© Copyright 1995, R.Lanigan-O'Keeffe, Sydney, Australia. Not for copying without permission.

Return to Table of Contents
Return to HOME PAGE

Return to Chapter Twenty Three

Growing from feeble attempts by early twentieth century physicists to explain Rutherford's atom, Quantum Mechanics began to fast-track an explanation of Nature, accepting as truth all the scientific theories of the day. With an incomplete picture of matter, inadequate concepts of energy, time, space and the Universe, bizarre and abstract thought introduced sophistication into their theory, that few, if any could understand. This demarcation barrier set them free from all scientific regulation, allowing more deluded theory to enter the sciences. Unfortunately, without the scientific regulation of the scientific method in both Chemistry and Physics, this half way house became a den of dreamers, where free thought and science fiction were encouraged and accepted as truths without adequate proofs, as long as the method used could explain away events within the fabric of the infected Sciences.

One of the biggest problems arising from Quantum Mechanics is the dream-time, where speculation, based on the abuse and misuse of mathematics, a poor atomic model and contradictory theory allowed cosmologist to adjust the ordinants of Nature; inserting fudge factors to force a failed atomic model to work. Many braces created and introduced by Quantum Mechanics to Chemistry are so alien and weak, that to take them away would implode chemical theory. As it stands, the following could very well be the current chemical model:-

"the electron actually exist in a microcosm of black holes within several parallel universes at the same time in the ten dimensions of space time forming bubbles in the foam of the fabric of general relativity such that the electrons in orbit don't exist yet they appear as if they do exist in several positions at the same time due to fluctuations in the hyperspacial discontinuity between matter and space-time, bouncing the electron into various energy levels simultaneously stressing the networks of invisible threads with all the other bubble universes such that the energy content of the matter becomes positive while the energy of its gravity is negative, giving an effective sum of zero, thus heating the matter to a million degrees to create a new universe in the bubbles that exists between the sub orbitals thereby forcing the electrons to punch holes in the time continuum. The electrons jumping to related positions in the orbital paths between the parallel universes producing velocities appearing faster than light whereby the appearance is faster than light so the orbital velocity is actually slower than light-speed because nothing can travel faster than light. The orbiting electron travelling between the universes only appears at precise locations."

Double talk or a word salad? Believe it or not, the above quote was taken from an actual state-of-the-art scientific text dealing with Black Holes by a leading professional in the field. Carefully examine that ponderous quote, looking for proof, for real content and truth. Such quotes are made possible when Quantum theory is used with the two contradictory theories of relativity, allowing any deluded notion to be proven as true. The mathematics can be perfect, yet totally meaningless due to the tautology generated when opposing mathematics, erroneous models and contradictory theory are combined into a single unified field theory incorporating at least seven dimensions, of which four are hitherto unknown dimensions. To sell their propaganda, speculation must be treated as fact, and arranged in such a way, that the reader faces antagonism and peer pressure for questioning or not accepting the pseudo-scientific preaching of empty idle minds.

One must be reminded of the fable, The King's New Clothes. Because the content is so scientifically preposterous, credibility is bestowed only because the author used a reputable scientific publication to contaminate the minds of the gullible. "Well it was published in 'how's ya father magazine', so it must be true." It is inconceivable that the content of such an article could be treated as fact. Reporters and scientific journalists around the planet jumped and listened to the idle notions which are today commonly accepted.

Following legal advice, the above extract is not attributed to anyone in particular. It is not in the best interest of the author to name that author or the publication involved, apart from giving the vague reference, 1997. The quote illustrates how easy it is to write modern science. Around 1970, buzz word generators were the in-thing. These were small cards that bore the structure of hi-tech sentences. Each card had 20 beginnings, middles and sentence ends. All one had to do was read a random sentence start, a random middle and an equally random ending to sound intellectual, convincing and important. To the mindless masses, the small fry, the sentences appeared on the surface to make a great deal of sense, so one had to agree with the commentary, but without any idea of what it meant. Buzz word generators were so convincing, for a joke, some university students wrote a comprehensive technical manual describing the new computer's operating systems, a beautiful manual that could not be understood.

In the mid 1980's, with the birth of artificial intelligence for computers, the buzz word algorithm resurfaced. Perhaps the above extract was written on an old 8 bit computer. There were several classic programs from computer speech-writers to "Terry" , "ELIZA" and "The Doctor". One early artificial intelligence speech writer program was called "Buzz", that when interfaced to SAM (Software Actuated Mouth), took the user's input, searched for key elements, phrases, clauses, conditions. Juggling the input, the output text was a mathematically correct powerful and complex buzz-word sentence. Such programs demanded a minimum of forty sentences, each of fifteen or more words. A sentence may have as many as 50 different phrases, clauses, and conditions, so with the choice of just 40 beginnings, 40 middles, and 40 endings, and anything relevant between, random linking can produce thousands of never-the-same sentences. As such programs do not analyse the content, so it is that when the user begins sentences with a common same structure, the probability of sentence construction is reduced by an appropriate factor. Buzz would attack this very paragraph, creating something meaningless. "In the mid 1980's, written on an old 8 bit computer, when interfaced with SAM, the buzz word algorithm resurfaced when the user begins sentences, the probability of sentence construction is reduced with the choice of Software Actuated Mouth." Semantics allows absolutely illogical and complex randomised selections of phrases and clauses to be generated.

