Nexus April 2015 article Einstein was wrong: references.
Dealing with the conspiracies around Einstein and the cover-up of the
Unified Field theory (UFT).
Top Secrets of Einstein
Einstein – illuminati connections
being wrong has been Top Secret
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
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
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
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
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
What we have is the Corruption of Science – science has become a political
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
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
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
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
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
If we look back at Galileo – the political establishment (allied with the
Church) did not like the experiments and the observations that Galileo was
making. Since then – things have moved on – the political establishment
don't like certain experimental results so they suppress them. The
political establishment learnt its lesson with Galileo and now takes a
firmer control of experiments – stopping what it does not like.
This all sounds unbelievable to a politically naïve person, but it is how
modern society has now been built – the control and suppression of
Now for the evidence:
As per William H. Cantrell, Ph.D. : “That the speed of light is not
constant in interplanetary space was first suspected by the late Bryan G.
Wallace. Throughout the 1960s and into the 1970s, MIT Lincoln Laboratory
operated a series of high-power radio transmitters spread across the
United States. Technically, these sites held a SECRET classification
during the height of the Cold War and the Space-Race, even though the
researchers were doing pure science.”
One does not expect “pure science” research to be top secret, but that's
what it turned out to be. The fact that speed of light in vacuum is not
constant, and hence Einstein is wrong, Wallace discovered was top secret.
(i.e. I mean theory#1 is wrong.)
William H. Cantrell, Ph.D.: “Wallace discovered that radar data for the
planet Venus did not confirm the constancy of the speed of light. Alarmed
and intrigued by these results, he noticed systematic variations in the
data with diurnal and lunar-synodic components. He attempted to publish
the results in Physical Review Letters, but he encountered considerable
resistance. His analysis indicated a heretical "c + v" Galilean fit to the
data, so as a result, he had no alternative but to publish elsewhere. To
say that Wallace was less than tactful would be something of an
understatement. He made heated claims that NASA had noticed the very same
results and was using non-relativistic correction factors to calculate
signal transit times. He also claimed that, despite his repeated requests,
MIT Lincoln Lab refused to share the raw data from the Venus radar studies
with him—that they were part of a government conspiracy to keep the
Soviets in the dark about the true nature of the speed of light!”
And the conspiracy to keep the Soviets in the dark obviously must extend
to everyone else or they would tell the Soviets. Wallace was then
subjected to the usual treatment for anyone daring to speak the truth.
Einstein was involved in conspiracy plans with his scientist friends that
there should be a worldwide elite of scientists that held no loyalty to
the countries they lived in so that they could control the world. I wonder
if that group is suppressing scientific truth across the international
This conspiracy was inspired by such things as HG Wells' book “The Open
For the conspiracy around Einstein, see for instance “The Einstein File” -
quote: “he [Einstein] was in fact intensely interested in the larger
society and felt it was his duty to use his worldwide fame to help advance
the cause of social justice. Einstein was a fervent pacifist, socialist,
internationalist, and an outspoken critic of racism (he considered racism
America's "worst disease")” – all these things made him look like a
security threat to the American FBI.
That deals with the special relativity. Next: general relativity.
The New Physics, ed. Paul Davies, Cambridge University Press 1989,
Clifford Will p 7: “During the two decades 1960- 80, the subject of
general relativity experienced a rebirth. Despite its enormous influence
on scientific thought in the early years, by the late 1950s general
relativity had become a sterile formalistic subject cut off from the
mainstream of physics.”
Einstein died in 1955, “they” had a rebirth of general relativity –
sometimes “they” call it a renaissance of general relativity straight
after Einstein died. And “they” rewrote the theory!!
Professor Kip Thorne in his masterful book “Black Holes and time warps”
1994 p 111 : “Einstein calls it space-time curvature; Newton calls it
tidal gravity. But there is just one agent acting. Therefore, space-time
curvature and tidal gravity must be precisely the same thing, expressed in
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:
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
Boscovich lecture at Royal Society 2012 by Ivica Martinovic.
Finishes Boscovich bio and starts on Boscovich's contributions to the
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.
Boscovich lecture at Royal Society 2012 part 5
Boscovich introduces quantisation into physics - first mention of
Quantum physics beginnings in the 18th Century
Boscovich's metrology papers - Northern lights caused by substances from
Boscovich's contributions to technical sciences
Boscovich lecture at Royal Society 2012 part 6
Boscovich exhibit at Royal Society 2012 part 1
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
The Catholic Church - Builder of Civilization, Episode 4: The Galileo
Case, by Thomas E Wood
22.23- 22.40 Boscovich mentioned
James Burke: The day the universe changed
2.14- 4.00 says prohibition on Copernicus lifted mainly due to Boscovich
Galileo and Boscovich by J.L. Heilbron
-comparisons in their careers.
--in foreign language, have to read subtext; lecture followed by operatic
Ivica Martinovic lecture on Boscovich audio:
Further information on Boscovich:
There is an Institute named after him, he has a museum and his has
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
My video lectures:
The Devil's Advocate of Einstein: History
Description: There was strong resistance against Einstein's physics
in May 1919, the date of the famous solar eclipse, with no proper
agreement among the physics community. Then despite the Nobel committee's
refusal to award Einstein based on Relativity, his 1921 Nobel Prize all
but stamped approval for the type of theorizing Einstein had advocated in
his early years. Ironically Einstein himself later rebelled against this
line of reasoning, but to no avail.
