HOME     |     PHYSICS     |     BIOLOGY     |     CHEMISTRY


EDITORIAL NOTE

We provide below the link to the public pleadings of the lawsuit filed by Ruggero and Carla Santilli, Plaintiffs, against Frank Israel, Pepjin van Erp et al, Defendants

Lawsuit against Frank Israel and Pepjin van Erp

while offering to the scientific community the possibility of expressing comments in an anonymous way without editorial contributions except for the of screening of posts with Wikipedia rules. Posts up to 150 words can be placed in the message box, while longer posts, pictures and and documents n should be emailed to "admin(at)galileoprincipia(dot)



Post 1.
For God's sake, can anybody outline why the Santilli's sued Frank Israel and Pepijin van Erp? Thanks. Zwe44ui

Post 2.
I looked at the court documents/pleadings that are available on the internet. I was astonished to see the unprovoked, relentless and vicious attacks carried out at the personal, scientific and industrial levels by Frank Israel and Pepijin van Erp (FII and PVE) against a senior scientist such as Prof. Santilli (see his Biographical Notes and the Full Curriculum) . One should inspect the first filing 0 Doc. 064 P Motion . Motion 064 2018-03-17 09:39 6 of Public Pleadings, especially the attachments. The unprovoked attacks for seven years were launched by Frank Israel, Pepijin van Erp and others via numerous websites of the Dutch Skeptic Society and in Dutch, English, French, German and Italian , such as
http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2016/02/the-continuing-stupidity-of-ruggero-santilli/
http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/articles/finding-jerdsey-v-kadeisvili-or-mailing-withruggero-m-santilli
https://kloptdatwel.nl/search_gcse/?q=Ruggero%20Santilli
http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2016/11/sued-by-ruggero-santilli
http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2016/08/santilli-shenanigans
http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl

These internet attacks were then translated in Dutch, Italian, French and German websites. To understand the dimension of this organized international slander, Frank Israel and his employee Pepijin van Erp have worked full time for years via the use of illegal SEO techniques to keep these slanderous websites at the top of Google search under Santilli as, anybody can verify, resulting in tens of thousands of websites all over the world. All written requests for moderation by Carla Santilli personally to Frank Israel were ignored.

Frank Israel and Pepijin van Erp used these defaming websites to disrupt Santilli's personal, scientific and industrial activities. As an illustration, Santilli and his group had participated for five years to the series of conferences ICNAAM organized in Greece by Theodore Simos. See in particular the (see the Program-ICNAAM-2014 showing the name Santilli in titles, let alone the content, most of the 2014 conference. Such a great success by Santilli was clearly a disproof of the slanderous websites. Therefore, Frank Israel and Pepijin van Erp convinced Robert Brown, then President of the American Institute of Physics - AIP (a notorious member of their ring) to have Simos stop admitting Santilli and his group at his meetings under threat of stopping the AIP publication of his proceedings. Simos had no other choice than to comply, Santilli and his group, including distinguished full professors from prestigious universities were prohibited to attend, and we, Americans lost our face in scientific circles on three continents.

The unprovoked industrial damage cased by Frank Israel and Pepijin van Erp to Santilli and his associates is rather substantial. As you can see in his Biographical Notes, Santilli is the founder and stockholder of two publicly traded companies, one traded at NASDAQ and the other traded at the OTC. The vicious attacks in corporate blogs by Frank Israel and Pepijin van Erp have been so organized, relentless and vulgar to cause millions of dollars of losses in the value of the stock owned by tens of thousands of stockholders (see the sworn Affidavits of corporate officers in the attachments of indicated first filing). Predictable huge pressure on Santilli to sue by stockholders and investors alike, left the Santilli's no other choice than to sue Frank Israel and Pepijin van Erp. There are rumors that a disgusted investor from New York has offered unlimietd funds for the lawsuits, first in the U.S.A. and perhaps later on - in Europe.

The issues of direct relevance to the U. S. as well as international physics community are endless, such as: have Frank Israel and Pepijin van Erp acted on their own or under a mandate from higher levels of their ring? Why was this relentless and vicious attack launched? Who are the beneficiaries? Should the U.S.A. keep tolerating these vicious attacks by foreigners? What are the implications for much needed new technologies, etc. Vsa45uo

Post 3.
According to an Investigative Agency hired by the International Committee on Scientific Ethics and Accountabilty (ICSEAA), Frank Israel and Pepijin van Erp were commissioned to do their unethical campaign against the Santilli's by Arthur Rubin, David Epstein and Frank Bernstein, controllers of the Wikipedia "Article" on Santilli. As everybody can see, that Article has been structured and kept for decades to discredit Santilli's research because his beliefs are not aligned with the main interests of the Wikipedia-academic complex. In fact, said editors quote in the article the absolute most unprofessional and unqualified sources such as Pepijin van Erp who has no formal education at all, let alone any education in the post Ph. D. research by Santilli, while carefully avoiding the quotation of Santilli's articles published in refereed journals that are not aligned with their interests. It should be known that said editor set the article to automatic rejection of any improvements whatsoever by numerous scientists around the globe for decades. Clearly, the discereditation of Santilli's research in the Wikipedia article needed some form of external back up.

The same Investigative Agency has also uncovered that Rubin-Epstein-Weinstein and their global associates perpetrated truly incredible acts of scientific gangsterism, such as: commissioning the journalist member of their group Carrie Weimar to write a negative profile on Santilli, which she did (see said Article); commissioning the "engineer" J. M. Calo at Brown University, RI, another notorious member of said interests, to write a paper of strong criticism on Santilli's post Ph. D. discovery in "chemistry" of the new chemical special of magnecules, who, of course, did as requested; use the unfortunate credibility the negative depiction of Santilli in Wikipedia, obstructed Santilli's technical presentation at NASA in the use of his new species to improve safety and trust for aerospace rosiest; and perpetrated additional true acts of "scientific banditism"; requested the organizers of the 2014 International Conference by the American Institute of Applied Sciences held in Madrid, Spain http://aimsciences.org/conferences/2014/index.html To close the already organized session on Santilli's Isodifferential Calculus and Lie Santilli theory with ensuing investigation initiated by the organizers (Carla Santilli and other participants can provide affidavit of the case); and did additional true acts of "scientific banditism" hardly credible for their protracted impunity. Jer45io

Post 4.
To my knowledge as a follower of Santilli's research for years, the origin of the lawsuit by the Santilli's against Frank Israel and Pepijin van Erp must be traced back to Septemebr 1987 when R. M. Santilli became a member of the faculty of then Lyman Laboratory of Physics of Harvard University whose history is described in all details in his 1984 book [1] Il Grande Grido - Ethical Problem of Einstein followers in the U.S.A: An Insider's View, in which the link includes the Documentation of Il Grande Grido, Vols. I, II and III (1985) Alpha Publishing.

It appears that this particular lawsuit provides final evidence on the conspiracy against the research by Ruggero M. Santilli by "organized academic, financial and ethnic interests on Einstein" [1] because he dared to surpass Einstein at the mathematical, theoretical and experimental levels. These studies were not intended for the conditions conceived by Einstein (dynamical problem in vacuum), but for much more complex conditions unthinkable during Einstein's time, dynamical problems within physical media which admit Einstein's conditions as a particular case. To understand the illegal character of the conspiracy, we should indicate upfront that the "inapplicability" of Einstein theories for dynamics within physical media is beyond scientific doubt for endless reasons treated in refereed papers, e.g.,: Einstein's theories are reversible over time while the indicated interior condition processes are irreversible; it is impossible to define special and general relativity within physical media; it is impossible to verify the assumed constancy of the speed of light within physical media due to the lack of an inertial reference frame; the speed of light within physical media (when transparent) is locally varying in any case; etc.

The conspiracy was initiated in 1978 by Steven Weinberg, Shelly Glashow and Sidney Coleman at the Lyman Laboratory of Physics at Harvard University and by Herman Feshback at MIT. Santilli was invited by the Department of "Energy" to initiate studies of irreversibility via his pioneering papers on Lie-admissible theories because it was needed for a serious study of all "energy" releasing processes. These studies clearly implied a structural broadening of Einstein's theories since, as indicated, the latter are strictly reversible over time. Weinberg-Glashow-Coleman strongly opposed the will of the United States Government, and publicly declared "Santilli studies have no physical value." To understand the dimension of the conspiracy, one should know that tidies on Santilli's irreversible Lie-admissible formulations remain prohibited in academia in all developed countries, although conducted in silence in corporations because essential for the study of energy releasing processes.

As part of his studies of irreversibility, Santilli needed to achieve a representation of nuclear magnetic moments (that was and is still missing) via Fermi's hypothesis that nucleons are deformed by nuclear strong interactions with consequential deformation of their intrinsic magnetic moments. The study of this historical hypothesis implied a structural generalization of the heart of Einstein special relativity, the symmetry under rotation (that Santilli achieved via his Lear-isotopic and Lie-admissible theories). Feshback and his group at MIT strongly opposed such a generalization with rather "theatrical acts" [1]. For instance, thanks to the international cooperation by members of the indicated organized interests, Feshback managed to prohibit H. Rauch from Austria (a leader in neutron interferometry) to access his laboratory at the University of Grenoble, France, in order to verify his initial announcement of deformability of nucleon under strong interactions. To understand the power of the indicated organized interests on Einstein, one should know that the experimental confirmation of Fermi's historical hypothesis on the deformability of nucleons has remained prohibited to this day in all universities of developed countries, except for manipulated tests without exposure of nucleons to strong interactions. The demonstrability of nucleons via Santilli's Lie-isotopic and Lie-admissible theories is silently studied in corporate conduits by achieving the first and only known exact representation of nuclear magnetic moments so essential for new clean energies that are much needed by mankind, yet strongly opposed by organized interests on Einstein.

After Santilli left Harvard (somewhat disgusted) in 1983, the obstructions by Weinberg-Hogwash-Coleman-Feshback-et al their world wide organization against Santilli as a person and against his research were multiplied. Prior to this conspiracy, Santilli had regularly published papers in journals of the American, Italian and British physical society. In 1984, these societies received "orders" from said organization to prohibit the publication of any additional papers by Santilli, and so it was and it is the case to this day [2] 2008 update of "Il Grande Grido" see Santilli selected papers in the references. Renato Angelo Ricci, then a disgraceful President of the Italian Physical Society, put it in writing: "Santilli, your papers cannot be published in our journals because they are opposed by your colleagues at Harvard" Santilli was also the victim of truly unbelievable vexation, such as the prohibition for him to attend a meeting on his most important creation, hadronic mechanics, organized by said interests at the University of Southern Iowa at Cedar Falls under public U. S. financial support. Quite distressing for me, as a U. S. Citizen, to see the documentation of the prohibition for Santilli to attend any physics meeting organized in the U.S.A with public funds, such as meetings at FERMILAB, SLAC, or national laboratories and see numerous act of "scientific bandits" [2].

At the advent of the internet era, Sidney Coleman and Herman Feshback had died, and Steven Weinberg could only operate in the shadow due to his known illiteracy on this new technology. Hence, the torch of the international, organized conspiracy against Santilli passed to Arthur Rubin, David Epstein and Mark Bernstein, the controllers of Santilli's "Article" at Wikipedia. According to an Investigative Agency hired by the International Committee on Scientific Ethics and Accountability (ICSEAA) Rubin-Epstein-Weinstein and their world wide associates perpetrated truly incredible acts of scientific gangsterism, such as: commissioning the journalist member of their group Carrie Weimar to write a negative profile on Santilli, which she did (see said Article); commissioning the "engineer" J. M. Calo at Brown University, RI, another notorious member of said interests to write a paper of strong criticism on Santilli's post Ph. D. discovery in "chemistry" of the new chemical special of magnecules, who, of course, did it as requested; use the unfortunate credibility the negative depiction of Santilli in Wikipedia, obstructed Santilli technical presentation at NASA in the use of his new species to improve safety and trust for aerospace rosiest; and perpetrated additional true acts of "scientific banditism"; requested the organizers of the 2014 International Conference by the American Institute of Applied Sciences held in Madrid, Spain http://aimsciences.org/conferences/2014/index.html To close the already organized session on Santilli's Isodifferential Calculus and Lie Santilli theory with ensuing investigation initiated by the organizers (Carla Santilli and other participants can provide affidavit of the case); and did additional true acts of "scientific banditism" hardly credible for their protracted impunity.

Santilli's lawsuit against Frank Install (head of the Dutch Skeptic Society), his employee Pepijin van Erp et al. from The Netherlands provides the final evidence of the international, organized conspiracy by "academic, financial and ethnic interests on Einstein's theories" against Santilli's mathematical, theoretical and experimental research beyond Einstein. The main issue for the USA is: How long should the academic, financial and ethnic interests on Einstein" should be allowed to continue their unethical control of science under the misuse of billions of taxpayers dollars. Zew75oy

Post 5.
I was a graduate student in physics at Harvard at the time when Professor Santilli was there and I remember very well when in early 1978 he presenetd to the faculty there the research on irreversibility under his DOE grant. I remeber that well becasue I was interested in the field, due to its novelty and application to energies, and actually started to do research in it, but I had to stop to survive in academia due to the reasons so eloquently explained by the Editorial team of Harvard's Crimson The Politics of Science

Santilli first presenetd to Steven Weinberg, Shelly Glashow and Sydney Coleman the main need for his studies on irreversibility, namely, their need for quantitative studies on all energy releasing processes; he then showed the origin of the reversibility over time of Einstein's special relativity and quantum mechanics, such as the invariance of the Lie product under anti-Hermiticity [A,B] = - [A, B]; and finally showed the historical initiation of studies on irreversibility by Lagrange and Hamilton via the external terms in their celebrated equations. The later point was illustrated with the "vignetta" ("little sketch" in Italian) one can see in page 189 of Il Grande Grido - Ethical Problem of Einstein followers in the U.S.A: An Insider's View,


I remember that Weinberg, Glashow and Coleman were visibly unhappy at this presentation and indeed they later on stated to everybody, including to Santilli's graduate students, that "Santilli studies have no physical value." During the same session, Santilli also represented the "vignetta" (see page 190 of Il Grande Grido)

showing the "universality" of his Lie-admissible formulations, since Lie-admissible algebras in Santilli's form with product (A, B) - ARB - BSA is the most general known algebra with a bi-linear product over a field of characteristic zero, thus including as particular cases all known algebras. This universality made Weinberg, Glashow and Coleman even more nervous.... The rest is described and documented in Il Grande Grido. Xwe76to