In extending the sentence, with comments between commas, the program made it possible to create very high level technical pieces, requiring a Phd or better to understand, owing to the very abstract nature of apparent thought construction. Having played with "Buzz", that programmer won a very appreciative audience. The advertising blurb on the software package said something like, "Show your I.Q. at 600 plus. In your next speech or presentation, use Buzz to impress your point of view! Write 40 complex sentences and let Buzz write the book."

Once set up, the program does everything to the exact word count stipulated. It would have been wonderful at University for those 10,000 word assignments. Sentence generator programs form descriptive mathematically perfect statements, creating a work which will conform to any scenario set in the matrix parameters at the start of the program. This is possible because mathematics is just another language like any other language. Mathematics is a language of humanity. It is NOT the language of Nature!

Unfortunately, publishers and their referees cannot always detect buzz-word generated tautologies until after an edition has gone to press. The logic may appear irrefutable when edited and accompanied by apparent proofs and observations that are made to fit the story. A tautology may not be seen as a knowledge virus, when it expounds Nature's truths. When other authors are convinced the knowledge virus spreads.

A great source for seekers of deliberate tautologies can be found in UFO books, where blatant deception is used to prove events that never happened. The logic style used covers all manner of subjects from extraterrestrial visitations to cover-ups. Perhaps the most amusing part of Ufology (for the sober scientific researcher) would be the descriptions and the level of alien technology claimed by those who claim encounters. Typically, the technology described is often as advanced as the off-the-shelf high-tech equipment of the time, or that displayed in the latest science fiction movie. In 1965 digital clocks, laser beams, counters and rocket motors. In 1995, warp drives, transporters, tricorders, wormholes, morphing, tractor beams, tackieon force fields, silicon chips, implants, holodecks and hyper-space.

The parallels between Ufology and cosmology exist in another common logic style. It is a style that is difficult to see until pointed out. This is one of ownership and the repression by authority.

"As we cosmologists are on the cutting edge of physics, so many of our theories will not be accepted by conventional physicists because cosmology challenges the physical laws."

Therefore the claims made must be true because they are so intellectually exceptional. This quote is an example of ownership, where the owner of the logic sets themselves and their science on a plane higher than science, Nature and most probably, God, as the voice of the truth, promoting through propaganda, a distortion of the truth, to destroy any opposition. In the same mould is:-

"Because everyone in authority denies all knowledge of the events that actually occurred, which they know to be true, this episode must be considered as another UFO cover-up."

The knowledge virus used in this logic style is prolific. It is found in TV programmes, books and magazines praising Ufology, selling the faith to the gullible and converted. Here a false claim of cover-up is presented, where the reader must assume as true the statement that the authorities knew or were informed. When the authorities dispute the claim or attempt to honestly deny it, the inference is that through their denial they do know about the claimed incident, so it must be that the cover-up is a cover-up because "I heard them say it on the telly, and that's exactly what they said they would say, the bastards." Categorically, all official denials confirm to the reader the story being presented as true. The deception is complete. To the converted and the gullible, the facts speak for themselves.

Unless meticulous public records are kept, it is very difficult for anyone, or any organization to prove otherwise, especially when malicious gossip is accepted above truth as fact. Anyone can start such gossip. The deceiver tells his primary victims a fragment of a story, which they may find interesting enough to remember. So, at this moment, each innocent victim know about THE story. The deceiver then tells others a completely different highly embellished colourful story, naming names, accusing people and organizations. When the investigator attempts to test the claims of the deceiver, they contact the pawns in the game. The innocent victims become a major part in the deception by stealth, playing an active role. As each pawn knows a fragment of the truth, it is something that can be substantiated. So, to the investigator, their stories confirm the whole story told as the truth, because they know about THE WHOLE story. Merely for the pawns in this sinister game to confirm or deny anything, confirms as true the complete fabricated work, so it is that all the named individuals and organizations are guilty.

People's lives can be wrecked, because everyone in the game is guilty. They are guilty of being deceived, being used, and adding to the deception by telling what they know as true. Businesses, families and reputations can be torn apart. It could take months, perhaps years to reconcile the stories told. Only a good researcher who analysises the stories phrase by phrase could expose the fabricated story as a hoax. This game is attested to and used by the media organizations, where cheap cheque book journalism turns gossip and innuendo into real stories, ruining the reputations of people and organizations. The mud thrown sticks. So many innocent people have been driven to their death by the behaviour of the media circus. This is a terrible indictment of our mindless gullible society, accepting as fact, propaganda and entertainment served up as the daily news or current affairs. It is no longer a case of innocent until proven guilty. It is a case of trial by media, where the script writer always gets his man.

