Captain’s Log, Stardate 06

 

More Particles of Space

 

Particle Omicron-15

 

Sir Isaac Newton – Serial Plagiarist !!!! Tyrant!!!!

 

Further insights to Light Transmission Dynamics (LTD)

 

Prism –> Convolution Integrator wrt LTD?

 

Intellectual Momentum = Intellectual Mass x Velocity

 

Ireland profile shift – from Victim to PERPETRATOR of Human Rights abuses –> legitimate target.

 

Britannia’s ‘core values’ –> cumulative ‘values cored’ from oppressed colonial nations.

 

George Osborne – selling Northern Rock back to the crooks – at a loss to the taxpayer (a profit to the crooks).

 

Global Economic Meltdown worsening - because Obama, Cameron refuse to engage Economy Engineering – rejecting BEST PRACTICE – dictating ‘democracy with missiles & bombs - imposing Economy Terrorism – inviting & inciting war – War Crimes – International Criminal Court should prosecute.

 

__________________________________

 

Manythanx to Naomi van Loo, Librarian, New College, Oxford; Staff at Early Printed Books, Berkeley Library, Trinity College Dublin,

And especial thanx to Joanna Corden, Librarian Royal Society for transcription of RS Journal Records Nov 1675 to April 1676 (see below).

(Further enquiries to RS & New College have now produced NIL response – suggesting that respective authorities have blocked further communications with the writer)

NOTE: Ireland ISP UPC.ie have now threatened to terminate CDADD’s internet connection – UPC.ie are ‘THOUGHT POLICING’ – Ireland Police (Garda) Commissioner & Communications Regulator have failed to protect human rights abuses against Freedom of Speech/Expression – Ireland has increasingly shifted from victim to being a perpetrator of human rights abuses and is now seen, alongside with other Allies, as a legitimate target to freedom fighters fighting against the West ‘s destructively oppressive & enslaving economic models.

UPC.ie is a subsidiary of Liberty Global; UPC.ie have effected numerous violations of LG’s Code of Conduct violations – LG is complicit.

__________________________________

Introduction:

As stated often before – science has spun-off into deep-space science-fiction because of fundamental misinterpretations of physical phenomena – it has for centuries been wrongly thought that light is frequency based & this partly contributed to Einstein making an incorrect development (vis: e equals m c squared – as discussed in earlier Particles in this series – it does NOT – e does NOT equal m c squared)

The question is: why has man for centuries gone off-track? The answer lies in fundamental dishonesty and in regard to much of the science-fiction that has evolved the blame can be placed squarely onto Isaac Newton who plagiarised the work of others and, as President of the Royal Society, ruled as a Tyrant & skewed the direction of science research for centuries.

Intellectual Momentum = Intellectual Mass x Velocity

BUT, these compounded errors, built upon Newton’s dishonest foundation, are within the Tangible Sciences that deal with the physical, real world, & real universe as made by God (& discussed further below) – the errors within the Intangible Sciences are far more complex because they are man-made and are inexact sciences.

It is now very easy to see the centuries-held fundamental errors concerning LTD dynamics & consequent Quantum Physics errors – one only needs look through a prism to understand these errors.

Within the Intangible (Inexact) Sciences it is extremely difficult to assess the errors – but, as CDADD has demonstrated, the Sverige Bank ‘Nobel’ Prize in Economics has lone been awarded for grossly defective economic science models. Obscure reasoning blended with some mathematics ‘scientise’ defective models to give false credibility and, hey-presto, a new economics theory is magically pulled out of thin air.

The Nobel Foundation has long been hijacked – the very fact that the world is in meltdown is proof-positive that the Nobel Prize has been trashed.

The World is in Meltdown, despite the truly inspiring speech by President Barack Obama at Dublin’s College Green on May 23, 2011, and his equally inspiring speech to both houses of UK’s Parliament on Thursday following.

THEN, BBC revealed the puppeteer behind the White House/Hollywood Toy Story saga, which the Obama roadshow is really all about (Tom Hanks in Westminster Hall). Barrack ‘Woody’ Obama, David ‘Buzz Lightyear’ Cameron, and Enda ‘Rex’ Kenny all did starring doppelganger roles.

Later, with Nicolas ‘Jessie’ Sarkozy at G8, Woody & Buzz recommitted to DICTATING ‘democracy’ with missiles, bombs & bullets – numerous, now dead, children & civilians are their victims. It does not take too much intelligence to recognise that the Allies agitated for & welcomed political unrest so as to precipitate a violent change.

The World is in meltdown because we do not understand the full reasons as to why the global socio-economy structure is so defective, such that it catastrophically failed. But, more importantly, we do not know what optimally engineered Economy Systems & Controls would bring about optimal stability with diminished & diminishing global disparities.

And the reason we do not know what optimal socio-economy structures & controls we need are for the same reasons that we went off into deep-space science-fiction – because of dishonesty in academia & governments; failure/refusal to reward/fund on merit.

Corrupt Finance-Powers that control Israel (Virtual) is controlling the USA & UK & most other western nations, and, through puppet-strings, controls their military might, which is why nations opposing Israel are being attacked.

Western ‘Democracy’ is DICTATING to the world, and using missiles, bombs & bullets to win Israel’s 3000 year old arguments that they initiated. The UN Security Council (in reality: the Gang of Five) is used to ‘justify’ & escalate the war against Libya. Whilst Russia & China have a veto it is a virtual certainty that they would both prefer missiles being chucked around rather than not - so UK, France & USA (effectively a Gang of Three) have a free hand to pursue their gang-banging dictatorial policies.

Barack Obama has indicated a willingness to talk to the Taliban with certain preconditions which include renouncing & turning from violence, and cutting links to Al-Qaeda. This is all very well, BUT Obama has nothing to offer the Taliban, or any un/under-developed nation – the Taliban are fighting BECAUSE of the West’s centuries of oppression & enslavement – if Taliban do talk then the socio-economic models that Obama has to offer are simply models that perpetuate oppressions & enslavement, thus initiating decades-long cycles of tyranny to replace the existing tyranny -> no solution.

The Taliban will not accept that – this statement is made on the basis that the grass-roots will not accept, even though the leaders may cash-in their ‘retirement policy’ as did the IRA leadership, leaving a minority disparitised from which is rooting the Real IRA. Do not be misled by names such as IRA, RIRA, Taliban, Al Qaeda – these are simply bodies that evolved as a consequence of centuries of West’s imposed oppressions, repressions, suppressions, depressions – negotiate with these bodies & continue with the impositions will simply brew other bodies, maybe of the same name, maybe not - but continuing the imposed oppressions will drive disparities, which will drive frustration, anger, violence.

The very fact that global socio-economic models are NOT correctly engineered is the cause for widening disparities throughout the world, and the widening disparities create the frustration that drives anger that erupts into violence.

The Real IRA are brewing-up, and the increasing disparities in Ireland will further fuel these disparities. And the same will happen between West & East even if Taliban do talk & do reach a compromise ‘solution’; the ‘solution’ will be short-lived, if at all.

President Barack Obama, PM David Cameron, President Jacob Zuma, Taoiseach Enda Kenny & other Euroland leaders need to change from the oppressive models that have for centuries driven wars & to turn away from dishonesty & to correctly fund/reward Intellectual Property based upon merit, so that optimally engineered socio-economic models can be developed & implemented.

In return for supporting USA & UK, Ireland gets the benefit of outside assistance in its debt & misgovernance crisis – the sudden shift by government to confirming no further need for additional IMF or other loans suggests that global Finance-Powers are at work backing Allies.

Ireland has one of the world’s most advanced education systems but instils an introspective, oppositional denigratory, culture which causes it to be one of the most backward of developed nations.

This alliance will have devastating consequences for Ireland in the long term – its independence is based upon a more advanced Constitution than is the USA’s Constitution and the UK’s non-existent Constitution. One can see the devastating consequences in SA resulting from the emasculation of its 1996 Constitution, which was the most advanced Constitution in the World.

The very fact that Ireland’s Taoiseach does not uphold the UN’s UDHR rights means that citizens are not protected by those fundamental rights because the police, regulators, courts do not provide proactive protections – it means that corporates can gang-bang society simply by ‘contracting out’ of the UDHR rights, which in itself is a violation of the UDHR = UDHR is trashed by governments; leaving citizens to be gang-banged in corrupt civil ‘justice’ processes = no justice.

