and Baranski; it’s just James that is now in doubt. He appears to not want anyone recheck his
work, and by the scientific method replication of experimental claims is very important to confirm
those claims are correct and not made by faulty experiments. i.e. he has chosen to be unscientific.

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

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

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

So, that on the subatomic level which is thought of as obeying quantum rules, there is a level where
classical rules come back to play once again- classical physics as per Einstein.
Einstein was opposed to the Copenhagen Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics (highlighted in the
famous clash of titans - Einstein versus Bohr debate and Einstein saying God does not play dice with
the universe).
It is fairly obvious that Classical Newtonian -type physics still applies to the universe, despite the
complicated way of Quantum mechanics has in talking about things. This is because in our daily lives
we observe the universe obeying classical physics.
The claim by Quantum mechanics is that on the subatomic level, the physics is no longer obeying
those simple classical physics rules of our daily lives. However given that Quantum mechanics
applies on subatomic level, [*] as we go back to our level of size scale what Quantum mechanics says
on the small scale, the physics must change to match what we observe on our scale.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Film “The Da Vinci Code” deals with the idea that Jesus had descendants and that has been
suppressed by Christian religion for thousands of years. Put that issue to one side. The film does deal
with the science tradition that has been suppressed. There is a scene where a murdered man is found
with a pentagram inscribed on his chest. The detective investigating the case says that it is a sign of
the Devil. The hero of the film says it is a pagan symbol representing the unity of female and male.
The Christian movement demonized 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 demonized 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 Hermetic-ism, and so he risked
going to far and being a heretic from even a Protestant Christian country’s point-of-view. (And
Ancient Egyptian wisdom Hermetic-ism is related to Pythagorean-ism, 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 Newtonian-ism 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
Newtonian-ism based on Leibniz.
The main issue where this split occurred between the two versions of Newtonian-ism was over how
gravity operated. Newton did not want to give an explanation, and left it as action-at-a-distance
without saying how it worked. While on the continent this developed into the idea of a “field”
through Boscovich – who called it a “sphere of influence”.

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

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

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

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

As noted - the Church didn’t like Pythagorean-ism'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 Exclusion-ism, and adopted it as one of their favorite
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 exclusionist than
the correct way of Pythagorean-ism. 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. Pythagorean-ism – 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 criticized 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 criticizes Bearden, but to a scientist who has not gone
far enough along the education process what Bearden says is new.

So, now let me summarize—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 exclusionist flourish. While the correct approach
should be building upon one established fact in science to the next, what we have instead is a
confusion of conflicting comments from confused scientists who have had an education that has
made them confused.

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

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

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

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

Einstein has to be understood from a context of Boscovich.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is contrary to what is believed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theory [PDF]

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

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

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

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

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

And

"An Analysis of Special Relativity from a Boscovichian Perspective"

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

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

The debunker's 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 exclusionist ), 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 organizing 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 debunker's just want to go into denial.

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

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

Thomas Bearden says about Mendel Sachs’ work:

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

http://www.cheniere.org/correspondence/072900.htm
Boscovich’s theory is an extension to Newton’s theory, so those working on that are essentially also
working on this theoretical tradition; often though they get confused over the relativity issue.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Answers either yes or no, therefore condemns the husband.

It is an example of an inappropriate question.

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

A similar situation occurs a lot in science.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Roger Anderton Aug 2008

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

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

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 crystallization. (The Unitary Principle
has gone by a lot of different names by other Researchers such as being called Life Force. Often it is
interpreted in the Religious point-of-view as the work of a Higher Intelligence – i.e. God, while in the
Ancient Astronaut hypothesis this Intelligence might sometimes be interpreted as an extremely
advanced alien.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE MAIN THREAD OF UFT IS:

Boscovich ->Faraday ->Maxwell->Einstein->LL Whyte -> Baranski

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Boskovic (aka Boscovich) made real atom physics possible and therefore he is rightly regarded as its
actual forerunner or founder."
One of the scientists working on UFT was Whyte, this is mentioned at site dealing with Whyte’s
diaries; which unfortunately has now removed that information (philosphere.com site); it did say :

“Lancelot Law Whyte was not appreciated in Great Britain but was celebrated in the US. He fought
in the First World War, and was a brilliant mathematical physicist employed in industry, investment
banker and scientific consultant on financing new inventions, chairman and managing director of
Power Jets, Ltd. which developed the Whittle jet engine, as well as serving as Director of Statistical
Inquiries in the Ministry of Supplies. But his main interest was as a philosopher of science and as a
postulate 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 honor 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 ostracizing
them whenever possible.