When the media want a story, when they want answers now, they are willing to do anything to get that story, no matter whether the law is broken or someone dies in the process. That makes the story better! THEIR version of the story is what counts, not the truth. A dead person can not defend themself, nor can they go to trial for any offence, so because the story writers killed that person, the story writers now paint that person as being forever guilty. The deceased is now set up on a pedestal as a typical example for all to mock and decry, for no one would publicly deny the accuracy of the accusations, else face the revenge of the all powerful, all mighty media and peer pressure from the mindless gullible public.

When false accusations and allegations are made by scurrilous individuals screaming cover-up, defenders of the truth, people with the proof are branded as falsifying or promoting the illegal activity. But what is the "real-truth"? It is the truth that they want to hear, that one is guilty or implied guilty, thus giving themselves more credibility. With credibility, comes more revenue. Some members of the media are no more than dirty animals, hungry on the scent of blood! If that is not enough for their purposes, their victim, the victim's family, neighbours and friends may be hounded and chased for photographs or interviews until they get their man. A wrong gesture or comment could be edited and re-sequenced to make their sordid story complete.

The media circus give the word privacy a new meaning, "duck hunting season". When the grounds needed to build a story are accepted, the story is created in an editing suite, with powerful emotive word pictures, so colourful and graphic that utter gossip is accepted as truth. Never ever trust the media! The quote "Newspapers only print the truth" is propaganda and invalidated by their actions. Responsible journalists they are not.

By the same token, in Australia, never trust the police, for they are trained to do exactly the same. Their role is to obtain a conviction. They can do this by stealth. The classic remark, "Would you come down to the station to answer a few questions?" is a statement demanding the immediate response "NO!" The question means 'step out-side the door and we will arrest you, to be interrogated, questioned and charged. The police do not need a warrant to arrest anyone in the street. Some idle minded individual suffering from a mental condition could make unjustified accusations that are accepted with little or no evidence. One can be arrested on someone's say-so, because they made a statement. The next thing is the prison cell for the accused. New South Wales in the year 2000 AD is a police state.

When this logic style is used against one personally, where every rebuttal to the police statement is treated as concealing or distorting the truth, the only attack that the researcher can make is to discredit those making such accusation, is by finding the very weaknesses in the statement, the arguments and observations, to go for the jugular, discrediting the police and the accuser. Many accusers believe that they will receive compensation under the law as a victim of crime, in taking someone down through the courts. That can be a very expensive exercise because the respondent is required (under Australian Law) to prove their innocence. The perpetrator of the foul accusations is patted on the head until one can prove beyond all doubt that the accusations are completely unfounded. The law in New South Wales is on the side of the accuser due to a knee-jerk reaction of the government bowing to media muck-raking pressure. One will find a situation where the accuser is backed by the full weight of the government coffers, to string the accused to the nearest tree. Australia the lucky country it is not.

The author's search for the truth about a particular "UFO" incident, was previously discussed in passing. Although credit is not given there to the accuser, threats were made to stop all research or else. The researcher, this author was instructed in basic gutter English NOT to continue researching a particular UFO news story, the film of which was claimed to be original and have been made over New Zealand from an Argosy aircraft. The researcher was told not to even consider publishing the research findings. To expose the facts would mean the researcher would end up in court, being sued for millions of dollars by the Network and all other innocent parties including the sponsors. The threat, made by a reputable television producer concluded with the remark "and you'll be wearing rags for the rest of your life" It was this credibility threat that made the researcher look further, proving beyond doubt, to identify identical photographic grain, exposing the special photographic tricks that were used to make the footage some several days before the alleged sighting. It is a very interesting story that one day soon may be told in full.

As a researcher, one must be careful of litigation for in calling "a liar, a liar" could give "the accuser" the very grounds for further legal action. In the movie "War Games", is the statement "The only way to play the game, is not to play the game" Often, because sensational false claims are published first and released to the public, the consensus of opinion is that the innocent party, the researcher, is painted to look guilty, even though the false claims can be shown to be false. Often, the low life in the media say that the researcher concerned refused to be interviewed, or if a response is not forthcoming, then they will say that on National television, psychological blackmail. There are tactics that the researcher can use in such a case, for the researcher can quite easily play a similar game. One needs the mental agility to rapidly come back with a comment or a nut-cracking reply in the middle of an answer to a totally alien question, making the media, (especially if live-to-air), look super foolish. The researcher's biggest critics are those people on the other side of the lens. If an interview takes place that is recorded for later playback, be very cautious in giving any reply. Once the interview hits the editing suite, the word honesty is replaced by the words 'entertainment' and 'drama'.

