Institute for Basic Research

Main Page | Table of Contents | Journals | Subscriptions | Submissions | Monographs | IBR Grants | IBR Conferences | Hadronic Mechanics | Latest Discoveries | About Us | CV of IBR Members | E-Mail Us

December 30, 2013.

Comments for uploading in this webpage should be sent to J. V. Kadeisvili at the IBR email:

basicresearch(at)i-b-r(dot)org or at the personal email: jvkadeisvili(at)gmail(dot)com.

The original letter, including the emails of all addressees, can be downloaded from the link

Palm Harbor, Florida, December 30, 2013.


TO: Professor Peter Rowlands
University of Liverpool, UK
with copies to
Professors Barrett, Steve; Fry, John; Leibl, Marion; '';; Court, Geoffrey; Martin, David; 'Erik Cox'; 'Geoff Thomas'; Burrow, Oliver; Stainer, Thomas; Wilkinson, Ryan; Sharp, John; 'Sasha Eames'; Cole, Pete; Coleman, Jonathon; Harrison, Paul; Sampson, Janet; Wrona, Bozydar [bozydarw]; ''; ''; ''; Diaz, Bernard; ''; ''; Hilton, Joshua; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; Craig, Timothy; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; ''; Williams, Alex [sgawilli]; ''; (; ''; ''; Hock, Kai; ''; ''; rcalland_contact; ''; ''; 'John Roche'; 'andrew whitaker'; 'MJ Cooper'; ''; 'Pierre Grace'; 'Louise Butcher'; 'Sarah Haigh'; 'Morrison Ian'; 'Francisca Wheeler'; 'Hodgkinson John'; ''; 'Jones Grenville'; ''; 'Theodorakou Christie (RBV) NHS Christie Tr'; ''; ''; 'Vladimir Vishnyakov'; ''; ''; ''; Ying, Leong; ''

Dear Peter,

Out of our long friendship, allow me to indicate, very respectfully, my considerable sadness in viewing your mathematically nice lecture due to to the apparent loss by our contemporary scientific community to resolve major differences via a serious scientific process, that is, by debating opposing views and, above all, considering opposing experimental evidence.

As I am sure you know, two centuries ago, the scientific community was dominated by the far fetched belief that air was composed by this mysterious flogiston and all opposition was pushed out of academia. But then, the scientific community came back to its senses and did indeed examine the works by Lavoisier, Avogadro, Cannizzaro and other and, the far fetched belief was terminated in favor of serious science.

Nowadays, we should all agree for decency that cosmology is afflicted by a truly incredible number of "hyperflogistons" including: the conjecture of the expansion of trillions of galaxies away from us; the complementary conjecture of the acceleration of their expansion; completed by the failed conjecture of the big bang; then its claimed "resolution" via the ultra hyperbolic and equally failed conjecture of inflation; then complemented by the ultra hypothetical 11-dimensional brane model; then complemented with the incredible, please allow me, extremely far fetched conjecture of the expansion of space itself; then additionally complemented with the far reaching hyperbola that the universe is composed primarily of a mysterious and undetectable (sic!) dark energy; then complemented with the mysterious dark matter that pops up due to the failure of branes; etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. My God!

Most unreassuring is the ultimate aim of this incredible chain of conjectures, all being basically flawed, each proposed in the failed attempt of resolve preceding failed conjectures despite the assumption of incredible additional conjectures, all these conjectures being aimed at maintaining Einstein special relativity in the large scale structure of the universe via the interpretation of the experimentally established cosmological redshift of galactic light via Hubble's law z = HD via the Doppler axiom of special relativity, z = HD = v/c. What is very unreassuring for human know;edge is the generally undisclosed nature of this aim.

My sadness is due to the fact that, unlike the case of the flogiston and others, our scientific community has apparently lost the ability to come back to its senses because of the imposition of conjectures via the world-wide coordinated abuse of academic authority, the systematic silence on authoritative dissident views, and the general oblivion to opposing "experimental" evidence.