In 1919 only a few experts specialized in Relativity. A proper debate over
the merits and demerits of Einstein?s physics was planned, but blocked. On
the side supporting Einstein was of course ? Eddington. But on the other
side, opposing Einstein, was another expert in Relativity, who was
nicknamed the Devil?s Advocate. He provided a strong case for retaining
Newtonian physics, and argued against the need for a so called Einstein
Revolution. That side of the 1919 controversy needs to be heard today.
Einstein's Unified Field Theory
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.
Relationship between Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics
connection between Newtonian and Einsteinian physics will be explained.
Essentially it can be viewed as the same bit of maths but subjected to a
different language. Special relativity being an interpretation of the
equation c'2t'2 =
(c2 v2)t2 by
setting c' = c with
t not equal to
t'. While Newtonian physics
is interpretation of the same equation as instead:
t' = t with
c not equal to
c'. Newtonian gravitational
theory has primary and secondary gravitational effects. When both these
effects are considered then Newtonian physics gives same maths as General
relativity. It is only that the maths is interpreted by different
languages. In the case of Newtonian physics it is interpreted in terms of
forces while Einsteinian physics talks of it in terms of space-time
curvature. On the experimental side it will be pointed out from a paper by
a NASA scientist that Einstein's relativity has never been subjected to a
direct experimental test; the tests have only ever been indirect. (Of
course certain Einsteinians have deceived themselves to the nature of
their experimentation and not realized they have only ever done indirect
tests.) Thus it has always been a subjective issue as to whether the maths
should be interpreted by Newtonian or Einsteinian language. As to the
paradoxes of Einstein's relativity this has been in part caused due to the
complicated language used by the Einsteinians obscuring the understanding;
while in Newtonian language it is much clearer as to what is happening.
Special relativity considers a symmetrical scenario of two observers at
relative constant velocity motion, while general relativity breaks that
symmetry. Newtonian physics has none of those conceptual problems from its
outset. Thus the problems of modern physics can be placed down to the
difficulty people have experienced upon learning a new language to
describe physical reality.
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.
Otto Rossler also reports: “Einstein
realized in the last decade of his life that only a world government can
overcome war and hatred on the planet. And he believed he had acquired the
right to demand this acutely – in view of the nuclear winter being a real
threat in the wake of his own contributions to physics.”
The new world order of
one world government is of course the Illuminati agenda, so a clear
indication of who Einstein was involved with.
Applications of the
Unified Field Theory can be found on the web such as to the Philadelphia
Experiment, UFO technology and Nazi Bell experiment etc.
News Aug 2008
My History of UFT
(unified field theory) has been Boscovich to Einstein to Whyte to Baranski
It has been with regret that I have to drop the Watson link, leaving the
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
A website for some of
James' images is at:
James’ decision to not
do the presentation of his work at the last moment was a very big
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
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
Pythagoras talked about Music of the Spheres, and the proof of ETI is all
tied into that tradition of physics investigation. Pythagoras was said to
have been trained in ancient wisdom from Egypt and Babylon; so it’s a long
tradition. It was picked up again in the Copernican Revolution.
I am now going issues some of which have already been dealt with in
articles (1) to (5) below, but with latest information:
The History of Physics has been affected by religious, political and
philosophic disputes and this Pythagorean tradition of theoretical physics
have suffered from this.
The Film “The Da Vinci Code” deals with the idea that Jesus had
descendants and that has been suppressed by Christian religion for
thousands of years. Put that issue to one side. The film does deal with
the science tradition that has been suppressed. There is a scene where a
murdered man is found with a pentagram inscribed on his chest. The
detective investigating the case says that it is a sign of the Devil. The
hero of the film says it is a pagan symbol representing the unity of
female and male. The Christian movement demonised a great deal of the
pagan world; it was a revision – symbols like the pentagram were not
originally satanic until the Christian movement said it was. (There is a
side-issue that the pentagram one way is okay, but inverted is Satanic.
Before Christianity invented the Devil, the pagan world without Devil
would not have interpreted the symbol that way.)
And the pentagram was one of the symbols of the Pythagorean movement.
Pythagorean movement was of course one of the pagan movements, and the
Christian Church demonised it along with other pagan beliefs.
Galileo and Copernicus’ science was based upon a Pythagorean approach, and
the Church did not like the Pythagorean version of religion that the
Pythagorean science could be attached to; so those following it risked
charges of heresy which was punishable by death.
The Catholic Church placed a Ban on the Copernican Revolution’s science
following the Inquisition trial of Galileo. However, there was a protest
movement against Catholic beliefs called the Protest-ants; this was still
a Christian belief system, but the Protestants wanted a different version
of Christianity to the Catholics. To the Catholics this Protestant
Christianity was heresy; hence both religious groups were in Conflict.
It resulted in – that Protestant England there was more freedom to pursue
beliefs that were heresy to the Catholic Church. Hence Newton was able to
pursue Galileo’s ideas. Newton was an alchemist, which meant that he had
beliefs in Ancient Egyptian wisdom called Hermeticism, and so he risked
going to far and being a heretic from even a Protestant Christian
country’s point-of-view. (And Ancient Egyptian wisdom Hermeticism is
related to Pythagoreanism, because Pythagoras studied it.)
The Catholic Church despite its Ban on Galileo’s science had to because of
Newton and others still raising the heretical science ideas then look
again at the relevant science.
Leibniz on the Continent of Europe was pursuing the same science as Newton
in England; but there arose a split between them. An argument between
Newton and Leibniz as to who had priority to what discoveries. This split
continued over many centuries. While the Catholic Church under the
influence of such priests as Father Boscovich took away its Ban on this
However, the version of Newtonianism that Continental Europe followed
(under influence of Catholic Church) was mainly the Leibniz version taken
up by Boscovich. While England with its national hero Newton wanted to
stay faithful to Newton and reject the Continental version of Newtonianism
based on Leibniz.