The researcher's crime will not be seen as guilty of 'cover-up' when challenging the credibility and integrity of those making the accusations. This is a dangerous game. If one is ever placed in such a predicament, be careful! Play to the camera. Rather than denying the event, one must play it safe and debate the words used, turning their words around. If this is happening in the early days of research, and only very little is known, to say "I don't really know', means that forever, it will be quoted and related to that story, so that subsequent research is a change of mind. It is best to turn the interviewer around as any good researcher should, taking on the role of the interviewer, seeking answers, saying nothing that is important or can be used at a later date to destroy one's credibility. The truth will become evident only when the research becomes causal, where all the evidence can be viewed.

Please do not volunteer information until that time, else the statements made will be used against the researcher. By all means, if any research is being conducted, admit the fact, but there are ways of doing this without endangering the research or one's own credibility or status. If little information is known and the media circus are in a feeding frenzy try the typical avoidance measures such as:

Always be nice and friendly. Be helpful and always give the circus an education, because many left school so early they can talk but don't read unless it is something they wrote. It may not be what they want, but it fills up their day. If some reporter is screaming cover-up, there are ways of dealing with this. The first is to arrange to have an interview and then do the dirty on the reporter by inviting another reporter along from the opposition's newsroom and the science journals. Then one can use a cold scientific approach, such as

"We will only comment when we are given a chance and the funds to research the sighting. So far hard evidence has not been forthcoming from those who claim that we are aware of the event. Please ask those people to supply the necessary information. We would be delighted to hear from them first hand today, with you present. Only then will I try to seek out funding to do the research. All research cost money and I need to know who is going to pay for it so I can employ someone to research it. "

Be extremely careful voicing the following remark, simply because it will lead to so many misquotes. It may appear very funny, perhaps as a social commentary on people generally. It may be true, however, think how the media can take this joke, this throw-away paragraph or aside, to edit or screw it around, stating something that was never said. Think of how Buzz could rearrange the phrases.

To allow idle speculation and gossip without proof builds up stories and legends that will haunt science forever. Stories like 'AREA 51' should be nipped in the bud. The gullible public love Area 51 stories, being the biggest grossing legend in "UFO cover-up" stories. There have been movies on alien bodies, with creatures from close encounters of the worst kind, to we have the captured alien technology to defend the United States and defend the Earth. Damn script writers! The US military operate this site as a military research facility and as such the site is subject to normal security measures. It is a funded site and carries out funded research on specific military design and applications. Ufologists go overboard when they rewrite history to sound convincing. It was recently reported that today's integrated circuit technology and super computers were all developed from research into the secret alien technology stored in area 51. Where is reality for some people? In a pill, powder or drink?

It must be remembered and held as an unquestionable fact that no one really wants to know the truth. This is especially so when a researcher discovers a deliberate, premeditated on-going hoax, where pecuniary gain is more important than truth or accuracy. To bend to the consensus of opinion and peer pressure is better for many than being kicked in the head or knocked to the ground. The author's own UFO research story is similar, for the truth has been withheld to all but a select group of astronomers. Yet, the incredulous work "Let's Hope They're Friendly", brands this researcher and his research as unscientific. Letters from the researcher that were not to be published, without consent magically found their way into those sick pages, not because of their relevance, but by what appears to be sheer bastardly.

With publishing Changing the Universe, the task became onerous entering a "no-win-catch-22" situation. It must be stated over and over again,

"k-calculus" and "relativistic time stretching" are prime examples of how beautiful the mathematics and logic can be, but when a tautology is seen for what it is and where it is, the futility of the problem, (how it impacts throughout all the stages and levels of science) takes on devastating proportions to the self and the Science.

The theory of Relativity has had its time in space, giving the preliminary tools to determine a basic understanding of Atomic Physics and three body gravity. However, Quantum mechanics can only be seen as a total indictment of both the theories of Relativity and the incorrect model of the atom. Since the contradictory theories of relativity are built on the very framework of Newton's error, then the sciences must be wrong.

It must be realized that both Quantum Theory and the theory of relativity developed independently, however Quantum theory had an evolutionary development accepting some of the fundamentals of relativity as truths of nature. There was no single work defining Quantum theory, rather it was an exciting movement where many individual scientists added weight to the beliefs. Quantum mechanics points out the mistakes to avoid further mistakes. Relativity is in part, a theory of gravitation, not just energy, placing it in conflict with the view of the sub-atomic world held by Quantum Mechanics. Whereas relativity holds the view that gravity warps space and time, Quantum theory treats gravity as either tiny packets of energy called gravitons (which are exchanged between matter) and gravity waves that cause effects in matter (This is seen as backing both horses in a two horse race).

The "uncertainty" of it all gave believers an openness to form religious camps expressing common belief, developing a mind set that would stigmatize other scientific groups. Many scientists have tried to merge both relativity and quantum theory together into 'the theory of everything', however, because the roots of the religions are based in faith, Nature and the physical world throws up exceptions at every opportunity, used as a proof by each camp to deny the credibility of the other camps. This has produced a stand-off cold war between the faculties where the players attempt to point score in the media, claiming proofs where there are none.

