Captain’s Log, Stardate 06

 

More Particles of Space

 

Particle Sigma-18

 

 

A quick observation that proves Opticks (with a 'k')(wrongly attributed to Newton) are wrong → e≠mc2 →

Understand how&why we see light. Understand how&why we see perspective. Understand how&why we see clouds. 

Understand Light Transmission Dynamics

Understand How the Universe Really Functions→

 

Orient a prism to obtain 'rainbow' pattern, move prism to surface & observe 'rainbow' splits out to roy & vib patterns at apex points – take a sheet of paper and move around the prism, note the full-shadow of the prism obstructing forward light (barring a thin strip of full intensity forward light emanating from the adjacent apex point, the light having passed directly through the prism to the apex point, all other light reflected internally&externally), and the 3 attenuated light patches. It is because of the attenuated light patch that allows full intensity side-band colours of roy & vib, emanating from apex points, to appear within these attenuated light regions – with the prism removed the side-band colours, which were at the apex-points at which the prism was, are still there (& everywhere) but are swamped by the forward ('white') light

Thus a prism does NOT split out 'white' light, colours are NOT frequency related but arc-angle related – thus Einstein, Hubble, Higgs, Hawking, CERN etc. are wrong → e≠mc2 , etc., etc., …..

 

It is the mixing of the sideband colours within clouds/water that causes perception of greyness to black – but this is ACTIVE COLOURFUL light, that appears as dark/grey light, the colours remain distinctly separate but optically merge to create grey/dark – the deeper/longer/thicker the cloud the more the progressive mixing of light colours, the darker the grey, through to black – so in deep-sea water there is ACTIVE black light.

 

TO FULLY UNDERSTAND

FOLLOW THE SIMPLE OBSERVATION STEPS SET OUT HEREUNDER

-----

 

RIA, RS, RI - Formal Application - meeting to hear new science that counters & disproves Newton's Opticks & others' theories therefrom; AND correspondences; Hostile Denial by Academia of clear evidence

 

TO:

Royal Irish Academy RIA,

Royal Dublin Society RDS,

Royal Institute RI,

Royal Society RS,

Royal Meteorological Society RMetS,

Royal Observatory RO,

Royal Marsden Hospital RMH,

Royal Academy of Engineering RAE,

Royal Astronomer:

- Presidents/Chairpersons, Executives & Members

 

CC: HM Queen Elizabeth II

Privy Council - Lord President Nick Clegg & Privy Councillors

BT

CERN

& as per addressees & general

 

February 11, 2013

 

Re: Formal Application for meeting to hear & consider new science evidence that counters & hence disproves long-standing science stemming from Isaac Newton's Opticks & therefrom.

Proposed Venue: Royal Irish Academy (RIA), Dublin; Date & Time to be arranged

 

Dear Sirs/Madams

 

Around April 2011 I published, via email circulation, and through my professional identity CDADD, new science evidence that counters & disproves Isaac Newton's Opticks science.

 

On October 31, 2012 at an RIA lunchtime lecture entitled 'Hamilton mathematician and romantic' presented by RIA President Luke Drury at RIA house - I raised the issue of Newton's errors and the fact that subsequent science upon which those errors are based now have significant question marks against them. Whilst the points I raised dealt with fundamental light transmission dynamics (LTD) Mr Drury, in countering my submissions, argued classical science theories, in broad terms not specifics. I pressed the issues and Mr Drury concluded that these were matters for discussion for 'another time'.

 

In January 2013 at London's Science Museum a number of exhibits were clearly incorrect, and later at RDS which venue-hosted BT's annual Young Scientist exhibition, a number of school exhibits were clearly incorrect:- i.e. incorrect science was/is being presented. Of particular concern is that schoolchildren at BT's Young Scientist & London's science museum were/are still being educated with incorrect science. In light of the confusing science created by 'quantum physics', which is now in serious doubt due to Newton's errors, it is understandable why many children avoid/evade science.

 

In addition the public are being brainwashed by numerous TV documentaries that are defective in science, distorted by computer graphics, and with incorrect interpretations of various observable natural phenomena.

 

We need to actively pursue correct science - and in so doing will realise that errors of quantum physics are based upon errors of Newton Opticks - we need to correct these errors so as to bring realisation that fundamental physics naturally progresses through to classical physics - and to recognise the understandable limitations of classical physics due to the limited knowledge of past times.

 

Alternatively stated: we need to recognise that the claim:- that quantum physics/mechanics defies classical physics (common sense) -> is because quantum mechanics/physics is wrong in part or in whole. However it is recognised that existing models do give reasonable explanation to observable phenomena; but, that in itself does not prove the correctness of quantum theory; it may indicate close correlation but not underlying Causal Dynamics. The fact that Einstein's energy equation 'e equals m c squared' indicates we can get a big bang does not mean that Einstein's equation was proved correct when a big bang was achieved via an atomic bomb - the two issues are distinctly separate. Neither proves the other.

 

Medicine is presently restrained due to the incorrectness of Newton's Opticks; Justice is regularly being miscarried because of these errors.

 

Science of the past has progressed from understandings of macro entities & zooming into micro; and developing micro-theories that explain observable macro entities/realities. Those theories fit into a black-box; and today we have a mass of classical science understandings (& mis-understandings).

 

However, when we think in terms of the most fundamental component of the Universe, that absolute singular point-type, of which point-type all other similar points in the Universe co-exist, that ether particle; when we think of that particle we have to think of how it functions, and how all other particles function such that the macro Universe functions.

 

We thus have another black-box; starting with that most fundamental particle type and zooming out.

 

We thus have a void of understandings/mis-understandings between those two black-boxes. My R&D has brought the beginnings of new understandings, within the fundamental black-box, by recognising that Newton's Opticks are wrong, and developing new science/engineering insights.

 

The question that arises from this new science evidence is: does an ether exist?

 

It is submitted that from the self evident truths as observed through a prism and logical deductions therefrom, that an ether must exist. In addition, and from logical deductions from those same self evident truths, that there is no science foundation to the claim that an ether does not exist, and such experimentation from which such claim is made are defective experiments.

 

The pursuit of science compels the search for causal factors, and to achieve this it is imperative to formally address new science promptly & transparently.

 

The addressees operate under Royal Charters* the import of which, and which their 'mission statements' confirm, is the pursuit of science

(* I cannot establish whether RDS is actually founded on a Royal Charter)

 

The purpose therefore of this formal application is to establish a prompt meeting in pursuit of science and so to present to others to hear & consider the new science that counters & disproves that past science by Isaac Newton & others consequent therefrom.

 

It is requested that the addressees provide their own prisms, mirrors, lenses, A4 paper & cardboard, large flip chart pads & coloured koki/marker pens, masking tape, laser pointer, etc.