All of the scientific issues raised by this theoretical development touch upon issues such as the
paranormal and ETs that academia wishes to be in a state of denial about.
I have now been in contact with various people that have been working on these theoretical ideas
either directly or indirectly; and was amazed to be informed that Scientific Academia had made a
deal a long time ago with the Religious Priesthood that “they” have an agreed censorship between
them. This agreed censorship seems to be another reason why UFT is not allowed to be talked about
too much; because it would impinge upon religious beliefs.
Information on the Web
Dr Douglass White has become interested in the Unified Field Theory; he sees the connection with
his work, and has placed a lot of information on his web site:

http://dpedtech.com
On this web site there is now -

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

A rough copy of Baranski’s book on UFT.

Books by Lancelot Law Whyte dealing with UFT.

Plus a great deal more.

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

www.parapsych.org/members/h_puthoff.html

When I contacted Jack Sarfatti he told me he was quite capable of working out UFT for himself, and
wondered if Boscovich was a time traveler. 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 revolutionized 20th
Century physics. What Bjerknes seems to fail to realize is that Einstein did not have the same
restrictions in his era that modern science papers make, so he was allowed not to provide references.
He was in a different era and allowed different freedoms. However the historical record of where the
ideas that Einstein was working on came from Einstein’s co-worker on UFT, namely Lancelot Law
Whyte, and that is mainly Boscovich, whom Bjerknes has suspected of as being very important.

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

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

My Comments

The points that Bertrand Russell raises are:

1. Leibniz had troubles completing his theory of dynamics.

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

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

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

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

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

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

3. The doctrine of unextended centres of force, with action at a distance, for which Newton supplied
the required Mathematics.
Russell says that Boscovich’s theory is type 3.

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

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

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

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

For a more detailed analysis of what Bertrand Russell says see further down.
Latest Research on why the Supression
The simple answer to the question of “Why the Suppression of this Unified Field Theory and its
Historical development” seems to be that MOST people are just not mentally able to handle the
theory and the issues that it raises, and are then acting in denial.

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

Thus the Conspiracy is --- a Conspiracy of Silence by the Mainstream to deal with this THEORY.
And the Cover-Up is merely people saying the Conspiracy does not exist.
It is as simple as that SILENCE, and DENIAL.
The Human species has been engaged in numerous wars because of political, religious and other
beliefs.

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

The rough outline of this Conflict is thus as follows:

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

It is my contention that the proper approach to physics is from the philosophy of Pythagorean-ism.
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
Pythagorean-ism 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 organized 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 canceled had given us the Science of Boscovich.

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

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

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

Shortly after 1919 there was another revolution in physics of the Quantum Revolution.
This was really a reinterpretation of physics from another philosophic point-of-view from the
classical point-of-view, and was called the Copenhagen Interpretation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hence Popper muddies the philosophic issues around physics.

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

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

Bertrand Russell on Boscovich's Theory

Bertrand Russell says:

“There are, speaking broadly, three great types of dynamical theory. There is the doctrine of hard
extended atoms, for which the theory of impact is the appropriate weapon. There is the doctrine of
the plenum, of an all-pervading fluid, for which the modern doctrine of the ether— the theory of
Electricity, in fact— has at last partially forged the necessary weapons. And finally, there is the
doctrine of unextended centres of force, with action at a distance, for which Newton supplied the
required Mathematics. Leibniz failed to grasp these alternatives, and thus, from his love of a middle
position, fell between, not two, but three stools. His view of impact as the fundamental phenomenon
of Dynamics should have led him to the theory of extended atoms, supported by Gassendi, and, in his
own day, by Huygens. His belief in the plenum and the fluid ether should have led him to the second
theory, and to the investigation of fluid motion. His relational theory of space, and his whole doctrine
of monads, should have led him, as it led Boscovich, Kant1 and Lotze, to the theory of unextended
centres of force. The failure to choose between these alternatives made his Dynamics a mass of
confusions.
The true Leibnizian Dynamics is not his own, but that of Boscovich2. This theory is a simple
development of the Newtonian Dynamics, in which all matter consists of material points, and all
action is action at a distance. These material points are unextended like the monads, to which
Boscovich appeals as analogous 3; 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 quarreled with Newton
concerning the Calculus, and he did not choose to admit that Newton had anything to teach him 4. 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 all 5.

