Captain’s Log, Stardate 06

 

More Particles of Space

 

Particle Xi-14

 

 

Yet more insights to Light Transmission Dynamics.

 

Correcting Isaac Newton's misinterpretations

 

Quantum Physics defies common sense BECAUSE it is non sense -> NONSENSE.

Scientists ignoring evidence

 

Deconfusing BBC's misleading 'science' programmes - Brian Cox (Manchester University), Jim Al-Khalili(Surrey University), Marcus du Sautoy - theoretical physicists & a mathematician lacking practical experience - refusing to acknowledge evidence => confusing themselves & confusing others.

 

Some insights to Andrew Wiles' 'proof' of Fermat's Last Theorem.

 

Nagasaki plutonium bomb, Chernobyl & Fukoshima Nuclear disasters - man playing with dangerous technology he doesn't understand.

 

Shepherd's ditty - 'Red Sky at night shepherd's delight, Red sky in morning shepherd's warning'

 

Aurora Borealis

 

Trees, Glasnevin Botanical Gardens

 

UK Coalition Government's policy - work less to pay more = nonsense policy based upon nonsense science

 

Western Government's refusing to engage BEST PRACTICE -> Economy Terrorism continues

 

UN Mazar-i-Sharif Mission attack - East's perception (justified?) of UN as stooge for Western Governments.

 

_______________________________________________

 

INTRODUCTION: (the purpose of these Introduction sections is to put science/engineering research & development into a global macro-economy context - you can, if you prefer, skip this and go straight to the Science Debates below)

---

There will always be an uncertainty about science but there is a very large unnecessary element of uncertainty because of dishonesty. The very science issues (fundamental issues) covered below could have been uncovered long before had honesty been promoted - but people are reluctant to go against the established, and heavily entrenched, mindset of leading scientists, because those that do will be oppressively ostracised.

The Intellectual Momentum behind defective theories is IMMENSE.

---

A government whose policy is focussed on working less to pay more is pursuing a nonsense policy - this is what UK's Coalition Government is doing by cutting budgets & destroying jobs to pay off debt instead of expanding the economy through constructive derived-demand job creation & increasing revenue. UK Government look to fraudulent finance scams funded/driven from within the Financial sectors to magic money out of thin air, which only destroys wealth creating local jobs to achieve same; shifts reliance to cheap Asian sweat-shop slave-labour imports & cheap holidays, which induces frustration & anger (witness Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Korea, etc.) which has exploded into the violence we currently see on TV.

The West's imposed Economy Terrorism is REAL. The East has fundamental faith differences which are trashed by the West. And the West's 'Christian' churches are a large part of the problem with their numerous fraud scams which keep them financially buoyant. Imposing grossly defective & massively destructive Western economic models onto the East is tantamount to forcing a Muslim to east pork. Usury (interest rates) & other economic models are anathema to Eastern culture, even to impoverished non-faith peoples, and the West's models are destructive to their own nations (witness the meltdown). But these are forcefully imposed upon the East. Western Governments refuse to engage pioneered Economy Engineering that CDADD is progressively developing. And these Western Governments are being/have been headed-up by specific people - George Bush, Tony Blair, Donald Gordon, Barrack Obama, David Cameron, Nick Clegg - these are the people that are CRIMINALLY imposing Economy Terrorism onto un/under-developed nations - it is criminal because they ignore BEST PRACTICE (i.e. those most advanced & proved engineering applications of the Tangible & Intangible sciences).

On top of these oppressions are:-

The lies behind the Twin Towers implosions - the West are wrongly blaming the Muslim faith for the implosions by passively claiming the towers were a collapse consequent to the plane crashes, they were not; Nature's Laws cannot ever be defied, the absence of Transfer of Momentum dynamics is the concrete proof of additional high impulse (explosive) & sequential forces (by definition:- implosion).

And other West abuses such as Bhopal.

The defective economic models that are imposed are defective because not only are the underlying intangible sciences wrong but also much of the mathematical modelling that supports & 'justifies' is also wrong.

As shown below, Andrew Wiles' 'proof' of Fermat’s Last Theorem is NOT a proof, yet the incorrect acceptance of Wiles' claim has caused mathematical theories to spin off into deep maths-fiction, and for decades; just as Jim Al-Khalili & Brian Cox & others are misleading with their defective science theories as presented in BBC documentaries & books.

Recall that Nobel Prize Winner John Nash made a retraction (admittedly partial) of his mathematics model after CDADD had disproved Nash's models; and demonstrated that, along with others', these mathematical models were used to give false credibility to otherwise fraudulent financial/business/economic scams, including the global pension frauds that are largely behind the Global Economy Meltdown. Nash is a mathematician & was unwittingly duped - mathematically his work is sheer brilliance but it is not real.

Similarly with Andrew Wiles, his 'proof' of FLT is not a proof.

Governments have long been aware of these truths but refuse to engage Best Practice - leaders are elected to a government that is of, for & by the people but in ignoring Best Practice are confirming narrow self-interest. Cameron, Obama, Sarkozy are leading the World into another World War just as the Allies did with the Versailles Treaty & subsequent abuses against other nations, especially Germany, which induced anger & resistance leading to violence.