Consequently, the followers of Quantum theory and relativity proposed flights of the imagination; where the speculation that entered science fact is taught with religious evangelism, professing and spreading the faith from the media, to the classroom, in text books, and in science fiction. The dogma has become propaganda. Phrases like "powered by a neutron star", "is a black hole" and "proof of the Big Bang theory" all demonstrate the aberration caused by an incorrect use of Science. To sort out fact from fiction means that the scientific community has a great deal of work to look forward to.

With the acceptance of the contradictory Special and General theories of relativity into Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Astronomy, knowledge has become contaminated by the virus. The sciences that dabbled in this pseudo-science reveal the confused and disastrous consequences of the growing malignancy, applying false beliefs, misconceptions, and tautologies, as analogies and fact.

Where does one look for an energy equation since the infamous relativity equation no longer applies, unless it is used to convert a kilogram of mass into two point two pounds of mass or as indicated earlier into 8.987548 x 10¹⁶ fudge factor mass units. Disputed are the fundamental predictions made in the relativity theories because they are not relative or relevant. For the time, they were expected predictions due to the limited knowledge of the time.

The biggest limitation today to the advancement of science turns out to be one-eyed discrimination and vilification caused when one is not politically correct; when one who does not accept what one "must accept" to gain the necessary scientific credentials. Being politically correct means believing in the religion of uncertainty, relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Opponents of these groups are branded as "failed intellectuals" and are therefore given a very difficult time when they try to illustrate the mistakes made by those who are politically correct, those who blindly accept relativity, through peer pressure, where the sheer misguided indoctrination and propaganda, has spawned an ignorant acceptance of the common overview by the general public. To see the errors first hand, read the works of Einstein, Newton and Coriolis. Don't accept paraphrased translations. It can be disconcerting and alarming to be the focus of the ignorant, where general acceptance of paraphrased translations is demanded through misguided education.

The commonly accepted General theory of relativity is based on far too many historically wrong and deluded baseless assumptions and intuitive insights. The relativity of "the theory of relativity" is that many predictions made in the theories of relatively, are relatively incorrect. Great incredulity must be taken when applying relativistic mathematics to any event. "Close enough" is not good enough, since the results obtained may not be applicable to the conditions "out there" or at the atomic level.

The speed of light is a very poor constant, a variable having a substantial range of values depending on both frequency and the medium of propagation The models and predictions made by these theories through invalid logic have built a belief base where non-related events and observations are claimed as proofs. Subsequently, further predictions made from the theory only exist in mathematics or in a computer. It is an alarming situation when the mathematics can be so easily manipulated to predict everything, including absolute falsehoods. So it is that Science Fiction is currently called Science Fact. Someone's interpretation of the theory preaching truth does not prove a theory as true. Is there any saving grace in still accepting some of the predictions and claims made, resulting from using the application of the general and special theories of relativity, or will the rest of science simply fall apart when put up to simple scrutiny of causal research, where the observations and elementary interrogation of the sciences views the exceptions?

A major problem has been created by this discussion. It will be interpreted by many as, 'what would replace relativity?' So, which theory of relativity needs replacing?

Idle speculation should not be used to alter scientific history. The concept of the neutron star is a prime example. The source of this prediction is claimed as 'the theory of relativity'. Is this historically accurate? Neutrons were not identified until the mid-1930's. There was a noted regular mass difference in the table of elements but no physical proof of a neutron. When were Einstein's two theories of relativity published? Most peculiar. The missing mass difference star, a source of unlimited power. Better still, whose interpretation of Einstein's theories predict the neutron star. Obviously not a physicist.

Still there are elements of the relativistic mathematics that work. It is a very quick means of approximating the results. It is far from accurate as evidenced by the first nuclear implosion bomb, the first to breach the one megaton barrier, giving out five times more energy than calculated. The reason for such errors being the theories of relativity do not introduce the necessary rotational-positional-gravity-time mathematics needed to fix Linear Newtonian mathematics. Newton gives the mathematics for two body linear systems while Einstein introduced approximation mathematics for use in a multiple body system.

To totally eliminate the valuable approximation mathematics given in the theories of relativity would be doing science a great injustice. Although untrue to Nature, Einstein's approximations decrease the fiddly things that confuse the issues. The suggestion is one of salvage, finding those elements that work in the real world and equating these to the laws of Nature. Invalid theory should be dumped. Only when the mathematical approximation works without accepting hocus-pocus, should such ideas carry into the new age of science. Such mathematics need to be reconciled with Nature's processes and mechanisms.

It is the author's belief that one should treat Albert Einstein with the same respect given Kepler. Where would we be today if "the music of the spheres" had been accepted into scientific dogma?.

The General and Special theories of Relativity show such massive errors that it is becoming more obvious that to use either theory in any form would create substantial errors. The ordinants of time, position and matter are sacred. Unfortunately, both theories have altered the frames of reference in science to such a degree that any real fix requires a re-write, a re-think and perhaps as the computer says "REDO FROM START!"