In fact, you never hear any more that Hubble died without accepting the expansion of the universe because the acceleration inherent in the expansion, z = (v_2 - v_1)/c, is radial in all directions from Earth, thus implying a necessary return to the Middle Ages with Earth at the center of the universe. Also, Zwicky experimentally verifiable hypothesis of the Tired Light was and continues to bedisqualified, e.g., as "fringe" by Wikipedia." Equally ignored are the dissident views by Nobel Laureates Louis de Broglie, Enrico Fermi and others, etcetera, etcetera etcetera. For God's sake, how can this condition be considered as serious science?

Galaxies G1 and G2 are at double distance from Earth. Therefore, according to the conjecture of the expansion of the universe z = v/c, G1 and G2 must have a relative acceleration. But there exist an infinite number of observers in the universe for which G1 and G2 are at the same distance, thus having no relative motion at all with consequential incontrovertible inconsistency of the very notion of expansion of the universe. NOTE: the extremely hyperbolic conjecture that space itself is expanding does not solve this inconsistency because the solution would require the yet additional conjecture that the expansion of space is accelerating "radially" from Earth, thus going back to the main reason for rejection: the unacceptable return to the Middle Ages with Earth at the center of the universe.

Allow me to indicate at least the primary reasons for my sadness in viewing your lecture, hoping to stimulate a much needed and overdue serious scientific process:


You have participated with our support to our scientific meetings during the past years. Therefore, I believe you should have at least "mentioned" - of course without acceptance - our five years of measurements confirming Zwicky's hypothesis, firstly, that individual monochromatic laser light, and then the entire spectrum of Sunlight lose energy to the traversed cold medium without any relative motion at all. As you know, I called this event IsoRedShift because its invariant derivation require our novel IsoMathematics.

You should be aware that this experimental evidence has been propagated via announcements sent by our Foundation to 95K-plus scientifists world wide, such as in the latest announcement you have received
plus additional announcements in the PRWeb and PRNewsWire electronic systems, such as those below that,. combined with their Goggle, Yahoo and other alerts, have propagated the information to an estimated number of 3M e-contacts
plus their reports listing thousands of uploads in various websites the world over, such as
The Wall Street Journal
sample of other listings
etcetera, etcetera, etcetera.

Please understand that, in view of this world wide exposure, it is not prudent any more to ignore the decades of mathematical, theoretical and experimental works.

You should know in particular that these measurements have been experimentally confirmed from space as per picture below and PRWeb release

Astronauts have confirmed that the Sun at Sunrise seen from space is "blood red," thus establishing a 100 nm redshift of Sunlight when passing through our atmosphere without any relative motion between the Sun and the spaceship in the few seconds of Sunrise from space. This establishes beyond credible doubt that, when seen millions of light years away, our Sun shows a cosmological redshift without any need of the conjecture of the Einsteinian expansion of the universe. since we merely have the replacement of our atmosphere with intergalactic gases.

For details and references, see

H. Ahmar, G. Amato, J. V. Kadeisvili, J. Manuel, G. West, and O. Zogorodnia
Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 13, page 321 (2013),
plus the subsequent evidence

You should perhaps be interested in the derivation of the Hubble law, z = HD, from the LPS isosymmetry without any relative motion. Of course, these studies are ignored because not aligned with Einsteinian interests, but then their ignorance contributes to loss of scientific credibility due to the inconsistencies of the preferred doctrines.

Main implications: As honestly and clearly stated in the concluding remarks of the last independent verification of the IsoRedShift (the Zwicky-Santilli effect),
experimental evidence on Earth establishes that special relativity is inapplicable to the large scale structure of the universe. The same experimental evidence establishes the absence of any dark energy since the dismissal of the expansion of the universe implies the dismissal of the entire chain of hyperbolic conjectures, thus including that of the dark energy.


I understand the mathematical beauty of your use of general relativity for the large scale structure of the universe, but please explain to me the physical foundations, since intergalactic distances are of the order of millions of light years, as a result of which the curvature tensor is identically null. In the absence of any physically meaningful curvature, I have difficulties in understanding your lecture.