SA’s advanced Constitution has failed to diminish disparities because of Mbeki’s regime – blacks are far more disparitised than ever they were under Apartheid, whilst leaders past & present live as fat-cats. Jacob Zuma has no adequate qualifications -> thus SA will continue to decline & is declining.

UK does not entertain these basic rights as is witnessed by their attacks on Gaddafi AFTER he had started making moves towards compromise.

Ireland has shifted from being a victim to being a perpetrator of gross human rights abuses – it’s tourism industry gives much weight to its Famine history when the wealthy exported food out of Ireland instead of feeding its own poor peoples – now Ireland relies on starving & enslaving other peoples elsewhere in the world to supplement its increasingly voracious appetite.

SA’s President Jacob Zuma is now trying to advise Gaddafi when Zuma cannot solve his own national crises – but, Zuma’s popularity demise is as a consequence of his own personal dishonesty; because he stole CDADD’s Intellectual Property that got him off the prosecution hook (thus allowed him to stand for election)

BBC’s documentary series ‘Megacities’ presented by Andrew Marr gives clear indication of the destructive consequences of the West’s oppressive & destructive economic models that are forcing mass populations to migrate to cities – which increase population growths & increase the difficulties in solving. These migrations have common cause to that experienced in England’s ‘James Herriot Country’ (& elsewhere) which is experiencing increasing economic hardships & declining local businesses.

There is common cause to the increasing difficulties within the UK’s National Health Service, which problems were exacerbated by the NHS being compelled (as reported) to engage with SA’s Netcare to ‘solve’ NHS problems – NHS’s problems were compounded because SA’s Netcare was founded upon massive fraud scams which Blair, Brown, and now Cameron, have refused to face up to.

Cameron’s move to greater competition leaves the NHS open again to fraudulent scams – basic welfare provisions do not have the margins to warrant profit motives – which thus induces fraud scams. Simple engagement with Business Engineering would solve the NHS’s long-running crises – but dishonesty by government is blocking engagement.

Cameron & Obama can’t solve their respective health systems, nor their economies, hence they cannot solve the problems elsewheres in the world. Cameron & Obama refuse to constructively engage with CDADD’s pioneered Economy Engineering that would bring about greater economy stability – they have nothing to offer other nations, other than dictating destructive gang-banging ‘democracy’ models – which we know won’t work.

Cameron’s Home Secretary, Theresa May: "Let me be clear - we will not fund or work with organisations that do not subscribe to the core values of our society,"

In truth, Britannia’s core values are those centuries of accumulated value cored from oppressed subjugated colonial nations

In what way can UK’s centuries-old policy of dictatorially gang-banging the world be considered a core-value?

May’s comment is, in truth, targeting any political or socio-economic thoughts that are non-aligned to the Conservatives –> THOUGHT POLICING, to prevent the truths about Britannia being truthfully aired, just as the truths about Twin Towers implosions are blocked.

George Osborne is now going to sell Northern Rock back to the Finance-Powers (duplicitously referred to as ‘private investors’) that gang-banged the public out of their pensions & investments in the first instance – and Osborne is to sell NR at a loss (massive profit gain to Finance-Powers) – and the media are speculating that Richard Branson (Virgin Prostitute) is a contender. The reality is that the ownership of any & all the financial institutions is so convoluted that it is impossible to determine who owns what.

The key point is that Cameron & Osborne are in collusion with Finance-Powers & Corporates, as were Blair & Brown – they are not engaging Best Practice, nor acting in the Best Interests of the electorate for whom those elected are supposed to be acting.

Without some significant & sound Economy Engineering proposals to offer the Taliban, Libya, Syria, & others polarised, it is wrong for the West to deny others their democratic right NOT to be ruled by a corrupted dictatorial ‘democracy’ model – the very fact that Gaddafi has strong support indicates that the West is wrongly imposing, dictating, a grossly defective democracy model which they know will inherently reduce them to slaves.

Further, if the Taliban were to embark upon the West’s democratisation process then they would know that imminently upon commencement of the process that they would be attacked by the West, as has Gaddafi who had started to shift his position. They would also know they would be arrested for war-crimes as was Charles Taylor and others who shifted their positions to conditional surrender which then permitted peaceful change (but which change has only brought economic enslavement)

In short, the West’s leaders have nothing to offer the Taliban, the Taliban have no cause to trust the West & would simply be leaving themselves exposed to attack.

But the truth is that today’s yuppie, testosterone-pumping Western leaders are itching to chuck missiles, bombs & bullets; killing children & others, in a false quest to ‘stabilise’ the ME & NA nations – when, in truth, their aspirations are simply the securing of global resources at any cost.

Barack Obama & David Cameron & others still do not understand that economists & financial ‘experts’ do not know what they are talking about – Obama & Cameron are allowing themselves to be misled – and, along with Sarkozy, invite & incite war, as did their predecessors with the Versailles Treaty.

The International Criminal Court should prosecute for incitement of war, and under false pretences (falsely claimed Twin Towers collapse, which were in truth implosion events)

_________________

Science Debates:

Royal Society, as evidenced by journal records of 1675/6 (see transcript below – thanx to Joanna Corden), took effort to communicate with Newton & with others who had differing opinions to Newton. However further investigation indicates that it was superficial. It is to be noted that presently Royal Society do NOT engage with the writer regarding his proofs that disprove Newton’s, Einstein’s, Hawking’s, Wiles’ & others’ science theories – this is proof that the integrity of RS has been rendered non-existent at executive level – in contrast, and as is usually found throughout social societies, the grass-root of organisations tend towards integrity = a dichotomy.

The Royal Society (& Institutions) refuse to fund/reward CDADD for groundbreaking R&D (past & present) that radically changes the way we understand the functionality of the Universe, Solar Systems, Light & Energy Transmission Dynamics, etc. & of numerous Economic Science models. The RS reward those that are compliant to its dictates, hence defective science prevails – as has done for centuries since (& before?) Isaac Newton’s tenure as President of the Royal Society.

Despite CDADD disproving these theories, Hawking, Cox & others refuse to engage on a professional level, they continue to fraudulently flaunt their books containing their defective theories onto a public brainwashed by massive Intellectual Momentum accumulated over centuries.

Defective science misleads governments which is causal of massively defective policies which result in catastrophic social outcomes – witness Global Economy Meltdown. It follows therefore that reform of executive morals is the cornerstone to addressing social disparities.

The question is – why has Royal Society Executive become dishonest – the answer lies in centuries of intrigue & this stemming from Newton himself.

Isaac Newton is/was, in the writer’s view, a serial plagiarist.

Whether you reach the same view is your free choice BUT, the evidence is overwhelming – the focus is on evidence NOT intrigue.

Intellectual Momentum & social pressures of Newton’s era were causal of defective theories being long-held, unchallenged for centuries – it is the cause of foundation errors creating multiple-tiers of defective theories which culminated in much deep-space science-fiction that has become popularised today.

To briefly recap – this series of papers started in January 2008 after the writer viewed Stephen Hawking’s ‘Master of the Universe’ documentaries – the propositions Hawking put across made no sense, this progressively led (as recorded in this series of papers) to CDADD developing alternative/correct understandings of certain physical phenomena, the crucial one being that of Light (& Energy) Transmission Dynamics, that it is unlikely that light is frequency based (other than a fundamental switching frequency of the ether) & that rainbow colours are phenomena of interference boundaries disrupting/affecting LTD dynamics, that the rainbow pattern is not contiguous but that it is made up off two distinctly separate patterns roy & vib merged to produce roy(g)biv, that the two patterns have directional properties, that e does NOT equal m.c squared; etc.

Investigation eventually arrived at looking through a prism, having a ‘eureka’ moment, and then, eventually, came the realisation that there is a reason why science has gone way off-track and into deep-space science-fiction; and the realisation was that it was due to dishonesty, and initiated by Isaac Newton.

Stephen Hawking has recently commented on Faith principles by stating (to effect, as reported) that ‘heaven is a fairy tale’ – what is disconcerting about Hawking’s comments is that he is making a blanket statement over which he has no proof, one way or the other – and that is EXACTLY the problem with his sci-fi research of big-bang etc. – his research is not based upon FACT. Whereas CDADD has uncovered the FACTS that disprove Hawking’s wild theories which derive from centuries-old incorrect interpretations, which incorrect interpretations derive from dishonesty, plagiarism stemming from Newton.

CERN LHC collider is a resultant white-elephant.

What is the evidence that compellingly shows that Isaac Newton is a Serial Plagiarist?