The main issue where this split occurred between the two versions of
Newtonianism was over how gravity operated. Newton did not want to give an
explanation, and left it as action-at-a-distance without saying how it
worked. While on the continent this developed into the idea of a “field”
through Boscovich – who called it a “sphere of influence”.
Scotland and England were not really on friendly terms either, so while
England wanted to stick with their National hero Newton, Scotland was more
prepared to go with the Continent ideas. Hence Maxwell the Scot took up
the idea of “field” and applied it to electromagnetism.
The field idea applied to gravity is the gravitational field, while in
electromagnetism it is the electromagnetic field. I will pick up anon how
these fields are unified.
In the 20th Century there became an amazing confusion over fundamental
The correct science tradition should be based upon the Pythagorean
As noted - the Church didn’t like Pythagoreanism’s possible religious
interpretations so when Galileo presented evidence for Pythagorean
science, the Church wanted to deny that evidence. Eventually the Church
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
Politicians have latched onto this philosophy of Exclusionism, and adopted
it as one of their favourite techniques of trying to ignore and/or exclude
evidence that contradicts them.
These politicians also like science to back their politics, so they
support science with this exclusionist philosophic point-of-view. -
Politicians want science to say what agrees with their politics; i.e.
science has become a political football.
Hence when it comes to approaches to science, the political backing is
more for the exclusionists than the correct way of Pythagoreanism. Thus
the Pythagorean- type approach from its beginnings with the Copernican
Revolution has become mostly lapsed.
The way this has become lapsed has been quite easy done; because the
Pythagorean approach requires science to be done in a certain way and
maths to be done in a certain way, and maths education is so bad it’s no
longer done in a proper way consistent with the Pythagorean approach.
Meaning that maths is badly taught to would-be scientists and this gets
carried over into their science being bad also.
I work-shadowed a maths teacher to see how the maths education is so bad.
The attempt by the maths education system is to make maths being taught as
simple as possible to the students; this is resulting in “dumbing down”;
and that results in corrupting the maths being taught; resulting in
students getting an incorrect understanding of maths.
One example I came across was a class of pupils being taught that the
square root of 49 was +7. They were not told about the negative root.
I brought this issue up with the maths teacher, he said it was about
making maths as simple as possible for the pupils to understand, and at
this age they did not bring in the complication of negative roots; but two
years later they introduced negative roots. So, at this age they were
taught the square root of 49 was +7 only and 2 years later they were
taught the square root of 49 was +7 and -7.
I pointed out that at two years older they could interpret that they had
been lied to when they were originally told it was +7 with no mention of
-7. He admitted that it might be interpreted that way.
That is precisely my point --- from my perspective I view them as being
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
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.
There is another aspect to this Education issue. Pythagoreanism – although
I am interested in the science part; it is also attached to a religious
point-of-view, and the religious point-of-view the Christians might
disapprove. So, try teaching correct Pythagorean maths and there might be
a backlash from Christian Fundamentalist parents opposed to it being
taught to their children. At the moment the Fundamentalists are opposed to
Darwin’s Evolution being taught, but there is little to stop them
objecting to lots of things. Corruption of Education is what a lot of
pressure groups want, and probably been one of the influences on why maths
has been corrupted in the way it has been.
One goes through a Bad Education system, and one has to fight against what
one has been told. (The politico-religious pressures that have be brought
to bear on teaching you bad.)
In science itself without the maths corruption, there are other scientific
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
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
That ties in with what I have been saying about the corruption of maths
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
Of course associated with this simple process of re-arranging the numbers
A,B,C, D can be a minefield of mathematical mistakes. And our bad maths
education could make many mistakes with these numbers A,B,C,D when they
start applying them to physics.
Anyway, that is the basis of Bearden’s theory.
He has I have read been heavily criticised by what appears to be a
Professor having deep knowledge about mainstream Electromagnetic theory.
Now, the situation of this theoretical argument boils down to this:
In the standard physics education system, a student of physics gets taught
about three dimensional vector fields and scalar fields in Electromagnetic
Field theory, but that might be as far as his education goes, he might not
be taught the next step; which is namely Relativity.
In mainstream Relativity, time is treated as a dimension, and so added to
the three dimensions of space we can form in Relativity theory a 4
dimensional vector which is called a Relativistic vector. This is not
necessarily the same as the four dimensional vector called the quaternion.
But the point is Bearden’s theory deals with 4 dimensional vectors in
A student of physics if they studied electromagnetism eventually gets to
dealing with 4 dimensional vectors also. And this is where the professor
argues against Bearden. The professor is already dealing with 4
dimensional vectors in electromagnetic theory, and all Bearden seems to be
doing is essentially doing the same thing of dealing with 4 dimensional
vectors in electromagnetic theory (though calling them quaternions). From
the professor’s point-of-view Bearden is not offering anything new because
he is already dealing with the same thing as him.
However, from a scientist who has not progressed from the simplified
theory dealing only with three dimensional vector to the next step up of
four dimensional vector, what is being offered is new to him. It might not
be new to this professor who criticises Bearden, but to a scientist who
has not gone far enough along the education process what Bearden says is
So, now let me summarise—the Electromagnetic Field Theory unifies the
electric force and the magnetic force by a four dimensional vector.