The International Courts of Justice are failing to bring Western Leaders to book for their imposition of Economy Terrorism - instead the ICJ simply sit back, passively abusing their powers, inducing polarising disparities within un/under-developed nations, which knowingly creates frustration, anger & violence, until some eastern leader is compelled to take action against rebelling people. Not all people in the east are wanting the West's distorted 'democracy' as witnessed by those opposing the 'rebels' - yet Obama & Cameron & Sarkozy are happy to chuck bombs & bullets to impose their particular defective Economy Terrorism ideology falsely guised as democracy. Obama, Cameron, Sarkozy are happy to spend billions on dumping bombs & bullets onto people but refuse to spend/reward on CDADD's pioneering Economy Engineering that would enhance economic stability - that is what is criminal, the fact that they would rather chuck bombs & bullets than engage constructively with the most advanced Economy Engineering.

The Senior Prosecutor at the ICJ should bring War Crimes charges against Obama, Cameron & Sarkozy.

The Fukoshima (& Chernobyl) Nuclear disaster clearly demonstrates that man is playing with dangerous technology he doesn't properly understand - because man doesn't properly understand Light/Energy Transmission Dynamics - consequently, Quantum Physics defies common sense because it is non-sense -> NONSENSE - the science debates below give further insights as to why the foundations of Quantum Physics are defective.

________________

SCIENCE DEBATES:

BBC have recently launched three new 'science' programmes:- Brian Cox, 'Wonders of the Universe' (BBC2) & Jim Al-Khalili, 'Everything & Nothing' (BBC4) & Marcus du Sautoy (Oxford), 'The Beauty of Diagrams'.

Both Cox & Al-Khalili rely heavily on computer generated graphics & masses of colour - this alone departs from science integrity because it misleads the viewer with artificial distortions. But, more importantly it misleads both Jim & Brian because they both fail to accept that observed phenomena of Light Transmission Dynamics (LTD) do not support wave or particle theory. One needs only look through a prism to realise that centuries of historical misinterpretations are behind Einstein's & Hubble's errors - e does not equal mc squared!!!

du Sautoy is a mathematician but attempts to explain science (which is fine to a degree), but repeats centuries-old misinterpretations.

These BBC programmes takes the viewer light-years away from reality.

Brian Cox demonstrated the effects of different colour emissions from various elements thrown into a fire, and presented a spectrograph showing gaps in their spectral lines- whilst this phenomena is an important discovery we have nevertheless misunderstood the dynamics of what causes us to view spectral colours & lines.

Also, Cox argued that Betelgeuse (pronounce beetle juice) is a red giant and used coloured computer graphics to create a false image. It is an assumption that it is red, we do not actually see a red body as Cox & other scientists wrongly depict - if we understand LTD then we need to rethink what it is that we claim to see in space - seeing is not necessarily reason for believing- because what we see depends on LTD dynamics - and since we have misinterpreted what we see through a prism it follows that the foundation of Quantum Physics does not hold true, nor that what we see in deep-space is necessarily what it is seen to be.

Brian & Jim both still hold, unscientifically, to an unproved attribution of frequency range to colours of light, and of Doppler effect applying to light transmission.

Jim Al-Khalili also argues that the reason that the night sky is dark is because distant stars are moving away at near speed-c and that the light has not yet reached us.

Andrew Wiles has not yet responded to email requesting insights as to which classical methods he has attempted to try to prove Fermat's Last Theorem (FLT). John Coates (Cambridge) has also not responded, nor has anyone at Princeton Maths department.

The writer has circulated a statement that a classical mathematical proof has been found to FLT (see below) - a signed & witnessed (by Police in Dublin) copy has been lodged with the Royal Dublin Society (signed for by Alexis Steberger) a copy is still to be lodged at Royal Irish Academy.

The writer's classical mathematical proof of FLT shows that Andrew Wiles' proof is NOT a proof - but we can also intuitively see that Wiles' 'proof' is not a proof by recognising that his 'proof' does not give insights to a classical solution - a proof must be seen to be so - this is not the case with Wiles' 'proof', therefore Wiles' proof' is not a proof.

BUT, why is Wiles' not a proof?, in what way/s does it fail?, how does the Taniyama-Shimura Conjecture fail (such that it is not even a conjecture)?, how does the Iwasawa Conjecture also fail?.

And, more importantly, where in all the subsequent decades of mathematical modelling have these incorrect models been applied so as to produce defective Economic (& other Physics & Maths) models such that Economy Terrorism is imposed upon the majority of people throughout the World????????????????

Put matters into perspective:-

1. When a magician places a gorgeous lass into a trunk and 'cuts' the trunk into two & separates the two halves, do you REALLY believe that the lass has been cut in two?

2. A car has a symbol on its front, it says 'RR' - it is recognised as a Rolls Royce

The Rolls-Royce has a defective component, the car does not function.

A pirate component is manufactured & fitted

a) the car doesn't function - conclusion:- the car is NOT a Rolls-Royce

b) the car functions - conclusion: the pirate part is in fact a genuine Rolls Royce component

Does this help to clarify the confusion caused by defective theories from Cox, Al-Khalili Wiles, Hubble, Einstein, Hawking & many others? The scientists of today refuse to engage in constructive & professional development; yet they continue to generate revenue under false pretences by presenting defective theories in programmes, books & lectures & promote themselves as pop-star scientists - this is entirely unprofessional; it also presents as conflicts-of-interests to which they have succumbed.

Quantum Physics defies common sense BECAUSE it is non sense -> NONSENSE.