“(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
transient action. For since nothing really acts on anything else, there seems no possible metaphysical
reason why, in monads which mirror the whole universe, the perception of what is distant should not
be a cause, just as much as the perception of what is near. There seems, therefore, in Leibniz's
system, no metaphysical ground for the maxim; and in his time (which was that of Newton), there
was certainly no dynamical ground. The denial of action at a distance must, therefore, be classed as a
mere prejudice, and one, moreover, which had a most pernicious effect upon the relation of Leibniz's
Dynamics to his Metaphysics.”

Russell’s References

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

unitaryscience@yahoogroups.com
Einstein Conspiracy at:

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

Part of Conspiracy website:

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

Boscovich unified field theory conspiracy:

http://www.nso.lt/history/boscovic.htm
Einstein's Errors - (Bernard H Lavenda)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3qC-ehDTzU
video lecture says: More often than not Einstein contradicted his principles and those of
Poincaré. Calculating the deflection of light in 1911, the speed of light was allowed to vary in a
static gravitational field which was 'derved' from an incongruous Doppler effect. The increase
in the circumference of a uniformly accelerating disc was obtained from incorrect reasoning
about the contraction of rulers placed tangentially on the periphery. His 'gedanken'
experiments resulted in paradoxes like the twin paradox, which implicitly implied acceleration,
and, consequently, was beyond the limits of his special theory. The aether he abolished from his
special theory made a come-back in his general theory.
The videos deals with some of Einstein's errors, there is really lots more, but gives a geist of the
errors. His solutions I don't always agree with and although deals with Poincare's theory misses
out what is an important feature of conventionalism, so far from being perfect. On the issue of
acceleration in context of special relativity, special relativity can be modified to deal with
acceleration, just in its usual form it does not deal with acceleration. Lavenda needs correction
on issues such as that.
Nassim Haramein gives unified field theory of point particle theory
http://www.awiserworld.com/?tag=unified-field-theory
But does not seem aware that Boscovich gave a unified field theory of point-particles, then
starts to get on to far-out subjects like secared geometry and crop circles. His explanation is
quite good on the theory. Many people often refuse to accept that point-particles are physical
and deem them unphysical, but Nassim explains how from being unphysical they can become
physical.
Myron Evans gives unified field theory at:
http://aias.us/index.php?goto=showPageByTitle&pageTitle=Fundamental_Errors_In_The_Einstein_
Field_Equation
Myron Evans unfortunately is being attacked at the moment by critics.
at: http://aias.us/index.php?goto=showPageByTitle&pageTitle=AIAS_staff
he has a list of fellows supposedly interested in his theory. Stephen Crothers is listed there but
has revealed to me that he has never even read Evan's theory, so it makes one wonder about the
other fellows.
At: http://aias.us/index.php?goto=showPageByTitle&pageTitle=Fundamental_Errors_In_The_Einste
in_Field_Equation
Evans says: “In this book [on his unified field theory] , several chapters have shown rigorously
that the Einstein field equation is incorrect due to its arbitrary neglect of a fundamental property
of spacetime called torsion.”
Now Einstein's method was to update SR to GR so what SR ignores - or in other words not able
to deal with properly - is then to be dealt with GR. So GR is a better theory than SR.
Then by Einstein's method he was to update GR to unified field theory (UFT), so what GR was
deficient in was to be explained by UFT.
Of course Einstein is said to have never got his UFT.
So Myron Evans claims the problem with GR is that it ignores torsion.
Simply add torsion and its a correction to the problems with GR, by Myron Evans' UFT.
The method is mathematical modeling 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. Hermann also deals with unified field theory
at: http://www.raherrmann.com/books.htm
I have not yet studied, and unfortunately Hermann seems to be a creationist and mainstream
atheists would debunk him for that. From my position – if look upon universe as obeying some
self-organizing process then its is subjective as to whether that is God. However, creationists
often go further and believe things like the earth is only 6000 years old that seem nonsense.
Gottfried Gutsche has some good video lectures – what little I have seen, because to fully see
them needs payment at:http://www.mindbites.com/series/1278-newtons-unfinished-theorem-the-
inertial-drive
Apparently rocket scientist Oberth pointed out an effect to Einstein that rockets could be
accelerated to faster than light and Einstein went silent on answering. Well I am mainly looking
at the problems that Einstein had with things and I think he probably didn't understand
Oberth effect and hence why he went silent. Looking at Einstein's maths mistakes and stuff,
Newtonian physics can be recovered as still working, then the Oberth effect in that context of
Newtonian physics means faster than light is possible.
Einstein's papers on unified field theory:
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/ae70.htm
Unified theory revealed: Einstein-Cartan-Evans
http://www.atomicprecision.com/
On the History of Unified Field Theories, Hubert F. M. Goenner – misses out anything earlier than 20
th Century
http://relativity.livingreviews.org/Articles/lrr-2004-2/download/lrr-2004-2Color.pdf