Post 6.
One of the mosy dishonest claims by "organzied academic, financial and ethnic interests on Einstein" against Santilli is that he only published in his Journal, the Hadronic Journal. Therefore, out of the 325+ papers and 30 post Ph. D. monographs in physics and chemistry available from his Public Pleadings, I selected the following representative papers poublished in journals of the American, Italian, British Physical Societies and other refereed journals around the world. Gew40yp. Note that, before joining the faculty of Harvard University, Santilli was obviously publishing in journals of various physical societies, but after leaving Harvard these poublications were prohibited and he published his paper in other refereed journals around the world. Ter23qw

PAPERS PUBLISHED IN PHYSICAL REVIEW
OF THE AMERICAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
Phys. Rev. D Vol. 20, 555-570 (1979)
Phys. Rev. D Vol. 1, 2753-2765 (1970)
Phys. Rev. D Vol. 7, 2447-2456 (1973)
Phys. Rev. D Vol. 10, 3396-3406 (1974)
Phys. Rev. D Vol. 22, 892?907 (1980)

PAPERS PUBLISHED IN IL NUOVO CIMENTO
OF THE ITALIAN PHYSICAL SOCIETY
Supplemento al Nuovo Cimento 6, 1225-1249 (1968)
Meccanica Vol. 1, 3-11 (1969)
Nuovo Cimento Vol. 44, 1284-1289 (1966)
Nuovo Cimento Vol. 51, 89-107 (1967)
Nuovo Cimento Vol. 51, 748 (1967)
Nuovo Cimento Vol. 51, 570-576 (1967)
Nuovo Cimento Vol. 55B, 578-586 (1968)
Nuovo Cimento Vol. 56B, 323-326 (1968)
Nuovo Cimento Vol. 6, 1225-1249 (1968)
Nuovo Cimento Vol. 2, 449-455 (1969)
Nuovo Cimento Vol. 5, 551-590 (1971)
Nuovo Cimento Vol. 2, 965-1015 (1971)
Nuovo Cimento Vol. 12, 185-204 (1972)
Nuovo Cimento Vol. 33, 145-153 (1982)
Nuovo Cimento Vol. 37, 545-555 (1983)
Nuovo Cimento Vol. 37, 337-344 (1983)
Nuovo Cimento Vol. 37, 509-521 (1983)
Nuovo Cimento Vol. 37, 505-508 (1983)

PAPERS PUBLISHED IN THE JOURNAL OF THE
BRITISH INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS
Journal of Physics Vol. 1, 1-26 (1995)
J. Moscow Phys. Soc. Vol. 3, 255-280 (1993)

PAPERS PUBLISHED IN OTHER REFEREED JOURNALS
International Journal of Physics Vol. 1, 1-26 (1995)
Balkan Journal of Geometry and its Applications, Vol. 1, pp. 61-73 (1996)
Journal of Dynamical Systems and Geometric Theories, Vol. 1, 121-193 (2003)
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 31, pages 1113 1128 (2006)
The Open Astronomy Journal Vol. 3, pages 126-144, 2010
Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering, Vol. 12, pages 165-188 (2012)
Italian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 31, pages 239-254 (2013)
Journal of computational methods in sciences and engineering (JCMSE), 13 (2013) 37-50
Italian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Vol. 31, pages 239-254 (2013)
Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering Vol. 14, pp 405-415 (2014)
American Journal of Modern Physics, Vol. 4, pp 5-9, (2015)
American Journal of Modern Physics Vol. 4, p. 15-18 (2015)
American Journal of Modern Physics Vol. 4, pages 26-43, (2015)
American Journal of Modern Physics Vol. 4(5), pages 59-75 (2015)
American Journal of Modern Physics Vol. 4, No. 5, (2015)
Ameriucan Journal of Modern Physiucs, Vol. Vol. 5, issue 2, p. 56 (2016)
American Journal of Modern Physivcs Vol. 4, issue 2, p. 185 (2016)
American Journal of Modwern Physics Vol. 5, No. 2-1, (2016)
American Journal of Modern POhysics Vol. 5, No. 2-1, (2016)
American Journal of Modern Physics 2017; 6(4-1): 29-45
\ American Journal of Modern Physics 2017; 6(4-1): 46-52
American Journal of Modern Physics, Vol. 6(4-1), page 85-104 (2017)
American Journal of Modern Physics 2017; 6(4-1): 105-109
American Journal of Modern Physics 2016; 5(2-1): 56-118
Hyperfine Interactions Vol. 109, pp. 63-81 (1997)
Int. J. Theor. Phys. Vol. 2, 201-211 (1969)
J. Theor. Phys. Vol. 3, 233-241 (1970)
J. Math. Phys. Vol. 11, 2297-2301 (1970)
Annals of Physics Vol. 83, 108-157 (1974)
Physics Essays Vol. 5, 44-46 (1992)
J. Phys. G: Nucl & Part. Phys. Vol. 18, L61-L65 (1992)
J. Phys. G: Nucl. & Part. Phys., Vol. 18, L141-L146 (1992)
J. Moscow Phys. Soc. Vol. 3, 255-280 (1993)
JINR Rapid Comm. Vol. 6, 24-38 (1993)
L. De Brfoglie Vol. 18, pp. 71-389 (1993)
Comm. Theor. Phys. Vol. 3, 47-66 (1994)
Comm. Theor. Phys. Vol. 3, 153-181 (1994)
Chinese J. Syst. Eng. & Electr. Vol. 6, 157-176 (1995)
Intern. J. Quantum Chem. Vol. 26, 175-187 (1995)
Chine J. Syst. Eng. & Electr. Vol. 6, 177-199 (1995)
Revista Tecnica Vol. 18, 271-284 (1995)
Comm. Theor. Phys. Vol. 4, (1995)
Indian J. Mathematics Vol. 37, 235-256 (1995)
World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 369-383 (1996)
World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 500-505 (1996)
Anale Stintifice Universitatii Ovidius Constanta Vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 113-126 (1996)
Rendiconti Circolo Matematico Palermo, Suppl. Vol. 42, pp. 7-82 (1996)
Anale Stiintifice Univ. Al.I. Cuza, Matematica, Vol. XLII, pp. 121-72 (1996)
Balkan Journal of Geometry and its Applications, Vol. 1, pp. 61-73 (1996)
Revista Tecnica Univ. Zulia Vol. 19, 69-84 (1996)
Rev. Tec. Ingegn. Univ. Zulia Vol. 19, pp. 3-16 (1996)
Indian J. Math. Vol. 38, pp. 1-24 (1996)
Balkan Society of Geometers, Volume 1, pp. 83-94, Balkan Society of Geometers (1997)
World Scientific, Singapore, pp. 549-556 (1997)
Gravitation, Vol. 3, no. 2 (1997)
Foundations of Physics, vol. 27, 625-740 (1997)
Foundations of Physics Letters Vol. 10, 307-327 (1997)
Indian J. Mathematics Vol. 38, pp. 43-54 (1997)
Found. Phys. Letters Vol. 11, pp. 483-493 (1998)
Acta Applicandae Mathematicae Vol. 50, pp. 167-175 (1998)
Acta Applicandae Mathematicae Vol. 50, pp. 177-190 (1998)
Intern. J. of Phys. Vol. 4, pp. 1-70 (1998)
Modern Physics Letters Vol. 13, 327-335 (1998)
Int. J. Mod. Phys. D Vol. 7, 351-407 (1998)
Infinite Energy, Vol. 22, pp. 33-49 (1998)
Infinite Energy, Vol. 19, 72-78 (1998)
Intern. J. Modern Phys. A Vol. 14, pp. 3157-33206 (1999)
Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy Vol. 24, 943-956 (1999)
Communications in Math. and Theor. Phys. Vol. 2, 1-12 (1999)
Intern. J. Modern Phys. A Vol. 14, pp. 2205-2238 (1999)
Infinite Energy, Vol. 23, pp. 69-74 (1999)
Infinite Energy, Vol. 25, pp. 75-85 (1999)
Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy Vol. 25, pp. 173-183 (2000)
Nova Science Publishers, pp. 421-442 (2000)
Comm. Math. & Theor. Phys. Vol. 2, 1-66 (2001)
Foundation of Physics, Vol. 32, pages 1111-1140 (2002)
Journal of Dynamical Systems and Geometric Theories, Vol. 1, 121-193 (2003)
Advances in Algebras, K. P. Shum et al. Editors, pages 185-220 (2003)
Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 29 Hors s«erie 2, (2004)
Annales de la Fondation Louis de Broglie, Volume 29, pages 953-968 (2004)
International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 31, pages 1113 8 (2006)
IBR preprint TPH-03-05 (2005), galilean Electrodynamics Vol. 17, Special issue 3, pp. 42-54 (2006)
IBR preprint TPH-09-05 (2005), Journal Applied Sciences, in press (2006)
General Bibliography on Hadronic Mathematics, Mechanics and Chemistry (2008)
The Open Astronomy Journal Vol. 3, pages 126-144, 2010
New Advances in Physics, Vol. 4, pages 18-41 (2010)
Sankata Printing Press, Nepal (2011)
Italian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics, Vol. 31, pages 239-254 (2013)
Journal of computational methods in sciences and engineering (JCMSE), 13 (2013) 37-50
Italian Journal of Pure and Applied Mathematics Vol. 31, pages 239-254 (2013)
Clifford Analysis, Clifford algebras and their applications." Vol. 3, 2014,pages 1-26
Journal of Computational Methods in Sciences and Engineering Vol. 14, pp 405-415 (2014)
Clifford Analysis, Clifford Algebras and their Applications Vol. 3, pages 1-26, (2014)
Foundation of Chemistry, DOI 10.1007/s10698-015-9218-z (March 24, 2015)
Generalized Lie Theory and Applications Vol. 9, 230-235 (2015)
Clifford Algebras and their Applications (2017)
Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona, March 8-10, 2010
Journal of Generalized Lie Theories, in pores (2017)

Post 7.
Hackers mask their location, so how does one know if the hackers were really located in Tel Aviv? Lre99pp

Post 8.
I believe that the originators of the clear, conspiracy that prompted the lawsuit, namely, Steven Weinberg, Shelly Glashow, Sidney Coleman, Herman Feshback, Arthur Rubin, David Epstein, Mark Bernstein, Joseph Calo, Frank Israel, Robert Brown, etc. and their affiliates in all physics departments around the world, are very dishonest and anti-American people without any sense of shame, just pure greed for their interests on Einstein. In fact, they have attacked for about half a century without any provocation via vulgar slander on personal scientific and industrial grounds a senior American scientist of the caliper of SIR Ruggero Maria Santilli ( Prof. R. M. Santilli Biographical Notes and the Full Curriculum)) for his "surpassing ofd Einstein at the mathematical, theoretical and experikmental levels while not being a member of their ring." Since the information is intentionally suppressed the Wikipedia Article" and in other sources, we proudly recall that, besides the long list of awards available in his Biographical notes, Prof. Santilli was knighted in September 2011 by the Republic of San Marino with the m membership in the millenary Equestrian Order of Sant'Agata (see the Documentation of Prof. santilli's Awards) Mnd34as

Post 9.
I hope and expect that your lawsuit will fail and that you will stop sending your spam emails to me and others. Aqq55oo

Post 10.
Yes, Aqq55oo, it is quite possible that the Santilli's will lose their lawsuit against Frank Israel and Pepijin van Erp because in America there are no laws against defamation. However, you will not like to know that the filing per se has already proved the existence of a conspiracy by your ring against new advances beyond Einstein. Also, it will make you even more unhappy to know that irate investors of Santilli's technologies have offered money for the continuation of the lawsuit in Europe where there are indeed strict laws against defamation. Wd73ge

Post 11.
Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington of the U. S. Federal Court, Middle District of Florida, denied this afternoon, March 22, 2018, the motion to dismiss the defendant Frank Israel as well as the separate motion for dismiss of the entire lawsuit by defendant Pepin van Erp, see Docket 067 in the Public records

Post 12.
The Santilli should file a strong complain at the American Bar Association against the defendants' attorney James J. McGuire (601 South Boulevard, Tampa, Florida 33606) for unethical conduct because his public pleadings constitute serious slander against Prof R. M. Santilli since they contain defaming claims disputed by known evidence. Here is an example. At the international conference ICNPAA 2016, held at the University of La Rochelle, France, on July 4 to 9, 2016, Prof. Santilli delivered an invited plenary lecture on his mathematical, theoretical and industrial advances, not for the conditions conceived by Einstein (known as exterior problems of point particles in vacuum), but for conditions beyond those known at Einstein;'s time (known as interior problems of extended particles within physical media), see the scientific paper on the lecture

R. M. Santilli "An introduction to the new sciences for a new era," Invited paper, SIPS 2016, Hainan Island, China Clifford Analysis, Clifford Algebras and their Applications (Cambridge, UK), Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-119, 2017
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/new-sciences-new-era.pdf

Following the predictable success of this plenary lecture due, Prof. Santilli received during the banquet of the conference the following Scientific Award which, as one can see, is signed by all three organizers

Due to its importance and academic origin, this award proved the vicious character of the slanderous attacks against Prof., Santilli by the organized international conspiracy against the :surpassing of Einstein's theories clearly established by this lawsuit and by preceding posts. In order to implement the mandate received from Arthur Rubin, David Ep[stein and Mark Bernstein (editor of the slanderous Wikipedia "Article" on Prof. Santilli, see preceding posts) the defendant Frank Israel published in the Website of the Dutch Skeptic Society
the following vicious statement against Prof. Santilli.

Shenanegans by Ruggero Santilli: - "To most people it will be clear that this award was instigated by Mr. S. himself and that he just asked his co-worker Georgiev to organize the signatures. There is a clue that this piece of paper was doctored at the offices of Mr. S.: the filename of the picture is 'TARPON_2.jpg', which points to the address of his business (1444 Rainville Road, Tarpon Springs, Florida). I'm sure that these are just two more events we can add to the long list of fringe activities on Santilli's curriculum vitae."

which statement was then reproduced by the paid mercenary in scientific crimes, the defendant Pepijn van Erp in his defaming websites in English, French, German and Italian (See the list ion Post 2) and used in its integrity by attorney McGuire in its public pleading (see Docket 064). The problem for Israel, van Erp, Rubin, Epstein, Bernstein, McGuire and their affiliates is that, per public knowledge in the Website of the 2016 ICNPAA Conference, the News of the R. M. Santilli Foundation, and other public releases, the Scientific Award was granted to Prof. Santilli (and other distinguished scientists) during the banquet of the meeting under the presence of all three organizers, as documented by the following pictures and numerous other by the participants

The manifest impossibility for Prof. santilli to fake his La Rochelle Scientific Award and show it in the presence of the organizers establishes the violation of the Ethical Rules of the American Bar Association by attorney James J. McGuire for which he should be kept accountable. The remaining public pleadings by McGuire are full of similar reproductions of defaming claims by the defendants without any documentary support, thus confirming the intentional slander of Prof. Santilli, and ensuing unethical conduct.