This opinion is further reinforced by the blind acceptance of CHAOS theory, where the universe and Nature's simplicity is explained-away in terms of wonderful mathematical models existing in a state of Chaos. To link uncertainty, chaos and mathematics the argument is regurgitated from time to time, and runs like this;

This is circular logic, because the value of is a mathematically derived mathematical constant. Here the premise maintains the misguided notion that Nature uses mathematics as a language. Correction, People use mathematics. Nature uses simplicity at the process level, where communications and energy-transfer are carried out through magnetic means. Nature appears to be in Chaos, only because the mathematical language cannot express the duration of all the events taking place in a major operation. Only at the process level can models for each event be described. Chemistry uses the empirical mathematics to describe the formation of H₂O, as in

The general theory of relativity must be replaced with something that works and strengthens the foundations. This does not mean replacing one dogma with another, rather it involves replacing a pseudo-science with the Science of Nature, the Laws of Nature. There are other pieces in this jigsaw puzzle to be found before the full understanding of how things fit together can be imagined or realized. Even so, great care must be taken, since so many unwanted pieces have been created by relativistic physicists. These litter the playing field; pieces set to confuse the unwary. There are many applications in relativity which mathematically may still be true, where the relativistic part of the equation may not cause an error. This means finding the truth.

Because the contradictory theories of relativity are based on errors, observations which have been made to fit the predictions, must be validly attributed to the true causes. This means that these observations (the background radiation from space, the gravitational bending of light, the time dilation effect etc.) must be reviewed and the diagnosis corrected to show the true cause.

Be it the transfer in energy through a simple lever, the power of the tornado or a meteor impact, these are examples of forces arising from a great many extremely small tiny directed forces in Nature forming a massive intense force. The transfer of energy effectively creates a force that if suitable will allow work to be done. It is really a collective force where the release of energy seemingly involves moving a mass with respect to its central point.

Energy is an event experienced at the atomic level of matter, and transferred through matter by magnetic means. It is of no concern where the energy originated, though it is obvious that energy does not originate from time, from position or from energy. It originated as an event involving rotating matter. Energy cannot exist without matter, since energy is a property of matter, and as such, as energy is transmitted, converted and applied, it does so only at the atomic and molecular level. This implies that there are several "entry" and "exit" points for different energy-forms, or in another way, several types of energy forms exist in nature and these influence matter. Energy has a time component, in that it starts, it travels, it causes effects.

Many scientists do not know much about Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle yet treat it as fundamental to their cause. Few know its meaning, or when, where and how to apply it; fewer seem to realise its limitations ; yet the principle is accepted and asserted universally without question or debate as encompassing all of the Universe in uncertainty. It is treated as the single most powerful scientific principle in the Universe where its misuse allows scientific authors and educators to preach blatant speculation as being Nature's truth without regard to Nature, observations, or experimental proof. The uncertainty principle refers to problems associated with the measurement of extremely small objects at the finest limit of technological resolution, where any attempt to observe or measure will alter the observation.

This varies from the 'uncertainty' expressed by the educators and authors. Uncertainty comes from accepting and using a theory that fails to work in every situation. Self doubts have been illustrated throughout this work, where the educator cannot accept the theory being taught, paraphrasing the explanation with veiled or open apologies. There were some classic comments used in developing an explanation of the chemical model, where it was stated "The periodic law has its strengths and weaknesses". Other explanations carried tags like,"... until some better theory comes along". Self doubt appears in statements where self-selling is used to convince the student and the educator that the theory is true.

Propaganda is perhaps the worst form of advertising or salesmanship. Often, the educator places theory above science and Nature. The following quotes came from a television tutorial dealing with Black holes and Neutron Stars.

The final quote is perhaps the most amusing, for it began by acknowledging that no neutron stars ever been observed or identified, however, as theory is above Nature, the neutron star must exist. Only theory says they exist. No astronomer or cosmologist has yet matched the theoretical properties of a neutron star to any astronomical object. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely whether anyone could. The theory describes a powerhouse in the universe where the nuclear ash of a dead star comes to life and in a self perpetuating reaction that gives out an infinite amount of energy. This they attribute to Einstein's theory of relativity as a prediction, As Einstein made the prediction, it must be true because Einstein is God? How can such mindless nonsense be accepted as being somewhat plausible? Even Einstein's poor mass-energy approximation E=mc² discredits the infinite energy notion. Sending vast sums of money to find such an object, illustrates only too well that the scientific community has placed baseless speculation and invalid predictions above science and Nature on an exalted plateaux as a scientific and categoric truth.

Self-doubting is a subtle form of eroding salesmanship. In attempting to convince oneself before all others, that the teachings held by the entire scientific community are true or false, it gives the audience reason enough to find, accept and believe the statements made, be it the truth or a false belief.

Scientifically, the misuse of the uncertainty principle gives one the authority to prove as fact, speculation and fallacies without foundation. The only truth in the above quote is that Cygnus-X1 is a powerful X-ray source. The rest is a load of hog wash. The quotes (in the main) comes from the aforementioned educational television series "The Infinite Universe".