Secrets of the Unified Field: The Philadelphia Experiment, The Nazi Bell, and the Discarded Theory,
Joseph P. Farrell
http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Unified-Field-Philadelphia-Experiment/dp/1931882843

Gabriel Kron
http://www.quantum-chemistry-history.com/Kron_Dat/KronGabriel1.htm#publicat
Einstein’s Antigravity by Tim Ventura,
http://www.signallake.com/innovation/Einstein-Antigravity.pdf
My Contact: R.J.Anderton@btinternet.com
c.RJAnderton2008
c.RJAnderton2012

From NEXUS vol. 22, no. 3, April–May 2015

EINSTEIN WAS WRONG – FROM THE HIDDEN SIDE OF PHYSICS

by Roger J. Anderton and David de Hilster © 2015

In this year 2015 we now celebrate 100 years of general relativity, but the old issues still remain
about Einstein's relativity, despite whatever new hype its supporters might generate, where Einstein
has been propped up as a false signpost, sending the whole world down a nonsensical line of thinking
for all those years. In 1905, Dr Albert Einstein had his miracle year supposedly revolutionizing
modern physics, leading him to general relativity which made him world famous in 1919.
Below are two views on why Einstein was wrong. The first is by David de Hilster, director of the
documentary film Einstein Wrong – The Miracle Year; and the second is by Roger Anderton, who
recently appeared in the program Did Boscovich Discover A Unified Field Theory? on Richplanet
TV. Both contend that modern physics has gone drastically wrong and that there is now a "hidden
physics with a hidden history". – R. J. A.

Part 1: by David de Hilster

Back in 1992, I met a physicist, Dr Ricardo Carezani of Argentina, who claimed to have shown
Einstein's special theory of relativity to be wrong, corrected the problem, and wanted my help to get
this information out to the wider world.
In the ensuing years, I have found out more about the dysfunctional state of modern physics and
cosmology, where the physics establishment enforces a dogma based on politics and its own
emotional needs.

In 1996, I met up for the first time with a group of dissident scientists, led by Dr John Chappell, who
started meeting annually and were also trying to confront the problems in modern science. I decided
there were enough scientists for me to attempt to make a documentary about the subject—based on
my mother's meeting these scientists in the context of daily life, in the hope that audiences wouldn't
feel so intimidated by the subject of the film in such a style. This took over eight years to complete.

The film was very well received by the first general audience that I presented it to, thus I believed
that I had succeeded in making a film for the masses. However, I met with disappointment when I
presented my documentary to film festivals. The problem as I see it is that documentarians and film-
lovers consider themselves above the intelligence level of most of the general public and feel that if
Einstein were wrong, they would already have known about it through the media.

As dealt with by Roger below, the media block most of the information about Einstein's being wrong.
Thus, in their state of ignorance, they reject such a documentary and do not give it a fair hearing.