It is nonsense because scientists ignore evidence

To prove this simply look through a prism - if, as historically claimed, different colours have different frequencies & each colour refract differently through a prism then we would see irregular images - but we do not see irregular images, we see regular images - conclusion: light is not refracted differently, light is NOT proved to be a wave mechanic. In fact, as shown in previous Particles in this series, light is not transmitted as a range of frequency waves, barring the underlying ether switching mechanism. Consequently theories flowing from the historical assumptions do NOT hold true.

The problem, as stated before, is that there is huge Intellectual Momentum (IM) behind Einstein's, Hubble's, & others' theories that would otherwise cause rational people to stop, think & question those theories - but the IM causes them to willy-nilly accept, they are afraid to go against the massive Momentum no matter how illogical or disproved the theories.

This is why much science is skewed - and why Western Government Policies are in fact direct acts of Economic Warfare/Terrorism.

We need to rethink.

A chance purchase of a faction book by John Toland (US historian with a few factional books to his name) entitled 'God's of War' (ISBN 0-413-411660-5). This is an excellent factional book describing the policy & real issues behind & during World War II in the Far East interwoven with fictional & factual characters. It not only gave insights to Franklin Roosevelt's disastrous embargo policy against Japan which forced Japan to make a pre-emptive strike against Pearl Harbour for purely self-defensive purposes (defective policy inducing violence), but also intertwines eyewitness reports of the Nagasaki plutonium Fat Man bomb.

At Ch 31.2 (also Pg 508, soft-cover edition)): 'As Will [a fictional US POW in a prison camp in Nagasaki] was climbing the stairs to the second floor he saw through a window an intense bluish flash. Seconds later came a weird whooshing noise.'

In the next para: Michiko saw [through an open window she was standing in front of] hundreds of thousands of yellow balls suddenly appear. Some were as big as baseballs, a few as big as basketballs. The whole atmosphere was pink and a series of golden circles were shooting into the sky. She thought, “How Beautiful!”'

Next Para: 'Those directly under the explosion heard nothing but a sound like Saaaa! Nor could the survivors later agree what colour the lightning flash, the pika, was. Some thought it was pink, others blue, reddish, dark brown, yellow, or purple.'

Reading that page caused a massive jolt - because what was being reported was effectively an instantaneous experience of being at close-distance to the sun & with an experience of intense interference dynamics swamping otherwise ambient light. The intense brilliance of light was a near-sun experience and gave an indication of Light Transmission Dynamics (LTD); and also of LTD interference effects.

What Will saw [i.e. eyewitness reports told to John Toland and attributed to his fictional characters] was a left-hand interference effect as light was interfered by & passed through the window frame, whilst Michiko, directly in front of the window frame, saw an initial yellow, but then other interference that caused a pink glow; i.e. a right-hand interference effect because of her & the window frame's relative position to the exploding bomb.

Others, depending on where they were standing and what boundary edges (real and/or virtual) were in between themselves and the bomb flash, and on what side the interference boundary was affected, experienced other colours, both direct or merged with other interference patterns, thus producing an array of colours.

But, the question is: - Why did they see the colours yet we do not (except through a prism).

The answer clearly lies in understanding what is happening within the prism.

We do not normally see interference colour patterns because ambient light around us, which is from all directions due to reflections, multiple reflections & re-reflections, obliterates these effects & creates a 'uniformity' of light all about us. By looking through a prism we REMOVE, it is contended, the everywhichway ambient light and allows us to see the forward light.

The prism permits forward light through the incident face, refracts it and exits through the observation face; everywhichway ambient light entering through the third face is reflected internally (because of the angle odf the faces) & is not allowed to merge with the observed forward light; also non-direct light on the incident face is also reflected, either off the incident face or off the internal side of the observation face, it is not transmitted through the observation face, hence the ambient light does not swamp the direct, forward light which holds the interference patterns occurring at the boundaries of the observed object (unless the prism is rotated to achieve the critical angle at which the virtual interference boundary is observed). Loosely put (very loosely) - we can imagine the direct light as being 'polarised', as being separated from all the other everywhichway ambient light - consequently, interference patterns are no longer swamped by ambient light.

IMPORTANT NOTE:- observe that the various colours within the interference colour patterns (roy & vib) do NOT have different refraction indexes, they refract identically but have width solely because of the width of the interference phenomena at the interference boundary itself not because of refraction through the prism; the width of the colour patterns is increased because of the angles of the incident & observation/exit faces to the direct, forward, light rays.

The fact that we can see objects clearly through a prism, i.e. that they are regular in form, is further proof that light does not refract differently for different colours, if it did we would see distorted images - but we do not see distorted images, we see normal regular images, albeit with flared colour patterns of diffracted light around interference boundaries.

So, since colours do not refract differently, but merely present as a pattern with finite width, then again we cannot argue that the different colours have different frequencies attributed to them - i.e. there is still no evidence that light is associated within an electro-magnetic frequency range, EXCLUDING the natural switching frequency through the ether which (it would seem) is constant for all light & energy.

We can also confirm that the colour patterns that occur at interference boundaries are not unique (for any particular light source) by comparison to the patterns at the virtual boundary of the prism when held at critical angle - the interference patterns are the same. (Observe virtual boundary pattern and bring into proximity with a distant boundary & compare; reverse prism & compare for opposite colour patterns)

The reason that there was no agreement amongst eyewitnesses to the Nagasaki bomb as to the colour of the flash is EXACTLY because they were all experiencing LTD interferences from different positions and as we know from observations through a prism there is no one colour at interference boundaries; and where there are multiple interference boundaries in proximity then there occurs a merging of a multiplicity of colour patterns.