 

The pursuit of new science that needs to be heard & considered, that which has emerged from my engineering R&D, is as follows:

(NOTES:

- Prism Orientation Convention: with a prism apex held mid-point between & pointing toward eyes, from bird's-eye perspective rotate prism clockwise to view through right eye => rhs orientation, use this as the norm; rotate anti-clockwise to left eye => lhs orientation)

- LTD => Light (& Energy) Transmission Dynamics

- In using words to convey new (science) explanations care must be taken not to be locked into the words alone or classical interpretations of those words. The universe was functioning long before man used words - it is that functionality that must be understood not the finer points of the words alone

- TIME is not a dimension, no matter how convenient we find such an intangible theory to be - the universe was functioning long before man made use of time to regulate affairs.)

 

  1. To observe through a prism a self evident truth:

    1. observe (rhs convention) the two distinct side-band colour patterns (roy & vib) that appear at object/interference boundaries

    2. to observe that the bringing to close proximity of two object boundaries (e.g. cardboard closing to make a slit) that the roy & vib patterns merge at the y&b to produce green.

    3. to observe (if sunny) that the roygbiv 'rainbow' pattern commonly seen in sunlight, is NOT a contiguous or continuous pattern but the merging of two distinctly separate roy & vib patterns produced by the physical apex boundaries of the prism itself

    4. to observe the secondary roygvib pattern produced by the virtual boundary as seen through a prism (i.e. that transitional/virtual boundary point between reflection & refraction)

    5. to deduce through science reasoning & confirm by a pointer the aforegoing self-evident truths, and to confirm that the colour patterns are NOT produced by the prism 'splitting out white light' as currently & long held but by the everywhere observable phenomena of colour patterns at interference boundaries;

    6. and to deduce that previously held experimentation of using a slit to obtain 'parallel light' inadvertently, but not previously recognised, produces the roygvib patterns which then transmits through a prism; the source of the patterns being the colours at the slits NOT the prism splitting out 'white light'

      1.  

  2. To observe through a prism a self evident truth:

    1. to observe through a prism the colour patterns about a specific boundary

    2. to observe the alternation of the patterns with orientation change of prism, from rhs to lhs orientation relative to viewing eye)

    3. to hear & consider arguments as to why this happens

      1.  

  3. To observe through a prism a self evident truth:

    1. to observe through a prism during daylight, inside a room, the colour patterns around a window frame; note positions. At night with internal light on, observe again; note the colour pattern positions are changed. Try in darkened room with a light either side of a boundary, alternate lights on/off.

  4. To observe through a prism a self evident truth:

    1. to observe through a prism the colour patterns about a specific boundary

    2. to turn round & with a mirror observe the specific boundary pattern's reflection (with identical prism orientation) and observe that the colour pattern has changed from roy to vib or vice-versa

    3. to deduce from the aforegoing that LTD has directional properties

  5. To observe through a prism a self evident truth

    1. to observe the light (& its information) passing through a prism, oriented such that the colour patterns can be observed to the observer's eye. To deduce that this can be considered as FORWARD LIGHT, and that all other light, that light in every-other-which-way direction, i.e. that otherwise ambient light, is reflected or refracted away from the observer.

    2. hence to deduce that a prism is effectively a light filter allowing forward light only through to an observer (when oriented to observe colour patterns)

  6. To observe through a prism a self evident truth:

    1. to recognise standard radar transmission pattens, as achieved by long-standing experimental measurement results, of two sets of twin side-lobes & one main forward lobe

    2. to observe through a prism & deduce that the red & yellow and blue & violet colours can be attributed to the specific side-band lobes as appear with radar transmission patterns; hence that radar transmission patterns are as a consequence of natural light & energy transmission dynamics.

    3. to observe & deduce that the object itself (of which the observed colour patterns are about) is projecting its own observable light 'information' via the main transmission lobe.

    4. to deduce that the orange & indigo colours are the result of the mergement of the r&y and v&b colours respectively, just as the green is a mergement of y&b.

    5. to deduce that the rainbow colours (roygvib) are NOT continuous nor contiguous but everywhere point-specific transmission patterns comprising main forward & 2 sets of twin side-band (r&y and v&b) lobes of NORMAL light (& energy) transmission dynamics.

     

  7. To recognise a self evident truth

    1. that a positive statement based upon a negative outcome or non-result of an experiment is an invalid positive statement.

    2. hence to recognise that the statement of 'no ether' based upon a non-result of Michelson Morley experiment is an invalid statement.

    3. hence to recognise that there never has been valid foundation to the claim 'no ether'

     

  8. To observe through a prism a self evident truth:

    1. the aforementioned phenomena and...

    2. to deduce that the rainbow colour patterns are NOT a light spectrum; and that consequently that historical attribution to a frequency spectrum had & has no validity

    3. to deduce that the point-specific aspect of light transmission dynamics (& energy) and the orientation of the colour patterns, and of forward light information transmission, are everywhere observable (there not being any known point elsewhere where this does not occur); and consequently that such point specific repetition can only be reasonably explained by the presence of a framework, known as an ether. And also, in the opposite, that the theory of light particles zipping every-which-way at speed c is not upheld by these self evident truths.

    4. to deduce that, consequently, there must exist an ether, and hence a switching mechanism by which light & energy is propagated through space across this ether.

    5. to recognise that any frequency can be attributed to an effective constant value through standard RMS (Root Mean Square) transformation; and in the alternative that any constant value can be transformed by RMS to any frequency depending on any freely-chosen base magnitude & frequency.

    6. hence, to recognise that in historically determining that light fits into the electro-magnetic frequency spectrum that this was a freely-chosen determination about a specific frequency range, and which choice had & has no foundation in science.

    7. to deduce, consequently, that the light colours of r&y and v&b are arc angle related and of specific & precise angles

  9. New Insight 1.i - Dec 2015

    With sunlight or whitelight- orientate prism to produce colour band (roygbiv) - use a pointer at prism apexes to confirm that the roy & vib patterns occur from the apex edges.

    NOW THINK! - what is happening to cause this?

    Obviously the prism is interspersed within the light source – so it is clear that the prism is doing SOMETHING to cause the patterns to appear. Classicly, historically, it has been argued that the prism splits out the white light – BUT, clearly, by using the pointer this cannot be the case – so what is happening?

    The prism is obstructing the direct light, by reflecting off the incident & internal faces of the prism, thus attenuating the light passing through – at the same time the very apex points of the prism are obstructing the side-band patterns of light immediately outside of the prism at those very apex points. Thus the prism 'clips' the light at the ether components that are coincident with the prism apexes. So, on the one side the attenuated light through the prism does not swamp the side-bands at the prism's apex allowing the roy to predominate, hence appear, and at the other apex it allows the biv pattern to predominate & appear. BUT, the roy & vib patterns have NOT appeared by passing through the prism but by the ether component at those coincident points with the prism apexes being clipped by the prism which is attenuating the light that would have been there had the prism not.