Based on my experiences, I conclude that in school there are nerds who are bullied, such as portrayed
on the Disney Channel where a nerd is always being picked on. These nerds who become socially
ostracized often decide to try to become smarter than everyone else and enter science; they then
engage in a bullying system there of "top" nerd kicking ass downwards. Thus, my documentary
Einstein Wrong – The Miracle Year became another victim of this system.

Part 2: by Roger J. Anderton

False Front of Physics and History

I 'Ive had a long interest in physics and mathematics, and, like David de Hilster, I've noticed the "lie"
with Einstein. After long, hard study of modern physics inspired by Einstein and obtaining a degree
from the Open University, I was shocked to find that I had been lied to about both the physics and the
history of the subject. I found there was a unified field theory in the 18th century, when modern
physics usually claims there wasn't such a theory. (See NEXUS 8/05.1)

Einstein's relativity is supposed to be highly mathematical, and I felt that I needed to learn more
maths before studying the subject, so I did the maths and went through the physics education system.
I then looked back on what I had been taught by studying the relativity writings of Einstein and was
horrified to find them to be nonsense. Worse, I found that there were clever people who had already
worked out long ago that Einstein was talking nonsense but were being ignored. (I found them
through the social group that David refers to.) Einstein in the popular imagination is a super-genius,
and it just does not go down well with the public to have their hero represented as anything else.

So, the physics establishment holds up this false front of Einstein the genius. To maintain this false
front, it even constructs a false history, ignoring actual history as much as it can. I now recognize
what a genius Tesla was, but he wasn't working from physics as it is now taught to students but was
working from an earlier physics uncorrupted by Einstein.

History of Relativity after Einstein

Einstein is usually portrayed as discovering special and general relativity and replacing Galileo's
relativity. Between Galileo and Einstein there were others involved in relativity, but the tendency is
to ignore this, except for a few like Lorentz and Poincaré.

Dr Robert Oppenheimer, the so-called "father of the atomic bomb"2, said this of Einstein: "His early
papers are paralyzingly beautiful but they are thoroughly corrupt with errors…"3 This suggests that
he had a low opinion of Einstein's intellectual powers.

Many others have had a low opinion of Einstein, but they've often found that this damaged their
reputations when they encountered people who hero-worshiped Einstein.

Oppenheimer became mysterious when he went on to say: "[T]his has delayed publication of his
collected works for almost ten years. A man whose errors can take that long to correct is quite a
man." What those errors are supposed to be is a mystery, and Einstein's collected works were not
published in the 10 years that Oppenheimer expected.4
The scientist who coined the terms "black hole" and "wormhole" was Dr John Wheeler 5, and he is
deemed to have resurrected Einstein's relativity 6 in what has been called "the Renaissance of
General Relativity"7, which appears to have been a rewrite of Einstein's relativity to sort out those
mistakes. Dr Hans Ohanian, in his book Einstein's Mistakes 8, points out some of those errors but he
does not go far enough. With this Wheeler School of Relativity, it is all very confusing and it is not
clear what has been changed and why.

According to Dr C. Y. Lo 9, the Wheeler School of Relativity has got many things wrong: "…the
dominant misinterpretations of the Wheeler School are due to inadequacy in mathematics and
physics. In particular, their distortions of Einstein’s equivalence principle maintain initial errors and
create their own errors. Moreover, the errors on dynamic solutions have far reaching consequences to
other areas of physics." Thus we have an additional mess made with relativity from the Wheeler
School, not just from Einstein.

Yet there has been a long history of dissent against Einstein's relativity, as recorded by The G. O.
Mueller Research Project.10

Every now and then, the establishment makes a mistake in trying to keep these things hidden. One
example of this seems to be Dr Rupert Sheldrake's banned TEDx lecture of January 2013.11 Dr
Sheldrake is a biologist with maverick ideas, but the establishment seems to tolerate him among them
and appears to have told him something in confidence that it didn't want widely known and then
reacted by trying to ban the lecture he gave when he revealed this. In his banned talk (really only
partially banned; the suppressors of truth were not able to ban it completely), he says many
interesting things.