Professor Marcus du Sautoy, New College, Oxford, in his Beauty of Diagrams displayed Newton’s journal in which a sketch diagram of his (Newton’s) landmark experiment was held. Seeing this diagram caused the writer a massive jolt because the diagram was glaringly wrong, the refraction angles were incorrect & the ‘double-prism’ sketching showed that Newton had corrected an error but had not understood the error (and this assuming Newton indeed drew the sketch).

(http://www.mefeedia.com/watch/34512357, pause at minutes 04:30)

(web search under ‘newton’s sketch diagram’ to obtain an image)

The most damning & convincing evidence that proves Newton was a Serial Plagiarist lies in the diagrams in Newton’s Opticks. If Newton had initiated research into light & used prisms as his means of experiments then he would have started from basics & progressed therefrom into more complex experiments. BUT, the most basic experiment of looking through a prism & recording the colour patterns around distant objects, and the rainbow pattern caused from direct sunlight, and the Virtual Boundary roy pattern were not researched/discussed by Newton. Had Newton done some simple testing with a pointer he would have realised (as now discovered by CDADD) that the rainbow patterns were the merging of two distinctly separate patterns; that the roy & vib patterns originate from distinctly different sources (roy from virtual boundary; vib from real apex boundary). Had Newton conducted the experiments he would have started at the beginning; he would, through basic angle measurements, have arrived at a greater angle of incidence for the prism’s natural virtual interference boundary which is the cause of the prism’s roy pattern, and examination with any pointing device would have revealed this source of the roy pattern. This would have resulted in his asking more searching questions & discovering that the vib is due to the real interference boundary of the opposite (to virtual boundary) prism apex, and the two patterns merging to form roy(g)biv.

Further, that the roy & vib patterns were effected by interference boundaries in general.

BUT, Newton did not do any of this basic experimenting. Further, it was only until Part II of his Opticks book, and this book some 40 years after he started his experiments (as Newton claims), that he depicted parallel rays through a prism – i.e. Newton still had not recognised the true source of the patterns.

Newton, in his Introduction (Advertisement) stated:

‘To avoid being engaged in disputes about these mates, I have hitherto delayed the printing, and should still have delayed it, had not the importunity of Friends prevailed upon me.’

For someone who had been lecturing on the subject for some 40 years this statement is nonsense – the only sensible interpretation is that Newton wanted to ensure that time created a fog of confusion as to the true originator of the research.

It should also be noted that the Royal Society no longer have the record of his paper (as referred to in his opening sentence in Advertisement) that was read to the society – it has been removed. The RS’s Journal (see below) shows that persons disagreed with Newton’s findings, it is not clear exactly why; nor is it clear what experiments were later tried by the RS (as recorded) – BUT, we do know that they would have been, & were, misled BECAUSE Newton had not recognised the fundamental aspect of a prism’s virtual boundary interference, or of any boundary interference.

The fact that Newton’s paper is missing, that Newton was President of the RS (1703 to 1727), that his Opticks was published in 1703, that Newton delayed publishing his research – all indicate to massive jiggery-pokery – to his (Newton’s) purposeful removal of his papers from RS to prevent future ‘disputes’ & conflicts with his published book.

Observe the initials in the bottom rhs corner of the sketch diagram (as shown by du Sautoy in Beauty of Diagrams) – the initials look more like JE or IE, not IN - they do not look like Newton’s writing (compare to sample signature at Wikipedia, under Isaac Newton. – note the initial that looks like an E, note that the directional formation of the top loop of the E is opposite direction to the direction in the N in his signature.

Note also the handwriting on the diagram (top lhs) – it doesn’t look like samples of his writing as displayed on http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk.

BUT, the ink & style of the signature and that of the diagram & writing all appear to be from the same pen & same hand.

Conclusion – the diagram is not by Newton, but someone else (of initials JE or IE).

From RS Journal transcript (at end, 27 April 1676) the RS tried Newton’s experiment to determine the challenge from Mr Linus.

A prism was held close to a pea sized hole (bignes of a pease) and rotated slowly until colours obtained & equal refraction.

This should immediately have cautioned RS that the refraction angle is not constant, that something was not correct in either, or both, Newton’s & Linus’ assertions. But RS did not take caution – RS wrongly prematurely (purposefully?) dismissed Linus’ assertion and wrongly held-up Newton’s assertions – at this point defective Intellectual Momentum (IMom) had really begun; and it has gained monumental momentum over the 335 years since.

Let’s put IMom into perspective – prior to RS’s (incorrect) decision to side with Newton, there were differing views as to the nature/properties of light – each of these different views had Intellectual Mass – once RS investigated, so as to determine the veracity of each view (notwithstanding RS’s shoddiness & unprofessionalism by which this was done), and reached a decision as to which view was correct, at that point Intellectual Mass gained velocity and hence gathered IMom. Over the centuries velocity has increased and has brought about immense IMom upon which Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox & many others still trade their defective theories to unsuspecting students, because they also refuse to engage honestly & transparently.

To check the errors of RS (& Newton) and to give back some (full?) credit to Mr Linus – take a Weetabix cardboard container & open it up flat, near the centre make a pea-sized hole, a few inches above make a tiny hole; with a prism ready, and white paper on a table near a window (on side where sun will shine through) wait for the sun to shine (in Ireland this is a looooong wait) – when you finally get a brief flash of sun amongst endless clouds, hold the Weetabix screen above the table and achieve a sharp pea-sized hole, place prism in line of pea-hole so that rainbow pattern appears, notice that they are oblong.

Now obtain sunlight through the small hole and again obtain rainbow colours, note that the image is round (ish) as asserted by Linus.

Now obtain a rainbow pattern without the Weetabix screen – take a pointer and move around prism and verify the sources of the roy & vib patterns – the roy comes from the virtual interference boundary, the vib comes from the opposite apex of the prism, which is a real interference boundary - this confirms that the prism does not split light out into colours as long been held.

Go back to pea-sized hole and verify with the pointer that the vib is from the opposite apex, not from the interference pattern of the hole.

Go back to the small hole & verify that the pattern derives from the interference pattern at the hole (and projected through the prism), and NOT from the virtual boundary & the real apex boundary.

It is worth noting that Mr Linus had died and was not able to challenge the RS executive’s shoddy experimental & research methods, or its shoddy investigative methods – see RS entry (transcript below) of 30 December 1675 in which a letter dated 15 December from a Gascoignes from Liege informed of Mr Linus’ death (does this smell of a Hercules Poirot mystery????????)

If Newton had genuinely initiated R&D into light then he would have started from the basics & would have found the aforegoing phenomena that CDADD has now uncovered.

BUT, Newton didn’t initiate the research, Newton plagiarised the work and wrongly assumed the work to be correct. Newton incorrectly assumed that the work he plagiarised was correct because he obviously had given much credit to the originator (whoever that might have been – JE? IE?) – in exactly the same way others later gave much credit to Newton and assumed he was right, as did thousands of students ever since, and as did the writer at UCT’s Physics Laboratory in 1977, and Pinelands High School in 1966-8.

Newton no doubt expanded the work but carried through the fundamental errors as evidenced by the rays depicted through prisms in his diagrams, he also ‘filled in ‘ gaps (or so he must have thought) in the basics by adding them to Part II of his Opticks book. Had Newton rearranged his book to have the basics in Book I then it would likely have triggered queries – so he maintained the illogical sequence of complex experiments first, basic experiments second – and that illogic has duped & misled scientists for centuries.

According to records, Cambridge closed down during the great plague and Newton returned to his family home where he ‘researched’ his experiments. More correctly, it gave him the privacy to plagiarise/copy some other persons work (JE? or IE?), and with the plague killing a lot of people it is not unreasonable to suppose that the originator of the work had died and Newton found this work & stole the IP for himself – he would have needed privacy to transcribe it in his own hand & expand upon it. Newton was careless about his paper trail, hence the diagram with another person’s initials.

Newton delayed publishing his theories despite the fact that he was lecturing on light during the late 1600s, in 1703 he became President of Royals Society, the same year in which he published Opticks – RS (as confirmed by Joanna Corden) cannot locate Newton’s original papers to RS, those that were read out at a meeting. As President, Newton had the means by which to remove these papers that would no doubt have given indication that Newton could not have originated the research. Whether Linus’ papers are missing is not known.

One of Linus’ assertions was correct, the other two, as described by the RS journal entry, are too vague to understand exactly what Linus meant & what RS interpreted, and whether RS purposefully denigrated Linus’ assertions by simplifying them incorrectly.

There are other allegations of plagiarism against Newton.