The next question is how do we unify the gravitational force; and the
answer is simple – we merely increase the number of dimensions of the
vector. In Electromagnetic Field theory we have a four dimensional vector
field. All we have to do to include gravity is introduce an extra
dimension to get a five dimensional vector field. And if we want to go
further, we can increase the number of dimensions even further.
It’s not too hard to find this theory - Kaluza and Klein have looked at
the idea of unifying gravity with electromagnetism by five dimensions in
the early 20th Century. But if we look back to the 18th Century, we can
see that this was already done by Boscovich.
By looking back in the literature of science we can find a more advanced
theory than the theories we so far have today. And the reason for this is
the attempt to simplify.
The attempt to simplify has been the corrupting process of our education
system. With each level of exam we are presented with an update upon what
we have been taught before; such as the example we are taught for one exam
we must answer +7 only as the square root of 49, while a few years later
we have to answer in the next exam the update of +7 and -7. If we do not
go far enough along the education process we do not get the subsequent
updates and reside in theories with mathematical errors. But look to the
past and there was no simplifying corrupting process and the complete
theory is presented in one go, not in little chunks that need updates.
Based upon what our society needs. I believe what happens is that the
students go through this piecemeal updating process, and the brightest
students go beyond what is publicly academically taught, they are
earmarked by the military and go into what is called Black Ops where they
are taught far more than what is in the White Ops on public display in
academia. And being in Black Ops they are of course held to oaths of
secrecy to not talk about the science they know.
In Summary it’s our politics that has had this influence on Science; its
serves the politicians that science should be a mess of scientists all
with incomplete understanding, mistaken beliefs about maths and science.
And in this political climate the exclusionists flourish. While the
correct approach should be building upon one established fact in science
to the next, what we have instead is a confusion of conflicting comments
from confused scientists who have had an education that has made them
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
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
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
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
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
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.
"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:
The debunkers have not been quiet, and they seem to now be starting a
Campaign against Unified Field Theory; seems like they might not be
interested with staying at Stage 1 and are preparing to move to Stage 2.
They are the same type of people who attacked Galileo (i.e. the
exclusionists ), and if they had their way we would still believe that the
world was flat.
We have had our science messed up by these people. And of course some of
it touches upon the religious issues around Evolution theory.
Some people "A" can look at evidence such as an eye and decide it was
designed by God, and others "B" don’t see it that way. Something goes on
in the head with thinking processes, and not everyone goes through the
same type of thinking processes.
In the Unified Field Theory of Whyte and Baranski the universe has an
organising process at work, some people interpret this as a natural part
of the Universe, while others interpret it as God (i.e. Intelligent
Designer). But the debunkers just want to go into denial.
Mendel Sachs in his book “Relativity in Our Time” briefly mentions
Boscovich as the starting point of Unified Field Theory since the
Copernican Revolution, he says:
“In the 18th century, a Jesuit priest, Roger Boscovich, introduced a new
approach to natural philosophy. He took the continuous manifestation of
matter, that is its power to act on other matter in space, to form a
fundamental starting point for a description of the material universe.
About 100 years later, Michael Faraday adopted this view of the continuous
field concept to describe electricity and magnetism most primitively.”
Thomas Bearden says about Mendel Sachs’ work:
“Sachs' theory essentially completes what Einstein started. It is a
unified field theory, from the space-time approach. Electrodynamics is a
part of it, so that for the very first time the interaction of gravitation
and electrodynamics is in the actual theory, in a fashion where one now
can speak of a model that will be usable for direct engineering.”
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.”
The completed version of Leibniz’s theory according to Bertrand Russell
was Boscovich’s theory (see Part 4 below). So, Godel was working on that
aspect of the theory, and because not all of the work of Leibniz has been
allowed into the public domain, Godel interpreted this as a conspiracy to
“make men stupid.” Of course the debunkers would like to dismiss this as
paranoia by Godel; but it probably happened the other way around he found
out there was a conspiracy and then he developed paranoia. As is well
known --- just because you are paranoid, it does not mean that people are
not out to get you.
Since Boscovich was a Catholic priest, I have been interested in looking
at what the modern Catholic Church is doing. There seem to be two groups:
traditionalists (keep things as they are) and reformers (update the
Church). However, whatever group a priest belongs to they are expected to
conform and obey those higher up in the hierarchy The larger group seem to
be the traditionalists and they have blocked most reforms. There also
seems to be a Secret agent James Bond type branch to the Catholic
priesthood; it seems very weird to think of priests involved in this sort
of activity. They have secrets they want to remain as secrets. Presumably
if the Catholic Church did reform then more would come out about the
Unified Field; as the situation is at the moment there is some
Another issue is what is taught in science textbooks. Textbooks with each
new edition seem to be incorporating more and more errors; instead of
seeking to delete errors from previous books, the newer books seem to add
more. Richard Feynman noted in “Surely You are Joking Mr Feynman” the bad
quality of science textbooks.
It seems that the textbooks are controlled by what amounts to various
monopolies. On the farther out fringes of the Conspiracy theorists the
belief is that this corruption of textbooks is deliberate. It is this
corruption of science that is taught to each new generation of students,
and issues that should be considered as solved pointing to some conclusion
are messed up to state something else.
One of my main issue is that the Ether exists, and these textbooks are
erroneously saying it doesn’t exist. Looking at trying to explain this
more clearly has led me to Aristotelian Logic - which Van Vogt called
“null A” and became part of what was incorporated into Scientology.
Unfortunately leading into more deeper areas which the ill-informed
debunkers like to ridicule. (n.b. I am not agreeing with Scientology; from
what I am told it is very expensive to get involved in; but some taboo
ideas have entered into it.)