One revelation is from what the head of metrology at the National Physical Laboratory in
Teddington, England, admitted: that they were unable to measure the speed of light as a constant, so
they fixed the speed of light as a constant by definition in 1972. Further, the meteorologist admitted
that if the speed of light is not a constant, they would now never know because the distance unit of
the meter has been defined in terms of the speed of light. The simplest context of light speed (in a
vacuum) is of course in the special relativity scenario, and it means that they were never able to
measure the speed of light as a constant in order to confirm special relativity. What the head of
metrology described as an "embarrassment" is the sort of thing omitted from physics texts taught to
students.

So, the theory that the speed of light (in a vacuum) is a constant was not checked by experiment and
was never proved to be true.

Further insights come from a report on a maverick physicist, Associate Professor Reg Cahill12: "He
is well aware that his activities will not make him popular with the Establishment of physics—
indeed, he believes that other experiments that have produced data that conflicts with Einstein's
theories have been deliberately ignored or, in some cases, suppressed. Einstein's 'invention' of space-
time merged the geometrical models of space and time, and was predicated on famous 19th century
experiments by Michelson and Morley that purported to show that the speed of light was constant in
any direction. When a very small effect was recorded as opposed to the large one anticipated, the two
physicists decided that the effect could be discounted as an artifact of the experiment. They declared
the result to be null, and the constant speed of light became part of the theoretical basis for Einstein's
theories of special relativity and general relativity."

Cahill explains that the physicists were wrong: "They threw the baby out with the bathwater… The
effect was real: the speed of light is different in different directions."

The theory where the speed of light is defined as a constant is a different theory to one where the
speed of light is discovered as a constant, independent of definition. The former theory fails to be a
proper theory because it is untestable. Suddenly, physics takes on the attributes of a faith-based
religion by the way that it deals with Einstein's mess.13
History of Relativity before Einstein

Of course, relativity was around before Einstein and we can go back to Galileo, who considered the
principle.14 A great deal happened in relativity in the time between Galileo and Einstein, and most of
it is missed out. In the 18th century, much physics was written in Latin; since then it has been mostly
ignored. For instance, the priest-scientist Father Boscovich was dealing with relativity.15 The
quantum theory part of his theory has been dealt with by Serbian chemist Dr Eng. Dragoslav
Stoiljkovich in his book Roger Boscovich: The Founder of Modern Science.16

Even according to the Wheeler School of Relativity, Boscovich's theory is a unified field theory.17
However, the school is ignoring it because it is an 18th-century unified field theory and it was
looking for something more modern, based on believing Einstein. However, as far as I'm concerned,
Einstein made many mistakes; undo those mistakes and we're back to Boscovich's theory.

Mathematics of General Relativity

There are too many problems with Einstein’s relativity, and much of the mathematics does not make
sense. Professor Roger Rydin has spent a long time checking Einstein's maths in general relativity,
and he says that after correcting for the errors it still comes out as nonsense; thus, anyone who thinks
it fits with any experiment is deluded.18 Stephen Crothers also gives very insightful talks on this.19

Conclusions

We have been really profoundly messed up by Einstein. There are many mistakes in Einstein's works.
It is no longer really clear what Einstein’s relativity is supposed to be any more, and we dissidents
have asked the Einstein believers to clarify this. See our communique, "An Open Letter to the
Physics Community: The Twin Paradox".20

Einstein's portrayal as a hero has made it difficult for anyone to correct the mistakes in his relativity
theories. Those who do try to correct these mistakes risk being smeared by his hero-worshipers.

The establishment has been persecuting many dissidents, making them modern-day Galileo's. In
Galileo's day, the establishment responded by threatening him, but that failed as an adequate method.
Today, the establishment has become more skilled at suppressing dissent. Its method is to reward you
with prizes (e.g., the Nobel) and research funding if you don't dissent.