A brief biography (by Robert A Hatch, Florida University) on Newton & his works give insights to Newton’s tyranny & allegations of plagiarism

(http://www.clas.ufl.edu/users/ufhatch/pages/01-courses/current-courses/08sr-newton.htm)

Now consider the position from that of the true originator of the research into light & prisms:– a diligent scientist would have recorded & attempted to analyse the basics of observed phenomena as seen through a prism. Further developments by the originator into more complex experiments would have yielded the insight that the rainbow patterns were due to two distinctly separate sources (as CDADD has described previously & expanded on below) – having reached this realisation the originating researcher would also have realised that the separateness of the two patterns (roy & vib) were the crucial elements to further research developments.

So, what would any originating researcher do to protect his research? – obviously he would separate that key piece of evidence from his everyday working papers – with that separated (and with the originator later succumbing to the plague) any other person would enter the research at a point in which an assumption (rainbow pattern unitary) would be made based upon the accepted credibility of the originating researcher and would simply plagiarise the research, unwittingly omitting the crucial piece of evidence of the roy & vib separateness, and create the illusion of own-work through progressive release of ‘research’.

Every student from that point forth has willy-nilly accepted Newton’s (incorrect, plagiarised) theories simply because of the immense IMom that has built up over ever-increasing time & ever-increasing numbers of people expounding Newton’s defective theories.

Clearly Newton had a traumatic childhood and throughout life entirely – Newton abused the immense powers he achieved & long-held.

One can sympathise/empathise with Newton’s childhood circumstances but that does not justify dishonesty. Nor that RS has continued with same for centuries.

Newton’s Universal Law of Gravitation is also wrong because he ignored Hooke’s proposition of an ether over which light/energy propagated – instead Newton proposed a particle approach – and from there the science world went spinning off into deep space which caused Einstein to incorrectly propose that ‘e equals m.c squared’, it does not, ‘e = half m.v squared’.

Newton compounded his particle theory by multiplicities of misinterpretations – his Newton Rings were misinterpretations of simple interference boundary phenomena as occurred through a convex lens – the convexity producing multiples of interference boundaries across its surfaces, and hence the rings.

Newton essentially became a tyrant whilst President of the Royal Society, imposing his views, which views were based upon defective science. It was the start of the Intellectual Momentum of increasingly defective science theories that gathered speed over the centuries bringing on big-bang, doppelganger universes, e equals m.c squared, & other weird ideas.

Any of Newton’s intellectual opposers had to contend with Newton’s staff who waged Newton’s numerous (endless?) wars on his behalf, but under his direction.

To what extent any of Newton’s work can really be called his own, or simply stolen work as a consequence of the immense opportunity that the Great Plague & his RS Presidency presented, is impossible to say.

BUT, what is abundantly clear is that the order in which he published his progressive experiments in his Opticks book cannot & does not uphold his claim to being the originator. The incorrect observations of patterns from sunlight through prism, the dishonesty from Newton, the sketch diagram, the negligence of the Royal Society in testing Newton’s & Linus’ assertions, are all contributory to some 350 years of defective science.

We, of today, as with all those students of the past, by their thousands, millions, sat through Optics lectures over the centuries learning all these defective theories & expanding upon those defective foundations, and progressively projecting them ever deeper into science-fiction.

It totally blows the Big Bang proposition, or the short life of the Universe – the Universe must have had a considerably longer life.

Thomas Young added further errors & misinterpretations due to his scattered approach to conducting experiments, often leaving experiments incomplete but having drawn incorrect conclusions, which have also accelerated the Intellectual Momentum of errors in light theory.

Simon Singh’s ‘The Code Book’ (ISBN 1-85702-889-9) gives an excellent summary of codes & code-breaking from an historical as well as technical perspective. All goes interestingly well until the last chapter (Ch 8, A Quantum Leap into the Future) when Singh goes off-track into sci-fi quantum theory. Admittedly his book was published in 1999 before CDADD disproved the quantum theory (as then propositioned).

Nevertheless Ch 8 gives a good broad summary of quantum theory & it historical development & how the misinterpretations by Newton, Young, Schrodinger & others led to the split over particle & wave theories of light.

The point Singh puts across is that if one could manufacture a quantum machine then one could speed up the processing time of computers thus allowing the complex coding methods that are used today to be broken very quickly – but this is unrealistic because Singh is simply regurgitating the same defective particle & wave theories of light emanating from Newton’s dishonesty & projecting into a further tier of science-fiction theory.

It is necessary that every single optics experiment conducted by Newton (& Young, & others) needs to be repeated & carefully observed & interpreted/deduced so as to create a better understanding of light/energy transmission dynamics than so far established in this series of papers. This is a primary task for diligent (& honest) scientists rather than Professional Engineers who should be engaging in a supportive role.

The basis of the claim that white light is made up of the rainbow colours roygbiv is wrong, it is unlikely that light is made up of these colours as the colours are caused by interference dynamics within the fundamental light transmission dynamic, which dynamic appears to be of a switching function & not likely a splitting of light into colours – all this means is that it needs to be proved, one way or the other.

BUT, more importantly, the Royal Society executive need to radically shift from the centuries-old tyranny to a course of honesty, to setting records straight, to telling the truth. Ditto the executive of: Royal Institutions, Royal Irish Academy, Royal Dublin Society, universities, etc.

Newton’s defective (& plagiarised) physics (Tangible) science theories can be shown to be incorrect by simple experimental observations – the numerous defective socio-economic theories that are upheld by the Nobel Foundation and which are, in truth, totally unworthy of Nobel Prizes cannot be easily experimented, it requires careful engineering deductions to see their defects – BUT, Woody, Buzz Lightyear, Rex & Jessie & other characters are refusing to listen!

The Allies are spinning the World ever deeper into Meltdown chaos with their dictatorial ‘democracy’ power abuses – World War IV approaches because of imposed Economy Terrorism -> War Crimes!!!

_______________

Thinking Further on LTD & Prism dynamics.

Further thoughts on the dynamics of a Prism raise the query whether a prism can be viewed as Convolution Integrator.

(for animation see Wikipedia; Convolution – but, remember, extreme caution - do not rely on Wikipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution, )

The purpose is not to get bogged down in mathematics but to understand the dynamics of the prism. As discussed in the previous Particle a prism filters out ambient light and thus allows forward light to predominate, which is why we see interference boundary patterns from external objects being projected through a prism (small hole, slits, etc.) which would otherwise be swamped by everyotherwhichway ambient light.

BUT, the prism (by looking back through it) allows us to see linearly filtered interference patterns whilst the prism is held in any one static position (with interference patterns viewable); by rotating the prism (about the viewing plane) one can see that the patterns appear progressively from vertical through to horizontal positions about various interference boundaries. The point being that although the interference patterns appear in all directions about any interference boundary, the prism is letting us look (effectively) at a filtered 2D planar view. BUT, we only see the full colour patterns in any one direction at a time – horizontal or vertical (or partially in-between, when rotating the prism) – we need to understand why this is so.

The 2D filtered image is essentially a whole series of adjacent line filtered images all ‘glued’ together into a 2D planar view which is the prism itself. And each of the line images is simply a whole set of interference patterns at each & every adjacent ether particle along the length of any line image. This can be observed at a corner edge of a window when prism held vertical, a very wide vertical roy line, rotate prism through to horizontal & note change, the horizontal now a wide roy pattern, and note the changes whilst rotating – continue rotating through 90, 180, 270, 360 degrees & also note the change from roy to vib at any particular boundary. Similar effects are observed with the vib patterns.

Any interference boundary pattern (as seen through a prism) is in effect a summing of individual points of interference; and summed across the prism to produce a pattern line (think about this) – i.e. any interference pattern is the summing of specific ether particles, it has volume because any particular ether particle interacts with those adjacent & spreads the interference dynamic across an amount of 3D space; the prism sees a 2D planar view of the summing of all ether particles in its view, but the 2D is a summing of the line (linear) images, and all lines are ‘stuck’ together as a prism.

Also note that at a thin interference boundary (e.g. a thin stick), (with roy to rhs & the vib to lhs of boundary) that a contiguous colour pattern appears of order (left to right) biv(m, mauve)roy (which is a ‘reversal’ of roy(g)biv).

Whilst convolution integration is used extensively in signal processing & other time based applications, would it not be reasonable to consider that the prism is effectively a Convolution Integrator of the LTD dynamics about any interference object, and processed through an object (prism) that has a transfer function that filters out everyotherwhichway light & permits only forward light, and in lines???