If we extend this understanding to other historical issues - it appears:...

The Shepherds' ditty - Red Sky at night shepherds' delight, red sky in morning shepherds' warning' - this derives from centuries/millennia old observations - a red sky at night means that the interference pattern we see at sunset is occurring as a right hand forward-light interference fringe, hence roy, around the horizon line which would signify skies clear of rain, which if present would yield also a left-hand side vib pattern effect off of clouds; but in the morning, if clouds are around then instead of solely a left-hand-side forward-light interference effect of vib we also have right-hand side roy effects off of clouds, which signify possibility of rain.

(Note: the use of lhs & rhs are relative terms - if a prism is rotated through 180 degrees in the same plane then the colour patterns flaring from an interference boundary will reverse, but the patterns relative to the apex of the prism remains the same. This must not be confused with pattern changes due to directional change of light, as explained in previous Particle; observing window boundaries just prior to sunrise with room light on)

John Strutt (Lord Rayleigh) had partially identified the phenomena of colour to skies with his Rayleigh Scattering theory - but Strutt had not recognised the real dynamics of light through a prism or of LTD dynamics

There is no cast-iron scientific aspect to this ancient ditty itself - but when a farmer, in those days, saw a risk of rain then he took precautionary steps to shelter his assets (sheep, cattle, etc.)

Look closely at a sunrise (initial bluish tinge) & at a sunset (roy) - it is apparent that the roy pattern predominates at sunset, this is because of dust & other atmospheric pollutants that present as real & virtual interference boundaries around each & every particle thus generating predominating roy patterns, whereas in the morning dust has had a chance to settle, hence less interference boundaries thus a bluish left-hand vib is observed from horizon line boundary. BUT, this quickly changes to roy, and this is probably because the sun's position now changes so that the vib is produced by the sun's bottom edge acting upon the horizon line but the sun's top edge producing a roy pattern upon atmospheric particles (much diminished during the night) & swamping the vib patterns.

We can also see through a prism that the vib pattern has less width than the roy pattern, so the roy will predominate & swamp vib wherever there is conflicting patterns from interference boundaries in close proximity.

To see this, observe through a prism a window frame backlit with the sky, note the roy colour pattern & mark on the frame its width position, rotate the prism to achieve a vib pattern and note that it is thinner. Note also that the vib is less intense than the roy - move virtual boundary pattern to cross over a distant vib pattern and notice roy quickly swamps vib.

This is why the morning bluish tinge to the sky is fairly short duration & low intensity relative to evening roy patterns or from patterns off morning clouds, or when sun rises above horizon.

At sunset there are more dense dust particles (because of greater activity during the day) than at sunrise (unless you live in a town pumping air pollution 24 hours a day) - the particles are each producing roy & vib patterns but with the high density of particles the roy predominates, which is why we get red/golden sunset glows.

Thinking further, in a polluted sky, and with roy predominating over vib, the sun's rim produces a roy pattern all around due to the interference patterns around each & every pollutant particle, which then gives us the yellow sun with red rim - it is the effect of everywhere interference fringe patterns from the direct light within our line of sight.. Bear in mind that light shining directly from the sun swamps the everywhere else ambient light, which is effectively what the prism does, it removes ambient light & allows direct light through thus permitting interference fringe patterns to predominate & be observed as colour.

So pollution density accounts for the variation is intensity of colours from romantic yellow/red (low pollution) to sickly mauve (high pollution)

Similarly with the Aurora Borealis (AB) - atmospheric particles are acting as 'mirages' and the swirling of these particles create an ever-changing swirling prism & mirror effects that generates ever-changing colour patterns - the AB has nothing to do with solar particles blasting through the atmosphere as such, other than having an additive movement effect upon swirling particles, but the colour patterns are simply an LTD interference phenomena that applies all around us.

IMPORTANT NOTE: The aforegoing is not an exhaustive explanation of LTD interference phenomena - merely an introduction - what is crucial to recognise is that simply gazing into deep space and claiming that a body such as Betelgeuse is a red-giant is, in physics terms, dangerous & unprofessional thinking.

An interesting Spring lecture on 'Softwoods, Hardwoods & Evergreens - what's the difference' by Matthew Jebb at Dublin's Botanic Gardens, Glasnevin explained how different leaves caused shading, and that diffracted light caused blurring of leaf shadows. Jebb also stated that different woods had different colours. The writer raised the query whether the rhs & lhs diffraction colour patterns could be an influencing factor - the concept was new to Matthew Jebb so understandably could not comment.

Does anyone have ideas?

----

Nevertheless, we cannot ignore the evidence, as presented by Brian Cox, that spectral lines have dark patches, and that these patches differ for different elements that are caused to burn. The differing spectral lines that are observed due to different light emissions are valid observations of these various & specific phenomena even though there has been an historical misinterpretation of light transmission dynamics.

BUT, we need to rethink what is really happening to produce these spectral lines & dark patches - unfortunately the writer does not have funds to address these issues as they require expensive equipment.

Going back to Jim's argument that the night sky is dark, because light from stars zipping at near speed-c has not yet reached the earth.