This is a carrot-and-stick approach. The establishment found that making the carrot bigger (with the
threat of removing the carrot) is better at controlling dissent than making the stick bigger. ∞

About the Authors:

• Roger J. Anderton is a former telecommunications engineer. He recently appeared on Richplanet
TV’s program Did Boscovich Discover a Unified Field Theory? (part 1 of 4, at
http://tinyurl.com/qa4dtx4). For more information, visit his website
http://www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk/. He can be contacted by email at
R.J.Anderton@btinternet.com.
• David de Hilster is a computer scientist, artist and filmmaker and is the founder of the World
Science Database. The trailer of his documentary film Einstein Wrong – The Miracle Year can be
viewed at the website http://einsteinwrong.com.

Reference
• The John Chappell Natural Philosophy Society website provides open discussion and is where
many dissident scientists meet up; visit http://www.naturalphilosophy.org.

Editor’s Note:
Due to space constraints we are unable to include the endnotes accompanying this article. To see
these, visit http://www.einsteinconspiracy.co.uk/.

References

[1] A unified theory of physics from the 18th Century, R J Anderton, Nexus magazine Aug-Sept
2001 p 51-52
[2] J. Robert Oppenheimer (1904 - 1967), atomic archive
http://www.atomicarchive.com/Bios/Oppenheimer.shtml
[3] Einstein and Oppenheimer: The Meaning of Genius, Silvan S. Schweber ISBN-10: 067403452X
p.279 also see website below.
[4] Why the English collection of Einstein’s works does not exist. September 2, 2012, by Sergei
Kuzmin https://gravityattraction.wordpress.com/2012/09/02/english-collection-of-einstein-works/
[5] John Wheeler (1911 - 2008), The Physics of the Universe
http://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/scientists_wheeler.html
[6] John Wheeler and the Recertification of General Relativity as True Physics, by Charles W.
Misner
http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CCMQFjAA&url=
http%3A%2F%2Fwww.springer.com%2Fcda%2Fcontent%2Fdocument%2Fcda_downloaddocument
%2F9789048137343-c2.pdf%3FSGWID%3D0-0-45-1123149-
p173940704&ei=dA2zVL2xHNPvaIv1gYAD&usg=AFQjCNEHaSo3arHJQZGo8h2dFc9kil7eeQ&s
ig2=sjEF-ufoKYYI7uTcHJLdVw&bvm=bv.83339334,d.d2s
[7] The Renaissance of General relativity, Clifford M Will.
http://www.cengage.com/resource_uploads/static_resources/0534493394/4891/Ch01-Essay.pdf
[8] Einstein’s mistakes: The human failings of genius, ISBN 978-0-393-33768-6, Hans Ohanian
[9] Errors of the Wheeler School, the Distortions to General Relativity and the Damage to Education
in MIT Open Courses in Physics, Dr C Y Lo, Global Journal of Science Frontier Research Physics
and Space Science Volume 13 Issue 7 Version 1.0 Year 2013, Publisher: Global Journals Inc. (USA)
Online ISSN: 2249-4626
[10] 95 Years of Criticism of the Special Theory of Relativity (1908-2003), The G. O. Mueller
Research Project http://www.ekkehard-friebe.de/95yearsrelativity.pdf
[11] Rupert Sheldrake - The Science Delusion BANNED TED TALK
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKHUaNAxsTg
[12] Was Einstein wrong? 8 December 2005, The Engineer http://interconnectedness/opinion/was-
Einstein-wrong/293042.article
[13] see about falsifiability at: Explorable psychology experiments: falsifiability
https://deplorable/falsifiability
[14] Galilean relativity, Jew Physics (education site) http://geophysics/biophysics/mechanics/motion-
in-2d/relative-motion-text-1
[15] Natural Philosophy and Relativity of Boscovich, Dusan Nedelkovich, trans: Roger J Anderton
ISBN 9781291344509
[16] Roger Boscovich: The Founder of Modern Science: Monochrome edition, Dragoslav
Soiljkovich, trans: Roger Anderton, ISBN 9781326042547
[17] Conceptual Foundations of Contemporary Relativity Theory by J.C. Graves, ISBN
9780262070409
[18] See one of my videos, part1 : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xigI5Ca3iU8
[19] Stephen Crothers on black holes part1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q185InpONK4
[20] An Open Letter to the Physics Community: The Twin Paradox
http://worknotes.com/Physics/SpecialRelativity/TwinParadox/htmlpage4.aspx