To tar all authors and educators with the same brush is a travesty for there are some exceptions who dubiously qualify and treat these fanciful beliefs with utmost contempt. Still, the education system creates a great many gullible people who regularly accept such a logic style as valid simply because one needs the credentials at the end of the day.

The student is beguiled or badgered into acceptance, while educators do not realise how wrong it is to pass on corrupt knowledge. There are many who are quite happy to be led and to follow, bending with the wind, bowing to peer pressure. Then there are the "con-men" willing to make profits from the weaknesses of others by using this logic style to sell a certain product from encyclopedia to relativity, religion to Quantum Physics. However, survival may be considered by some as a valid reason. It could be that it is in the best interest of all to twist and embellish the theories, adding a little bull that no one can dispute, because research survival depends on obtaining the necessary grants. It is a known fact that Governments and business won't pay top dollar for any local minor planet or asteroid survey, yet they will pay top dollar to seek-out flavour-of-the-month concepts like black holes and neutron star surveys. If during the survey, minor planets and asteroids are identified, it is worth the wasted time because great benefits will be achieved.

Because Albert Einstein placed the imagination on a higher plane than knowledge, knowledge became subservient to dreams. People dream, as do most animal life forms including cats and dogs. Dreaming is a manifestation of the imagination during sleeping, or conscious and drug induced moments, to test situations or practice survival skills. Some people use their imagination and dreams to create or advance knowledge.

Often, imagination and frustration gives one the idea, but not necessarily is there the knowledge required to put an idea into practice. Imagination may present a completely opposite concept to that maintained in one's knowledge, a concept that may work better in the real world than the accepted theories. The use of knowledge and imagination together may give some the necessary impulse to link knowledge, creating something better rather quickly, fast-tracking an idea from the notion to the product. The scientific method can do much the same, but will take much longer to turn fantasy into fact, into certainty, into knowledge. The scientific method may fail, to maintain the fantasy as an idle notion. Sometimes the notion may work better, while being be completely wrong. In such a case, a notion based on an observational illusion may serve to improve research and diagnosis. Classic examples cited throughout this work include Davy's theory of Valency, Newton's laws of gravity and motion, Einstein's General and Special theories of relativity, Faraday's magnetic field concepts, Maxwell's equations and Bohr's Periodic Table (based on Rutherford's atomic model).

Invalid scientific foundations do not lead directly to certainty. However, when theory is based on indicators, reasonable approximations can be obtained when predictions are made. Certainty is having the knowledge and the ability to use that knowledge correctly. Every so often a true leader comes along. There are very few leaders. A leader is a person capable of reaching a just decision and acting on that decision, perhaps to issue a direct challenge to an enemy, risking scientific scrutiny, personal safety, reputation and security. Good leaders do not use "uncertainty" or "certainly"; a leader determines "certainty" with little faith in blind faith, or speculation.

Specifically the Uncertainty Principle is related to the uncertainty in mankind's ability to measure things at the atomic level. Matter influences all other matter. To measure matter requires using matter. There is no other way to measure anything. All clocks use matter. Even a sun dial is made of matter. What measurement is made without matter being involved? A point is reached where the standard system of measurement fails. There is no reason to close one's mind to quantize all measures and beliefs at some arbitrary point (which Quantum Mechanics does), rather, one needs to find a different and accurate method of determining the measurement.

In Nature's frame of reference, Nature works with certainty. For Nature to create an atom of Silver, it does not require good luck, good management or sheer coincidence. Nature does not need to measure the atom since other processes are working in Nature to evolve, refine and make all the necessary corrections where one of the final efficient outcomes happens to be Silver. Each atom in a mass of a particular Silver isotope is identical, exhibiting the same properties, the same characteristics and traits.

A block of a pure Sulphur isotope contains identical atoms and these have identical properties, characteristics and traits, but that is where the similarity ends. Silver is Silver and Sulphur is Sulphur. Independently, they have totally different properties, characteristics and traits. Since crossing this bridge, it is possible to look at many unexplainable questions and niggling doubts that have been sitting at the back of the mind since childhood.

Although Quantum mechanics greatly assisted our knowledge and appreciation of the atom, it did so while further attempting to maintain the fabric of Chemistry and "the sense of History", using a very poor model of Chemical bonding mooted over a century before. Quantum Mechanics, the branch of Physics and Chemistry implemented to fix the atomic model actually holds the very keys which absolutely discredit Chemistry, both theories of relativity and the fundamentals of Quantum Mechanics.

In the next work, it will be illustrated how Chemistry has been driven by Atomic physics, and driven by both Quantum Mechanics and the contradictory theories of relativity where the current model of the atom is being continually corrected, so that it is seen to work. (Keeping up appearances.) There are far too many exceptions, too many scientific mysteries that have been spawned by the deluded and invalid theory, simple problems that the current atomic model cannot explain. It is for this reason alone that physicists and chemists have needed to wrongfully use Chaos and the "uncertainty principle" to explain away all intrinsic problems and exceptions.