    This is a FUNDAMENTAL shift in rethinking Light Transmission Dynamics (LTD)

    END of New Insight 1.i, scroll-down for 1.ii

  10. To open up the meeting to general discussion on the aforegoing

     

  11. To address second stage issues:

    1. How & why we see clouds - to recognise previously unrecognised self evident truths

    2. Why deep sea is black - to recognise previously unrecognised self evident truths

    3. How & why we see the Auroras - to recognise previously unrecognised self evident truths

    4. To deduce that Edwin Hubble was incorrect (sincerely) in applying Doppler Shift techniques to state that distant galaxies/stars are moving at phenomenal velocities & that consequently that Hubble was incorrect in stating that the Universe is expanding. Alternatively to deduce that Hubble’s statements have no foundation; it not being proved frequency attribution to light spectrum.

    5. to deduce that the brilliant theories by Albert Einstein, vis: Energy & Relativity Theories, are in fact incorrect , or at best have no science foundation.

    6. to deduce that Niels Bohr's atomic & quantum models & subsequent models expanded therefrom need rethinking in light of self evident truths from prism observations.

    7. to consider foundational errors of DNA theory stemming for erroneous optics science, and to consider potential statistical errors pertaining to DNA testings as applied in criminology

    8. to consider [New Insight 1.ii Dec 2015: this sentence is incorrect:- 'that the ether has 'flex' and that it is this flex that accounts for light appearing to bend; i.e. it is flexing of the ether framework (not light that is bending)' END of New Insight 1.ii] the 'bending' of light is in fact side-band transmission phenomena, it will be expanded on in a later paper, which has been long delayed because of oppressive thought-policing by Governments & ISPs Eircom (now Eir), UPC (now Virgin) & Academia in general -> BUT also:- the ether does appear to have flex - this flex can be observed in slow-mo filmed sequences of e.g. large explosions by observing the image distortions of background objects as the shock wave progresses across planar view.

    9. to address alternative explanations of observable phenomena in space, such as black-holes & to recognise, in light of these new optics truths, that previously held theories are not upheld by these new truths.

    10. to recognise that the Big-Bang theory as historically presented is not upheld within the time-frames calculated, nor at all.

    11. to recognise that since an ether must exist that consequently particles cannot be zipping at speed c but that light & energy are transmitted/propagated across the ether; and consequently to recognise that CERN cannot be accelerating particles to near speed c (not even 1/1000th of c) as claimed.

    12. other issues & general discussion

  12. To address third stage issues

    1. proposals for re-assessing how & why we see deep-space objects & mis-understandings that cause erroneous interpretations

    2. proposals for re-assessing the functionality of Star/Planets systems, and to consider the principles behind the proposed model I have submitted of SUPER-GENERATOR (Sun) driving SUPER-MOTORS (Planets).

    3. proposals for reassessing radio & other forms of astronomy.

    4. proposals for reassessing carbon dating methodology.

    5. proposals for reassessing Climate Change errors; correlation of pollution to climate change not being proof of Cause/Effect.

 

 

New Insights 2 - June 2016

 

NOTES:

i. The various & numerous PRISM images at the link below are wrong – there are so many errors amongst these images that it impossible to determine which, if any, might be correct; but it is doubtful whether any are correct.

https://www.google.com/search?q=prism&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKsuifmp_MAhVMF8AKHVL3DYsQsAQIQw&biw=1441&bih=701

 

ii. Slight differences will occur depending on prism used (herein mainly a 3x60 degrees, but certain observations are made with 2x45 & 90 prism) - a 2x45 & 90 degree prism will produce different results, so care needs to be taken.

 

iii. ALL spheres of Physics are impacted by Opticks errors – Medical Research is especially retarded into quack medicine through refusal by specialists in accepting Opticks errors

 

iv. Rather obtain a prism and observe & understand correctly what happens with Light Transmission Dynamics

 

______________

 

 

  1. To observe through a prism a self evident truth:

    1. Position the prism (3 x 60 degree internal angles) such that the rainbow pattern is observable onto a white screen/paper. RHS orientation with roy at top apex. Ensure screen is parallel to the exit-face of prism.

    2. Take another sheet of paper and move around the prism and pick up the various positions of:- the prism shadow and of the various transmitted/reflected light patches around the prism.

    3. We can deduce that the prism, in creating the shadow, TOTALLY obstructs the DIRECT light, thus the prism reflects/transmits the DIRECT light into other directions, as observed

    4. We can deduce that the SUM of all the other light points emanating from the prism must add up to the the TOTAL light of the DIRECT light incident upon the prism (however, is any light reflected back into DIRECT light ????? this would need a micro camera)

    5. We can also deduce that the observable light patches (picked up on the paper) can be seen because the reflected light from the various prism positions ADDS to the DIRECT light at the point where the light patches appear.

  2. To observe through a prism a self evident truth:

    1. Position the prism (3 x 60 degree internal angles) such that the rainbow pattern is observable onto a white screen/paper. Move prism toward screen so that patterns split out to two separate roy & vib patterns with a large white light band between.

    2. Take a thin pointer/pencil and move across entrance face and observe pointer shadow, take the pointer to both apex extremes of the entrance face and observe shadow.

    3. Take the pointer to the top apex (roy) and note that the pointer obscures the roy pattern only when at the very apex point; we can deduce that the roy side-bands are from that ether point that is adjacent but immediately outside of the prism

    4. Move pointer across exit face & observe shadow

    5. Move pointer across the 3rd (base) face and notice that pointer shadow is NOT observable

    6. We can deduce that no DIRECT light falls upon the 3rd (base) face

    7. We can further deduce that

      1. the vib pattern at the base/exit face intersection is NOT caused by DIRECT light on that prism apex

      2. the vib pattern is greater intensity than the attenuated white light exiting the prism, which is why the vib is visible

      3. the white/forward attenuated light coming out the exit face is from the light through the entrance face.

      4. All other light exiting the prism is also attenuated hence cannot be the source light for the vib pattern

      5. the vib pattern is of comparable intensity to that of the roy pattern which is due to direct light at that prism apex

      6. that consequently full intensity light is reaching the vib apex so as to create a full intensity vib pattern – How do we explain this??? …....

    8. …...... propositions:-

      1. It would seem therefore, that we can deduce that the vib pattern is caused by light that is transmitted by a secondary transmission process –> vis: light directly from the entrance/base apex, along/through the 3rd (base) face (cf a thin 'fibre optic' channel) to the base/exit apex, thus illuminating that specific exit/base apex point AND that ether point adjacent but immediately outside the prism, thus allowing the vib pattern to appear within the bounds of the forward (attenuated) light from the exit face.