As you know well, the CBR is assumed as "experimental evidence" (sic!) of the big bang. I showed the above experimental evidence on the uniform distribution of the CBR all over the universe to one of my technicians (who has no interest in cosmology), and asked him whether it could be the remnants of a single explosion. His quick answer was: "No way! because uniform radiation requires a uniform source. In case of a single explosion, the radiation cannot be the same in all directions." I spare you the comments when I told him that the data of the picture are assumed as experimental evidence of an explosion some 13.7 billions years ago.... because the CBR should have been absorbed by galaxies and intergalactic media billions of years ago due to its notorious weakness. My sadness is due to the fact that a technician can easily see the inconsistency of the big bang interpretation of this experimental evidence, but the situation is different for a full professor of physics at a high ranking college! Incidentally, the loss of energy by galactic light to intergalactic Hydrogen provides the much needed continuous source of energy (due to the de-excitation of the Hydrogen individual atoms - mot molecules as per Zwicky) with a "numerical" and "time invariant" representation of the CBR as occurring everywhere in the universe which interpretation continues to be ignored in favor of evidently inconsistent, but Einsteinian interpretations.


A third area of major disagreements in our community deals with the historical insufficiencies of Einstein's general relativity without any resolution in sight due to the complete lack of a serious scientific process. As you may know, I have written often in my works that "special relativity has a majestic axiomatic structure and an impressive experimental verification in vacuum." By contrast, I believe that general relativity is fundamentally flawed because of several historic mistakes by Einstein, such as:

Einstein first historical mistake: ignoring that the bending of light is entirely Newtonian without any contribution from curvature. Clear and quite old experimental evidence establishes that the bending of light measured until now is the result of two purely Newtonian contributions. Firstly, we have the contribution to the bending due to Newton' "universal" gravitation, that I always treated with Newton's equations expressed in terms of energies, rather than masses,

F = G E_1 E_2 / r^2, G = g/c^4

Secondly, it is well known that Einstein used data on the bending of light from far away stars when light was passing close to the Sun, that is, when passing through the chromosphere of the Sun. This second contribution, well known since the 1600s, is the Newtonian (you may call it Snell-descartes) deflection of light caused by its refraction when passage through a medium as it is the case for Newton's prism.

The experimental verification of this second well known evidence is provided by the bending of Sunlight at Sunset since, as all serious physicists will admit, the Sun continues to be seen for a few second after no longer being aligned with us on a tangent to Earth. By contrast, this second Newtonian refractive contribution is completely absent for the same Sunlight during a total Solar exclusive by our Moon, as also well known and admitted by serious physicists (only). In the case of Sunlight passing tangentially to the Moon we only have the gravitational Newtonian bending which is extremely small due to the small mass of the Moon.

Stated differently, a necessary condition for credibility of the conjecture that the bending of light by a gravitational field has a term beyond Newtonian attraction, is that the propagation of light be certified as occurring in complete empty space and not through chromospheres or atmospheres. For details you should inspect the following forthcoming paper and perhaps express criticisms
Absence of curvature of space in the bending of light, I. Mohanna and R. M. Santilli,

When I represent the bending of light with curvature, I have serious compatibility problems because I have been unable to achieve compatibility of both, Newton's attraction/refraction and curvature, with experimental data without a chain of conjectures such as the selection of a hypothetical ad hoc metric used nowhere else in gravitation, combined with a hypothetical reference frame not realizable in the physical reality, etc. Yo put it bluntly, if I am free to make a chain of ad hoc hypothetical assumptions, I could easily prove that our Sun is made up of excited bees.

In summary, experimental evidence studiously ignored by organized interests on Einstein establishes that, not only there is no evidence supporting the far reaching conjecture that space is curved, but its assumption is incompatible with the entirely Newtonian bending of light. The perihelium of mercury is entirely representable with Minkowskian spaces (see below) and the so-called "experimental verifications of GR" are a clear expression of the ongoing obscurantism in gravitation due to the arbitrariness in the linearization of the field equations for which I can assume linearization s violating data, the lack of conservation of the numerical predictions over time and numerous additional, studiously ignored problems
R. M. Santilli, "Nine Theorems of inconsistencies in General Relativity
and their possible resolution via Isogravitation," Galilean Electrodynamics,
Vol 17 No. 3, page 43 (2006, free download from the link