As an additional evidence of the existence of the "international, organized, scientific crime on Einstein," one should know that, per their admission, Frank Israel and Pepijn van Erp asked assistance to discredit Prof. Santilli's Scientific Award to Robert Brown, then president of the American Institute of Physics (AIP), who in turn requested in writing to the organizers of the La Rochelle conference the removal of the AIP name in the list of sponsors -specifically and solely 0- for Prof. Santilli scientific award, which request was flatly denied by the organizers. How long can America survive as an advanced technological civilization under the one century old dominance of this "organized scientific crime on Einstein"? Prof. and Mrs. Santilli have been the sole Americans to date who had the courage of confronting this "organized scientific crime" to serve America against their own interests. How about you, reader? Are you a member of this "organized scientific crime on Einstein" or an accomplice by silence? Please disprove this gloomy scenario and express your views. Zwe290ys

Post 13.
I wonder who is footing the substantial costs of a lawsuit in the U. S. Federal Court since Israel and van Erp are known to be little people with limited income? Bse22ytu

Post 14.
I heard that the defendants bills are paid by a certain attorney Kim White from California in apparent support of the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.

Post 15.
It appears that White's brain is not clicking wright since the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitutions solely applies to U.S. citizens. The defendants are European citizens under strict European laws prohibiting slander and defamation that are smply non-existing in the U.S.A..

Post 16.
I heard that White is merely channeling to McGuire US taxpayer money secured via a fake appointment of Israel as part of an NSF research grant. I wonder whether somebody can check this out. Lre88as

Post 17.
But then, who is footing the bills for the Santillis?Bdsd23ui

Apparently, a N. Y. investor who has been really p... op... by Israel and van Erp for his substantial losses in stock (see Post 2) has offered to the Santillis all necessary funds to continue the lawsuit in Europe. I assume the Santillis are footing the bills for the lawsuit in U. S. Federal Court. Cwe70mn

Post 18.
In the event confirmed, I would be outraged at the fact that American money is used to foot the bills for foreigners to interfere in our lives in the vicious way documented in Post 12. Zwe57io

Post 19.
I very seriously doubt that Santilli has been the only scientist to feel the wrath of the organized interests on Einstein's theories, because the list is extremely long, Here are the better known cases.
Fritz Zwicky,
The Swiss author of the 1929 hypothesis of Tired Light, was fiercely attacked by the German speaking members of the organization because his hypothesis implied the possibility of changing the frequency of light during flight - which is in gross violation of Einsteins special relativity. There are even rumors in Europe that his better-half was also under attack by other wives from the organization. Under such combined pressure, he caved in a condition to remain in academia at the time (1930's) and dismissed his hypothesis of tired light, although he died without accepting the hyperbola of the expansion of the universe.
Martin Fleischmann and Stanley Pons
The authors of the 1990 tentative and well presented announcement of apparent nuclear fusions at ambient temperature, were accused of "fraud" at CNN by Herman Feshback the morning after their cautious scientific announcement, the reason being were said fusions were known to violate Einstein's special relativity and quantum mechanics (relativistic quantum mechanics). The attacks were so extreme and prejudiced that both Englishman and Pons were forced to leave America and move to Germany where they continued their study.
Halton Arp,
The experimental astrophysicist at Harvard University, who discovered quasars physically attached to galaxies while their respective cosmological redshifts are dramatically different. He was approached by Irving Shapiro, Sidney Coleman and other physicist at Harvard who requested him to publish a paper of dismissal of his discovery because Arps' pair are clear experiments of verification of the lack of expansion of the universe, with consequential lack of validity in cosmology of Einstein special relativity. Arp refused to comply and, even though he was the recipient of a substantial governmental grant, he was unable to locate an academic position anywhere in the US, thus being forced to move with his family to Germany where he continued his studies. To really understand the capillary character and criminal intent of the organization, one should know that Arp was refused access to any astrophysics laboratory anywhere in the world.
Eugene Mallove,
A physicist who left MIT because of apparent fraud in the local repetition of the experiment by Fleishmann and Pons, created the magazine Infinite Energy, and conducted a relentless attack for ethical misconduct in the MIT Physics department. Mallove was murdered in 2004 under very mysterious circumstances. The person that has been accused as the originator of the murder, continues his claim to be innocent (of course) and both the judge and the prosecutors have been identified as members of the organization.
Ruggero Maria Santilli,
An Italian-American physicist who conducted a traditional academic lift by publishing in the journals of various physical societies, until he landed a position at Harvard University under DOE support with the the request of developing quantitative treatment of irreversible processes, for the first time ever, including most importantly, all energy releasing forms. Santilli felt immediately the wart of the organization at Harvard that kept him without a salary from his own grant for an entire year, even though he had a family with two young children to attend and barely managed to survive with unemployment benefits. The rest of the study is reviewed in Post 2 of this blog. The problem for the organization is that, unlike preceding dissident physicists, Santilli loved America too much and decided to stay. This was extremely disturbing for the organization that, continuously increased the attacks against Santilli to inexaplicable extremes of human and scientific misconduct that eventually lead to this lawsuit. To really understand the criminal conduct and character of the organization one should know that, in view of his continuation of research beyond Einstein, Santilli has been the victim of various life threats for decades, see for instance the denunciation released by Santilli's supporters following the vicious attacks reported in Post 12 Documentation of life threats to Prof. Santilli which threats have been periodically reported to the FBI. So santilli is life his life with CIA type of recording equipment in his dress and car., all this happening in the United States of America while members of the organization are praised and hailed at all levels of society. What an evil and anti-American support! Fwqw40yu

Post 20.
Is there any way to stop this feud between Santilli an "organized interests on Eoinstein"? Caw11pp

Post 20.
Caw11pp, the resolution of the feud you indicate is quite simple: organized interests on Einstein should stop attacking Santilli. Then he would have no reason to respond, and he never initiated attacks in any case. Gre24uo

Post 20.
I visited Harvard in 1978 as a prospective incoming physics graduate student, where I met with Shelly Glashow and Sidney Coleman. I was later to work with Steve Weinberg as a graduate student. I am not at all surprised by these reports of their poor behavior. My impression of both Glashow and Weinberg is that they were socially immature, and arrogant. I was personally bullied by them to differing degrees. I felt these two were politically unsophisticated, but I suspect claims of behaviors of this kind are much more likely to have originated with John A. Wheeler, a mentor of Weinberg's, and of whose background, motivations, and means I am well acquainted. John Wheeler was a savvy, effective political operative who managed departments, politics and money. Wheeler's reputation hinged entirely on Einstein's relativity, and Wheeler knew how to cover his own tracks. Compared to the political sophistication of Dr. Wheeler -- a close friend of Nixon and Kissinger - - Drs. W einberg and Glashow were naive agents. Qew36ou

Post 21.
Qew36ou should be praised for his dignity and courage, but his pPst 20 needs clarifications.The "immaturity" of Weinberg and Glashow can be cleaned solely when they deal with us "gentiles" (meaning "inferior" in Hebrew as thought since childhood in Synagogues). When dealing with their brothers, they were great! I remember vividly that, when I was at Harvard in the early 1980s dreaming for a physics position there, Weinberg, Glashow and Coleman provided an incredible organized support of Refuse-nick physicists from Russia under fake claim of persecution in their land. All these Refuse-nicks all find an academic job on arrival, while we American physicists were cut out. The discrimination again qualified American physicists reached truly offensive overtones with of seminars at Harvard from these Refuse-nicks. I attended one of them and was shocked to see local physicists strongly applauding statements by these speakers that, for a seminar at Harvard, are like 2 + 2 = 4. The applauses were then used for confirming the pre-set academic jobs, I though I was having a nightmare, but the organized nation-wide discrimination of highly qualified American scientists in favor of semi- illiterate Refuse-nicks grew to the point that I left Harvard in a state of great disappointment and revulsion. Bq[-2rt

Post 22.
From Post 2: "The vicious attacks in corporate blogs by Frank Israel and Pepijin (sic) van Erp have been so organized, relentless and vulgar to cause millions of dollars of losses in the value of the stock owned by tens of thousands of stockholders (see the sworn Affidavits of corporate officers in the attachments of indicated first filing)" I have examined the filing and attachments. No such Affadavit(s), sworn or otherwise, exist. Vsa45uo, please explain this inconsistency. Mmm33tt

Post 23.
Hello , the motion with the two Affidavits I indicated at the end is at the top of the list of public documents,
http://www.galileoprincipia.org/Lawsuit-against-Frank-Israel-and-Pepijn-van-Erp/0%20Doc.%20064%20P%20Motion%20Preliminary%20Injunction%20.pdf
I am told that the two executives have already been interrogated by the defendant attorneys and provided evidence of large financial losses caused to thousands of stockholders of two U. S. public companies by Frank Israel and his associates. I understand hat particular emphasis has emerged on the fact that we are dealing with foreigners causing the assassination of undesired research in the United States of America. Vsa45uo

Post 24.
I believe that the slanderous attacks of Santilli's research by Frank Israel and his associates of the Dutch Skeptic Society, done via illegal SEO techniques assuring their appearance at the top under Google searches, constitute one of the darkest moments of science for the evident reason that said attacks have propagated throughout the scientific community, by therefore assassinating at birth any desire to pursue basically new scientific knowledge. The dishonesty by Frank Israel and his associates is easily proved by the fact that, for instance, they supports the search for dark matter and dark energy even though considered fake sciences (see Section III.4 and III.5 of Debate on Cosmology) because they are compatible with Einstein theories, while they attack as fraud Santilli's search for antimatter galaxies because violating said theories. This gloomy scenario is reinforced by evidence apparently gathered by an investigative agency according to which Frank Israel and his Skeptic Society acted under a mandate from Arthur Rubin, David Epstein, and Mark Bernstein at Wikipedia-Google complex in support of their slanderous "Article" on Santilli to prevent the acceptance of his broadening of Einstein theories. As it was the case for the Roman Empire, I fear that the United States of America have lost their world leadership at its peak because Americans have permitted the "organized cartel on Einstein and its liberal associates to achieve control of academia, news media, the U. S. President (including President Trump of lately), The U. S. Congress, the Federal Reserve and the Nobel Foundation. Said control is then used for dictatorial, anti-American aims against the hosting society, as it happened five centuries ago in Spain, one century ago in Germany, ago, in the U.S.A with the Manhattan Project that resulted in the biggest blunder of the judicial systems because the messengers of the treason (the Rosenberggs) were caught, convicted, prosecuted and executed, but the real perpetrators of the passing the atomic bomb secrets to their brothers in Russia (the physicists of the Manhattan Project) were never prosecuted !, Ruggero and Carla Santilli have been the sole Americans I know to date who have opposed the conduction of science by the organized cartel on Einstein via slander and defamation. Other Americans in academia and elsewhere, have supinely accepted the systematic assassination of scientific democracy either because of illusory gains, or because of complicity via silence. But then, it is written in history that people have the institutions they want or deserve. Nds23io

Post 25.
I understand that the Santillis have been deposed. Can anybody report the outcome? I am particularly interested to knwo possible evidence of this blatant conspiracy against them. Bds23yo

Post 26.
Bds23yo (Post w6), we are trying to secure the public pleadings of the case. The Editorial Board (5.-5-18)<\p><\p>

Post 27.
Plaintiff's motion for temporary injunction of Frank Israel and Pepijin van Erp
http://www.galileoprincipia.org/Lawsuit-against-Frank-Israel-and-Pepijn-van-Erp/0%20Doc.%20064%20P%20Motion%20Preliminary%20Injunction%20.pdf
U. S. Magistrate Mark A. Pizzo allows foreign slander of U. S. research for National Security
http://www.galileoprincipia.org/Lawsuit-against-Frank-Israel-and-Pepijn-van-Erp/Doc. 071 Report & Recommendation Deny Mtn Injunction.pdf
Objections by Prof. and Mrs. Santilli's attorney Joseph Parrish
http://www.galileoprincipia.org/Lawsuit-against-Frank-Israel-and-Pepijn-van-Erp/Doc. 072 P Objection to R&R.pdf
Judge V. M. H. Covington's adoption oc Magistrate Pizzo recommendation
http://www.galileoprincipia.org/Lawsuit-against-Frank-Israel-and-Pepijn-van-Erp/Doc. 074 Order Granting R&R and Denying P Mtn for Injunction .pdf
Awe87we (5-11-18)

Post 28.
Chapeau to the Santillli's for fighting the good fight against the abuse of the First Amendment of the US Constitution by a blogger! After reading carefully all the documents, it seems that a bogger from the Netherlands is allowed to damage the business of a scientist from Florida who has created two publicly traded companies that are benefitting the economy of Florida and giving jobs to many Florida families. Question:What have Pepijn van Erp and Frank Israel done for us? War67ort

Post 29.
Who cares about the scientifically illiterate Pepijin van Erp who, at 46 years of age, has been unable to complete his degree and writes about Crop Circles, Coriolis Effect in Uganda, Pigs Diarrhea and calls himself a member of the Skeptics. In my book Skeptics (with capital S) are Michael Sherman, John Horgan and those who have the intellect and the education to debate issues that have merit in society and stimulate discussion and questions about important themes. Frank Israel is in the same league of our lying blogger Pepijn when as chairman of the Sticking Skepsis hides behind the English website of Pepijn van . Vsd34ap

Post 30.
Post 25/Post 25, what "conspiracy" are you mumbling about? I see none. Daw22oo

Post 31.
Lre88as/Post 15 states "The defendants are European citizens under strict European laws prohibiting slander and defamation that are simply non-existing in the U.S.A." (Post 15) Irrelevant. The suit is being brought in the US, and US laws and standards apply. Why would you think or suggest otherwise? Feo22vb

Post 32.
Feo22vb/Post 31 is daydreaming like most of his friends and could not care less for scientific democracy for qualified inquiries in the U.S.A. and only care for their asocial ethnic interests. Prof.. and Mrs. Santilli are also EC Citizens, have already selected a strong European Law ffirm, and are in the process of filing additional legal action against the paid mercenaries Frank Israel and Pepijin van Erp, this time, for CRIMINAL VIOLATIONS EUROPEAN LAWS. Swe92gf