      2. However, if we now take a 2x45 & 90 prism, 90 apex towards eye, rhs orientation; then using a pointer we can determine that light at the the incident apex (90) transmits through the prism, and this light path appears to be (near?) perpendicular to the exit face (but, this requires accurate measurements)

      3. Nevertheless it supports the proposition that light appearing at the virtual boundary (caused by light at 90 apex) at the exit face illuminates that ether point adjacent but immediately outside the prism (at virtual apex) causing the vib pattern to appear within the attenuated light from the exit face, but with the corresponding roy pattern being reflected off the base face at the 90 apex point.

      4. i.e. the observed roy & vib patterns are from those respective ether points adjacent but immediately outside the prism – the white/forward light through the prism, being attenuated, allows us to now see the full intensity side-band patterns around those ether points.

      5. Moreover, the vib pattern with the 90 degree prism appears to be due to transmission from the 90 apex perpendicular to exit face – thus it would appear that whereas the vib pattern at the 3x60 prism seems to be transmitting along the base face that in fact it seems to be purely coincidental with (near?) perpendicular transmission to the exit face.

  3. To observe through a prism a self evident truth:

    1. With the same rig, take the pointer and move it onto the entrance face from either of the apexes with the roy or vib pattern, but herein from the roy apex.

    2. Observe that the shadow outline 'picks' up the roy pattern about the shadow.

    3. Move the pointer across to the vib pattern notice that the roy pattern about the pointer disappears.

    4. Repeat from the vib apex side; the pointer shadow 'picks' up the vib pattern but disappears when reaching the roy pattern

    5. What can explain this??? Hmmmmmm!!!!!????!!!! Ideas?

  4. To observe through a prism a self evident truth:

    1. With the same rig (& ensuring the screen is still parallel to the exit face of the prism) - take a ruler and measure the distance from the prism apex (roy) to the roy pattern on the screen

    2. Mark, on the screen, the boundaries of the r, o, y, v, i, b, patterns.

    3. Measure the widths of each of these patterns, and both the roy & vib pattern lengths.

    4. We can assume assume a right-angle at the screen between the roy pattern, and the distance to the prism apex; we thus have 2 sides & 1 angle and can calculate the angles of each of the colour side band patterns & each of the roy & vib angles.

    5. This was done with an 'agricultural' ruler and needs to be done with laboratory instruments, which the writer does not have. If someone could measure the exact angles & correspond, it would be appreciated. (rough measurements: length 280mm, roy width 12mm: → approx 2.5 degrees, i.e. arc angle of roy pattern)

    6. Nevertheless we can reiterate that the colour patterns are NOT frequency related but arc-angle related, and that Hubble was incorrect in using Doppler to claim distant galaxies as red-shifted, hence moving away. Hence Hubble did not prove Einstein correct, Einstein's energy & relativity is based upon a non-ether model, whereas the observations herein confirm that a non-ether model is invalid, and that logically an ether MUST exist.

    7. ALSO consider:- the arc-angle relationship fits with the construct of the eye, in that the rods & cones being radially spaced such that the blue receptors are radially distant from the inner red receptors. This presents an interesting 'signal processing' research project to understand the eye's transfer-function and how the brain 'rebuilds' the received signals from the rods/cones etc. into a coherent image.

      1. Corollary: it follows that seeing does not necessarily mean believing!!!

  5. To observe through a prism a self evident truth:

    1. With the prism in afore orientation, move the prism around in the same plane (perpendicular to the light source) and notice that everywhere you move it the roy&vib colour patterns remain the same.

    2. Having observed the patterns in the afore orientation, change the prism to LHS orientation & move screen to pick up the patterns – observe that the roy pattern is now at the opposite side to that of vib.

    3. Again, move the prism around in the same plane as before (perpendicular to light source) and observe that everywhere you move the patterns also remain the same.

    4. Note again, that the roy & vib patterns appear ONLY within the attenuated light coming out of the exit face of the prism, and note again that the vib (RHS orientation) pattern appear ONLY because of secondary transmission

    5. From this we can deduce that because of the reversal of the patterns as seen through the prism when the prism is reversed, that at each & every ether point in space that we can see ONLY one of the two roy or vib patterns about any particular ether point, that the other pattern is NOT visible because of being swamped by ambient light; and that the side-band patterns about any ether point (birds-eye view) are in the order of yor/vib; which is NOT the classical 'spectrum' of roy(g)biv, as with the rainbow, BUT yor/vib, i.e. with r & v either side of the forward transmission line. (The rainbow pattern appears with rain because of close proximity of virtual apexes within each of the multitudinous virtual prisms within each of the multitudinous raindrops, i.e. the roy and the vib patterns as observed are at different points, and about distinctly separate ether components. Also note:- the term 'component' is used to purposefully avoid the use of the term 'particle' so as NOT to suggest some quantum relationship, which 'quantum' term is wrongly bandied about)

    6. From this we can deduce that the radiation type/phenomena that we have classically known as 'ultra-violet', which arc angle is beyond the arc-angle subtended by yor/vib, is in fact nowhere near the violet side-band – hence, the term 'ultra-violet' is a misnomer for that radiation/transmission type

  6. We can reiterate previous deductions:

    1. that Opticks (wrongly attributed to Newton) are wrong

    2. Michelson-Morley made a Type 1 error in claiming 'no ether'; alternatively, the science community wrongly supported such incorrect proposal

    3. Einstein wrongly 'thought experiment' his Energy & Relativity Theories based upon a 'no ether' model

    4. Hubble wrongly applied frequency & Doppler to incorrectly deduce 'red-shift', and wrongly claim expanding Universe (at phenomenal speeds in excess of 0.1c; which 'crazy' proposition induced the writer to research these issues, because being an engineer such a proposition appeared CRAZY! - galaxies travelling at 0.1c? i.e. at 30,000 kilometres per second????? please – pure nonsense! - this should have been a warning of fundamental errors in theory foundations) (NOTE: the explanation as to why we see red-stars is left for schoolchildren to discover – i.e. to correctly explain that which Hubble wrongly interpreted as red-shift)

    5. Scientists have wrongly extrapolated defective theories into both Universe & sub-atomic scales compounding defective theories into a host of other defective theories, or theories that are not properly founded upon correct science ….

    6. …. and these defects have flowed through into defective mathematics and into defective economics theories which are causing global socio-economic chaos.

    7. CERN are making incorrect claims of 'accelerating particles' to the speed of light (& beyond) and CERN refuse to look through a simple prism 'machine' but instead maintain false hope with their 'god' machine

    8. Higgs Boson is also invalid as it is a non-ether model

    9. Observations through & with a prism, and understandings therefrom confirm that:

      1. the 'rainbow spectrum' is WRONG; that the side-band spectrum about any ether point in space (insofar as we can deduce on earth) is yor/vib, and that the 'o' & 'i' colours are mergements of the r&y and v&b side-band pairs respectively

      2. that frequency attribution to these colours is WRONG; that arc-angle is the correct attribute.