Einstein second historical mistake: ignoring the electromagnetic origin of the "gravitational" (not inertial) mass that requires a source tensor of the first order in magnitude in the r.h.s. of the equations even for bodies with null electron and magnetic fields. I am sure you agree that the rest energy of then positronium is entirely of elm origin because, as established by QED, the mass of the electron is purely electromagnetic in origin. Then, you must add this large source in the r.h.s. of the field equations for the positronium. It was then easy to extrapolate in my 1974 paper
R. M. Santilli, "Partons and Gravitation: some Puzzling Questions,"
(MIT) Annals of Physics, Vol. 83, 108-157 (1974),
that the field equations must be complemented in their r.h.s. with a first order source tensor. but then, under such a source I see no possibilities of modifying Riemannian models so as they achieve an expansion of the universe because the main contribution of energy remains that set by Einstein: energy is the source of "gravitational attraction" and this should be the case also for dark energy. Please note that, to the best of my knowledge, ignoring this elm source implies a direct violation of QED as shown in the above quoted paper.

Einstein third historical mistake: abandoning the beautiful "invariance" of special relativity in favor of the "covariance" of GR, with catastrophic physical implications in my view that continue to be ignored, yet remaining out there unresolved one way or another. Your talk is directly affected by this third point because I can prove that whatever your "numerical " value is for the percentage of dark energy in the universe, that value is changes under a few "seconds" of time evolution, while you need to predict numerical results that remain invariant under billions of years of time evolution.

I have attempted to resolve some of these problems, first and above all, by formulating the field equations under a universal "invariance" without which I cannot accept dynamical evolution, R. M. Santilli, "Isominkowskian Geometry for the Gravtiaitonal Treatment of Matter and its Isodual for Antimatter," Intern. J. Modern Phys. D {\bf 7}, 351 (1998),
with the references on the isosymmetries listed in the website
but these studies are not aligned with academic interests on Einstein and, therefore they continue to be ignored, as illustrated by your lecture and many others in the field despite their wide propagation. The same historical problems have been widely propagated, e.g., by the announcement by the late J. V. Kadeisvili,
Obscurantism in General Relativity
without any initiation of scientific process in their solution, thus illustrating my sadness because I know the price to mankind, including the misuse of billions of public funds to serve the interest of a few.

In summary, I failed for decades to represent the actual orbits of the planets with curvature, I failed for decades to render curvature compatible with the free fall of masses along a "straight" radial line, I failed for decades to represent our weight with curvature, I failed for decades to achieve a consistent quantum theory of gravitation with curvature, I failed for decades to achieve any minimally consistent grand unification when gravitation is represented with curvature, etc. see my monograph on isogravitation inclusive of the gravity of antimatter which is anathema for GR
Isodual Theory of Antimatter with Application to Antigravity,
Grand Unification and the Spacetime Machine, R. M. Santilli, Springer (2001).

Peter, for science sake, can you please express your objections to the above views, particularly your rejections to the opposing experimental results? Also, is there any colleague receiving this email interested in initiating due scientific process in cosmology? Quite honestly, in its continued absence I fear that our physics community will be sealed in the dark side of scientific history.

Please send this email in copy to all recipients of your original email, since their names may appar in this email, but not necessarily their eaddresses. Thanks.

Best wishes for the new year

Ruggero French interview on the ongoing obscurantism in cosmology

PS. Thank you for the fully deserved volume dedicated to Vigier that arrived while I was writing this email. I would have loved to participate to his memorial meetings and to this volume to pay due respect to "mon ami Jean-Pierre" who, among our many contacts, had also been an Editor of the Hadronic Journal and was aware of most of the above aspects, but regrettably I was not invited to participate. -- Dr. Ruggero Maria Santilli
CEO and Chief Scientist
150 Rainville Rd, Tarpon Springs, FL 34689, U.S.A.
Tel. +1-727-688 3992
Web site
Connected web sites


January 6, 2014

Prof. Santilli,
Please clarify what do you mean with the entire Newtonian origin of the bending of light, since Newtonian gravitation accounts for only part of the bending of light. Except for this obscure point, I agree with your views, particularly on this sinister obscurantism that is afflicting our science anywhere there is a remote possible link to Einstein.