Post 33.
Lre88as/Post 30 has doubts on the existence of the conspiracy against Prof. Santilli. But then we should have a record in this blog that Wikipedia commissioned Pepijn van Erp the article against Santilli, starting with HHO saying that he was promoting "water fueled cars" then it went on to Calo's fake article about magnecules ( there is now a US patent on those) and Pepijin van Erp was rewarded with an article on Wikipedia about himself, promoted by another Dutch page controller. At the same time Rubinstein, Epstein and Bernstein, the controllers of Santilli's article in Wikipedia , not happy because Santilli's technology was being commercialized decided to increase the pressure and Pepijn added other slander to the web, obtaining the permission to link his blog website to Wikipedia. Now magistrate Pizzo reads about Santilli in Wikipedia and the loop is closed! If this is not conspiracy, what is it? Forgot: wikipedia and its gang are also paying the attorneys of Pepijn van Erp and Frank Israel. Cse40-gp

Post 33.
Lre88as/Post 30 fakes lack of organized conspiracy against Prof. santilli. In response because of his surpassing of Einstein theories at the mathematical, scientific, and industrial levels. Here is a partial list of people who have organized decades of completely unprovoked slander and defamation of Prof. Santilli discoveries without any technical criticism published in refigured journals for the clear intent ofd exploiting society for immoral ethnic aims against America and mankind:
CAMBRIDGE, MA\ \Steven Weinberg
Sheldon Glashow
Sidney Coleman
Irwing Shapiro
Herman Feshback
Robert Oppenheim
Etc.
WIKIPEDIA
Arthur Rubin
David Epstein
Mark Bernstein
Carrie Weimar
Joseph <. Calo
T Frank Israel
etc.
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF PHYSICS
Robert Brown
Etc.
As one can see, they are all Jews. In the event this is not enough for Lre88as/Post 30 to prove the point despite its documentation all the way to a lawsuit in federal Court, we will gladly provide names of several additional with a documentation of their individual misconduct as well as of their coordination, plus a report from a specialized Investigative Agency in academic corruption. csd23pu

Post 34.
released appeared on May 16, 2018, in the PRWEB NEWSWIRE
http://www.briefingwire.com/pr/foreign-slander-of-research-for-national-security-under-public-support-allowed-by-us-federal-court

Foreign Slander of Advanced Research for National Security Under Public Financial Support Allowed by U. S. Federal Court

Palm Harbor, Florida, May 16, 2018. The U. S. scientist Ruggero M. Santilli and his wife Carla Santilli have filed in the U. S. Federal Court, the Middle District of Tampa, a lawsuit against Frank Israel, Pepijn van Erp et al, from The Netherlands, for years of unprovoked, slander and defamation, at the personal, scientific and industrial levels,

Prof. Santilli's defamed new technologies have direct relevance for our National Security. The technologies were initiated in the early 1980's when Prof. Santilli was a member of the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University under DOE support, continued from 2007 to 2014 under support by a U. S. company publicly traded at NASDAQ with the symbol MNGA and, then supported from 2013 on by another U. S. publicly traded company under the symbol TNRG. The origin of the defamation is that said new technologies surpass Einstein's theories at the mathematical, scientific, and industrial levels, thus being strongly opposed by "organized academic financial and ethnic interests on Einstein" .

On March 16, 2018, the plaintiff's attorney Joseph Parrish filed a Motion for Temporary Injunction essentially requesting the temporary removal of the name "Santilli" in the URL of the defaming websites. On April 4, 2018, the U. S. Federal Magistrate Mark A. Pizzo filed his Recommendations to the Judge supporting the action by Pepijin van Erp Erp on grounds of the First Amendment. On May 4, 2018, the plaintiff's attorney Joseph Parrish filed a very strong Objection against Magistrate Pizzo Recommendations. On May 9, 2018, the U. S. Federal Judge Virginia M. H. Covington ruled her Acceptance of Magistrate Pizzo's Recommendations . The plaintiffs Prof. and Mrs. Santilli have respected Judge Covington's decision and, in fact, they have decided not to appeal, while preparing to file a new lawsuit in Europe under their joint European Citizenship where the slander and defamation by Pepijn van Erp and Frank Israel constitute violations of criminal laws. For full details, visit the release Foreign Slander of Advanced Research for National Security Under Public Financial Support Allowed by U. S. Federal Court,

The Staff of
The R. M. Santilli Foundation

Post 35.
This release appeared on Mat 16, 2018 in the website
http://scientificethics.org/foreign-slander-0f-national-security.php

Tarpon Springs, Florida, May 15, 2018

Foreign Slander of Advanced Research for National Security Under Public Financial Support Allowed by U. S. Federal Court

Palm Harbor, Florida, May 16, 2018. The U. S. scientist Ruggero M. Santilli and his wife Carla Santilli have filed in the U. S. federal Court, the Middle District of Tampa, a lawsuit against Frank Israel, Pepijn van Erp et al, from The Netherlands, for years of unprovoked, slander and defamation at the personal, scientific and industrial levels of Prof. Santilli's new technologies first initiated in the early 1980's when he was a member of the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University under DOE support, continued from 2007 to 2014 under support by a U. S. company publicly traded at NASDAQ with the symbol MNGA and, then supported from 2013 on by another U. S. publicly traded company under the symbol TNRG.

Prof. Santilli's slandered technologies are of direct relevance for the improvement of our National Security, including: 1) The discovery of new industrial means for the production on demand of neutrons synthesized from the hydrogen gas; known as Directional Neutron Source (DNS); 2) The application at the Defense Threat Reduction Agency of the Department of Defense for the construction of three Nuclear Weapon Detection Stations, one for our Military, one for Israel and one for continued laboratory tests; and cutting edge basically novel military applications; 3) The discovery of a new optical instrument, known as the Santilli telescope, which has initiated the search for antimatter galaxies alongside the search for dark matter and dark energy, as well as detected unknown entities that are invisible to the human eye and to Galileo-type viewers while hovering over civilian, industrial and military installation; and other basically novel military applications.

The above unprovoked, relentless and systematic attacks are the last of a century-old series of attacks for control of science by "organized academic financial and ethnic interests on Einstein" via slander, defamation, life threats as well as alleged murder against any scientist who dared to surpass Einstein while not being a member of the ring, as it is the case for Prof. Santilli's new technologies. The attacks are complemented with the dubbing of "antisemitism" that, when used to opposed scientific research, is an exploitation of the tragic Jewish people history for unethical aim against mankind. The attacks see their organized climax in Wikipedia, whose manipulated scientific positions requires the discreditation of qualified dissident view. According to an Investigative agency, as well as to Wikipedia archives, Arthur Rubin, David Epstein, Mark Bernstein and their associate controllers of Prof. Santilli's "Article" have organized all criticisms on Prof. Santilli's research quoted in that article while opposing the quotation of qualified confirmatory papers published at high level refereed journals; have commissioned their friend Frank Israel and Pepijn van Erp to implement a massive campaign of defamation in support of the content of said "Article" and are paying the cost of the ongoing lawsuits via California members of their ring.

As a further illustration of the fact that Wikipedia is the darkest shadow on the otherwise beautiful history of American science, we should note that Wikipedia controllers Arthur Rubin, David Epstein and Mark Bernstein commissioned the "engineer" Joseph P. Calo of Brown University to write a slanderous paper of non-technical criticisms of Santilli magnecules that caused untold financial damaged to the stockholders of the NASDAQ company MNGA developing the new chemical species. The dishonesty of Arthur Rubin, David Epstein and Mask Bernstein is then proved beyond "credible" doubt by the fact that they have systematically refused to quote Prof.Santilli U. S. patent on magnecules requiring a post Ph. D. knowledge in chemistry, for the evident reason that its listing would uncover their scheme against America in support of their sinister interests. In addition, in order achieve credibility of their scheme, Arthur Rubin, David Epstein and Mark Bernstein granted to the mercenary, scientifically illiterate blogger Pepijin van Erp a full "article" in Wikipedia in violation of the notability rule of Wikipedia itself, as stated by several contributors. Finally, it should be noted that, thanks to the necessary approval of their "friends" at Google, Arthur Rubin, David Epstein and Mark Bernstein have provided an anchor to Frank Israel and Pepijin van Erp slanderous websites which anchor is the sole "credible" mean to assure that said websites appear immediately following Prof. Santilli's "Article" in Wikipedia years after years. The lawsuit here treated was eventually mandated by the latter Wikipedia-Google abuse.

The known reason for all these attacks is that Prof. Santilli's new technologies surpass Einstein at the mathematical, scientific, and industrial levels to treat new conditions simply unthinkable during Einstein's time, thus explaining the decades of relentless, organized obstructions on a world wide basis. By noting that there is no hope of securing any financial compensation from The Netherlands, Prof. and Mrs. Santilli have acted as True Americans by filing the lawsuit to attract attention on the fact that, following one century of ill-fated tolerance, "organized academic, financial and ethnic interest on Einstein" are now threatening the future of America in its most vital part, the development of new technologies, let alone threatening its National Security.

On March 16, 2018, the plaintiff's attorney Joseph Parrish filed a Motion for Temporary Injunction merely requesting the removal of the name "Santilli" in the URL of defaming websites on grounds that such a removal would not damage them. Besides waste documentation, the Motion also presented the sworn testimony by Scott Tadsen on the financial losses caused by Frank Israel and Pepijn van Erp to thousands of stockholder of the Nasdaq public-traded company, please see the sworn testimony by Scott Wainwright on the impossibility of funding under said barrage of slander, The OTC Markets public-traded company for the continued development of the above technologies of national relevance. On April 4, 2018, the U. S. Federal Magistrate Mark A. Pizzo filed his Recommendations to the Judge supporting the slander and defamation by Pepijin van Erp Erp on grounds of the First Amendment, while quoting a "scientist" a blogger who never started any graduate school, and ignoring fifty years of advanced research by Prof. Santilli at the highest institutions around the world including oblivion on his numerous awards, such as him Pro. Santilli being Knighted with the Title of Sir. On May 4, 2018, the plaintiff's attorney Joseph Parrish filed a very strong Objection against Magistrate Pizzo Recommendations. presenting a quite scholar distinction between the legitimate use of the First Amendment and the damage caused by its abuses to individual U. S. citizens as well as to America. On May 9, 2018, the U. S. Federal Judge Virginia M. H. Covington ruled her Acceptance of Magistrate Pizzo's Recommendations . The plaintiffs Prof. and Mrs. Santilli have respected Judge Covington's decision and, in fact, they have decided not to appeal, while preparing to file a new lawsuit in Europe under their joint European Citizenship where the slander and defamation by Pepijn van Erp and Frank Israel constitute violations of criminal laws.

Post 36.
Following the shocking Post 35, I did read Magistrate Pizzo's Recommendations to the Judge Virginia M. H. Covington and I found them astonishing because the CV is very prominent in the internet as well as the indication of Pepijn van Erp as a low rate blogger. . ..... Casd46pg

Post 37.
The ruling by Federal Judge Virginia M. H. Covington is totally legitimate and fully predictable. It appears that the Santilli did not understand the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution. Daw22ii

Post 38.
Rulings by federal Judges should be respected. Yet, the denial by Judge Virginia M. H. Covington of Attorney Joseph Parrish motion for the "temporary" removal of the name "Santilli": in the defaming posts is questionable because such a temporary removal would clearly cause no hardship to Frank Israel and Pepijin van Erp, while the damage to Santilli's technologies for our national security which are creating jobs in Florida is simply undeniable. It is also clear that these foreign defenders are abusing the First Amendment. Xda56wp

Post 39.
Lre88as/Post 30 mut be kidding. The incontrovertible evidence of the conspiracy against Prof. Santilli is that Arthur Rubin, David Epstein, Mark Bernstein are paying for the cost of foreign slander. Dsa35py/

?

Post 40.
Prof. R. M. Santilli has been knighted with the title of Sir on May 31, 2018, by the President of Italy Sergio Mattarella at a ceremony organized by the Miami Consolato Italianop http://www.santilli-foundation.org/santilli-knighted-by-italian-president.php. This is the second time Prof. Santilli is knighted with the title of Sir, the first time occurred on September 6, 2011, by the Republic of San Marino http://santilli-foundation.org/santilli-nobel-nominations.html What a difference with the U. S. Federal Magistrate Mark A. Pizzo and KJudge Virginia M. H. Covington who have allowed slander and defamation of Prof. Santilli's research despite its relevance for national security http://scientificethics.org/foreign-slander-0f-national-security.php

Post 41.
The case document list has become out of date. Items 77,78 and 79 have been produced. Item 77, attached, provides some remarkable details. This is a Motion to Dismiss by van Erp, and it references depositions by both Ruggero and Carla Santilli. RM Santilli's deposition was apparently pretty heroic, as page numbers quoted in the MTD run to nearly 300.

b nThe depositions themselves have not been released, and if the claims in the MTD are any indication such release will be fought tooth and nail by the plaintiffs. Since the depositions themselves are available to the court, it seems most unlikely that the claims in the MTD are other than factual representations of deposition statements. Under oath, the Santillis have apparently made the following admissions:

1) J.V. Kadeisvilli, rather than being a long-time collaborator whom Santilli met at Harvard, may or may not have existed. Certainly RM Santilli never met him in person (despite claims otherwise) or spoke to him on the telephone. Since, as van Erp has stated, many of Kadeisvilli's emails originated on Santilli's laptop, the likelihood of Kadeisvilli being anything other than a fabrication of Santilli seems remote.

2) The International Committee on Scientific Ethics and Accountability ( http://www.scientificethics.org), supposedly headed by Luca Petronio, was actually founded by Santilli, and the domain registration in the name of Petronio uses Santilli's cell phone number. While not definitive, this strongly suggests that Petronio is also a fictitious identity used by Santilli.

3) RM Santilli claims complete control of Thunder Energies. Thunder Energies has released at least one press release (http://www.prweb.com/releases/2015/01/prweb12448979.htm) under the byline of Pamela Fleming, who worked as a secretary for Santilli twenty years ago. Fleming was identified as Executive Vice President of Thunder Energies, despite not having worked for Santilli in over a decade..

4) Santilli published numerous articles in the American Journal of Modern Physics, published by the Science Publishing Group, despite Carla Santilli's statement that "Everybody has called [Science Publishing Group] a scam,". This does not reflect well on Santilli's claims to be a serious scientist.

5) Carla Santilli admitted to using false names to contribute to Wikipedia and to van Erp's blog.

With no way of knowing how many other damaging admissions Santilli made in deposition, any trial is likely to feature a major attack on Santilli's honesty and credibility.