Aristotelian Logic is based upon there either being two answers – yes or
no; true or false.
Non-Aristotelian Logic is to not restrict oneself to this two-value Logic.
There are for instance examples where a yes/no answer is not appropriate.
For instance imagine a court case, a husband is asked to answer only yes
or no to the question: “have you stopped beating your wife.”
If the defendant answers no then the implication is that he is continuing
to beat his wife.
If he answers yes, then the implication is that he used to beat his wife.
Answers either yes or no, therefore condemns the husband.
It is an example of an inappropriate question.
i.e. it is an inappropriate question to ask in Aristotelian Logic system.
A similar situation occurs a lot in science.
In the case of the Ether— an experiment supposedly set up to say whether
the Ether exist – yes or no; is often inappropriate, because it can be
that the way that the Ether is being talked about is incorrect.
Thus in the famous Michelson- Morley experiment that supposedly disproves
the Ether according to these corrupted textbooks; the question put as to
wanting yes or no to question of Ether existence is inappropriate. As per
my Ether paper (above) I explain that the Ether can be talked about in at
least two different ways. It therefore depends upon how one talks about
the Ether, as to what the Michelson- Morley experiment is showing.
In the case of Aristotle, I have talked to a few people who think that
those following Aristotle (Aristotelian) have misunderstood Aristotle, so
when it comes to Aristotelian versus Non-Aristotelian; the need for
Non-Aristotelian is merely the fact that those following Aristotle have
misrepresented it. Similarly the case for non-Einsteinian physics might be
said merely to be because those of today setting themselves up as
authorities on Einsteinian physics, have misrepresented Einsteinian
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:
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
There is none as weird as folk; the world is weirder than we can imagine;
the folk in it all want to believe different things and when it comes to
evidence that contradicts what one might want to believe, these strange
folk either ignore it or pretend it means something else. It not just
Einstein that’s been misunderstood to fit with what some strange people
want to believe; but lots of other things as well. When it comes to issues
like ETIs -- its too far-out from what these strange folk want to believe.
I have discussed the issue with certain people and the conclusion is that
if ETIs were definitely known about then a large number would panic.
Rather than panic, strange people set about believing the contrary;
evidence means nothing to them; because they are the exclusionists.
Roger Anderton Aug 2008
The History of UFT
Whyte and Baranski
were working with Einstein on the UFT. Whyte mentions in his literature
that modern physics of Quantum mechanics and Relativity theories is based
on Boscovich's theory.
Whyte was a theorist not too proficient in maths. Baranski was an
all-rounder - experimentalist, mathematician and theorist; a sort of
"Faraday" type of Genius (i.e. Genius of the highest calibre).
Einstein agreed to the UFT that Baranski developed. Einstein then died.
Baranski died young and was forgotten. This so far is in the physics
history literature; but is being ignored/suppressed.
Baranski was naive and got involved working on experiments for people, it
would have been better not to have worked for.
Now, the missing link in Darwin's theory of how does life start is
answered by Baranski.
does not answer that question; it is a unified theory dealing with
particles, but does not explain how some particles can be alive and others
not. (This is as far as I know, not all of Boscovich’s work has been
translated from Latin into English; hence not all has been read by me.)
Whyte dealt with the issue by what he called the Unitary Principle -
basically it is how the particles form themselves into certain patterns
that replicate themselves that gives life. When particles form themselves
into a well-ordered structure such as crystal, then they are pretty much
inert and no longer self-replicating; apart from merely continuing the
process of crystallisation. (The Unitary Principle has gone by a lot of
different names by other Researchers such as being called Life Force.
Often it is interpreted in the Religious point-of-view as the work of a
Higher Intelligence – i.e. God, while in the Ancient Astronaut hypothesis
this Intelligence might sometimes be interpreted as an extremely advanced
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
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
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
says: “Two hundred years ago February 13, 1787 the Croatian Jesuit
mathematician Roger Boscovich,S.J. died. He developed the first coherent
description of atomic theory in his work Theoria Philosophiae Naturalis ,
which is one of the great attempts to understand the structure of the
universe in a single idea.”
I say: Boscovich’s theory is the start to Unified Field Theory (UFT).
What is not widely known is that the leading physicists of the 20th
Century were working from Boscovich's theory; because Boscovich's theory
was the Foundation of 20th Century Atomic physics.
The information for all of this is hidden away in obscure places.
Boscovich was a Catholic priest-cum- scientist, and there are still lots
of priest-scientists around doing their own scientific researches
"outside" of the mainstream of the science community.
One of these priest-cum-scientists says Boscovich is the founder of 20th
Cent. Atomic physics:
Peter Henricis priest, PhD Professor of Philosophy says in his article:
The Theory of Knowledge of Ruder Boskovic in his time:
"Boskovic (aka Boscovich) made real atom physics possible and therefore he
is rightly regarded as its actual forerunner or founder."
One of the scientists working on UFT was Whyte, this is mentioned at site
dealing with Whyte’s diaries; which unfortunately has now removed that
information (philosphere.com site); it did say :
“Lancelot Law Whyte was not appreciated in Great Britain but was
celebrated in the US. He fought in the First World War, and was a
brilliant mathematical physicist employed in industry, investment banker
and scientific consultant on financing new inventions, chairman and
managing director of Power Jets, Ltd. which developed the Whittle jet
engine, as well as serving as Director of Statistical Enquiries in the
Ministry of Supplies. But his main interest was as a philosopher of
science and as a postulator of human inquiry and development. …Whyte
appeared to know all of the authors here who were within his generation.