      3. that the radiation classically called 'ultra-violet' is wrongly named because the violet side-band is far removed from the side-band (lobe) of that 'uv' radiation type

      4. that our understanding of radiation is largely wrong, that chemotherapy, although having proved of limited success, is not properly understood – by ignoring the findings herein it puts radiation therapies into category of quack medicine

  7. WE can deduce that an ether component:-

    1. is spherical with lobe points all around its surface,

    2. that light/energy is propagated from one ether component to the next adjacent ether component by a switching mechanism of fundamental & constant switching period

    3. that light information consists of forward ('white') light & 2 sets of twin side-band transmission patterns (r&y, v&b, with o & i respective mergements of the pairs respectively, and all giving us our colours)

    4. that matter passes through the ether by means of this switching mechanism

    5. the excitation & amplitude of specific lobes on any ether component at any time determining the nature of any particular matter passing through any point in the ether

    6. that the Universe has a FIXED ether framework – with small localised degree of flex – with anything&everything moving through space by means of this switching mechanism

END of New Insights 2 - June 2016

 

In light of the importance of these issues it is requested that a prompt date, time & venue be established to hear & consider this new science evidence.

 

Sincerely

 

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

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.,

+353 (0)86 168 4318

 

 

TO:

Royal Irish Academy RIA, President, Luke Drury

Royal Dublin Society RDS,

Royal Institute RI,

Royal Society RS,

Royal Meteorological Society RMetS,

Royal Observatory RO,

Royal Marsden Hospital RMH,

Royal Academy of Engineering RAE,

Royal Astronomer:

- Presidents/Chairpersons, Executives & Members

CC: HM Queen Elizabeth II

Privy Council - Lord President Nick Clegg & Privy Councillors

BT

CERN

& as per addressees & general

March 19, 2013

 

Re: UPDATE 2: (Formal Application for meeting to hear & consider new science evidence that counters & hence disproves long-standing science stemming from Isaac Newton's Opticks & therefrom)

 

To RIA President, Luke Drury

Following on from our discussion on March 7 & my email of March 8:

You requested a couple of days to consider my R&D that has disproved Newton’s Opticks; I offered a week, and in my email offered a reasonable extension, bearing in mind the significant shift in the new science, but an extension on notice.

I have not received any notice for an extension.

I accept that Eircom may have destroyed emails, either to you or from you or both - I shall send this mail to you also via my South Africa service provider.

Whilst I accept your request for time to consider the science I nevertheless reiterate my application is for a formal open meeting & request a prompt date for same, thankyou

 

Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

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.,

+353 (0)86 168 4318

 

TO:

Royal Irish Academy RIA, President, Luke Drury

Royal Dublin Society RDS,

Royal Institute RI,

Royal Society RS,

Royal Meteorological Society RMetS,

Royal Observatory RO,

Royal Marsden Hospital RMH,

Royal Academy of Engineering RAE,

Royal Astronomer:

- Presidents/Chairpersons, Executives & Members

CC: HM Queen Elizabeth II

Privy Council - Lord President Nick Clegg & Privy Councillors

BT

CERN

& as per addressees & general

April 8, 2013

 

Re: UPDATE 3: New Academic Year pending -> urgency for & logistics of correcting school texts, progressing further R&D, codification of science principles/theories, processes for challenges thereto -

(Formal Application for meeting to hear & consider new science evidence that counters & hence disproves long-standing science stemming from Isaac Newton's Opticks & therefrom

& retransmission of the founding 'Formal Application for meeting' on March 19)

 

To RIA President, Luke Drury

Dear Luke Drury

Subsequent to the retransmission of the 'Formal Application for meeting' - it is clear that much of Newton's Opticks is wrong & that other science principles derived therefrom are also wrong.

A new academic year is fast approaching (September) for European schools, academies, universities - in other regions new academic year starts next January - nevertheless there are pressing issues that need attention to ensure that corrected school texts are in place for the next academic year. There is not much time left for completion of these pressing issues.

There is still much science & associated engineering that needs to be done simply to address the basics of the errors & to correctly define the new science & to ensure correct engineering verification of same.

In addition the administrative planning & logistics of replacing old incorrect texts with new texts requires considerable efforts, and can only be executed once the science/engineering & verification is complete.

Once this process is underway I feel sure that it will quickly become clear that science principles/theories need to be codified or formally listed & indexed, and with administrative processes & procedures to handle challenges to existing theories. Such an initiative would need to be centralised. It would be beneficial for Ireland & RIA if the RIA were to take on these global responsibilities, vis: for formal codification/listing (similar to Darwinian taxonomy?) & for administrative process of challenges.

Government should also be approached for assistance in this regard; and, later, for contributions from other nations; as both these are mammoth tasks.

I respectfully urge that a prompt meeting, as requested in my Formal Application, is established to address both the physics science/engineering & to plan the administrative logistics. I am available at reasonably short notice now that school term has recommenced & would appreciate from you suggested dates, times & venue for a meeting and your views on a draft agenda for same.

I point out that the issues for this meeting address only physics science/engineering - we need also to begin addressing the numerous gross errors pertaining to 'economic science' as economies throughout the world are in severe distress due to incorrect national socio-economy policies based upon those 'science' errors.

There is urgent need to progress correct Economy Science & Economy Engineering

Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

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.,

+353 (0)86 168 4318

 

TO:

Royal Irish Academy RIA, President, Luke Drury

Royal Dublin Society RDS,

Royal Institute RI,

Royal Society RS,

Royal Meteorological Society RMetS,

Royal Observatory RO,

Royal Marsden Hospital RMH,

Royal Academy of Engineering RAE,

Royal Astronomer:

- Presidents/Chairpersons, Executives & Members

CC: HM Queen Elizabeth II

Privy Council - Lord President Nick Clegg & Privy Councillors

BT

CERN

& as per addressees & general

April 23, 2013

 

Re: UPDATE 4: Follow up to discussions last night/email communications;

(Re:New Academic Year pending -> urgency for & logistics of correcting school texts, progressing further R&D, codification of science principles/theories, processes for challenges thereto -

Formal Application for meeting to hear & consider new science evidence that counters & hence disproves long-standing science stemming from Isaac Newton's Opticks & therefrom

 

Dear Luke Drury

I record that we had discussion last night after the discourse by Prof Danny Dorling (Sheffield) on “ Spatial Justice, Housing and Financial Crisis ”; and email communications prior.

It is important that we take the steps I set out (in Formal Application) in the order as given - it becomes extremely confusing, when trying to tie down Newton’s errors, if the correct steps are not taken.

Your comments last night re diffraction grating, and in our communications re Maxwell's equations etc., takes us beyond the first fundamental, vis: that Newton was wrong; that prisms do not split out white light, that the colour patterns appear at interference boundaries, and at the slits as used by Newton.

It is critical to fully address Steps 1 to 6 inclusive, and in that order, first, in your promised reply.