EDITORIAL NOTE: The above message has been received via email at our e-address listed at the top of this website under the name of "James Martin"

Post 42.
Arthur Rubin and his ring[[ the Wiki editor of Santilli's "Article", alias "James Martin" ]] states (Post 41) With no way of knowing how many other damaging admissions Santilli made in deposition, any trial is likely to feature a major attack on Santilli's honesty and credibility. I am afraid Rubin is draydreaming. The reputation of a scientist is established by his scientific publications and not by the dishonest twistings by Rubin's attorney Lake, or by Rubin's paid mercenaries, Lying and Cheating of Pepijn van Erp and Frank Israel. The reality Rubin and his friends have to face is that the documentation in the ongoing lawsuit of forty years of unprovoked attacks against Santilli's science via slander and defamation without serious technical criticism, has justly damaged the credibility of the Jewish physics community. The trial in front of a jury is expected to provide the final evidence of the century old exploitation of science by organized Jewish interests to maintain Einstein's theories under conditions they do not belong. Ass54yp

Post 43.
The dispute underlying the lawsuit is rather clear. When he was in the faculty of Harvard University under DOE support, Santilli's studies confirmed the validity of Einstein's special relativity under the conditions stated by Einstein (point particles moving in empty space), but identified the "inapplicability" ("and not the violation" in his words) of special relativity under a number of broader conditions, including: extended and hyperdense protons and neutrons inside nuclei and stars; time irreversible nuclear reactions; energy releasing processes; and other conditions. This scientific evidence was sufficiently established in Santilli's 1984 book he wrote after leaving Harvard and scientific papers quoted therein, 2008 update of "Il Grande Grido" and confirmed beyond doubt in subsequent works, see Summary of Santilli's Works I must regrettably agree with Ass54yp (Post 42) to the effect that forty years of clearly organized opposition to these studies has seriously damaged the Jewish physics community because it is written in history that all theories are sooner or later surpassed by new theories, and this is the fate also for Einstein's theories. By keeping in mind the well known fact that Einstein's theories are fully reversible over time, particularly damaging to the Jewish physics community is the fact established by Santilli in the above quoted works that a suitable broadening of Einstein's theories for irreversible conditions is necessary for any consistent description of much needed new clean energies. As shown by by "James Martin," (Post 41) it is unfortunate for the Jewish physics community to have elected the continuation of opposition to basic advances via personal slander and attacks of a senior, highly qualified scientist, knighted twice by formal governmental institutions

Post 44.
Post 41 is made clearly by one of Pepijn Van Erp and Frank Israel group, or by one of those who are paying for their lawsuit. In fact the writer who says that is James Martin has learned pretty well their way of lying and deceiving. He says nothing of relevance or certainty, however leaves the readers with the impression that the Santilli's are deceitful and dishonest, but if one reads carefully, he says nothing that could be used against the Santilli in a court of law as he provides no proof, no certainty just allegation that cannot be proven. Gwe20tk

Post 45.
James Martin (Post 41), where is the meat of your attacks against Santilli? You state: "Carla Santilli admitted to using false names to contribute to Wikipedia and to Van Erp's blog." But everybody i uses an alias at Wikipedia. So, where is the meat besides your evident scheme and scam against a senior American scientist with such an unimpeachable reputation ? Zds40ty

Post 46.
Message: Now this is a question for James Martin: why do you do not give in your post the names of people who use their real name in the Pepijn van Erp's Blog, or in Wikipedia.? There are none of course, so why if Carla Santilli uses a pseudonym, you says that she uses FALSE ?names? To suggest that she is a false and dishonest person? If this is written in the MTD than it shows that the attorney of Pepijn and Israel has no better arguments and this proves my point! Lying and cheating !. Fwe39yu

Post 47
Jewish people are known to be very smart. Yet it escapes my comprehension the fact that they do not see the huge self-imposed damage they cause to themselves when using for their schemes paid mercenaries such as Lying and Cheating of Pepijn van Erp and Frank Israel. Zwi30yp

Post 48.
Message: So much for anonymity. Can you please update the other long messages (which must have also been received by email) to include the authors' names? Or does the stated "possibility of expressing comments in an anonymous way" only apply to Santilli supporters? This would not surprise me, but if it is the policy of this site it should be clearly stated. EDITORIAL NOTE: The name "James Martin" was released because it appeared to be an evident alias. In case we are wrong we apologize. No additional name will be released from future emails unless authorized, although full anonymity is assumed when using the mailbox.

Post 49.
Ass54yp - Your response is predicated on an entirely false premise. James Martin (me) has never met any person involved with the trial or Santilli's claims. Santilli and I were at MIT for one year in common, but I never met him. And while on the subject of false premises, you should reread the post. All of the claims are based directly on both Santilli's sworn statements. Given that Santilli is the plaintiff in this case, any response can hardly be called "unprovoked". Awe79io

Post 50.
Gwe20tk (Post 44) - says nothing that could be used against the Santilli in a court of law as he provides no proof, no certainty just allegation that cannot be proven." Really? Did you actually read what I wrote? All points are contained in defendant's Motion To Dismiss, and all points reference the Santillis' sworn testimony. Does Gwe20tk believe that the Santilli's testimony cannot be used in a court of law? Is repeating what the Santillis deposed baseless allegation? Very strange.Xwe90io Post $1)

Post 51.
James Martin (Posts 41 and 50), your allegiance to the organized scientific crime is so transparent to be offensive. No judgment on a motion is proffered by serious persons without the joint quotation of the counter-motion (that has yet to be filed in this case!). The hiding of your Jewishness in support of unethical and anti-American conduct by Jewish brothers (Post 35) is equally offensive because it implies that all of us "gentiles" (meaning "inferior" in Hebrew as you have been taught since your childhood) are so stupid not to see it or so wile not to denounce it. In view of such a despicable conduct, I believe that you are not a "Jewish-American" . You are a Jew exploiting America for your evil deeds. Zwe67up

Post 52.
Zwe67up (Post 510 - "You are a Jew exploiting America for your evil deeds." No. Don't think so. I'm a lapsed Episcopalian. The admin, so quick to expose what he felt (with no basis in fact) to be an alias, should also be quick to reject overt anti-semitism. It has no place in a nominally scientific discussion, and no place in polite conversation generally. Zwe56io

Post 53.
Zwi30yp (Ppst 51)- I would be fascinated to read about the lying and cheating of van Erp and Israel. Can you please provide a link which works? Swe57io

Post 54.
This is a question for James Martin (Post 41): why do you do not give in your post the names of people who use their real name in the Pepijn van Erp's Blog". OK. On the "Stupidity of Santilli" example, there is Nathan Schmidt, Pierre Savoy, Frank Stone, Christian Corda, Cosmin Visan, Dana Bridenbaker, Andy Roundtree, Justin Asaya, Sue Johnson. The only likely alias is Smut Clyde, and that's not for sure. There are another half-dozen who only use first names. 2 more are not "real".Ap20qp

Post 55.
Hello Episcopalian friend of Jews, Zwe56io (Post 52). Something is not kicking right in your brain. . You believe that Jews can trow the dirtiest unprovoked words against non-Jewish scientists who should not respond. So you believe that the Jewish people are a superior race and all of us, including you, we have to be all servants. This is perhaps the case in Japan but not in America where we are all equal. Also, according to the Webster dictionary, anti-semitism is an act of hostility or discrimination against "all" Jews on grounds of religion or ethnic nature. Your brain is not clicking right because a just response to "one" Jew, James Martin, does not imply,. by no means, an action against "all" Jews. Therefore, your use of the word "anti-Semitism" is very dishonest. It seems clear you wrote the post in the dream of getting favors from your Jewish friends. Gre57sp

Post 56.
I believe that the Episcopalian friend (Post 52) is a mercenary like van Erp because Jews tend to hide and hire other people for their things. A ,most important case is that of 9-11. Jews hired Giuliani, the New York Mayor of the time, and others for the control of the info released to Americans. A Saudi Prince offered $10M to the victims under the condition that American people knew that all terrorist were Palestinians thrown out of Palestine with temporary asylum from the Saudis. They destroyed our towers in response of our unilateral support for Israel for over half a century in violation of our Constitution. All news media in the U.S.A. identified the terrorist as Saudis. The Saudi prince was so upset that he donated the $10M to Bin Laden. In the event this Episcopalian dubs as antisemitic the citation of the price we have paid for our unilateral support of Israel, he is a traitor and certainly not an American. Zwe67uo

Post 57.
As an American, I was disturbed by Post 52 because the author clearly supports unprovoked slander by Jews of a senior US scientist such as Santilli working on technologies significant for our national security (Post 35), thus implying the consideration of Jews as a superior race in America. He clearly supports the continuation of one century of Jewish control of science via the discreditation of dissidents. He clearly supports the Jewish physicists of the Manhattan project who, after being saved from the Nazis by us, they perpetrated thee biggest treason in our history, by "passing" the secrets of the atomic bombs to their Jewish brothers in Russia. Post 56 treats for the damage we had to sustain for our support of Jews in 9-11. not to mention the countless American lives lost in so many terrorist attacks against our civilization planes, all denouncing the same thing: our excessive support for Israel against other people. I could go on and on and on. .We are all in agreement that the existence of Israel and the respect of clean Jewish actions are sacred because written in the Scripture we all venerate. However, the hysteria of equally supporting blatantly unethically Jewish actions is sick, besides being extremely anti-American. Hsd20ep

Post 58.
Hsd20ep - Please see claim 2 of post 41. If true, it invalidates the basis of your objection. Even if post 35 is valid, the rest of your statement does not follow. At a start, in the Manhattan Project Fuchs was British and had never "been saved" from the Nazis, and the Rosenbloom/Greenglass couples were native-born Americans. And there were no "Jewish brothers" in Russia, either. In all cases, the individuals behaved not as Jews but as Communists, and thus contradict your assertions.Cwe49yo

Post 59.
I am a member of the International Committee for Scientific Ethics and Accountability, and this is my testimonial. The Committee was indeed initiated by Prof. Santilli jointly with the late Prof. Asterios Jannussis of the University of Patras, Greece, Prof. Grigorios Tsagas, Chairman of the Department of Mathematics of Thessaloniki University, Greece Prof. Jaak Lohmus from the Estonia Academy of Science, and others I cannot identify. We organized an international network allowing each of us to access to the website as well as to the email under the name of Luca Petronio as a com,on alias/ As stated in the website and documented, Prof. Santilli left the Committee in 2007 when he acquired the position of CEO of the publicly traded company Magnegas Corporation and, since that time, he has not made contributions I know of, and he has actually complained for a number of articles in the website. . I spoke by phone with Prof. Santilli and he told me that he has stated the above during his de[position recorded by movies. he said that he did not have time to check the very long transcripts. Hence he considers the movies the sole true documentation of his deposition. These are the facts. The rest is the very reason for the existence of our Committee: denounce defamation of Prof. Santilli (and others) for scientific corruption because intended to oppose his research beyond Einstein via personal attacks without any serious technical argument. . Zx35ro Qwe4-yy

Post 60.
Zx35ro Qwe4-yy (post 59) stated, "he (Santilli) said that he did not have time to check the very long transcripts. Hence he considers the movies the sole true documentation of his deposition. These are the facts." If true, you should make every effort to get Santilli to check the transcript. Santilli may consider the "movies" the true documentation, but the court will not, and will decide the case based on the transcripts. Generally, after a transcript has been generated, copies will be sent to each party to the deposition, and they will have a certain amount of time (often 30 days) to submit corrections. After that, the transcript becomes the official record. This fact supersedes Santilli's opinion.

Santilli's position that he "does not have the time" to check the transcripts is mind-boggling. Does he want to win the suit? The only rational motive I can come up with for this attitude is that Santilli is preparing a fall-back position in case of defeat, at which time he can blame it on corrupt transcription. I would rather not think this is the case, but it's the only reason that I can see short of arrogant self-delusion.

Unless Santill wants to lose his suit, he should cease denying reality. For the purposes of his lawsuit, the transcript is the "sole true documentation", and failing to recognize this fact will only cause Santilli problems. Of course, it's entirely possible that it's too late for him to exercise control over the record of his deposition, but if not he should immediately start paying attention. If he has not heard this from his lawyer, he needs a new lawyer, and needs one yesterday. If he has rejected his lawyer's advice on the matter, I'm afraid there's not much anyone can do for him. Xre34yu

Post 61
I am flabbergasted. Post 59 starts, "I am a member of the International Committee for Scientific Ethics and Accountability, and this is my testimonial." Of course, the author remains anonymous and therefor not accountable. Several of the committee (assuming the unaccountable statement is correct) remain unidentified, and a common alias (Petronius) was used to further make accountability by the committee impossible. Does the writer support fornication for chastity? How clueless can a person get? Zse20yt

Post 62
Post 59 states, "As stated in the website and documented, Prof. Santilli left the Committee in 2007". Having examined the website carefully, it is apparent that Santilli's presence on the committee is never stated, nor is any mention made on the website of Santilli's departure. So Post 59 seems to have some difficulties with simple matters of fact. That is, Post 59 is demonstrably untruthful, which does not recommend the author as a source of ethical judgement. Cwe67i p

Post 63
Cwe67i p (pPost 62) makes me puke. After reading in alleged detail the website of Scientific Ethics, he should have volunteered to be a member of the Committee to Oppose the collapse of ethics in science. Instead, he supports the fil... because done by his brothers. Most puking is his lying. After 2007 Sir Santilli kept sending copies of his letter to the Committee with authorization for us to print them. This guy twists this evidence into the claim that Sir Santilli remained a member of the Committee in the dream of dismissing his theories via slander. What a puking fil.... Qdr3-yu

Post 64
Qdr3-yu suggests that Post 62 is "lying". The post stated that Santilli's resignation from the Committee is not stated on the website and is not documented, in direct opposition to the explicit statement made in post 59. Rather than insulting me, Qdr3-yu need only provide a quote from the website to prove me wrong. Qdr-30 has accused me of "lyeing" when I did nothing other than speak the exact truth. If Qdr-30 cannot tell the difference, that is hardly my problem.Cwe67ip

Post 65
Qdr3-yu - Cwe67ip here. I have indeed read in detail the ICSEA web site. 4 letters by S ssantilli prior to 2007 are included in the site documents, but in no case does Santilli identify himself as an ICSEA member. There is no membership list. There is no notice anywhere that Santilli had resigned. This is a matter of objective fact, and Post 59 claimed otherwise as a matter of personal experience. Either he (or she) was mistaken or dishonest. This does not inspire confidence in his other "testimony".