It is quite clear that this proposition is totally incorrect. Jim's confusion stems from not recognising that 'infinity' is not absolute. Infinity simply means that a number has got so humongously huge that our brains cannot comprehend what such a big number means - but there are fast ways of getting to a humongously huge number & there are very, very sloooooooooooooow ways of getting there - and Jim Al-Khalili has overlooked this reality.

The reason that the night sky is dark (assuming no moon) is because of 'inverse square law' pertaining to light intensity (& energy in general) & the fact that for every star there is a humongous amount of empty space all around it before the next star. So, although looking into deep space at night we can see zillions of stars, the fact is that they are so far away that the intensity of any one star is so minuscule as to make no discernible difference to the ambient light (or rather, lack of, because it is pitch black all around us on a moonless night). To test this, take a torch & hold it 1 mm from a white wall & observe the intensity of the light at the specific central point of the beam, then move the torch away to double the distance, 2mm, then 4mm, then 16, 32, 64, 128 .... by the time you are 3 metres away you will have been able to eyeball a noticeable decrease in light intensity on that central spot; move to 100 metres & it will be barely noticeable. So, stars million of light years away do not create ambient light at night.

Jim argues that there are infinite number of stars in any one direction - but, Jim forgets that for every star there is (relatively) an infinite amount of space around it into which one could fit a seemingly infinite number of stars; and it is the illusion that even further distant stars are filling in these gaps but being further distant their light is even dimmer.

So, dividing by an infinite distance number (& squared) because of inverse square law applying to distance and then multiplying by an infinite number because of the number of stars still yields nothing times infinity which is nothing, i.e. pitch-black night.

In the second episode 'Nothing', Jim Al-Khalili's explanations all rely upon light behaving as a wave dynamic in an electro-magnetic spectrum. Al-Khalili does not recognise that his explanation of the Michelson-Morley experiment is a misinterpretation. Splitting, with a mirror, a light beam is similar (note: not the same) as the splitting of light by a prism's virtual boundary - but, it is not properly understood what is happening with light transmission dynamics so the M-S experiment is inconclusive. Interference patterns do occur but it is not understood why they occur.

What was most disconcerting was when Jim Al-Khalili, in explaining Dirac's theories' on Quantum Physics, stated to effect that it 'is completely incredulous, but let me assure you it is perfectly true'; Al-Khalili was drawing his physicist’s magical cloak over an experiment (trick) and expecting us to willy-nilly believe him - but Jim has not bothered to engage with the writer concerning CDADD's mounting evidence that disproves Dirac's, Einstein's, Hubble's, Hawking's theories.

----

Marcus du Sautoy is Oxford University's Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, a stated atheist who succeeded another atheist, the Archbishop of Atheism, Richard Dawkins - however du Sautoy is not a scientist but a mathematician.

He has presented a number of BBC documentaries which are always interesting but often misleading. His recent series, currently being aired over these weeks on BBC4 is called 'The Beauty of Diagrams'. One episode deals with Newton’s Prism experiments.

Whilst Marcus often makes errors he can be forgiven for overlooking Newton's error because it takes a bit of fiddling with a prism to see what is really happening. A prism & slit experiment by Kate Lancaster also confirms the confusion regarding LTD & prisms.

To understand all of this, view a copy of Newton’s original experiment - see page 10 on link below for copy of Newton's diagram, taken from his Opticks book - i.e. prism in room with pinhole in window screen & magnifying glass - since this picture is small, copy & paste into a text document & enlarge picture.

(http://www.google.ie/search?q=newton,+opticks&hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=bdK&sa=G&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&channel=s&prmd=ivnsb&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&ei=2KyaTbPtD5G7hAfLn_jPBg&ved=0CFgQsAQ&biw=1226&bih=499)

You will notice that Newton depicted 2 sets of ray patterns on the wall - you will also notice that the ray patterns are shown by Newton to be converging, NOT diverging as in a rainbow pattern.

This suggests Newton had become confused & the cause is likely that he drew the picture after he had gone back into normal lighting, because thee room in which he conducted the experiment would have been fairly dark - in other words he likely drew the picture from memory, and in so doing recorded errors such as depicting converging rather than diverging rays, and glaringly incorrect angles.

Also Newton used a magnifying glass; this suggests he did the experiment with & without the magnifying glass but failed to recognise that there is a fundamental difference between the 2 experiments. And the depiction of two (incorrectly converging, rather than diverging) ray patterns & in different positions is noted by Newton, but Newton did not note the reasons for the shift in the two patterns because he did not recognise the cause of the shift in patterns.

Marcus du Sautoy had Kate Lancaster demonstrate a slit & prism experiment so as to produce a rainbow pattern - Kate also did not recognise the difference between her experiment and Newton's distinctly separate (but unrecognised as being separate) experiments - Kate did not recognise that there is a difference between the slit & prism rainbow patterns & the rainbow patterns produced simply by holding a prism in direct sunlight.

There is a difference, subtle but immense.

(One can see from other diagrams attributed to Newton that he depicted the less acute refraction angles in his ray patterns - which means he must also have experimented without the magnifying glass)

As discussed in previous Particles & expanded herein, diffraction patterns about an interference boundary creates colour patterns roy & vib - these are natural phenomena having directional properties.