He gave a keynote memorial address for the Institute of General Semantics
in honour of Korzybski, and corresponded with Bois. Bohm knew and admired
him and carried on the work of expressing the unified theory in physics
after Whyte died.”
What is to note is that they mention David Bohm was working from Whyte's
ideas. And site:
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,
One of the things to note is that David Bohm is mentioned as an ‘enemy’
--- Bohm became unpopular with quite a few people; and it seems to be this
among other reasons why there is prejudice against UFT from an Academia
that would prefer to block all of this information on UFT by simply not
talking about all the scientists that have been working on it.
There have been a great number of scientists working on UFT, and Academia
responds by ostracising them whenever possible.
All of the scientific issues raised by this theoretical development touch
upon issues such as the paranormal and ETs that academia wishes to be in a
state of denial about.
I have now been in contact with various people that have been working on
these theoretical ideas either directly or indirectly; and was amazed to
be informed that Scientific Academia had made a deal a long time ago with
the Religious Priesthood that “they” have an agreed censorship between
them. This agreed censorship seems to be another reason why UFT is not
allowed to be talked about too much; because it would impinge upon
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:
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
For information on Hal
Puthoff see for instance:
When I contacted Jack Sarfatti he told me he was quite capable of working
out UFT for himself, and wondered if Boscovich was a time traveller. I
have some information on this issue that I hope to add to this site at a
later date. Sarfatti among other things deals with the Star Trek type
physics of warped field space; this is of course part of UFT see for
Jon Bjerknes accuses Einstein of plagiarist in his book Albert Einstein
the Incorrigible Plagiarist, because Einstein does not provide any
references in his science papers that revolutionised 20th Century physics.
What Bjerknes seems to fail to realise is that Einstein did not have the
same restrictions in his era that modern science papers make, so he was
allowed not to provide references. He was in a different era and allowed
different freedoms. However the historical record of where the ideas that
Einstein was working on came from Einstein’s co-worker on UFT, namely
Lancelot Law Whyte, and that is mainly Boscovich, whom Bjerknes has
suspected of as being very important.
Bertrand Russell at the time of when Einstein became famous (i.e. 1919)
was one of the few people that at the time was able to understand
Einstein’s Relativity Theories, and Russell was working on the UFT. I
provide now an article by Russell explaining how Newton’s ideas are
connected to Leibniz’s ideas through Boscovich’s theory; hence in other
words Boscovich’s theory extends Newton’s theory (as already stated):
Information from A critical exposition of the philosophy of Leibniz,
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
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
Latest Research on why the Supression
The simple answer to
the question of “Why the Suppression of this Unified Field Theory and its
Historical development” seems to be that MOST people are just not mentally
able to handle the theory and the issues that it raises, and are then
acting in denial.
Instead of meeting the facts of issues straight on, when people are
unhappy with those facts “they” tend to react by trying to pretend the
facts do not exist. (The facts of the existence of this THEORY exist in
the scientific records, but few bother to actually look in the records,
and then act by pretending the records do not exist.) This behaviour of
the Human species is extremely strange, but seems very common place; this
type of Conspiracy of Silence happens a great deal.
Thus the Conspiracy is --- a Conspiracy of Silence by the Mainstream to
deal with this THEORY. And the Cover-Up is merely people saying the
Conspiracy does not exist.
It is as simple as
that SILENCE, and DENIAL.
The Human species has
been engaged in numerous wars because of political, religious and other
Despite some people wanting physics to be divorced from these beliefs, it
has been unable to do so; and has become part of the warfare that goes on
between peoples of differing beliefs.
The rough outline of this Conflict is thus as follows:
Physics has been embroiled in religious, political and philosophic
arguments that it has been unable to escape from and thus confuse the
scientific issues. Different people have wanted scientific beliefs to
justify their other beliefs, and this has made physics a Battleground for
ideologies that it has been unable to escape from.
It is my contention that the proper approach to physics is from the
philosophy of Pythagoreanism. There are other philosophies and one could
form different versions of physics from interpreting through different
philosophies. But I want to outline physics as from a Pythagorean
interpretation, hence a Pythagorean physics.
Once faced with the results of an experiment we are stuck with having to
interpret the data from a point-of-view; this point-of-view is a
philosophy. The correct interpretation is Pythagorean. What has happened
is different people have attempted interpretation through different
philosophies creating what is modern physics based upon a mess of
different points-of-view that are not necessarily always logically
Pythagoras was a legendary figure, whether he historically existed is
difficult to say, and the type of philosophy he had can be traced back to
possible other legendary sources. He had followers called Pythagoreans,
who definitely existed.
Ancient people combined philosophy, religion and science all into their
point-of-view; so Pythagoreanism was a mix of religious belief and
scientific belief. I want to only emphasis the Pythagorean point-of-view
towards Science, and exclude the religious things.
Plato took up many ideas of the Pythagoreans. One of the important ideas
was that the Earth was a planet that moved. A “planet” in those days meant
a star that wandered. Aristotle was a pupil of Plato, and went against
many of the ideas of his teacher Plato.
One of the divisions that happened was between Plato and Aristotle.
Plato’s point-of-view was seen as mystical, and Aristotle’s point-of-view
was often seen as more practical being based upon observations, hence
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
Some of those in Christianity interpreted the Bible in such a way that it
was telling them that the Earth did not move. There were other issues. But
essentially the science issues that Galileo was raising was coming into
conflict with some people’s religious beliefs. Eventually Galileo went
before the Inquisition and had to recant his religious heresies inspired
by his scientific point-of-view.