Post 66
As an update to Post 60, Santilli attempted to get the videos of his and his wife's depositions admitted into evidence. After several days he withdrew the attempt. Ner66al

Post 67
Hello Ner66al, you must be a a defendant attorney to get such a private and fake news (Post 66). Hello .Cwe67ip (Post 64) I am surprised you are surprised of the offensive treatment received. You tried to show that Prof. Santilli made a false statement in Court and expect to be resopected??? You have mental problems. Xsd35ewo

Post 68
Hello Xsd35weo - Anybody can get such public and true news. Just join Pacer. That's pacer.psc.uscourts.gov. The case number is 8:17-cv-1797. I'm not responsible for your inadequacy at research, and your inadequacy does not in any way suggest that I am dishonest. Ner66ai

Post 69
Hello, Xsd35ewo - Is English your first language? Post 64 dealt with the ICSEA website and Qdr3-yu's statements on this thread, not court statements by anybody, Santilli or otherwise. In fact, I have assumed that Santilli's court statements about his own actions were true, so far as objective truth goes, since he could be held accountable for them. This does not mean that his beliefs are true. I suggest that you pay more attention in the future.Zwe66hj

Post 70
Zwe66hj - Post 69 et al you are the cheater and liar Pepijin van Erp. Your style and dishonesty are easily recognizable and transparent across the Atlantic. Here is a qualifying pearl Lying and Cheating of Pepijn van Erp and Frank Israel ? Zds40ty. Here is another highly qualifying pearl Pepijin van Erp, One of many subhuman online cheaters from the Benelux area? Zds40ty Does anybody need more to see the the dishonesty and the moral collapse of this man and the reasons why he has been sued by Prof. and Mrs. Santilli ....Jse11ee

Post 71
I have completed my investigation. James Martin / Post 41 plus . is David Epstein, one of the dishonest editors of Prof. Santilli's article in Wikipedia who has managed to access Google money to pay the cost of the lawsuit for his brother Frank Israel in The Netherlands for the attacks he commissioned. What an international "organized scientific crime" assassinating scientific democracy in the U.S.A. ! Xas20yi

Post 72
Post 66 has access to the court document that us, common mortals do not have unless we register with Pacer and leave a credit card deposit Why would anybody go thru all this unless he/she has a vested interest?.It is evident that he is part of the group paying for Israel/Van Erp lawsuit. This is another proof that indeed there is a ring trying to further discredit Santilli.Even if the judge finds in favor of the defendants on the basis of the Freedom of Speech (that is abuse of freedom of speech) the Santilli have won already in the opinion of the many who are honest and objective. Msd39uy

Post 73
Hello Xas20yi (Post 71). You are right. In fact, David Epstein aka James Martin shows knowledge if "private pleadings" that, as such, are not listed in the Court's website and are only available from the defendant attorneys. EWhat a sxam. xwe66pd

Post 74
You are all wasting time trying to knock down Santilli. Just look at the two sides . The defendants are: one is an obscure professor of astronomy with no publications in chemistry or mathematics,another is a blogger, with no job, no graduate education, no profession except being a skeptic writing about pigs diarrhea and crop circles. The plaintiffs instead have to their credit graduate education in two countries, teaching in Italy, Harvard, MIT, Boston University, countless publications in refereed journals, international patents in technologies commercialized in two public companies in USA and Europe, awards in several countries, and most recently in June, 2018 a knighthood with the title of sir by the President of Italy .No matter how hard you try to discredit the Santilli's you will not succeed. The public record of accomplishments cannot be eliminated, no matter how hard you try, that is why I think you are waisting time. Instead you are creating more attention to Santilli's research .Vsd28tyPost 75
Post 72 - Msd39uy commented, "Why would anybody go thru all this unless he/she has a vested interest?" Oh, I don't know. How about because some folk actually want to know what's happening? Because facts are better than speculation? Because truth matters? Of course, none of those apply to Msd39uy - it would be too expensive. Oh, wait. Pacer charges 0.10 dollar US per page. This is obviously far, far too much for Msd39uy. Of course the admin could update the document links, but... Bsd59ui

Post 76
Post 72 - Msd39uy commented, "WPost 71 and 73 - James Martin here. Now I'm not only Jewish, but David Epstein? This will come as a great surprise to my sister the Episcopalian priest. And Sax20yi has conducted an "investigation"? Goodness. How thorough. Did it involve a Ouiji board? How about spirit writing? Did he sacrifice a goat and read the entrails? I'm curious about this. Please explain. You can email an explanation longer than 10 lines to the admin, and he will print it (perhaps even anonymously). I'd love to hear the details.

Post 76
Post 72 & 73. No private knowledge. You are apparently unaware that the documents linked at the top of the page are out of date. Documents 83 and 85 are the Motion for Leave to File and the Notice of Withdrawal, dated 18 June and 22 June. Total cost to download both documents is 40 cents US. How much is truth worth to you? Apparently not 40 cents.Csd24yu

Post 77
James Martin and Pepijin you do have mental problems. Your Erp your "truth" is vulgar slander of Prof. Santilli's refereed post Ph. D. technical publications thus violating European criminal laws

Post 78.

The Threat Posed by the Wikipedia-Google Complex
to Freedom of Information:
Analysis of R. M. Santilli Article

1. The Ruggero and Carla Santilli lawsuit against Frank Israel and Pepijn van Erp
I am a physicist interested in the research by Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli (see Biographical Notes, Full Curriculum, Outline of Works, and Scientific Awards and Nominations) because they are the only really new vistas around. I cannot publish papers in the field to prevent my academic job being slashed, as it was the case for other dissident scientists. According to the Ruggero and Carla Santilli Lawsuit in U. S. Federal Court against Frank Israel and Pepijin van Erp, and according to comments circulating in the academic community, the Santilli's filed the lawsuit because of their conviction that the unprovoked attacks they suffered for years from Frank Israel and Pepijn van Erp had been commissioned by Wikipedia's Editors and their Google associates in support of the disqualification of research in the Wikipedia Article on R. M. Santilli. I must confess that, at first, I was quite skeptic about such a view since Wikipedia and Google appear at first sight to be run very professionally. However, the more I analyzed the Article, investigated the case, and studied Santilli's works, I had to change my mind. The findings of my analysis are outlined below for whatever their value.

2. Heading
As it is well known, the indicated Wikipedia Article begins by calling Santilli's studies as being "fringe" science following the profile by C. Weimar [1] (references in square brackets are those in the Article), and this dubbing has been stubbornly maintained by the Editors since 2007, despite corrections attempted by numerous physicists including myself (anybody doubting this should try to remove the "fringe" dubbing in said Article). Why calling "fringe" research that has been the motivation for important awards, including Prof. Santilli being KNIGHTED twice by different countries, the only scientist I know with a "double title of Sir" (Scientific Awards and Nominations)? I became curious. Weimar called Santilli for an "interview" which he granted under the condition that the interview would deal with his magnegas technology (www.magnegas.com) since, at that time (2007) he was collaborating with associates in Israel to see whether said technology could assist in the Israel Country achieving fuel independence (a task worth pursuing nowadays for the stability of the Middle East). By contrast, Weimar never mentioned the magnegas technology during "interview" [1] which resulted to be a hostile "profile" according to the website Anti-America and anti-Israel conduct by C. Weimar, as well as according to letters of complaint published by the St. Petersburg Times (where profile [1] had been published). Weimar's unprovoked hostility made me more curious, particularly in view of the known allegiance of Wikipedia's Editors, as well as Weimar's herself, to the Country of Israel. I had to know its motivation.

3. Magnecule "theory" (the emphasis on theory is mine)
The sole references quoted at first mentioning "magnegas and magnehydrogen" are commercial websites, such as Refs. [8][9][10]. Later on, there is the citation of one scientific paper, Ref. [15], which, however, is not published in a refereed journal. By comparison, the widely known scientific reference of the new chemical species of magnecules is Santilli's 2001 post, Ph. D. monograph Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry, which is listed in the section of Scientific Publications but it's content is not reviewed. Also missing are independent contributions in the field, such as the review Foundation of Chemistry, DOI 10.1007/s10698-015-9218-z (March 24, 2015) and the experimental verifications The Open Physical Chemistry Journal Vol. 5, 1-16 (2013). The evident disparity between the sole quotation of commercial websites versus post Ph. D. refereed theoretical and experimental publications indicates a very skillful intent by the Wikipedia Editors to portray the impression of reporting the information, while pre-conditioning non-expert readers on an alleged fake character of Santilli's magnecule "theory." Perhaps more insidious is the lack of indication of the main feature of magnecules, namely, that their bond is weaker than the conventional molecular bond as a necessary condition to achieve full combustion (see below).

The skillfully negative presentation becomes more serious for environmental issues by noting the silence in said Article of the chemical anomalies of fuels with Santilli magnecular structure, such as the certification by the City College of New York that magnegas flame temperature is more than double that of any commercially available fuel (see the CCNY Summary report and the CCNY Full report). Equally missing is the chemical analysis by Atlantic Analytic Laboratory that magnegas combustion exhaust have no detectable CO and no appreciable HC, (see Analysis of Magnegas Combustion Exhaust), and other anomalies. The evident reason for these additional omissions is that their quotation would invalidate the editorial intent of pre-conditioning readers on the lack of existence of Santilli magnecules. In fact, any serious chemist would admit that the indicated anomalies are not possible for fuels with conventional molecular structure, while they are fully admitted and quantitatively represented via the new chemical species of magnecule and the related hadronic chemistry thanks to the weak character of the magnecular bond compared to the molecular bond. So, the Wikipedia Editors have achieved their goal of discrediting Santilli for readers non-expert in chemistry, but how about our rapidly deteriorating environment? Is the Editors opposition to scientific advances stronger than the love for their children? At this point of my analysis I still miss the motivation of the scheme.

The new species of magnehydrogen (chemical symbol MH) is mentioned in said Article without the indication of its main characteristics, namely, MH results to be composed by as pure hydrogen as desired under gas chromatography, while its specific weight measured with actual, sensitive scales is a multiple that of H2. The primary (also omitted) reference on MH is Santilli's originating paper Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy 28, 177-196 (2003); Equally missing is the quotation of the experimental verifications of the existence of MH by the Eprida Laboratory in Atlanta, GA, Experimental verification of magnehydrogen; and the additional experimental verification published in the International Journal Hydrogen Energy Vol. 38, page 5002 (2013); not to mention the lack of citation of at least some of the independent papers in this so interesting new field. The indicated omissions are clearly intentional because the quoted scientific references are well known to serious chemists and easily identifiable on the internet. In any case, no serious judgment can be expressed on the anomalies of magnegas and magnehydrogen without the repetition of its experimental measurements.

The second paragraph of the section on Magnecule "Theory" correctly states that Santilli rejects the 20th century notion of valence because "he cannot conceive of a manner in which two same-charged electrons can come together to cause an attractive interaction [16]". (where [16] is a reference to Santilli's CV rather than to one of his papers on the subject). The evident omission is the achievement by Santilli of an attractive force between a pair of identical valence electron in singlet coupling which is so strong to overcome their repulsive Coulomb force. This remarkable achievement is treated in details in Santilli's monograph Foundations of Hadronic Chemistry, including its origination by works done by Santilli at Harvard University in the late 1970's under DOE support. A perhaps more serious intentional omission is the quotation of the fact that Santilli's new notion of "strong valence bond" verifies all experimental data on the hydrogen molecule (see the paper with Donald D. Shillady, Full Professor of Chemistry at Virginia Commonwealth University Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy Vol. 24, pages 943-956 (1999)) and the water molecule (Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy Vol. 25, 173-183 (2000)). What is still unclear to me is the reason for seemingly reputable Wikipedia Editors to suppress such basic information for years and years, while ignoring numerous requests for its listing, of course, under the statement of lack of current general acceptance by the academic community.

An additional evidence causing serious damage to the credibility of the Wikipedia Editors is that they have systematically refused to quote Santilli's patent on magnecules, United States Patent Number 9,700,870, B2, July 1, 2017. In fact there was a suggestion in the "Talk" section of the Article summarizing the patent and suggesting its quotation with no avail. Systematically, "all" listing of this patent in Santilli's article were automatically rejected without the Editors even looking at them. The apparent reason for the lack of quotation is that said patent had to be reported in independent websites. This statement is false since said patent was evidently reported by Magnegas Corporation in various releases, as one can see from an internet search. In any case the lack of credibility of Wikipedia Editors established by the fact that they prefer commercial websites to the website of the United State Patent and Trademark Office!

4. HHO gas
At this Point, Wikipedia's Article on Santilli becomes rather incredible. The section is dedicated to Santilli's HHO gas without the quotation of its scientific origination in the paper Intern. J. Hydrogen Energy 31, 1113 (2006). By contrast, the HHO gas is presented via J. M. Calo's criticism of Santilli's HHO. This is skillfully done to portray, on one side, the impression of reporting the new gas while, on the other side, pre-conditioning non-expert visitors that the gas is fake science. The intention to disqualify the new gas is established by the existence of a number of websites reporting the HHO gas that could have been used by the Editors instead of Calo's stuff, but they were not selected because said websites were supporting the new gas. This clear manipulation of scientific information becomes more serious when noting the lack of quotation of the independent experimental verifications of the main feature of the HHO gas, such, its magnecular stricter, as the verification at the Eprida Laboratory in Atlanta, GA, Experimental verification of magnehydrogen and the additional experimental verification by a group of experimentalists published in the International Journal Hydrogen Energy Vol. 38, page 5002 (2013). So, again, the pertinent questions is WHY the Editors are so keen on reporting criticisms of the HHO gas but oppose to quote its technical origination and readily available experimental verification's of its existence?

The credibility of the Wikipedia Editors is additionally damaged by the following dark aspects of Calo's "criticisms":
      1. Calo is an "engineer," thus not being qualified to express judgment on a new chemical species requiring technical knowledge of new mathematics and chemistry beyond Calo's capabilities.
      2. Santilli's HHO paper is entirely experimental, that is, reporting measurements on the new gas by independent laboratories. As such, the sole credible criticisms has to be done via counter-measurements.
      3. Besides a river of what amount to be insults without technical foundation, Calo intentionally avoids the quotation of the chemical anomalies of the HHO gas, such as the virtually instantaneous melting of bricks at flame contact. The evident reason for the silence is that such an anomaly is outside the capability of quantum chemistry for which the HHO is a simple stochiometric mixture of H2 and O2. By contrast, Santilli provides a quantitative explanation, again, thanks to the weaker character of the magnecular versus the molecular bond.
      4. Wikipedia Editors have systematically refused for years the quotation of Santilli's word-by-word rebuttal of Calo's criticism evidently because that would have allowed visitors the fallacies of Calo's argument, word by word.
      5. Wikipedia Editors have additionally refused to quote the independent review from Sweden Review of Santilli's Hadronic Chemistry on grounds that "the author is a friend of Santilli." But when I look, for instance, at the publication listed by Wikipedia Editors, in the Article on Steven Weinberg, it is easy to see that all editors of the journals were his friends and at times his relatives!
Again and again, WHY have Wikipedia editors abused their credibility to discredit a beautiful new discovery of American science?