In Newton's experiment without a magnifying glass, the hole in the window screen created these diffraction colour patterns; as did Lancaster's slit. These patterns, roy & vib, would be in close proximity, and we can check by looking at a narrow slit or hole through a prism. On the left hand side of the hole we see a rhs roy pattern with yellow to the inside of hole, and on the right edge of the hole we see a lhs vib pattern, with blue to the centre of the hole; therefore b merges with y to produce green, g, - the two interference boundary diffraction patterns thus merge to produce roy(g)biv - however these are the patterns looking BACK to the light source.

Recall from previous Particle:- Light demonstrates directional properties - so on travelling past the interference edge of the hole, in the direction of the sunlight, it would produce a DIRECTIONALLY OPPOSITE pattern to the backward vib pattern, i.e. a (roy) pattern. Thus the forward roy is on the same side as the backward looking vib pattern - think about this!!!!); and similarly with the rhs vib pattern; and so we observe the forward merged colour pattern roy(g)biv through the prism onto the wall. BUT, this pattern (without magnifying glass) is the LOWER position (as depicted in newton's diagram, even though incorrectly depicting a convergence and not a divergence) and is the typical pattern as shown in most pictures, including Pink Floyd's 'Dark Side of the Moon' album i.e. it is the transmission of roy & vib pattern produced by & at interference boundaries in close proximity of (typically) a slit or hole and transmitted through a prism.

IMPORTANT NOTE: remember that lhs & rhs are relative terms, relative to the apex position of the prism through which light is passing.

The UPPER pattern in Newton's diagram is an entirely different dynamic - similar but different.

It is the pattern created using a magnifying glass.

This rainbow pattern is the kind of pattern that we produce in direct sunlight as a result of the prisms own VIRTUAL INTERFERENCE BOUNDARY. It is the roy pattern created by the virtual boundary being merged with the vib pattern created by another interference boundary.

In the previous Particle it was proposed that the light reflected around internally to the prism and on each reflection changed the order of the vib to biv back to vib, etc. until it merged with the forward roy pattern. But, further thought & testing shows an alternative, perhaps more simple explanation.

To see this take a prism in sunlight (hopefully you won't have to wait days for some sun as Ireland must) & close to a wall and position the prism to produce a rainbow pattern on the wall - having obtained a pattern, slowly rotate back & forth and notice that the roy & vib patterns merge & part with rotation. Position so that the roy & vib patterns are furthest apart - these patterns are caused by the two REAL apex interference boundaries of the prism. Now rotate the prism so that the gap begins to shrink - what is happening here is that the VIRTUAL boundary is now coming into effect & is producing roy - until at the critical angle we obtain a merged rainbow pattern - this is caused by the VIRTUAL interference boundary which merges with the vib pattern created by the real apex boundary, the light source of which is reflected ambient light within the prism (note that the vib is dimmer than the roy because the vib is from dimmer ambient light & not from the bright direct sunlight as is the roy pattern) - note the considerable change in angle between that for the previous separated patterns & the angle to achieve the merged pattern. This is what is implied by Newton's sketch diagram which shows the equality of angles of the incident beam & the upper refracted beam. Newton's diagram has errors because he did not recognise the difference of effects between using the hole alone & using the magnifying glass.

The reason behind this is that the light is creating a pattern at the virtual boundary which is at a more acute angle than that for the separated patterns (which patterns are caused by real apex boundaries), and with the vib pattern still produced by the prism's real interference boundary of the apex nearest to the rainbow pattern on the wall. Rotating the prism simply shifts the virtual boundary relative to the real apex boundary until they merge. The aforegoing can be tested by putting a pointer at the various edges to confirm the origin of the patterns.

(Within raindrops it seems that there are an infinity of isometric triangular 'prisms' with each having virtual boundaries & virtual apexes, both of which are equally phase displaced - it is the interaction of light between boundaries & apexes that accounts for rainbows in the sky.)

You can also test this effect by using a laser pointer and establishing the normal refracted point on a wall then rotate the prism to achieve the critical angle of the Virtual boundary and notice how the laser point shifts. Note also how the width of the laser light point increases - this is because of the increased angle of the entry & exit faces of the prism (you can observe this widening of light point on the faces as well).

What Newton's magnifying glass was doing was to focus the incoming light that was being diffracted into a point source - whilst the diffraction patterns created by the hole were still there the intensity of the focussed sunlight swamped the roy & vib patterns, thus Newton had to adjust (unwittingly) the prism to produce the merged pattern due to the virtual boundary - this is why he has a double outline of the prism in his sketch.

What was overlooked by Kate Lancaster (and scientists for centuries) is that by using the slit to produce the narrow beam of light she was unwittingly creating the interference boundary patterns at the slit edges, and since they were in proximity they merged to produce roygbiv which then transmitted through the prism - i.e. it was not necessary to rotate the prism to achieve critical angle for the virtual boundary to produce an interference pattern.

What all this means is that:-

- an interference boundary causes the patterns, it is NOT caused by the prism causing differing speeds due to differing wavelengths.

- the interference patterns have width & therefore are refracted with width, & increasing width because of the angle of the prism faces stretching out the pattern images at the faces

- the fact that roy & vib patterns are created at interference boundaries does NOT mean that they are components of white light, it is purely conjecture that colours make up white light.

- the reason that we get a flare pattern of colours is, it is contended, due to the zig-zag switching mechanism of the ether.

- what causes & maintains the switching mechanism is unknown

- Quantum Physics is non sense -> NONSENSE

- CERN LHC a white-elephant

- our understanding of nuclear energy is of a dangerous kind - which is why we experience Fukoshima & Chernobyl style disasters - we are operating plants incorrectly because we do not properly understand nuclear energy - because we do not properly understand LTD dynamics.