Note: that the prism is effectively a series of adjacent linear signal samplers, and all stuck together as a composite glass object; whilst the light patterns at any interference boundary are phenomena occurring at each & every ether particle near that boundary. So, mentally zooming into ether particle level, we have a line sampler across a huge, massive band of marble-like ether particles (all switching) & observing the particular colour pattern in the particular line plane in which the prism is being held; and observing the patterns at each ether particle in that line sampling; and all this being integrated (summed) across the entire surface of the prism, insofar as the light/energy ‘information’ contained within ether particles are affected/influenced by any & every interference object as light (& energy) is propagated through space.

In other words & simplifying – LTD is time based & prism sampling is timed based (same time frame) & taking distinctly separate linearised samples (of every 3D ether particle in a particular planar view), but all ‘glued’ together in a spatial 2D image as observed through a prism

The purpose is not to become stuck in buzz-word terminology but to give greater insights as to the functionality/dynamics of a prism so as to extract greater understandings of both prisms & LTD dynamics.

NASA has published numerous photos taken from Hubble space telescope – BUT, NASA state that they have been processed to enhance imagery – trying to interpret processed photos is a waste of time if one doesn’t know the processes, or the telescope dynamics.

NASA are not responding with information regarding their Hubble photos – it raises the question as to the value of the photos & processing techniques.

As always acknowledged, the aforegoing could be wrong, partially or entirely – but it makes far more sense than previous sci-fi theories – comments/challenges are always welcomed

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

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

Ireland ISP UPC.ie are also unlawfully, criminally interfering & blocking communications

(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.

_________________________________________

Transcription of Royal Society Journal (Manythanx to Joanna Corden)

Dear Mr Addington

I have been looking at the Journal Book (which records the weekly scientific meetings of the Society0 for 1675, and have found several references to Newton and his theory of light and colour. There is a microfilm of the Journal Books, but as our microfilm reader is not currently working, the only alternative would be to digitally photograph each page. This would be very expensive, so I have transcribed the entries from the meetings which are relevant;

18 November 1675

Mr Oldenburg communicated 'Mr Newton's answer of November 13 1675 to Mr Linus his letter of February 25 1675 concerning an experiment relating to Mr Newton's new theory of Light and Colours; which imports that the experiment contested was made in a clear day, and that the Prism therein imployed, was placed close to the hole and that the coloured image was not parallel to the Axis of the Prism, but transverse to it. Which three particulars being contradicted by Mr Linus, Mr Newton in the Letter directs his Antagonist again very punctually, in what manner to try the Experiment, to satisfy himself about his veracity in relating the same.

Besides, Mr Newton offering in the same Letter to send to the Society a Discourse of his about Colors, when it shall be thought convenient, the Society ordered the Secretary to thank him for his Offer, and to desire him to send that Discourse as soon as he pleased. '

9 December 1675

'There was produced a Manuscript of Mr Newton's, touching his Theory of Light and Colours; containing partly an Hypothesis to explain the Properties of Light, by him discoursed of and in his former Papers; partly the principal phaenomena of the various colours exhibited by thin plates or bubles esteemed by him to be of a more difficult consideration, yet to depend also on the said properties of Light.

Of the Hypothesis was onely read the first part, giving an account of Refraction, Reflection, Transparency and Opacity. The second part, explaining Colours, referred to the next meeting.

The author having prefaced that though he formerly purposed never to write any Hypothesis of Light and Colours, that so he might avoyd occasion of being engaged in vain disputes: yet having since considered that such an Hypothesis might much illustrate the papers now sent, he hath delivered one, yet not concerning himself, whether it shall be thought probable or improbable, so it do byt render thses ad the former papers more intelligile: The summe whereof is, That he needs not, for his purpose, to determine what Light is further, than that is something or other capable of exciting vibrations in the other; seing that thus it will become so general and comprehencive of other Hypotheses, as to leave littel room for new ones to be invented. Where yet he declares, that he shall not assume either this or any onther Hypothesis, not thinking it necessary to concern himself whether the 'Properties fo Light' discovered by him be explained by this or any ohter Hypothesis capable of explaining them; but saith, that while he is describing it, he shall sometimes speak, as if he assumed it and propounded it to be beleived. In discovering this Hypothesis he hath occasion to intimate the principal cause of the Cohesion of the parts fo Solids and Fluids; and the Springiness of Glasse and other bodies, whose parts slide not one uppon another in bending : as also of the standing of the Mercury top-full to a much greater hight than 29 inches.

He takes likewise occasion, to give light from this Hypothesis to that puzling Probleme, viz. By what means the Muscles are contracted and dilated to cause Animal motion.

Some of the Company taking particular motice, among other things, of an Experiment mentioned in this Hypothesis, desired it might be tryed; viz that having laid upon a Table a round peice of glasse abut two inches broad in a brasse ring , so that the glasse might be one third part of an inch from the Table: And then rubbing the glasse briskly, till some litle fragments of paper laid on the table under the glasse began to be attracted and move nimbly to and fro after he had done rubbing the glasse, the papers would continue a pretty while in various motions, sometimes leaping up to the glasse and resting there a while, the leaping down and resting there, and then leaping up and down again, and this sometimes in lines, seeming perpendicular to the Table, sometimes in oblique ones; sometimes also leaping up in one arch and leaping down in another divers times together without sensible resting between, sometimes skip in a bow from one part of the glasse to another withour touching the Table, and as if they had been carried about in the midst of a Whirlwind, and be otherwise variously moved; every paper with a divers motion. And upon sliding his finger upon the upper side of the glasse, though neither the glasse nor the enclosed air below were moved thereby, yet would the paers as they hang under glasse receive some new motion, inclining this or that way accordingly as he moved his finger.

This experiment, he proposes to be varied with a larger glasse placed further from the table, and to make use of bits of leaf-gold in sted of papers; esteeming that this will succeed much better, so as perhaps to make the gold rise and fall in Spiral lines, or whirle for a time in the air without touching either Table or Glasse.

It was ordered that this Experiment should be tryed the next meeting, and the Curator promised he would prepare it for that time.

The Secretary was ordered by letter to enquire of Mr Newton, whether he would not give way to take a copy of his Papers, for the better consideration of their contents. '

16 December 1675

' Mr Newton's Experiment of glasse rubbed to cause various motions in bits of Paper underneath, was tryed, but succeeded not, in those circumstances with which it was tryed. This tryal waas made upon the reading of a letter of his, dated the 14th December 1675 at Cambridge, wherein he gives some more particular directions about that Experiment.

It was ordered, that the Secretary should again write to the said Mr Newton, and acquaint him with the want of Successe of his Experiment, and desire him, that he would send his own apparatus, wherewith he had made it, as also to enquire whether he had secured the papers being moved from the air, that might somewhere steal in.

Hereupon the Sequele of his Hypothesis, which was begun to be read the last day, was read to the end.

To which Mr Hook said, that the main of it was contained in his Micrography, without which Mr Newton in some particulars onely had carried further. '

30 December 1675

' There was read a letter of Mr Newton's dated December 21 1675 in answer to what had been written to him concerning the want of success of his Experiment made with a glasse rubbed etc. In which lettter he assures, that it had been repeated by him again with good success, and gives yet further directions for the making it successfully.

It was ordered, that these Directions should be observed in the Trial, to be made at the next meeting of the Society.

The Secretary read an other letter written to him by Gascoignes from Leige, bearing date the 15th of December acquainting us with the death of Mr Linus, and their resilution of trying Mr Newton's Experiment, concerning Light and Colours, more closely and carefully and before more Witnesses according to the Directions given them by Mr Newton's last letter: Intimating withall that if the said Experiment be made before the Royal Society, and by them attested to succeed as Mr Newton's affirms, they will rest satisfied.

It was ordered, that when the Sun shall serve, this Experiment be made before the Society. '

13 January 1675/6

'Mr Newton's Experiment of Glass rubbed to cause various motions in bits of paper underneath, being made according to his more particular Directions, did Succeed Very well. The rubbing was made both with a Scrubbing brush made of short hogs-bristles, with a knife, the haft of a knife made of Whalebone, and with the nail of ones finger. It appeared that touching many parts at once with a hard and rough body, did produce the Effect expected.

Ordered, that Mr Newton receive the thanks of the Society for giving himself the trouble of imparting to them such full instructions of making the said Experiment. '

20 January 1675/6

' There was also read the beginning of Mr Newton's Discourse containing such Observations as conduce to further Discoveries for compleating his Theory of Light and Colours, especially as to the constitution of natural Bodies, on which their Colours or Transparency depend. In which Discourse he describes first the principal of his Observations, and then considers and makes use of them.