5. The exploitation of a dead scientist
Nothing seriously supporting Santilli is accepted by Wikipedia Editors. By contrast, anything damaging his reputation is fully listed in the Article no matter how dubious the origin. This is the case of the exploitation by Wikipedia Editors of the scientist Jerdsay V. Kadeisvili from Georgia (former USSR), who died on January 16, 2013. The record from the lawsuit establishes that van Erp contacted Kadeisvili requesting his CV. Kadeisvili responded requesting van Erp's CV. Van Erp did not answer and Kadeisvili terminated all contacts with him.

The biased character of the Wikipedia reporting is seen from the fact that Kadeisvili's scientific CV has always been easily available on the internet and updated until the time of his death J. V. Kadeisvili Works Additionally, Wikipedia Editors have refused for four years to quote Santilli's eulogy also easily available on the internet with link R. M. Santilli Eulogy of J. V. Kadeisvili evidently because its quotation would uncover the editors' intent to damage Santilli in such a clear violation of Wikipedia rules.

6. The Wikipedia, Frank Israel and Pepijn van Erp Affair
Based on the above evidence, as well as evidence emerged from the Lawsuit Pleadings, I must regrettably agree with Santilli that:
     1. Arthur Rubin, David Epstein, and Mark Bernstein, Editors of the Wikipedia Article on R. M. Santilli commissioned their "friend" Frank Israel, Head of the Dutch Skeptic Society to conduct systematic attacks on Santilli's credibility in support of the discreditation contained in their Article.
      2. Frank Israel initiated the requested attacks against Santilli first in Dutch on the website of the Skeptic Society Stitching Skepsis.
      3. Subsequently,Pepijn van Erp, Frank Israel's associate at the Dutch Skeptic Society, initiated his massive defaming campaign against Santilli at the personal, scientific and industrial levels, via slander and defamation on numerous websites, such as:
http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2016/02/the-continuing-stupidity-of-ruggero-santilli/
http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/articles/finding-jerdsey-v-kadeisvili-or-mailing-withruggero-m-santilli
https://kloptdatwel.nl/search_gcse/?q=Ruggero%20Santilli
http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2016/11/sued-by-ruggero-santilli
http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl/2016/08/santilli-shenanigans
http://www.pepijnvanerp.nl
and in their translations in Dutch, French, German and Italian, and in mirror websites in Italian, French, German and Dutch, the attacks include vulgar and offensive language such as:
"the continuing stupidity...."
"mad professor"
"cunning artist"
"crank"
"junk scientist "
"fringe"
"pyramid scheme company"
"fraud"
"antisemitic"
"pseudo scientist"
"liar"
"fabricating his own awards"
all attacks being without any visible technical content. The Wikipedia commissioning of these vulgar attacks to a senior U. S. scientist with the following achievements and awards (see Biographical Notes, Full Curriculum, and Outline of Works, and the Scientific Awards and Nominations) is confirmed by the fact that van Erp is scientifically illiterate since he never attended any graduate school, besides having a very poor reputation as a person such as Lying and Cheating ofPepijn van Erp and Frank Israel, the additional record Pepijn van Erp Thrown Out of a Chess Tournament for Cheating, and other similar disqualifications. The evidence that Arthur Rubin, David Epstein, and Mark Bernstein commissioned the attacks against Santilli is demonstrated by the fact that to reward Van Erp for all his blog activities against Santilli, they allowed a Wikipedia article about Pepijn van Erp, who is an illiterate, lying and cheating person, with no publications, no independent or notable record, which is against all the notability rules of Wikipedia itself. There are Wikipedia Articles on Pepijn van Erp! How low we Americans have allowed Wikipedia to collapse, no wonder why Wikipedia is losing credibility everyday!

The above negative portraying of the new species of magnecules caused a predictable damage to America and it's image throughout the world. In fact, following such a negative outline in Wikipedia, Santilli was prohibited a presentation of magnehydrogen and its independent experimental verifications at NASA in Florida as well as at the JPL (See the 11-06-2012n letter to Robert Cabana, NASA Director that received a flat rekection). However, one of Santilli's collaborators, A.K. Aringazin from Kazakhstan, is affiliated to the Russian Space Agency which, unlike the American counterpart, is apparently studying the new species of MH due to its enhanced energy output, increased liquefaction temperature and other features important for the space program. In 2016, Santilli was invited by Chinese officers to deliver a plenary lecture on his new fuels with magnecular structure at the World Summit on Environment, held at the Hainan Island, China, see the filming of the lecture SIPS 2016 Plenary Lecture. Santilli's new fuels with magnecular structure are manifestly needed for the increasingly alarming deterioration of our environment. Hence, Wikipedia's disqualification of these new fuels without any technical argument establishes the existence at Wikipedia of serious national problems to be addressed, if we care about our Country.

It seems evident that Santilli's Article has been skillfully written to disqualify the Magnecule "Theory," let alone their existence, even though fuels with magnecular structure are nowadays sold world wide (see website, the U. S. company publicly traded at NASDAQ with the stock symbol MNGA, Magnegas Corporation.) This intentionally negative depiction has caused serious financial damage to thousands of MNGA stockholders, as testified in the sworn Scott Tadsen Affidavit. But the new magnecular bond is at the foundation of the new clean hypercombustion of fossil fuels developed by the second publicly traded U. S. company with stock symbol TNRG, Thunder Energies Corporation of which Santilli is the founder and chief scientist. Hence, Wikipedia Editors have additionally caused serious financial losses to TNRG stockholders, as testified by the second sworn Scott Wainwright Sworn testimonial. The insistent questions emerging stronger and stronger with the deepening of the analysis of Santilli's Article is: WHY? Is this evident hate of Santilli so strong to dwarf evident needs for ethics in the release of scientific information?

7. The Santilli awards that cannot be listed
Another blatant discrimination perpetrated by the Wikipedia Editors is the listing of minute recognition or award to their "friends." They even added a section recording Pepijn van Erp's Voice (how hilarious) but avoid the list of the eleven important awards received by R. Santilli in recognition of his fifty years of dedication to the pursuit of new scientific knowledge despite numerous attempts made by supporters from people all over the world, Santilli's major scientific awards and nominations.

The Editors felt obliged to mention Santilli's 2009 Scientific prize of the Mediterranean Foundation because it is second only to the Nobel Prize, but one of the Editors felt obliged to write in the Talks section of the Article that Santilli had bribed some of his Italian "friends" for that prize. The collapse of ethics at Wikipedia is confirmed by the lack of any indication of the fact that on September 2011 Santilli was knighted with the title of Sir by the Republic of San Marino with the membership in the millenary Equestrian Order of Sant'Agata. In addition, the Wikipedia Editors were immediately informed about the fact that Santilli had been knighted a second time by the President of Italy, Sergio Mattarella, with the membership in the order of "Stella d'Italia" (Star of Italy) despite the defamation and lies promoted by Wikipedia, Frank Israel and Pepijn van Erp in English, Italian, Dutch, German and French languages.

The collapse of ethics by Wikipedia Editors reached its climax with the lack of listing by the Estonian Academy of Science in 1992 (under communist control) of Santilli among the most illustrious applied mathematicians of all times, jointly with illustrious names such as: Karl Friedrik Gauss, William Hamilton, Karl Weierstrass, Arthur Cayley, Sophus Lie, George Frobenius, Henry Poincare', Elie Cartan, Leonard Dickson, Pascual Jordan, Paul Dirac, Adrian Albert, Jay Dynkin, and others (see Scientific Awards and Nominations), for the motivation of such a prestigious listing. It should be reported as another symptomatic element of the collapse of ethics in contemporary science, that, following the above listing, the Estonia Academy of Science received a large number of "complaints" not only because the listing included Santilli, but also because the listing did not include Albert Einstein even though Santilli had developed new mathematics and Einstein had made no discovery in mathematics.

8. The opaque Wikipedia-Google complex
Despite the long list of personal, scientific and corporate insults (identified in Section 5) suffered for years and years, Santilli did not bring a lawsuit. So, I asked myself the question: What did trigger Santilli to sue? To get an answer, I contacted Santilli and this is his answer authorized for release:

"I did sue in Federal Court Frank Israel and Pepijn van Erp, not only because of their river of unprovoked insults, but also because this is the best way to denounce to the American people the fact that the Google-Wikipedia complex constitutes a threat to the survival of our technological civilization in its most vital aspect, which is freedom of pursuing advanced scientific knowledge. More specifically, I sued because the slanderous websites had been permitted to appear year after year immediately following my Wikipedia Article under an internet search for my name, wikipedia-anchor-van-erp.pdf even though the visitors of the slanderous website are much less than the visitors of our scientific and industrial websites. I was told by an internet expert as well as by a specialized investigative agency that the above listing was only possible thanks to an anchor provided to the defaming websites by Wikipedia editors which anchor, in turn, was solely possible following approval by their friends at Google in blatant violation of Google as well as Wikipedia rules. To remain in good conscience as an American Citizen under these assassinations of the very essence of our democracy, I had no other choice than that of suing. Ruggero Maria Santilli, Munich, Germany, June 16, 2018.

9. The unquestionable organized conspiracy against the surpassing of Einstein's theories
Following an in depth, word by word analysis of Wikipedia Article on Sir Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli (see Biographical Notes, Full Curriculum, Outline of Works, and the Scientific Awards and Nominations); following an in depth study of Santilli's scientific advances; and following information I collected in academia (of course, without disclosing this work), I reached the following conclusions:

      1. There is no doubt that Santilli has been the victim of an organized international conspiracy against his research. Said conspiracy was initiated in the early 1980's by Harvard's physicists Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, and Sidney Coleman, by the MIT physicist Herman Feshback and other Cantabridgean physicists when Santilli was in the faculty of Harvard University under invited (yes, it is eye witnessed) DOE support, see Santilli's 1984 book with three volumes of documentation Il Grande Grido.

      2. A primary reason for the initiation of the organized conspiracy was to stop the continuation of Santilli's research and DOE funding. All energy releasing processes, as well as most scattering events, are "irreversible over time," as well known, while all 20th century theories, including Einstein special relativity AND quantum mechanics, are strictly reversible, as also well known (because said theories are based on Lie's algebras whose product is invariant under time reversal, e.g., under anti-hermiticity, [A, B] = -[A, B}). Santilli had been invited by the DOE to initiate studies of irreversibility via his Lie-admissible studies he had initiated during his 1965 Ph. D. at the University of Turin, Italy (because theories based on Santilli's Lie-admissible covering product (A, B) = ARB - BSA, R and S > 0, R ≠ S, breaks the anti-hermiticity of Lie's theories by introducing inequivalant directions forward and backward in time, see Santilli's latest account in his Lie-admissible representation of irreversibility Nuovo Cimento B Vol. 121, 443 (2006)). A reason for the organized opposition to the will of the United States Government is that Santilli Lie-admissible theories imply a predictable structural generalization of Einstein special relativity and quantum mechanics whose study was opposed by said Cantabridgean physicists (see Santilli's covering Lie-admissible relativity in section 3 of the work Outline of Works their Lie-isotopic (Section 1) and isodual (Section 4) particularization's and related vast experimental verifications). The above studies were initiated in the fall of 1977 by Santilli under DOE support with contract numbers ER-78-S-02-47420.A00, AS02-78ER04742, DE-ACO2-80ER10651, DE-ACO2-80ER-10651.A001, DE-ACO2-80ER10651.A002 and DE-ACO2-80ER10651.A003. It is unfortunate for America that organized interests on Einstein's theories against the study of irreversible coverings managed to suppress any additional funding since the termination of the last contract in 1983 to such an extent that said studies continued to be prohibited in the U. S. academia (but not abroad!). This is unfortunate because the indicated suppression of funding, with the joint discreditation via slander of opposing pro-America views, implies the possible misuse of billions of research funds released by DOE, NSF, DOD and other Governmental Agencies to support vital research on new energies, scattering events and other irreversible processes via strictly reversible theories, with ensuing blatant insufficiencies particularly in view of mankind's need for new clean energies.

      3. After Santilli left Cambridge, MA, the organized attacks against his research multiplied and actually propagated to the world wide academic community with rather hysterical acts of "scientific gangsterism" one can read in the 2008 update on the organized suppression of scientific democracy in the U.S.A. Since all these organized attacks failed to dissuade Santilli from the continuation of his research, the organized conspiracy intensified with truly unbelievable extremes of unethical conduct, such as the life threats, that can be solely understood under the admission of guaranteed impunity, as well as the admission of very serious problems of scientific ethics in the dispersal of public funds in the U.S.A. for quantitative research. I wonder how did Sir Prof. Prof. Santilli endured so many decades of so vulgar insults (se, e.g.,m Section 6) to such an extreme to let him state: "I felt a leper whenever approaching orthodox academia anywhere in the world."

      4. With the advent of the internet the "torch" of the "organized scientific crimes" against Santilli was embraced by the Wikipedia Editors of Santilli's Article, Arthur Rubin, David Epstein, Mark Bernstein and others. The analysis of Wikipedia Article presented in this Post establishes beyond doubt the continuation of the organized conspiracy against Santilli that was originated by Steven Weinberg, Shelly Glashow, Sidney Coleman, Herman Feshback and other Cantabridgean physicists. Any possible doubt is soon shattered by the fact that Arthur Rubin, David Epstein, Mark Bernstein and other Wikipedia Editors have managed to secure funds from an untold (expectedly governmental) source for the payment of the cost of the ongoing lawsuit in the U. S. Federal Court against Frank Israel and Pepijn van Erp, which cost is estimated to date at about $150,000, by keeping in mind that Pepijn van Erp is unemployed by his own statement and Frank Israel has little salary from a little academic job barely sufficient to pay for shelter and food.