The aforegoing clearly demonstrates a centuries-historical misinterpretation of the fundamentals of Light (& Energy) Transmission Dynamics.

(Note: The web has mountains of defective prism/rainbow diagrams - could not find a correct diagram, or even a clear photo of real physical apparatus permitting reasonably approximate estimates of refraction angles)

However, these defective theories have immense Intellectual Momentum and Jim & Brian & many others are simply maintaining that momentum despite concrete evidence (which has been regularly presented to them) that proves their claims are baseless.

Science Research & Development is devoid of engineering inputs - engineers have certainly been involved in the developments of facilities such as CERN LHC Collider, and in nuclear plants etc. - but, within the R&D of science research, engineering is absent; which is why Quantum Physics science theories defy common sense because they are non sense, NONSENSE - hence CERN, as intended, is a white-elephant, and nuclear plants are unnecessarily dangerous.

The same applies to the absence of engineering within the Intangible Sciences (Social, Economy, Business, Finance, Legal) - economies are incorrectly structured & controlled which is why economies regularly boom/crash, and why economies rely upon conflicts to restimulate economic activity - a dangerously destructive, recurring cycle.

Fermat's Last Theorem

If we now consider Andrew Wiles' 'proof' of Fermat's Last Theorem (FLT) we can readily see that his 'proof' relies upon a sequence of obscure conjectures which are sequentially 'proved' as theorems, thus leading to 'proof' of FLT. BUT, none of the sequential 'proofs' give any insight to classical, real, understandings of FLT nor of the separate conjectures themselves - this in itself is a proof that Wiles' 'proof' is NOT a proof.

The writer has set a challenge (see Statement below) for a suitable reward on presentation of the classical mathematical proof of FLT, which classical proof will also concretely demonstrate that Wiles' proof' is not a proof.

BUT, in what ways are Wiles, Taniyama-Shimura & Iwasawa incorrect And in what ways are Economic models, built around these & further generational mathematical models, defective such that government policies are grossly defective & massively destructive, and causal of imposed Economy Terrorism? In what ways?????????????

The truth is that defective science models are skewing government policies which is driving the world toward another hot World War, just as the Allies forced, by a dynamic induction process, Germany & Japan into WWII.

For these reasons & for others amply canvassed in this series of papers it becomes clear that many science documentaries are presenting flawed reasonings & inducing flawed visual perceptions of science phenomena. The fact that schools & universities have done away with prisms is a disgrace. The destructive effect that these flawed perceptions can/will have on young minds should not be underestimated, especially regarding the intangible sciences which are causal of massive socio-economic destruction globally.

_______________________

The aforegoing could all be wrong - comments welcomed - we need to engage open debate over science, both Tangible & Intangible - but to-date the Royal Society, Institution & others, such as Royal Dublin Society & Royal Irish Academy, refuse to engage honestly & transparently.

______________________

Whilst there is willingness to admit to possible errors, nevertheless the aforegoing clearly demonstrates how long-standing misinterpretations within the Tangible Sciences have caused much science-fiction distortions. It becomes readily clear the extent of the Global socio-economy destruction, caused by the numerous grossly defective Intangible Sciences theories/models that Universities, Academies & Institutions (including Nobel Foundation) support, & which mislead governments into invoking disastrous policies.

The present opposition to Gaddafi, after he had started to shift his hard-line position, is not dissimilar to which occurred with Germany under Hitler - the West forced/induced a polarisation which led to World War II, and later Roosevelt forced Japan into desperation. The support of the Arab Nations to a 'No Fly Zone' in Libya does not mean that the East is in support of the West's distorted 'democracy' (presently & historically based upon collusion & corruption) - clearly there are hundreds of millions who are opposed to the West’s Economy Terrorism which is driving the polarisation, it's why Gaddafi does have significant declared support internally, as well as externally (declared & undeclared).

The recent attack on the UN's Mazar-i-Sharif Mission clearly indicates the East's perception (justified?) that the UN is simply a stooge for Western Governments intent upon enslavement through imposed Economy Terrorism.

The recent Omagh bombing is likely for similar reasons.

The UN is not addressing the West's Economy Terrorism.

Western governments can simply claim that they are engaging 'Best Practice' as developed by scientists - but CDADD's R&D clearly shows that governments policies are wrong because the underlying science upon which policies are based is wrong - but the science community is refusing to engage, so CDADD's voice remains a lone voice against numerous & mountainous voices venting defective theories.

REITERATE AGAIN:

BEST PRACTICE:- timely implementation of sound optimal Engineering applications of incremental Science developments, both Tangible & Intangible.

Corollary: Purposeful delay in BEST PRACTICE causes Social Injustices – Criminal Negligence – Justice delayed is Justice denied - causal of Economy Terrorism => War Crimes prosecutable by International Court of Justice.

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

www.cdadd.com, (currently unlawfully & abusively gagged/censored by SA ISP Diamatrix.co.za & USA ISP Softlayer.com)

(Under enforced exile from South Africa due to ANC government’s oppressive XDR-nazi system and oppressive economic isolation by corporate & academic world’s.)

XDR = Extreme Democracy Resistant.

STATEMENT by Christopher David Addington Pr.Eng.