I also reiterate, as per my previous letters:

- the need for a prompt formal meeting (in light of the understandable confusions)

- the urgency bearing in mind a new academic year is fast approaching.

- the need for a taxonomic approach & record of challenges

Further

1. The format of limiting to questions after a discourse presumes that what went before justifies a question rather than a rebuttal.

2. Closing-off questions (rebuttals) whilst others remain unasked (unstated) hinders progress. (Danny Dorling specifically requested new ideas)

Whilst I appreciate that social interaction is important it is also true that the discourse subject matter gets little airing during socials.

As I mentioned before it would be of greater benefit if those who wish to leave the Main Hall after a discourse did so, whilst the remaining continued with the Discourser.

Your comments/action on these points would be appreciated

Thankyou

Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

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.,

+353 (0)86 168 4318

 

TO:

Royal Irish Academy RIA, President, Luke Drury

Royal Dublin Society RDS,

Royal Institute RI,

Royal Society RS,

Royal Meteorological Society RMetS,

Royal Observatory RO,

Royal Marsden Hospital RMH,

Royal Academy of Engineering RAE,

Royal Astronomer:

- Presidents/Chairpersons, Executives & Members

CC: HM Queen Elizabeth II

Privy Council - Lord President Nick Clegg & Privy Councillors

BT

CERN

& as per addressees & general

May 9, 2013

 

Re: UPDATE 5: Meeting (Private) with RIA President Luke Drury May 9, 2013 AND TO REITERATE the Formal Application for an Open Meeting

& SUBSEQUENT EMAILS APPENDED BELOW

UPDATE 4: Follow up to discussions last night/email communications;

(Re:New Academic Year pending -> urgency for & logistics of correcting school texts, progressing further R&D, codification of science principles/theories, processes for challenges thereto -

Formal Application for meeting to hear & consider new science evidence that counters & hence disproves long-standing science stemming from Isaac Newton's Opticks & therefrom

 

As a result of emails subsequent to UPDATE 4 (below), RIA President Luke Drury (LD) agreed to a private meeting - although I strongly objected to it being private I nonetheless agreed to meet since it was a step forward.

 

Whilst the general conversation of that meeting must remain private the same does not apply to statements of fact - statements of fact are matters of record & may be used openly - and to that extent this UPDATE addresses those facts.

 

LD stated, as he has in past, that he is a theoretical physicist not an experimental physicist - this alone presents as a default against physical observations & interpretations of real-life phenomena.

 

As a Professional Engineer I have raised a challenge against physics theories - the mere fact that I am a Professional Engineer COMPELS physicists to take serious heed of what I am saying - BECAUSE engineers put science into practice. This requirement, Professionalism/Good Governance/Best Practice, has not occurred - i.e. a limited private meeting does not fulfil such professional requirements.

 

The opposite has been true - much aggression, assaults & insults - certainly not as grave as against Galileo & others, but nevertheless strongly deterrent (Apols: as LD pointed out: Galileo was not persecuted for opposing flat-earthers; it was for promoting heliocentrism. The point I was stressing was the aggressive opposition to new science not the issue of opposition itself - apols)

 

For a challenge against 350 years of defective science I strongly feel that being repeatedly pressured by LD to complete the meeting within an hour was totally unreasonable - consequently only steps 1, 2 4,5 & 6 were addressed.

 

It is important to understand that Newton's Opticks have been around for centuries, that numerous higher level/derived theories dependant upon Newton's Opticks have been developed. These derived theories all appear to make perfect sense - but there came a point where sense broke-down, where it became non-sense, and that point was reached with Hubble's claim of expanding universe, stars receding at phenomenal velocities that we do not experience elsewhere (from frequency attribution, Doppler effect, red-shift). Physicists should have stopped & thought. But Einstein had prior made energy & relativity hypotheses, and Hubble’s observations & interpretations appeared to fulfil them.

 

Instead of accepting Einstein's hypotheses a thorough backtracking should have occurred but did not.

 

The progressive backtracking I have carried out since 2007 has realised that Newton was wrong - and that is the purpose of this real challenge.

 

BUT, physicists repeatedly fall back on those higher tiered/derived theories as 'proofs' of Newtonian Opticks rather than observing from first principles; from pure observation as did Newton (also note: evidence very much proves that Newton stole the Opticks during the Cambridge closure due to the plague of mid 17th century)

 

It is this repeated error (use of higher tiered theories) that LD heavily relied upon in our meeting and his reluctance to look through a prism to observe first-hand the real evidence. It took persistent polite requests for observations to be made.

 

Eventually:

Steps

1a,b & d were agreed to (1c: there was no sun - because the sun does not shine in Ireland?)

2a, b were agreed to

4a & b were agreed to

5a was agreed to

6a was agreed to.

 

On ALL interpretive points, as set out in the various Steps, LD disagreed - repeatedly citing higher tiered theories, and ignoring fundamental interpretive techniques which are the foundation of experimentation - i.e. LD rejected foundational experimentation techniques.

(Vis: Steps 1 e & f, 2 c, 4 c, 5 b, 6 b c d & e)

 

Using a sheet of paper with differing slit widths cut-out, one could see that the green was produced by the mergement of yellow & blue, and at the slit boundaries NOT at the prism itself - LD rejected this.

 

Using the prism to observe patterns about object boundaries that were spatially separated LD rejected that the colour patterns also were spatially separated along with the objects & argued that the patterns appeared at the prism.

 

At the point where time watching had now become priority & pressure to close the meeting, the sun suddenly appeared (Divine intervention?) - with the prism & with a pencil as a pointer I demonstrated that the colour patterns (roy & vib) appeared at the prism boundaries (apex) edges, that the two patterns (roy & vib) were distinctly separate i.e. that the pattern (roygbiv) was not present, hence was not continuous nor contiguous, that green was absent (because of non-proximity, hence non-mergement of y&b).

 

This crystal clear observational, experimental evidence was rejected by LD.

 

Using a mirror I showed that the colour patterns about a specific boundary reversed in the mirror image - LD rejected the cause of reversal (indications of directional properties)

 

LD rejected the logical attribution of colours r, y, v & b to the four side-band lobes as determined by measurement of simple planar radar transmissions.

 

In short: LD rejected logical interpretations of fundamental experimental observations.

 

The crux of the matter is, and repeatedly stated to LD, that ALL observational evidence proves two distinctly separate colour patterns appear spatially along with & at spatial boundaries but that no experimental proof exists that the patterns appear at the prism alone - it follows that an experiment must be devised such that LD’s stance (& long held by physicists) PROVES the patterns appear at the prism alone.

 

The observational evidence clearly shows that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for any physicist to devise such an experiment - hence it cannot be proved that the colour patterns appear at the prism - hence maintaining such a claim is scientifically false -> from crystal-clear observational evidence, the patterns appear spatially at ALL spatial boundaries NOT at the prism. Consequently Newton's Opticks and higher tiered theories therefrom are invalid or have a massive question mark against them - in either event physicists cannot continue to claim validity of such theories in science or in law, unless & until proofs are established.