I am also surprised by the fact that Peter Rowlands did not invite you to deliver a lecture at his department with ensuing debates, and I hope he will eventually do it if contemporary physics in the UK can compare with the beautiful, but past, traditions set forth by innovators such as Rutherford, Dirac, and others.

I have listened to your high class lecture of criticisms on another obscurantism afflicting our community, that on quantum chemistry and, consequently, excuses on possible harshness would only confirm the ongoing ethical decay.

Ccccc Zzzzz

Dear Professor Zzzzz,
I sincerely appreciate your request for much due clarifications. I have amended my above letter to my best, including an apparent experimental verification of the entire Newtonian origin of the bending of light measured to far (through the Sun chromosphere), via the combination of Newtonian gravitation and Newtonian refraction of light within physical media. I have applied to our Foundation for funds to conduct these confirmatory measurements as a complement of our measurements on the anomalous redshift without relative motion of light propagating within media (IsoRedShift). In the event you remain interested, or you have additional objections, please let me know. You can count on my best and most respectful cooperation for any serious scientific process such as yours, particularly for technical criticisms. In regard to lectures and scientific (not political) debates, I am available to fly at my cost anywhere there is the serious pursuit of serious science.
Ruggero Maria Santilli


January 6, 2014

Dear Professor Santilli
I want to compliment you for your courageous scientific honesty. I now understand why Karl Popper quoted you in his last book as the only contemporary physicists "bringing sanity in the scientific community." It is unbelievable for me to see, not only this century old unobstructed obscurantism created by organized dishonest interests on Einstein via the manipulation of scientific evidence with public money for their benefits, but also this widespread subservience to clear scientific scams with no advantage other than condemnation for evident complicity.

Please do keep bringing sanity to physics. Quite honestly, due to this organized widespread collapse of ethics in physics, I expect no major reward for you by the academic community during your lifetime, as I am sure you are aware of, but I am sure that history will reward you and condemn the perpetrators and their accomplices as it was the case for Galileo Galilei.

WWW Qqqqqq


January 15,2014

Prof. Santilli, I agree with Karl Popper that you are the only voice of sanity in the cointemporary physics community. May God protect you from the gangsters out there!

uuuuuu Sssssss


February 23, 2014

Following the clearly dishonest conduct denounced below, an Investigative Agency has provided us
evidence that Mr. Peter Rowlands is a jew who has been spying for years on Prof. Santilli's
research for reports to his collective without disclosing his jewish color while exploiting Prof.
Santilli's financial support and hospitality without shame or dignity. This is the sinister jewish
problem afflicting our science (and other fields) today.

-- Luca Petronio
The International Committee on
Scientific Ethics and Accountability


email to all recipients by P. Rowlands dates February 25, 2014

I shouldnÕt really answer this because it is either a joke or complete nonsense. But it is not very pleasant to read such things, whether intended as jest or not. I hope that the author meant it as humour, and that I can let it pass as such. I also hope that my friends on this list will immediately vouch for my good character, and that whatever dialogue we have in the future can be restricted to scientific discussions.

First of all, I am not remotely Jewish and have no Jewish connections, but I am not anti-Jewish either. Anyone who travels to North Wales, where my grandfather came from will find many people called Rowlands. Most names from the region are similarly patronymic Š Williams, Griffiths, Davies, Jones É There is nothing Jewish about them.

I also have no influence whatsoever with any establishment. People who know me will know how much difficulty I have had with establishments over the years. If I was interested in playing political games, I would long ago have promoted myself to a more successful position than I have ever achieved.

I have been friends with Ruggero Santilli for many years and believe I still am. I have always been supportive of his initiatives. I have included discussions of his work in my papers and books, including the experimental work supporting his theories. I have never written or spoken negatively about them, and have no intention of doing so in the future.

As Ruggero knows, I have a long-term research programme of my own, but I have sought for compatibility between our very different viewpoints, with a fair degree of success. I have, for instance, developed an isonilpotent representation which connects my nilpotents with RuggeroÕs isomathematics.