The idea that the Earth moved was banned by the Catholic Church. However,
this did not stop intellectuals investigating this idea, and so the
Catholic Church was finding itself in an increasingly embarrassing
situation of opposing an idea that had a lot of evidence for it.
Eventually the Catholic Church backed down on its Ban of the idea of the
Earth’s motion through the main influence of Father Boscovich. A meeting
was held in the Catholic Church which decided to lift the Ban, and this
allowed Newton’s theory to be taught in Catholic countries.
At the same time that the Church had a problem with the idea that the
Earth moved, it had a similarly problem with the Atomic theory. The Atomic
theory goes back to Ancient times, in the usual way that it is presented
it is particles moving around at random. The religious problem with this
idea is that the atoms are moving around without intelligent control; an
intelligent control that would deem to be God. So, saying that atoms moved
at random instead of being organised by a higher intelligence, amounted to
denying the existence of the higher intelligence known as God; this was
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
Boscovich also dealt with higher dimensions, non-Euclidean geometry,
relativity and many other issues. These physics issues were ahead of how
far the mathematicians had got. i.e. it was physics theory ahead of the
mathematics it needed.
A large number of scientists up to the start of the 20th Century were
working on Boscovich’s theory.
The Copernican Revolution had led to Boscovich’s theory; the Copernican
idea of the Earth moving first being Banned and then the Ban cancelled had
given us the Science of Boscovich.
The relativity issues had not been fully decided, there was Newton’s
theory that was not able to answer those issues, and there was Boscovich’s
theory which was acting like the next step from Newton’s theory and
dealing with the relativity issues.
Einstein became famous for the relativity issues in the 20th Century. He
wrote his famous relativity paper of 1905, and in 1919 famously had a
prediction confirmed from his relativity theory applied to gravity. This
was deemed a Revolution in physics from Newton’s theory.
However, Einstein was still working within Boscovich’s theory.
Shortly after 1919 there was another revolution in physics of the Quantum
This was really a reinterpretation of physics from another philosophic
point-of-view from the classical point-of-view, and was called the
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
This was conflict in politics between Communists and non-Communists. Part
of that conflict led to Hitler’s Nazism. And there were other political
Science could not escape people following non-scientific beliefs from
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
Popper was forming physics from a different philosophic approach to the
philosophy that had formed Boscovich’s theory from the Copernican
I shall repeat there have been of course many philosophic points-of-view.
So, Popper’s philosophy is merely one of many. But approaching physics
from his philosophy is creating a break with the philosophy that led to
the Copernican Revolution; and as earlier stated I think that philosophy
was the correct one.
Hence Popper muddies the philosophic issues around physics.
He is not alone, next comes Kuhn and his philosophic belief that
Revolution is a natural part of physics. In his scheme of things the
Copernican Revolution, the Einstein Revolution and the Quantum Revolution
are all natural parts of scientific progress and the expectation is of yet
more revolutions. This is contrary to my point-of-view as stated I believe
the philosophy of the Copernican Revolution is the correct one; the
subsequent changes in the philosophic interpretation of physics are thus
all to me merely wandering away from the correct philosophy.
As physics progresses what we get is more and more different philosophic
interpretations and greater diversity of opinion, and an amnesia that
physics as from the Copernican Revolution is based upon Pythagorean
Commitment which led to the Unified Field theory of Boscovich.
Bertrand Russell on Boscovich's Theory
Bertrand Russell says:
“There are, speaking broadly, three great types of dynamical theory. There
is the doctrine of hard extended atoms, for which the theory of impact is
the appropriate weapon. There is the doctrine of the plenum, of an
all-pervading fluid, for which the modern doctrine of the ether— the
theory of Electricity, in fact— has at last partially forged the necessary
weapons. And finally, there is the doctrine of unextended centres of
force, with action at a distance, for which Newton supplied the required
Mathematics. Leibniz failed to grasp these alternatives, and thus, from
his love of a middle position, fell between, not two, but three stools.
His view of impact as the fundamental phenomenon of Dynamics should have
led him to the theory of extended atoms, supported by Gassendi, and, in
his own day, by Huygens. His belief in the plenum and the fluid ether
should have led him to the second theory, and to the investigation of
fluid motion. His relational theory of space, and his whole doctrine of
monads, should have led him, as it led Boscovich, Kant1 and Lotze, to the
theory of unextended centres of force. The failure to choose between these
alternatives made his Dynamics a mass of confusions.
The true Leibnizian
Dynamics is not his own, but that of Boscovich2. This theory is a simple
development of the Newtonian Dynamics, in which all matter consists of
material points, and all action is action at a distance. These material
points are unextended like the monads, to which Boscovich appeals as
analogous3; and in order to preserve their mutual independence, it is only
necessary to regard the attraction or repulsion as due to the perception
of one monad by the other, which, as a matter of fact, Leibniz actually
does. Why, then, was this theory not that of Leibniz ?
“There was, I think,
to begin with, in later life, a personal reason. Leibniz had quarrelled
with Newton concerning the Calculus, and he did not choose to admit that
Newton had anything to teach him4. He therefore rejected gravitation as an
ultimate account of things, giving as his reason that action at a distance
is impossible. But this personal reason can only have operated after the
publication of the Principia in 1687, by which date Leibniz had
constructed both his philosophy and his dynamics. It becomes necessary,
therefore, to search for more objective reasons.
“Leibniz rejected atoms, the vacuum, and action at a distance.
“His grounds for these three rejections must be now examined.