Fermat's Last Theorem (FLT) remains UNSOLVED

Professor Andrew Wiles' 'proof' of FLT is NOT a PROOF of FLT

Taniyama-Shimura Theorem reverts back to CONJECTURE

All Theorems/Conjectures derived therefrom no longer hold true.

By induction, Iwasawa Theorem in doubt

New PROOF of FLT using ONLY Classical Mathematical Tools

STATEMENT

I, Christopher David Addington, do hereby state that

  1. I am a Professional Engineer

  2. I am currently living under enforced exile from our home in South Africa

  3. I currently reside with family in the Republic of Ireland

  4. A copy of this Statement will be lodged with both the Royal Dublin Society & Royal Irish Academy

  5. On March 1, 2011 I chanced upon a book - Fermat's Last Theorem by Simon Singh, ISBN: 978-1-84115-791-7

  6. After reading through key parts & then hunting on the web & watching Simon Singh's documentary on Fermat & Andrew Wiles & Singh's book presentation talk, I applied extensive thought, research & calculations to Fermat's Last Theorem (more correctly - Conjecture), (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8269328330690408516#) & (http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/102224-1)

  7. As a consequence of this I have been able to establish & verify a mathematical proof of Fermat's Last Theorem using ONLY mathematical tools as available to Euler, or earlier.

  8. In brief: Fermat's Last Theorem is based as follows:

    1. Pythagoras, Triangle Theory -> to specific: x^2 + y^2 = z^2 (x squared + y squared = z squared, where x & y are the minor sides of a triangle, and z is the major, hypotenuse, side of the triangle, the triangle being orthogonal, right angled) -> Fermat extended his thinking into the general 'n' and proposed that for positive integers of n>2 (n greater than 2) that there is no positive whole number solution (vis: x^n + y^n = z^n has no whole number solution) to this problem; that this problem had remained unsolved until a solution was claimed by Andrew Wiles in the 1990s, but which solution by Wiles did not rely on mathematical tools as available to Fermat but upon highly developed 20th Century mathematical tools.

    2. Fermat noted that he had found a solution, a proof, to his theorem (conjecture) but also noted that there was not sufficient space in the margin to set it out.

  9. On the basis of aforegoing & after extensive thought, research & calculations I make the following statements:

    1. I can, through mathematical proofs, PROVE Fermat's Last Theorem using ONLY classical mathematical tools that were available to Euler or earlier

    2. Andrew Wiles' 'proof' is NOT a PROOF of Fermat's FLT, Fermat's Last Theorem remains UNSOLVED

    3. That, on a balance of probabilities, that Fermat's proof was along similar lines of mathematical proofs as mine, which, again on a balance of probabilities, would have justified his statement that there was insufficient space in the margins of his copy of Diophanti Arithmetica for same.

    4. Corollaries

      1. Taniyama-Shimura Theorem no longer holds true & reverts back to CONJECTURE

      2. Consequently ALL Theorems/Conjectures derived therefrom no longer hold true

      3. Consequently, by induction, Iwasawa Theorem in doubt; and ALL Theorems derived therefrom are also in doubt and must revert back to conjectures.

    5. It should be noted that a PROOF EXISTS if & only if it is common knowledge - therefore, although I know & have the proof of Fermat's Last Theorem (conjecture) & of disproving Wiles' 'proof', until it is revealed the Theorems/Conjectures remains UNSOLVED.

  10. I am prepared to demonstrate these proofs independently, one from the other, and in the sequential order given (because proving/disproving Andrew Wiles' 'proof' gives insight to proofs utilising classical mathematical tools) on condition of:

    1. an appropriate Reward for each of the the two proofs and that both Rewards are independent from the other,

    2. and the second proof only after payment & bank clearance of the first Reward for the first proof into a bank account of my choosing,

    3. and on promise that the second Reward will not be unreasonably withheld,

    4. and that both Rewards & Costs of Referee/s are held in Trust by a body that is mutually agreeable to myself & the Party/ies offering the Rewards,

    5. and proofs submitted/presented to independent Referee/s mutually agreeable to myself & Party/ies offering the Rewards; and proofs presented in Dublin, or alternatively at a mutually agreeable location and on basis of all travel & subsistence costs are met in advance

  11. It would require a maximum of 60 minutes to present the first proof assuming no interruptions; and similar time for the second proof. Time required for post-presentation discussion depends upon circumstances & questions.

  12. For me to reveal the proofs it is necessary that the Reward be offered in time such that the Reward can be of reasonable benefit to myself. I am not interested in a death-bed offer = no benefit to me.

  13. My previous work is open to scrutiny & it can be readily confirmed the veracity of my ground-breaking work in both the Tangible & Intangible Sciences/Engineering.

  14. I further point out that I have tried to contact Princeton University Maths Department on 2 occasions by email and then Professor John Coates at Cambridge & Simon Singh - in all instances there has been nil response.

  15. Finally, I point out that this morning (Monday March 7, 2011) at around 09h00 that I destroyed, by burning, all my working papers on the FLT Theorem/Conjecture

Signed:

 

signed at a Dublin Police (Garda) Station

 

 

 

_______________________________

Christopher David Addington Pr.Eng.

Witness:

 

Witnessed by a female Police(Garda) Officer

Received Copy

Signed by Alexis Steberger of RDS

______________________________________ Date & Time:____________

Royal Dublin Society

Still to be lodged at RIA

______________________________________ Date & Time:____________

Royal Irish Academy

##### End of Particle Xi-14 #####