There have been far too many unanswered questions that established problems and each demanded an explanation better than "it's a scientific mystery" or "don't worry about that because it is a known exception">. Atomic Physics and Chemistry often place oddities into the uncertain category, before placing them in the too-hard-basket, noted as another mere exception in a massive table of exceptions.

It was the comet-hunter Charles Messier who placed M1 (the Crab Nebula) in a similar pigeon hole, "Don't look here, it is not a comet..." Studies of M1 have since revealed one of the strangest stories in recent astronomy, of a distant massive object that changes very rapidly. But the Crab nebula is not a singularity, that is a unique object in the Universe. There are other local non-galactic nebulous objects with similar 3-D structures. What will history show when future generations look back at the sciences of the twentieth century? To see Nature ignored and treated as being alien to the sciences. The growth of science must be through facts, through PROOF and credibility, not "faith", not 'chaos' and not 'uncertainty'. Because something cannot be explained; where negative results are obtained, it does not mean that the process or the mechanism is not true, or that some other mysterious process is at work, rather it means that either the method used, the experiment can't get the required answers, or the theory itself is wrong. To look back at the playing field, the current situation can be scrutinized. In summary, the fundamental relativistic predictions are now challenged.

The following listing is incomplete, a mere sample of fundamental arguments used in this work to dismiss or affirm notions and theories.

With the acceptance of Relativity and Rutherford's model of the atom, the mechanism for transferring and the understanding of energy was lost. With the acceptance of scientific mysteries, chaos and uncertainty, the sciences became preternatural. To correct the sciences demands scrapping much invalid and deluded theory, reintroducing a 2000 AD version of the Æther theory, where the magnetic field of matter transfers different energy-forms. It will be necessary to seriously consider such concepts in the next volume, that being 'The Heretic's Guide to Light and Energy Propagation', where more errors will be identified, explained and exterminated.

In this work, it has been necessary to attack the fundamental premise used in each of the theories of relativity and the errors made in Newton's theories of gravity, light and motion. This work does not remove any of the applications or the mathematics from the sciences that the continuing misuse of Einstein's contradictory theories, with the deluded view of the Atom, has introduced through Quantum Mechanics.

Subsequently, great care must be used in the application of such mathematics. Science must now determine what mathematics are valid, since the mass-energy relationship found in the theory of relativity is invalid, wrong and deluded, because it is a mass equivalence equation. It is time to cast off the excessive historical baggage and start afresh, as we enter a new age of Science, an age of certainty and the only one true science, The Science of Nature. This involves correcting Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Geology, including all their branches, sub-branches and sister sciences like geography and atomic physics, where foundation errors in the sciences have virulently spawned themselves in self-replicating contradictions, delusions and illusions. Now we can move ahead.

Gosh, Golly and Gee Whiz. What a hike that last bit turned out to be. I will not take time to apologize for stating the obvious, or for attacking incredulous theory accepted above Nature. If you feel somewhat emotionally flat, apprehensive, or exhausted, that is quite normal. So are the feelings of hostility and frustration.

We have finally made it to the end of this first tour having left the crumbling foundations of the sciences in those ruins. In front of us is the verge of the super highway of knowledge linking together Nature's sciences. We have reached this site to see a sight that you can now cite as a real achievement. The sign on the side of the massive road directly in front of us states Welcome to Nature's Universe. If you look to the left and then to the right, or just into the distance, the view is something so powerful, the super highway of knowledge. I am sorry to say but this site really scares me silly. I feel quite apprehensive for others have come along this route and will use the information and the keys for something I fear.

There are some big tasks ahead. The first is to re-write 200 years of Chemistry, and 400 years of Physics. If you capable of doing that, please make a start and try to implement the changes that need to be made. Badger the educators and ask them the obvious questions. Challenge their faith and point them in the right direction. The differences in Physics, Chemistry and Geology are probably more than obvious. You have become more of a polymath for now you understand so much more about the workings of the Universe than do most scientists.

Look at that amazing territory you just crossed. Examine all that territory you have seen for the first time on this trek, the experiments that you undertook and learn from. It is a shame that you were too busy in the driver's seat to stop to get some photographs on the way here, but now that you have reached this position, you can stop and return to another scenic location that tickled your fancy on route, to revel Nature's Wonders. It is a fabulous experience, and will become better. You have the very keys to unlock all those private hidden doors, that few suspected even exist. Go back and look at them. It is amazing stuff.

As your guide, I would finally like to say, Congratulations you have made it! All the keys needed to unlock every scientific mystery and Pandora's box are there for you to leap light years ahead in humanity's collective knowledge. My last words of advice to you is to Please take extreme care and proper caution, for now that Pandora's box is open to you, being human, you will want to show others. Please do not release the evil forces that stir in the hearts of men and women. Please use your knowledge with both wisdom and understanding for the betterment of the future, else there will be no future.