“(1) Against extended atoms he had, I think, fairly valid grounds. These
are best set forth in his correspondence with Huygens, who maintained
atoms. (See G. M. II. pp. 136, 145, 155—7). In the first place, the
extended atom is composed of parts, since extension is repetition; it
cannot, therefore, afford a metaphysical solution of the composition of
matter. Moreover, if the laws of motion are to be preserved, the atom must
be perfectly elastic, which is impossible since it must also be perfectly
hard, and can contain no " subtle fluid." Again there is a breach of the
law of continuity in assuming infinite hardness and absolute
indivisibility to emerge suddenly when a certain stage is reached in
division. And primitive rigidity is, in any case, a quality wholly without
reason, and therefore inadmissible. In short, infrangible atoms would be a
perpetual miracle. These arguments have been urged many times since, and
are, one may suppose, on the whole valid.
“(2) With regard to the vacuum, Leibniz relied mainly on the argument from
what he called metaphysical perfection. He admitted that a vacuum is
conceivable (N. E. 157; G. V. 140), but held that, wherever there is room,
God might have placed matter without harm to anything else. Since,
generally, the more existence the better, God would not have neglected the
opportunity for creation, and therefore there is matter everywhere (D.
240, 253; G. VII. 356, 378). This principle of metaphysical perfection
will be discussed later; for the present I confine myself to less
theological arguments. A very weak argument, which Leibniz sometimes
permits himself, is, that there could be no sufficient reason for
determining the proportion of vacuum to filled space, and therefore there
can be no vacuum at all (D. 253; G. II. 475; VII. 378). The only argument
which attempts to be precise is one which is fatally unsound. If space be
an attribute, Leibniz says, of what can empty space be an attribute (D.
248; G. VII. 372) ? But space, for him, is a relation, not an attribute;
his whole argument against the view that space is composed of points
depends, as we shall see in Chapter IX., upon the fundamental relation of
distance. He has, in fact, no valid arguments whatever against a vacuum.
He seems to regard a belief in it as necessarily associated with a belief
in extended atoms—" atoms and the void " are always spoken of together. In
fact, when action at a distance is rejected, the two are necessarily
connected; since unextended atoms must act at a distance, if there is to
be any dynamical action at all5.
“(3) This brings me to Leibniz's grounds against action at a distance. I
cannot discover, on this point, anything beyond vulgar prejudice. Both on
this and on the previous point, his immediate followers, under the
influence of Newton, abandoned the views of their master, which seem to
have been mainly due to a lingering Cartesian prejudice. The spatial and
temporal contiguity of cause and effect are apparently placed on a level.
" A man will have an equal right to say that anything is the result of
anything, if that which is absent in space or time can, without
intermediary, operate here and now" (D. 115; G. IV. 507). With regard to
time, though a difficulty arises from continuity, the maxim may be
allowed; but with regard to space, it is precluded, as a metaphysical
axiom, by the denial of transeunt action. For since nothing really acts on
anything else, there seems no possible metaphysical reason why, in monads
which mirror the whole universe, the perception of what is distant should
not be a cause, just as much as the perception of what is near. There
seems, therefore, in Leibniz's system, no metaphysical ground for the
maxim; and in his time (which was that of Newton), there was certainly no
dynamical ground. The denial of action at a distance must, therefore, be
classed as a mere prejudice, and one, moreover, which had a most
pernicious effect upon the relation of Leibniz's Dynamics to his
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
G. M. = Leibnizens mathematische Schriften, herausgegeben von C. J
Gerhardt. Halle, 1850- 63.
As more information on
UFT becomes available, this website will be updated.
Some of the Information I have been gathering I have added to Wikipedia
(Internet Reference Library).
But for latest information join: e-group expanding on the history of UFT
Part of Conspiracy website:
Boscovich unified field theory conspiracy:
Errors - (Bernard H Lavenda)
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.
gives unified field theory of point particle 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
Myron Evans gives
unified field theory at:
unfortunately is being attacked at the moment by critics.
he has a list of
fellows supposedly interested in his theory. Stephen Crothers is listed
there but has revealed to me that he has never even read Evan's theory, so
it makes one wonder about the other fellows.
Evans says: “In
this book [on his unified field theory] , several chapters have shown
rigorously that the
Einstein field equation is incorrect
due to its arbitrary neglect of a fundamental property of spacetime called
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.
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.
Einstein is said to have never got his UFT.
So Myron Evans
claims the problem with GR is that it ignores torsion.
torsion and its a correction to the problems with GR, by Myron Evans' UFT.
The method is
mathematical modelling start with a simple mathematical model and then
So SR gets
updated to GR and Myron Evans wants GR updated to his UFT.
Of course Myron
Evans is not perfect, but that is roughly the procedure.
Dr. Robert A.
Herrmann also deals with unified field theory
I have not yet
studied, and unfortunately Herrmann seems to be a creationist and
mainstream aethists would debunk him for that. From my position – if look
upon universe as obeying some self-organising process then its is
subjective as to whether that is God. However, creationists often go
further and believe things like the earth is only 6000 years old that seem
Gutsche has some good video lectures – what little I have seen, because to
fully see them needs paymnet at:http://www.mindbites.com/series/1278-newtons-unfinished-theorem-the-inertial-drive
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:
theory revealed: Einstein-Cartan-Evans
History of Unified Field Theories,
Hubert F. M. Goenner –
misses out anything earlier than 20 th Century
Secrets of the Unified Field: The Philadelphia Experiment, The Nazi Bell,
and the Discarded Theory, Joseph P. Farrell
Einstein’s Antigravity by Tim Ventura,