At this time there were read the first fifteen of those Observations; which did so well please the Company, that they ordered the Secretary, to desire the Author he would permit them to be published, together with the rest which they presumed did correspond to those that had been now read to them.

Besides, there was read a letter of the same Mr Newton's written to Mr Oldenburg December 21 1675, stating the Difference betwixt his Hypothesis and that of Mr Hook's in his Micrography. The result of which is, that he (Mr Newton) hath nothing common with Mr Hook, but the Supposition that aether is a medium susceptible of Vibrations; of which supposition Mr Newton saith, that he makes a very different use, Mr Hook supposing it Light itself which he supposes it is not: Besides, that he (Mr Newton) explains very differently from Mr Hook the manner of Refraction and Reflexion, and the nature and production of Colours in all cases; and even in the Colours of thin transparent Substances Mr Newton saith, that he explains every thing after a way so differing from Mr Hook, that the Experiments he grounds his discourse upon, destroy all Mr Hook has said about them: And that the two main Experiments, without which the manner of production of those Colours is not to be found out, were not onely unknown to Mr Hook when he wrote his Micrography, but even last Spring; as he understood by mentioning them to the said Mr Hook.

The reading of the rest of Mr Newton's Discourse was referred to the next meeting. '

27 January 1675/6

Mr Newton's letter of January 25th was read, wherein he acknowledges the favour of the Societyin their kind acceptance of his late papers, and declares, that he know not how to deny anything which they desire should be done; onely he desires that the printing his Observations about Colours may be suspended a while, because he hath some thoughts of writing such another Set of Observations for determining the manner of the production of Colours by the Prisme, which Observations he saith ought to precede those now in our hands, and with doe best to be joyned with them.

Ordered also, that the reading of Mr Newton's Discourse about Colours be continued at the next meeting.'

3 February 1675/6

' The reading of Mr Newton's Discourse was continued, viz that part wherein he explains by the simplest of colours the more compounded.

Which done occasion was taken to discuours of Mr Newton's Theory itself, and to debate whether the rayes of Light, which though alike incident in the same medium, yet exhibit different Colours, may not reasonably be said to owe that exhibition of different colours to the several degrees of the Velocity of Pulses, rather than (as Mr Newton esteems) to the several connate degrees of refrangibility in the Rayes themselves?

Mr Hook was of the opinion , that the former of these wayes was sufficient to give a good account of the diversity of Colours. '

10 February 1675/6

' After this, there was read the last part of Mr Newton's Discourse, wherein it is considered in nine Propositions, how the Phenomena of thin transparent plates stand related to those fo all other natural Bodies: of which bodies having already told us that they appear of divers colours, accordingly as they are disposed to reflect most copiously the rayes endured with those Colours; he now inquires after their constitutions, whereby they reflect some rayes more copiously than others.

Here among many other considerable things, he shews, How the bignesse of the component parts of natural bodies may be conjectured by their Colours as also, that the cause of Reflexion is not the impinging of Light on the solid and impervious parts of Bodies, as is commonly supposed. '

2 March 1675/6

' The Secretary moveing, that now the Sun and Season being likely to serve for the making of Mr Newton's Experiment, called in question by Mr Linus, an Appratus might be prepared for that purpose: Mr Hook said, he had an Apparatus ready to make the Experiment, when the Society should call for it. '

16 March 1675/6

' Ordered also, that Mr Newton's Experiment, questioned by Linus, be made, if the Weather be favourable for it. '

6 April 1676

' There was appointed a Committee to try Mr Newton's Experiment controverted by Mr Linus, viz. Sir Jonas More, Dr Croon, Mr Hill, Dr Grew, Mr hook. And this tryall, after it hath been made by these Gentlemen, to be made before the Society. '

27 April 1676

' Mr Newton's Experiment which had been disputed by Mr Linus and his Fellowes at Liege was tryed before this Society, according to the directions of the said Mr Newton, and succeeded as he all along hath asserted it would do. And it was Ordered, that the Secretary should signifie this successe to those of Liege, who formerly had certified, that if the Experiment were made before this Society, and succeeded according to Mr Newton's assertions, they would acquiesce; as appears by Mr Gascoines letter written to Mr Oldenburg December 15 1675.

The Experiment was thus: A prisme was taken and so held, that its axis was perpendicular to the Suns Rayes (it bing a very clear Sun-shiny day) and in this posture it was placed in a darkened Roome, as close as might be to the hole, through which the Sun shined into the dark roome, which hole, was about the bignes of a pease. Then the Prisme was turned Slowly about its axis, and the colours were seen to move upon the opposite Wall first towards that plaace to which the Sun's direct light would passe, if the Prisme were taken away, and then back againe. When the colours were about the midle of these two contrary positions, that is, when they were nearest to that place to which the Suns direct Ray tended, there the Experimenter stopped, the Rays being then equally refracted on both sides the Prisme. In this posture of the Prisme, the figure of the colours being observed, it was found not round, as Linus contends, but oblong; the colours Red, Yellow, Green, blew, purple, succeeding in Order, not from one side of the figure to the other, as in Mr Linus his conjecture, but from one end to the other and the length of the figure being not parallel, but transvers to the Axis of the Prisme. '

I have not been able to find any of the original letters by Newton to Oldenburg among the letters of Newton we hold here.

I hope this will be sufficient for your purposes. Should you still need a digital image of any of the above, we charge £13 per new digital image.

With kind regards

Joanna

Joanna Corden (Mrs)

Archivist and Records Manager

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Royal Society & Institution - undermining Science integrity & transparency
Date:	Wed, 02 Feb 2011 15:10:44 +0000
From:	Chris Addington <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;
To:	This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Alexis Steberger <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Karen Sheeran <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Orla Purcell <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., Paul Farrelly <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., desmond swayne <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.;, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

To:
Royal Society -– President Paul Nurse & Council
Royal Institution - President & Council

CC:
HM The Queen
Parliament
As per addressees & General

From: Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

February 1, 2011

Dear Sirs/Madams

RE:
1.BBC2 - Horizon: Science Under Attack - Paul Nurse (Geneticist)
2. BBC4 - Justice - Fairness and the Big Society - Michael Sandel (Harvard)

Royal Society President Paul Nurse's Horizon programme can only be
described as dishonest, disingenuous, disrespectful & cowardly
backstabbing - these are common traits with TV 'science' programmes -
Nurse's gross abuse of the power he has (by manipulatively controlling
the content & presentation to his own advantage & to the disadvantage of
others) is similar to that by Richard Dawkins, Colin Blakemore, Brian
Cox, Stephen Hawking.

In dealing with Climate Change Paul Nurse presented NASA's view & that
of East Anglia Professor Phil Jones. Whilst Jones was not on my email
circulation list his colleague Professor Mike Hulme is, so UEA cannot
argue that there are not other valid challenges to Climate Change, as
Nurse is well aware (see previous letter to Royal Society below). Yet,
there was no honesty from Paul Nurse or Phil Jones or Mike Hulme in
their failure of openly acknowledging other valid challenges, nor in
their refusal to engage in professional & constructive debate over same.

Nurse was unprofessionally supporting IPCC's NON-FAIL-SAFE global
warming instead of CDADD's FAIL-SAFE global freeze.

The NASA scientist stated 'seeing is believing' but Nurse has not
responded to my previous email which shows that centuries held theory
(that light through a prism produces a contiguous rainbow of colours) is
not correct - so 'seeing' is not necessarily believing.

Nurse later attempted to counter argue the CAUSE/EFFECT challenge by
giving an example (using Royal Society's? barrier rope stands) of 3
points (1) Smoking causing (2) yellow teeth & (3) cancer and arguing
that someone claiming yellow teeth caused cancer is wrong in their
analysis. Whilst the simplistic example presented is correct the example
belies the fact that the real challenge to Climate Change is from
totally different CAUSAL FACTOR/S (vis: the dynamics of solar systems
functioning as SUPER-MOTORS).

Paul Nurse was purposefully dishonest.

Nurse interviewed Telegraph columnist James Delingpole (no email address
on his website, web provider This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.,).
Nurse argued:- a person goes for medical tests and is informed that
he/she has cancer, he/she generally does not reject the consensus of
medical opinion & not go for treatment. So therefore, proposed Paul
Nurse to James Delingpole, why reject the consensus of scientific
opinion regarding Climate Change?