 

The meeting (private), although a positive step forward, was by no means conclusion to these real issues of fundamental science.

 

It is destructively short-sighted for scientists to maintain defective science theories solely because of vested interests whilst failing to recognise the IMMENSE amount of work needed to correct & rectify those higher tiered theories.

 

CONSEQUENTLY

I reiterate my Formal Application for an Open Meeting along with appropriate experimental apparatus to progress the Steps further & fully (as per RIA Mission Statement)

I consequently call upon experimental physicists & engineers & scientists within the RIA & other RC institutions/academies/societies to respond positively & promptly.

 

----

 

Prior to departure LD raised the issue of his claim that I had disrupted RIA meetings & that attendance at RIA events was not a Royal Charter right but by RIA hospitality alone.

 

I countered that this was not true, it was totally untrue.

 

On checking, the Royal Charter does not EXPLICITLY state that public attendance is by right but it does IMPLICITLY state such right.

 

Royal Charter of the Royal Irish Academy 1786: Preamble: '...... And whereas we are willing to give encouragement to studies of that nature [science, polite literature, and antiquities] in all parts of our dominions, and more especially in our said kingdom of Ireland and ... should, under our Royal Patronage, and special protection, continue to flourish and increase.....' (apols for any typos - please see original text. Interestingly, it appears to be removed from RIA website. ?????????)

 

The aforegoing RC objective can only be achieved through open public engagement.

 

FURTHER: RIA's Mission Statement & Our Work statement EXPLICITLY opens up attendance to the public (see RIA website text appended below).

 

FURTHER STILL: The Constitution of Ireland, The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (to which the Constitution is subordinate), and Ireland Law PROHIBITS unlawful, unfair discrimination. A person may NOT be denied general access to public events/venues unless by Court Order, the right of RIA (or any person) to deny admittance to public events/venues is an extraordinary measure for use only in immediate terms and not for general prolonged application.

 

Any & all issues raised by me at RIA events have been through polite, professional & lawful submissions, either through floor-rights granted by the presiding Chair or through lawful 'points of order'. Just because RIA don't like what I say professionally is no ground to invalidate what I say. It is ONLY physically & verbally aggressive & impolite responses from RIA, insulting comments about certain social groups from RIA, and suchlike that have incurred unpleasantness in the past.

 

The problems rest with the RIA not with myself!

 

---------------

 

I respectfully reiterate my call for a prompt open meeting

 

Sincerely

 

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

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.,

+353 (0)86 168 4318

 

 

www.RIA.ie: text from website:

About

Our Work

The Royal Irish Academy/Acadamh Ríoga na hEireann is an all-Ireland, independent, academic body that promotes study and excellence in the sciences, humanities and social sciences [my emphasis] It is the principal learned society in Ireland and has over 470 members who are elected in recognition of their academic achievements. In accordance with its mission statement the Academy: ..................

About

Mission Statement

The Royal Irish Academy, the academy for the sciences and humanities for the whole of Ireland will vigorously promote excellence in scholarship, recognise achievements in learning [my emphasis], direct research programmes and undertake its own research projects, particularly in areas relating to Ireland and its heritage.

It will reflect upon, advise on and contribute to public debate [my emphasis] and public policy formation on issues of major interest in science, technology and culture.

It will continue to offer an independent forum to Irish scholars, it will provide a network of support [my emphasis] for scholarly disciplines through its network of academy committees, it will maintain and enhance its unique library, it will publish scholarly papers and it will represent the world of Irish learning internationally.

(NOTE: these emphasised statements are NOT upheld by RIA)

Emails to/from Luke Drury subsequent to meeting

On 11/05/2013 09:18, Chris Addington wrote:

dear luke
a further point that defeats frequency attribution & dispersion gradient through prism

under such a theory light reflected from off different coloured objects would disperse differently through the prism - thus causing objects to become distorted - BUT, they do not distort -> hence frequency attribution & dispersion gradient = false

kindregardschris

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.
On 10/05/2013 16:29, Chris Addington wrote:
dear luke
thankyousincerely4theefforttakeninthismail

you are missing the point ENTIRELY,

the issue is NOT the colours in themselves but the observable phenomena we see when looking through a prism, which so happens to be the colour patterns in the specific orders that they appear, and the manner in which they appear. and we need to interpret these observations from establishing FIRST PRINCIPLES

in simple terms: imagine a high rise building building

i'm in the basement. you are on some upper floor.
i say there is a foundation problem. you say that the upper floors are amazing.
i say that it is irrelevant how amazing the upper floors are because the foundations do not support the upper floors
qed!

you need to think from FIRST PRINCIPLES, NOT from upper level theories, and certainly not from manipulated light/electronic signals etc. as used in tv or computers - this approach is not first principle based. i fully agree that these devices work because we see they do; that does not explain why they work as they do, nor why natural light functions/transmits as it does.

you are not thinking from an engineering/practical perspective as to how the universe functions in its most fundamental aspect - that is your stumbling block

it is entirely wrong for you & ria to take a disrespectful/unprofessional standpoint against me simply because i have raised a valid challenge & with concrete proofs, and more so since we agreed on the observations we made yesterday. those observations totally contradict newton's opticks. it is the interpretation of those observations, some which were not previously recognised until i uncovered them, that is what is in issue. newton's (stolen) opticks is wrong in this regard

the entire matter is one for a formal open meeting, for professional presentation & debate, and i once again respectfully reiterate that application.

haveaniceweekend

kindregardschris

 

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.
On 10/05/2013 12:38, Luke Drury wrote:
Dear Mr Addington, 

I thought afterwards of a very nice way of explaining the colours seen when you observe a wide slit (or light) through your prism which I share with you in a last attempt to persuade you that the phenomena you demonstrated are capable of a perfectly simple explanation in line with the conventional interpretation of Newton's experiment.

For simplicity we will assume just three colours, Red Green and Blue which together appear as white (and indeed this RGB colour model is used in all television and computer displays)

A thin slit (thin relative to the apparent width of the spectrum produced by the prism) will be dispersed into an image with (for one orientation of the prism) Red on the left merging through Green in the middle to Blue on the right.

Let us write this as RGB.

Now if we take a wide slit we can regard it as a superposition of multiple small slits thus:

  RGB
     RGB
        RGB
           RGB

etc...

Adding up vertically we get the appearance of the wide slit as,

On the extreme left only R from the first row.
Then G from the first row mixed with R from the second - Red and Green lights mixed appear to the eye as Yellow,
G+R = Y
Then we get B+G+R=W as the three add to white.
All the columns from here on add to W until we get to the last two.
The penultimate gives G+B=C Green and Blue light add to Cyan (a greenish-blue shade).
Finally on the extreme right we have just B.