I am not a fan of general relativity, _as normally interpreted_, or of modern cosmology. I believe entirely that a version of Newtonian theory can explain all _gravitational_ effects, and have repeatedly written about this.

On the other hand, I am not partisan. One of the papers I gave at one of the meetings referred to was considered a very good analysis of the difficulties of modern cosmology, but, though I am sceptical about big bang cosmology, I have always been prepared to give it a hearing. I really work in physics rather than cosmology, so I donÕt have to take a definitive position, as opposed to a preference.

I believe that general relativity is really a mathematical theory of the effects of gravity, and that the field equations can be used in that context, and will hold up to a greater degree than many people who try to give them a physical interpretation think. I donÕt believe that this is incompatible in any way with the Newtonian viewpoint. I have always argued that the ŌrelativisticÕ effects were due to speed of light _measurement_, and were not intrinsic to the gravitational force itself, and that this manifested itself in the phenomenon of inertia.

As a result of this, decades ago, I was able to derive the equivalent of dark energy at 67 per cent, long before the experimental discovery. As soon as the Planck probe put the value at 68 per cent, I saw that I would have an opportunity to appeal to a ŌmainstreamÕ community without compromising any of my beliefs.

I would be able to use mathematics with which they were familiar to derive results concerning dark energy as _pure physics_, without having to go into any aspect of cosmology. Because for a flat universe, the Newtonian limit applies even for the most conventional interpretation of GR, I could use either GR or Newtonian theory to achieve the correct results.

In addition, in this case, the physics drives the cosmology, so I didnÕt have to make any assumptions about what cosmology was correct or otherwise, and so didnÕt have to include anything controversial. In addition, Ōdark energyÕ is simply a part of existing physics and not some mysterious additional concept.

To make the point that the dark energy is pure physics and is not dependent on any prior assumptions about cosmology, I avoided making any assumptions about cosmology. In my lecture, I said that people could believe in any cosmology they wanted with regard to these results. It didnÕt make any difference.

I wouldnÕt be able to make this specific point if I started bringing in material about cosmology. So thatÕs why I didnÕt. My strategy was to isolate a specific phenomenon which could be treated independently and rigorously, and to show that it had a pure physics explanation.

As I have pointed out since, if such a phenomenon has a pure physics explanation, then it can no longer be used as support for a particular cosmology, but it then becomes a phenomenon which any subsequent cosmology needs to take into account.

In my lecture I am making a point which I donÕt think the mainstream community can or should ignore, but I wouldnÕt be able to make it if I included topics which, however valid they may be are considered controversial. There is a time and place for this.

As I said before, I have my own research programme and think that my contributions to meetings and publications would not be sought if I hadnÕt. My work has generally been seen as valuable on account of its originality. It isnÕt a copy of anyone elseÕs and creates completely new ways of seeing physics and different perspectives. The particular point I made in my lecture is a product entirely of my own programme and I donÕt see why anyone wouldnÕt want to see me do anything other than choose the strategy I thought best to promote it.

Peter Rowlands


February 25, 2014

All members of our Committee from various countries apologize for the mistaken Jewish identity identified above, apologies due to both Rowlands as well as to the Jewish community. Our committee as well is not anti-Jewish, yet our job is to denounce any scientific misconduct whether by Arabs, Jews, Brits, etc.

Ut seems appropriate to note that only a false identification as being a Jew forced Rowlands to some scientific rumbles, by noting that allegations of Rowlands scientific misconduct as per Santilli's letter remain in full standing.

I am not a scientist and, therefore, I have requested an expert in the field to appraise Rowlands scientific comments and clarify whether his conduct and stand are scientifically corect or not.

William Pound
International Committee on Scientific ethics and Accountability.



Main Page | Table of Contents | Journals | Subscriptions | Submissions | Monographs | IBR Grants | IBR Conferences | Hadronic Mechanics | Latest Discoveries | About Us | CV of IBR Members | E-Mail Us

Last Revised: December 14th, 2001

Copyright © 1997-2003 Institute for Basic Research, P. O. Box 1577, Palm Harbor, FL 34682, U.S.A.
Tel: 1-727-934 9593 Fax: 1-727-934 9275 E-Mail:
All Rights Reserved.