Nurse's argument is entirely disingenuous.
Nurse did not give Delingpole warning of the loaded question he was
going to raise - Nurse controlled the programme, its content & its
presentation - Delingpole was clearly thrown by a purposefully loaded
question. There is a length of time (which Delingpole did not have,
because Nurse purposefully sprung the loaded question) between a medical
diagnosis & treatment; and one is usually advised to go for a second
opinion before taking treatment on such a critical issue, thus allowing
time for debate & reflection.

The Climate Change issues concerns a global 'patient', vis:- societies
collectively - and they are entitled to be correctly informed & allowed
time to debate & challenge. And when 'tricks' are applied to data (as
acknowledged by UEA) then it is valid cause for concern. Even today East
Anglia University & Royal Society do not tell the truth that there is
another valid challenge and by a Professional Engineer - NO! they keep
quiet.
Nor did Jones, or anyone at East Anglia circulate their 'explanation' of
the 'tricks' promptly & widely - so it is hard to accept the
long-belated 'explanation' from Jones - which has been possible after
careful reflection & possible destruction of other evidence.
It is for these kinds of reasons that scientists are distrusted -
because they are purposefully not honest = dishonest.
(And Mary Robinson - mrfcj.com - also refuses to engage on fail-safe
challenges & also engages with fraud Richard Branson)

Nurse's analogy is also disingenuous because he alludes that smoking is
the only cause of yellow teeth. Nurse is also disingenuous by alluding
that smoking is the only cause of cancer.
There are other causes to both yellow teeth & cancer, just as my
research indicates that there are other, and more plausible, causes of
global warming.

It is known that the world has gone through an ice-age - is it plausible
for scientists to argue that there has been only one ice-age - for such
a proposition it would require that the solar system fell into stable
orbit in a 'critically damped' manner - i.e. all the planets fell,
exactly into their orbital positions in a manner that is 'just so'.
Such a proposition is entirely implausible - it makes more sense that
planets were oscillating for billions of years - going through
successive melt & freeze cycles before eventually stabilising - but it
is also implausible that orbital oscillations are not the cause of the
present warming cycle which will, in all likelihood, precede a massive
global freeze as volcanic eruptions blot out the sun's rays as has
happened before.

Paul Nurse interviewed Tony Lane, a person that has rejected retrovirals
and hence fits into those that do not willy-nilly accept medical/science
advice, and which counters Nurse's loaded scenario put to Delingpole).
Whilst the interview appeared reasonable Nurse, later, was disrespectful
to Tony Lane's position concerning his own health, by his (Nurse's)
backstabbing remark to the camera that left no doubt that Nurse viewed
Lane as misguided.
This manipulative & disrespectful ploy (behind-the-back denigrating
remarks) is used frequently by other 'scientists' such as Dawkins &
presenters on programmes such as Channel 4's Relocation.

Paul Nurse interviewed Royal Society Librarian Keith Moore. Moore showed
Nurse original texts by people such a Newton, Wren, Boyle & others. But,
time has erased the power-abuse engaged by some of those, especially
Newton. Nurse is simply replaying power-abuses to entrench defective
science.

Paul Nurse then tried to justify dishonesty by arguing (to effect) that
scientists nonetheless have to deal with the real world & hence
politics. Galileo stood his ground until face with being burnt at the
stake - nevertheless he endured severe socio-economic oppressions. Nurse
is not prepared to stand a ground of truth.

Paul Nurse's presentation was dishonest, disingenuous, disrespectful &
cowardly.

And BBC are renowned for dishonesty.

Despite my having disproved (on a balance of probabilities) Einstein's &
Hubble's theories & numerous Nobel Prize winning Economics Theories the
science community refuse to face up to the reality that they have been
misled for decades/centuries & are misleading present youth.
The present position of Paul Nurse & other scientists against myself is
much like that of those that opposed Galileo (& others) - Nurse is much
like those 'flat earth' oppressors that abused those bringing new &
dynamic thinking.

My recent paper that demonstrated, by simple observations, that light is
NOT made up of contiguous rainbow colours, has not been opposed by Nurse
- only one professor has made an (incorrect) assertion - but after
requesting the professor to simply look again through a prism there has
been no further response.

The point is that for centuries we have been misled by misinterpreted
phenomena - these new understandings that I have developed now show that
the now-incorrect historical fundamentals were the very facts upon which
Hubble & Einstein relied to 'prove' their theories - those fundamentals
do not hold true, hence Hubble's & Einstein's theories do not hold true.
And this is by simple observation of tangible, viewable, light phenomena.

In dealing with Intangible Sciences .......... One only had to listen to
Bank of England Governor Mervyn King give his speech (note: not the
King's Speech) in Newcastle's Civic Centre to recognise that King has
simply learnt defective Intangible/Economic science.
(text:www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/speeches/2011/speech471)
King fails to recognise that economy indicators are not 'targets', which
he nonetheless wrongly tries to target using various (grossly defective)
controls at his disposal.

Just as Einstein & Hubble were wrong & misled generations of scientists,
so too are today's scientists misleading Mervyn King, George Osborne,
David Cameron, Barrack Obama .......... and these government leaders
refuse to listen to the sound Economy Engineering that I am pioneering -
they refuse to engage Best Practice, and that makes them criminally
negligent/derelict - and perpetrators of Economy Terrorism. To which
events such as Moscow airport bombing is an understandable outcome -
because people refuse to be oppressively enslaved, many are prepared to
fight back.

The proofs of defective science misleading governments is plain to see
by tuning into BBC Parliament and listening to debates. Last week
Cameron (must clear debt or can't grow) and Miliband (need jobs to clear
deficit) chucked their emotive arguments back&forth.

Cameron & Clegg have stripped cash-flow with their destructive
Budget-cuts which diminishes Economic Momentum (because it is
proportional to the square of Money Supply); and Mervyn King is going to
jerk the interest-rate lever (which is devoid of any engineering design)
which will further strip Money Supply, thus spiralling Economic Momentum
further downwards.
And Miliband doesn't recognise that constructive jobs are needed, not
simply 'jobs'.

Hours/Days/Weeks/Months/Years of nonsense Parliamentary debate - and all
based upon defective science - and not one jot of constructive
derived-demand job creation within a sound engineered Economy structure
with appropriate controls.
Cameron & Miliband subordinate constructive job creation to confused,
expedient & defective accounting principles that unprofessionally,
arrogantly, ignore sound science & engineering. Accountants count and
account for what they have counted - accountants do not engineer -
accountants try to engineer & always screw up - hence the global mess.

The deepening chaos in Ireland will not be resolved by the new change in
ruling-party leadership - Michael Martin, the new leader, was one of
those that obstructed the evidence I researched of pension frauds, which
is the cause of the meltdown in Ireland, and throughout the World. But,
all other party leaders have also suppressed the truth from their
supporters. The newly constructed election promises will not solve the
underlying deficiencies - that of the absence of sound, appropriate,
Economy Engineering.

The current riots in Egypt & Tunisia are supported by the West, just as
there was western support for ANC in their Apartheid struggle - but,
there are no sound Economy structures with which to replace the
prevailing structures - it means that Tunisia & Egypt will likely
collapse to a worse degree than has South Africa - and become another
Afghanistan or Iraq.

Ireland, Egypt, Tunisia have common grounds for the prevailing chaos -
the fact that the global economy has been undermined by Donald GordonÂ’s
masterminding of global pension frauds which grossly overinflated global
Money Supply. Artificial money pumped up Ireland's Stuffed-Pussycat
falsely guised as a celtic-tiger. Over-inflated Western nations fuelled
destructive artificial supply-driven demand, spiralled global travel,
and, combined with instant media broadcasts, raised unrealistic
expectations & perceptions in underdeveloped nations (Socio-Economic
Induction). This is the same/similar dynamic that induced evil into
Germany post-WWI.

Defective science has been wrongly used to accelerate this artificial
over-inflation of Money Supply e.g. John Nash's brilliant Nobel Prize
mathematical models were misused by Finance Powers to give false
credibility to global fraud scams.

Sciences, both Tangible (Physics) & Intangible (Social, Economy,
Business, Finance, Legal) are plagued with dishonesty throughout.
The global chaos is BECAUSE Intangible Sciences are devoid of sound
engineering - there are no sound engineered Economy structures or
controls - & what controls & structures that are implemented are done by
people with no economy engineering skills - consequently Western
Governments wage Economy Terrorism internally & externally, globally.