Thus the wide slit will appear as RYWWW....WWWCB exactly as observed with Red and Yellow on the left and Cyan and Blue on the right.
Note that this is all consistent with the conventional interpretation of the prism experiment.

We do not see a strong green because, being in the middle of the spectrum, on the left it gets mixed with red to appear as a yellow and on the right with blue to give cyan.

You could do the same analysis with seven instead of three colours of course - it would just take longer to explain.

 

TO:

Royal Irish Academy RIA, President, Luke Drury AND EXECUTIVE & COUNCIL

Royal Dublin Society RDS,

Royal Institute RI,

Royal Society RS,

Royal Meteorological Society RMetS,

Royal Observatory RO,

Royal Marsden Hospital RMH,

Royal Academy of Engineering RAE,

Royal Astronomer:

- Presidents/Chairpersons, Executives & Members

CC: HM Queen Elizabeth II

Privy Council - Lord President Nick Clegg & Privy Councillors

BT

CERN

& as per addressees & general

May 9, 2013

 

Re: UPDATE 6: RIA Executive & Council - Open Meeting

(Re:

- UPDATE 5: Meeting (Private) with RIA President Luke Drury May 9, 2013 AND TO REITERATE the Formal Application for an Open Meeting

- UPDATE 4: Follow up to discussions last night/email communications;

- UPDATE 3:Re:New Academic Year pending -> urgency for & logistics of correcting school texts, progressing further R&D, codification of science principles/theories, processes for challenges thereto -

- Formal Application for meeting to hear & consider new science evidence that counters & hence disproves long-standing science stemming from Isaac Newton's Opticks & therefrom)

 

Previous correspondence in regard the referenced formal application for an open meeting has been sent to only a few of the RIA Executive/Council. To date this formal application for an open meeting has not been granted - I therefore reiterate my application to the full executive & council of the RIA.

A private meeting was held between myself & Luke Drury on May 9 and the attached letter (UPDATE 5) details to matters of facts from that meeting as well as further facts in emails subsequent to that meeting.

I am a Professional (equiv Chartered) Engineer - Engineers put sciences into practice & verify the validity of sciences - Academics are professionally obligated to listen to & respond to what Engineers say in their professional capacities.

I point out to the Executive & Council that Newton's Opticks are wrong (see Formal Application & UPDATE 5 for specific details) - this has profound impact upon all spheres of science; including meteorology, cancer, classical physics models, relativity (which is also invalid), etc., etc., etc., ..... And upon education in general.

The Royal Irish Academy state that their mission: promotes study and excellence in the sciences, humanities and social sciences

Excellence requires prompt responses to new science findings - this is not happening.

I request of the full Executive & Council that they fulfil their Mission obligations and set a prompt date & time (by mutual agreement) for an Open Meeting to hear & discuss the new science that my professional R&D has developed and which counters & disproves Newton’s Opticks & issues therefrom.

Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

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.,

+353 (0)86 168 4318

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.,

 

TO:

Royal Irish Academy RIA, President, Mary Daly AND EXECUTIVE & COUNCIL & Members

Royal Dublin Society RDS,

Royal Institute RI,

Royal Society RS,

Royal Meteorological Society RMetS,

Royal Observatory RO,

Royal Marsden Hospital RMH,

Royal Academy of Engineering RAE,

Royal Astronomer:

- Presidents/Chairpersons, Executives & Members

CC: HM Queen Elizabeth II

Privy Council - Lord President Nick Clegg & Privy Councillors

BT

CERN

& as per addressees & general

June 6, 2014

 

Re: UPDATE 7 – reiterate Open Meeting

- UPDATE 6: RIA Executive & Council - Open Meeting

- UPDATE 5: Meeting (Private) with RIA President Luke Drury May 9, 2013 AND TO REITERATE the Formal Application for an Open Meeting

- UPDATE 4: Follow up to discussions last night/email communications;

- UPDATE 3:Re:New Academic Year pending -> urgency for & logistics of correcting school texts, progressing further R&D, codification of science principles/theories, processes for challenges thereto -

- Formal Application for meeting to hear & consider new science evidence that counters & hence disproves long-standing science stemming from Isaac Newton's Opticks & therefrom)

 

Mary Daly is the newly appointed President of the RIA, I reiterate my formal application to the RIA for an Open Meeting to hear & consider new science that disproves Newton's Opticks, and other science therefrom.

Mary Daly presided over an RIA Discourse by Werner Nahm last week, her first whilst in office of President – as an historian Daly is failing to recognise defective science which then creates uncertainty in historical research (amongst other areas)

It is ironic that the Discourse subject mater concerned the linking of science to history insofar as linking Hammurabi via astral observations as recorded on a broken stone tablet from aeons ago – yet scientists dispute clear evidence observable through a simple prism.

However, as I pointed out in Q&A, during which reluctance was shown in acknowledging my raised hand, I stressed that our understanding of solar dynamics is inadequate as we need to properly explain synchronicity of planetary motion. Whilst I was pointing this out Luke Drury (Daly's predecessor & colleague of Nahm) was shaking his head; and during cocktails Drury continued to deny the proofs I presented to him that Newton was wrong.

BUT, whether Drury agrees or not is not the point – the point is that new science evidence has been found and good Governance compels that this is put to transparent testing – and this RIA has FAILED to do.

Good Governance has failed.

It is also ironic that Daly's non-science background caused her to ask an irrelevant question last Thursday at the Inaugural Gossett Lecture given by Adrian Raftery on 'Population projections for all countries' – a statistical analysis - and which is used by United Nations – and partly explains why United Nations cannot achieve successful policies. Daly asked when could Ireland expect to be back to pre-famine population of around 8M5, as compared to present day 4M5 to 5M).

The question was flawed because Daly does not understand that Raftery was fatally & fundamentally wrong in his analysis (more in a separate paper), but also because the higher population in Ireland was due to the greater disparities of those times & prior – disparities drives greater population growth because people have nothing better to do, it is why Africa is growing so rapidly. The question also failed to recognise that Ireland is already over-populated for its present economic dynamics.

The point is that mathematics have wrongly become 'sensitised' & distorted BECAUSE of grossly defective science stemming from Newton's errors. We have ludicrous claims of 'expanding universe at phenomenal velocities' BECAUSE Hubble wrongly interpreted images as observed through a telescope and wrongly applied Doppler analysis to these observations when it is now clear that light is NOT frequency attributed but arc-angle attributed; there s correlation between arc-angle & frequency but NO correlation between arc-angle and Doppler principle. Nevertheless this error of wrongly applying Doppler has caused masses of obscure mathematics to abound – and has skewed all spheres of academia including economics, finance, and history.

Good Governance must prevail.

I reiterate my formal application for an Open Meeting (& recorded) to hear & consider new science that disproves Newton, and other issues therefrom (as set out in my Formal application)

Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

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.,

+353 (0)86 168 4318

##### End of Particle Sigma-18: #####