Royal Society President Paul Nurse is perpetuating this spiral of
dishonesty because he is afraid to stand up & tell the truth. Because
Nurse doesn't tell the truth then Governments can simply say that
scientists do not agree with new findings & can block necessary reform -
hence dishonesty spirals.

Royal Society will spend millions on deep-space science-fiction theories
but contribute nothing towards my pioneering Economy Engineering R&D
which counters Economy Terrorism & stabilises economies.
Governments also do not spend a few million on funding Economy
Engineering; they would rather spend tens/hundreds of Billion fighting
the wars consequent to their campaign of Economy Terrorism oppressions.

Finance Powers manipulate governments & academia which spiral the
complexities ever more. Rupert Murdoch controls Cameron - Murdoch is
able to do so because his empire is built on defrauded employee/client
pensions/investments - check out employee benefits. But, what is of
greater concern is that Murdoch prostitutes himself from one party
leader to the next - changing his position when convenient and under the
guise that the party leader has shifted position - however, it is true
to say that Murdoch's position is constant - as a fraud.

Cameron kowtowed, grovelled, to Finance Powers last week at Davos. The
World Economic Forum is a guise for Finance Powers to project a false
aura of philanthropy - but the truth is that WEF have long been kept
informed of the realities of global economy terrorism oppressions that
western corporates are imposing and the only response from WEF is an
'effoff' email - the partners-in-crime that make up the Membership WEF
are not interested in pioneered engineering that will progress economic
stability & constructive growth. Which is why suicide bombers are making
retaliatory attacks on western nations.

Again, BBC & all media are well aware of all these issues but cover them
up with lies.

Despite my having challenged scientists, openly & globally, no one is
prepared to engage constructively.

______________

BBC4 had, the night before, Harvard's Michael Sandel present a Justice
series at the Royal Institution. Without going into great detail, Sandel
presented loaded questions for choice by the audience - their choice was
recorded via hand-held buttons and the results presented on screen.
However when non-prepared questions came up the hand-held was dispensed
with and a show-of-hands used - this immediately raised the concern that
the loaded questions had rigged results displayed.

Sandel used the student fee issue in his session but failed to raise the
challenge that Lord Browne, the author of the report on fees, was the
same person who, as BP Chairman, was duped into buying-up failing
American oil companies (Amoco & others) simply so that Amoco could
take-back control once BP took the fall for numerous plant failures,
culminating in the likely rigged sabotage of Deepwater Horizon.
Browne's report is, like his BP decisions, entirely inadequate as a
basis for a policy change on university fees - as I have previously
shown Students, by means of massive fees hike, are being compelled to
subsidise research facilities.

Sandel raised discussion over the 'Big Society' and engaged the audience
about 'supply & demand', regulation, fairness or otherwise of markets -
but Sandel, nor BBC, informed the audience of the gross skewing of world
economies by defrauded pensions and artificial & fraudulent increasing
of money supply - consequently the debate had no sound base and the
audience were simply throwing around empty statements.

___________

The aforegoing issues are little different to the dishonesty within the
Councils of Royal Irish Academy & Royal Dublin Society - including my
being physically assaulted by an RIA Member/Thug for simply raising
valid professional opposition - the President, Prof Nicholas Canny,
purposefully blocks valid science challenges.

The real problems within the science community is that merit is not
rewarded/funded/promoted, reserved titles of Royal
institutions/societies are not regulated - thus inappropriately
qualified (& even unqualified) people are wrongly honoured - who then
unduly influence governments.

Royal Society, Royal Institution, Royal Irish Academy, Royal Dublin
Society urgently need to clean up their acts - these are a HUGE tasks.

Perhaps HM The Queen should withhold Royal title to RS, RI, RIA & RDS
until such time as they comply.

Sincerely

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 governmentÂ’s
oppressive XDR-nazi system and oppressive economic isolation by
corporate & academic worldÂ’s.)
XDR = Extreme Democracy Resistant.

To:
The Royal Society – President Paul Nurse & Council

CC:
HM The Queen
Parliament
As per addressees

From: Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

December 17, 2010

Dear Sirs/Madams

RE: Urgent need for Science integrity & transparency

I record my objections to the fact that the Royal Society is failing to
promote integrity & transparency toward Science research & developments;
nor toward the Engineering application/implementation of same.

The consequence of this is that the public are being misinformed about
science principles & applications thereto.
Similarly, government/s are also being misinformed which results in
defective government policies which have damaging impacts upon local &
near-local economies, and more devastating impacts upon marginal
economies throughout the world.

I have openly challenged numerous Science principles (both Tangible &
Intangible) and specifically challenged Fellows of the Royal Society –
notably Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins & Colin Blakemore – and
concerning various Science claims by these persons & others, and science
matters in general.

Stephen Hawking promotes numerous publications regarding his Big-Bang
theory & other spin-off theories. The roots of these theories have
relied upon fundamental science principles such as YoungÂ’s Slit
Experiment which has long attributed light to frequency spectrum. These
theories have vastly expanded with EinsteinÂ’s energy & relativity
theories which were hastily given confirmation when Hubble claimed that
far distant stars were moving at near speed c (based upon interpretation
that Doppler principles applied to light transmission dynamics).

I have shown that this is not the case & openly challenged Stephen
Hawking – but he refuses to engage in open debate; yet he continues to
promote publications, and thus generate revenue, that maintain his
Big-Bang & other theories.

Richard Dawkins has unprofessionally used his status as an FRS to
undermine Faith principles & Faith religions. The manner in which he has
done this cannot be considered worthy. He freely produces documentaries
in which he can manipulate his own comments in favourable light but
creates disparaging video sequences of those people he attempts to
attack. When openly challenged he refuses to engage, he runs away.
Similarly with Colin Blakemore who has dubbed Dawkins as the
‘Archbishop of Atheism’ and implying himself to be Dawkins’ ‘disciple’.

It is entirely incorrect for people honoured with a Fellowship of the
Royal Society to continue generating revenue from defective science
principles, or by unprofessional means - and even when only reasonable
doubt has been raised, because a science principle must by necessity be
far beyond reasonable doubt for it to be upheld, and for its continuance.
(Even if it should transpire that my arguments against their theories is
shown to be wrong it does not remove the obligation upon them to address
plausible alternatives; for it is only by eliminating ‘what a theory
is notÂ’ that any particular theory is able to be upheld.)

My work has shown that there has been a gross misinterpretation of
long-held fundamental science principles both tangible & intangible –
see ‘Overview of CDADD’s Research Papers’.

One only needs read David CameronÂ’s article in the EconomistÂ’s
‘World in 2011’ and Gordon Brown interview in Guardian Weekend
magazine, Dec 4 2010, to recognise that neither have any
engineering/science insights into the Intangible
(Social/Economy/Business/Finance/Legal – SEBFL environments), or the
Tangible sciences – nor do their advisors. This is why Britain (& the
World) is in a serious mess, and getting worse because Cameron does not
see the destructive consequences of an ‘accounting’ budget-cut
mindset, nor does Brown recognise that anti-protectionism is equally
disastrous.

Intangible Sciences are being wrongly applied just as are much of the
Tangible Sciences. We can see that the Medical field makes constructive
progress because doctors are the ‘engineers’ for humans and there is
close integration between medical science & doctoring; and we see cars,
planes trains because engineers apply the sciences behind the technology
that drives these developments.
BUT, economies are regularly boomed & crashed by incompetent governments
because they are wrongly advised with defective Intangible science, &
science devoid of Economy Engineering.

Stable Economies need sound engineered Economy Structures & Controls –
Wars (Hot, Cold or Financial) do not bring about population reductions,
completely the opposite - only stable economies will bring down
population numbers. Growth is also not the correct focus because we need
to constructively reduce the WorldÂ’s population through natural
constructive economic progress. Constructive, engineered, demand-derived
development is the requirement, not Growth which is primarily artificial
supply-led ‘demand’.

So, both Brown & Cameron are wrong in their positions – because they
have no engineering insights, nor of the sciences.
And, because they are wrong, their policies are defective & driving
nations into greater conflict, both internal & external.

Misinterpretation & misapplication of the Tangible & Intangible Sciences
is because Engineering is absent.

It is the responsibility of the Royal Society to instil Integrity &
Transparency and to drive Best Practice.

Your Royal Society funds research yet it is not funding the most
progressive, as I still remain oppressively economically isolated. Merit
is not recognised nor rewarded/funded

I therefore request of the Royal Society appropriate & urgent funding to
accelerate the Economy Engineering that I am pioneering.

Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

##### End of Particle Omicron-15 #####