      5. The evidence establishes beyond doubt that Wikipedia Editors Arthur Rubin, David Epstein, Mark Bernstein and others commissioned all personal, scientific and corporate attacks against Santilli since the advent of the internet. Besides a massive violation of Wikipedia rules, said Editors had no technical criticism of Santilli's advances due to lack of the literacy needed to understand post Ph. D. discoveries in mathematics, physics and chemistry. Therefore, they retorted to discrediting Santilli while prohibiting any correction in said Article, to such an extent to render offensive the self-qualification of "Free Encyclopedia." In fact, 1) They commissioned the "fringe" profile by Weimar [1]; 2) They commissioned Calo's criticism [17] of magnecules without any technical content; 3) They commissioned the litany of insults by Frank Israel and his collaborator Pepijn van Erp (Section 6) and others; 4)They requested the organizers of the 2014 international meeting of the American Association of Applied Mathematics in Madrid, Spain, to eliminate technical sessions organized by Santilli and his collaborators, which request caused an international incident that should still be open at the U. S. State Department following strong complaints by the organizers of Santilli's sessions; 5) They requested Robert Brown, then president of the American Institute of Physics to prevent Theodore Simos from accepting Santilli's sessions in his series of international meetings held in Greece on International Conference on Numeric Analysis and Applied Mathematics , which scientific crime was fully achieved via the threat that the AIP would terminate the publication of the proceedings of his meeting in the event Simos would not obey Brown's order; 6) They commissioned Robert Brown to request the organizers of the 2014 Mathematical Problems in Engineering, Aerospace and Sciences held at the University of La Rochelle, France, to remove the AIP from the list of sponsors of the meeting solely in Santilli's award; and other truly incredible misconducts that can only be understood by the admission of very serious problems of scientific ethics and accountability in the United States of America due to the excessively protracted lack of their addressing (for documentation of these and others acts of scientific crimes, one can inspect the public pleadings of the lawsuit, as well as the seven movies of Sworn Depositions by Ruggero and Carla Santilli.

      6. According to internet experts as well as the result of an Investigative Agency, said Wikipedia Editors provided an anchor to the defaming websites by Frank Israel and Pepijn van Erp to let them appear immediately after Santilli's Article under Google search for years and years, Wikipedia-anchor-van-erp.pdf, by noting that the visitors of the slanderous websites have systematically been a fraction of the visitors of Santilli's websites listed below the defaming ones. This type of anchor can solely be operational under the technical support by Google, thus identifying the sinister action by the opaque Wikipedia-Google complex in the suppression of freedom of information that has also been completely ignored by fellow Americans to date. This confirms the teaching by history that "people have the institutions that they either want or deserve."

      7. The universal motivation given by the "minority" of world wide Jewish physicists opposing Santilli's research is that "Santilli is antisemitic." However, the claim of antisemitism proffered for highly technical issues is an insidious form of "antisemitic by Jews" because manifestly damaging the entire Jewish community due to its blatantly unethical intent of discouraging other scientists to consider Santilli's research. The claim of antisemitism is particularly unethical for Santilli because: 1) Santilli's family is on record in the central Apennines to have saved the life of Jews escaping from the nazis, Ruggero being a little child brought food to their shelter amidst nazis shrapnels, whose scars still exist on his body; 2) Santilli has always provided financial support to Jewish colleagues and one can verify from the names of the participants to his meetings throughout decades; 3) Santilli has been a sincere supporter of the State of Israel by first offering his Magnegas technology to help Israel achieve fuel independence, then applying to the defense Threat Reduction Agency for funds to provide Israel means for the detection of smuggled nuclear material, and other offering that can be identified in the formal pleadings or sworn depositions.

The question begging for an answer is: WHY such a massive defaming campaign was organized by so many individuals for such a long period of time against a senior U. S. scientist whose entire scientific production solely contains advanced, post Ph. D. studies? Also, Santilli is a "nuclear physicist" per Wikipedia's own admission. So: WHY Wikipedia solely quotes in Santilli's article his discoveries in "chemistry" and ignores the important discoveries in physics? The list of open questions is almost endless. I regret to report that the answer to these questions cannot be found in Santilli's Article and must be searched for in all other scientific pages in Wikipedia. This raises the view according to which Wikipedia is the darkest shadow in the otherwise beautiful history of American science. May God save American democracy! Wij21go

Post 79.
Our investigative Agency has reported that "James Martin" is Frank Israel. We suggest trashing out of this blog all messages from this guy due to his extreme dishonesty for which he has been sued as confirmed by the analysis of Post 78.. www.scientificethics.org

Post 80.
Movies of Prof. and Mrs. Santilli Depositions
EDITORIAL NOTE: This is to indicate that all five movies of Prof. Santilli's deposition and the two movies of Mrs. Santilli deposition are available for viewing or download from the website of the World Lecture Series
http://www.world-lecture-series.org/level-x

Post 81.
Post 78, thank you, thank you and thank you for such a deep analysis. I never had doubt about the conspiracy against Santilli organized at the international level in a capillary way by true criminals in science. Xsd34ro

Post 82.
The guys from the Dutch Skeptic Society have attacked Santilli for his "negative index of refraction." Since Santilli's math is new and pretty advanced, can anybody anywhere calmly explain to the general public what the fuzz is all about? Der3390yui

Post 83.
I have forwarded Post 78 to my Representative with the request of an investigation by the U.S. Congress of the case. Asd56oe

Post 84.
I believe that the insults and treatments suffered by Prof. Santilli for so many decades against his advanced research are so vicious disqualify the U.S.A. as a democracy. Zwr56ep

Post 85.
Hi Post 82, thanks for the important question expressed in respectful language. Here is the answer, I know with the understanding that the technical answer is solely provided in Santilli's refereed publications listed below this post.

P. A. M. Dirac (rather than Santilli) established in 1928 all the basic laws for antimatter, which laws have been adopted by 20th century particle physics and merely developed by Santilli. Essentially, Dirac established that the representation of antimatter has to be anti-hermitean to that of matter, and provided the historical example from his (justly) celebrated equation that the energy of positrons must be negative. Santilli proved that Dirac's negative energies are not sufficient since all characteristics of antimatter must have value opposite those of matter as a condition to represent matter-antimatter annihilation. This proof leads to Santilli isodual map which is mathematically identical to Dirac's charge conjugation (anti-Hermiticity), the novelty being that the isodual map is applied to the totality of classical and quantum characteristics of matter, while charge conjugation is solely applied to wave functions on a Hilbert space. In short, asking comments on Santilli's negative indexes of refraction is offensive to the memory of Dirac because the question should be asked for both negative energies as well as negative indexes of refraction.

An important (and for me, rather fascinating) aspect of Santilli's isodual theory of antimatter is that antimatter does not exist in our space and time, but exists in a structurally different space and time co-existing with our own. Denote charge conjugation with an upper c and denote with an upper d Santilli isodual map. Then, Dirac's charge conjugation is given by

,P.(1) ψ(t, r) -> - ψc(t, r) = - ψ(t, r),

namely space and time are not transformed, for which reason charge conjugation is an inner-homomorophism of the Hilbert space. By contrast, Santilli's isodual map is given by

(2) ψ(t, r) -> - ψd(t, r) = - ψ(-t, -r).

The differences between maps (1) and (2) are huge and so are their implications because td = - t and rd = -r characterizes a basically new spacetime non-existent in 20th century physics because it cannot be reached with conventional P, T, C transforms, thus characterizing an outer-isomorphism. I discourage colleagues to consider Santilli's isodual theory of antimatter unless they have a knowledge of isodual mathematics.

In Ref. [1] and in subsequent works, Dirac proved that negative values of energy violate causality (the equations predict that the effect occurs before its cause). This lead to the "hole theories" and other attempts to represent antimatter with negative energy that all failed to achieve a unanimous consensus. Being one of the biggest applied mathematicians, when he was at the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University under DOE support, Santilli solved this historical and most fundamental problem for antimatter by discovering a new mathematics, today known as Santilli isodual mathematics which is simply given by the isodual map of every possible notion, quantity, operation, etc., of conventional mathematics, thus resulting to be anti-isomorphic to the mathematics used for matter at "all" levels. This new mathematics was published by Santilli in various works and presented in detail in monograph [2] published by the best publisher of our times, Springer. Expressing judgements on Santilli's isodual theory of antimatter without a knowledge of his new mathematics is dementia "at best".

In short, Santilli embraced in its totality Dirac's conception of antimatter, including negative energies, extended this conception to all characteristics of antimatter and achieved the historical resolution of their violation of causality via his new isodual mathematics for which resolution he has been recommended for the Nobel Prize in Physics. I am one of the authors of the nomination, among others. Recall that all units of an isodual spacetime must be negative for consistency. Therefore, Santilli proved that Dirac's negative energies referred to negative units of measurements in an isodual spacetime are as causal as positive energies referred to positive units of measurements defined in our conventional spacetime.

Only now we can minimally address the very intriguing issue of "Santilli's negative indexes of refraction." First, at the 1995 international conference on antimatter held in Sepino, Italy (attended by physicists from CERN, FERMILAB, etc.) Santilli proved that antimatter light must be different than light emitted by matter because all physical characteristics of these two light must be opposite as a condition to represent matter-antimatter-annihilation. The presentation was so successful that Santilli was "invited" to publish his paper in the proceedings (I was one of the organizers) [3]. Subsequently, in 2012, Santilli published the principle of his telescope with concave lenses at the American Institute of Physics (you cannot do better than that ... [4]. Santilli constructed in 2013 the fist pair of Galileo and Santilli telescopes. He then initiated the scan of the night sky and discovered in 2014 the first antimatter galaxy in the Vega region of the night sky, which was confirmed by two independent groups, and then discovered a second antimatter galaxy in the Capella region of the night sky, for a recent review, see Section 4 of Ref. [5]. Let's now go back to the important questions raised by Poster 92. To provide a tentative answer, one must first represent antimatter light in the Minkowski-Santilli isodual spacetime and geometry by understanding that it is "hidden " in our spacetime. Let x be the Minkowski spacetime coordinates and m = Diag(1, 1, 1, -1) the Minkowski metric. Let xd be Santilli isodual coordinates and md Santilli's isodual metric. Then, one must understand that the isodual map becomes an identity at all levels of study, because the conventional and isodual intervals coincide PROVIDED you use the isodual math, thus implying the definition of isodual quantities iover isodual fields

(3) x2 = (xt m x) 1 ≡ (xt,d md xd) 1d = x2,d,

which identity provides a beautiful geometric illustration of the reason we cannot see antimatter light with our eyes (rather educational in these aspects is a reading of Part III of the website http://www.galileoprincipia.org/no-universe-expansion.php).Hence Santilli achieved his conception of antimatter as existing in a space co-existing with our spacetime but completely different. Antimatter light must be formulated for consistency in the isodual spacetime, thus having isodual time td and moving in the isodual space rd, its index of refraction must necessarily be "isodual" (the use of the word "negative" implies illiteracy in the field) and must be measured with isodual units. Therefore, isodual indexes of refractions defined on the isodual spacetime and measured with isodual units are exactly as causal as conventional, indexes of refractions defined in our conventional spacetime and measured with conventional (positive) units. Asking what is a "negative index of refraction" is certainly a legitimate question. Expressing negative judgments on the "negative index of refraction under total lack of knowledge of the relevant literature is just wrong. Just look at the refereed publications [1] to [5].

I contacted Sir Prof. Santilli (Biographical Notes) and this is his answer in his typical style: Dear ..., Thanks for your kind inquiry. At the moment, I am doing nothing in antimatter, although I remain available for help, because: I believe I have done enough in the field at the mathematical, theoretical and experimental levels; it is time for interested colleagues to solve some the remaining open problems; pairs of Galileo and Santilli telescopes are available on consignment at no cost from Thunder Energies Corporation to qualified scientists; and it is up to my colleagues to prove that they are not descendants of Cardinal Ballarmino who refused to look at Galileo's telescope because by ignoring it he could continue to maintain religious dogma against the advancement of scientific knowledge for evident personal gains. Ruggero

REFERENCES
[1[ P. A. M. Dirac, Proceedings of the Royal Society 1928,Vol. 117, 610Đ624.

[2] R. M. Santilli, Isodual Theory of Antimatter with Application to Antigravity, Grand Unification and the Spacetime Machine, Springer 2001.
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/santilli-79.pdf

[3] R. M. Santilli, ``Does antimatter emit a new light?" Invited paper for the proceedings of the International Conference on Antimatter, held in Sepino, Italy, on May 1996, published in Hyperfine Interactions 1997, {\bf 109,} 63-81
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/santilli-79.pdf

[4] R. M. Santilli,``The Mystery of Detecting Antimatter Asteroids, Stars and Galaxies," American Institute of Physics, Proceed. 2012, {\bf 1479,} 1028-1032 (2012)
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/antimatter-asteroids.pdf

[5] R. M. Santilli, "An introduction to the new sciences for a new era," Invited paper, SIPS 2016, Hainan Island, China, Clifford Analysis, Clifford Algebras and their Applications ol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-119, 2017
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/new-sciences-new-era.pdf

Zds66df

Post 85.
To complement Post 84, let me say that the use of a conventional positive index of refraction for antimatter light, would verify causality, but prohibit any representation of matter-antimatter annihilation and actually prohibit the very existence of Dirac's antimatter. The ONLY possible representation of antimatter light verifying causality as well as all experimental evidence of antimatter is Santilli isodual index of refraction defined on an isodual space based on isodual units of measurements. Period. Xwe67yi

Post 87.
Editors, can you please secure an answer to the 20th century conviction that there exist only one form of light because the photon is invariant under charge conjugation> Thanks Vsd58upz

Post 88.
In response to the important question posed by Post 86, it should be first noted that the "charge conjugation" (see Eq. (1) of Post 84) has been developed for "charged" particles and not for photons that are charge-less. It is easy to prove that, in the application of charge conjugation to the charge-less photon would violate matter-antimatter annihilation. In any case, the assumption is based on the tacit assumption that conjugation (1) on a Hilbert space can be generalized to conjugation (2) which is universally applicable to all aspects of matter, thus including light. Finally, it is easy to prove that the negative energy solution of Dirac's equation for antimatter does indeed imply the emission of antimatter light with negative energy. Xsd39hp, thus confirming the incompatibility of "charge" conjugation with the "charge-less" light.

Post 89.
Question. On http://www.workshops-hadronic-mechanics.org/workshop_aim.html it is written: "the prediction of annihilation of antimatter light when hitting matter (such as the lenses of our telescopes)". As the concave lenses of the Santilli-telescope are made of ordinary matter, how can antimatter-light pass trough them? Something seems wrong.

Post 90.
Post 97, thanks for the intriguing question. To avoid politics, we have to admit the existence of antimatter light with negative energy because established by a large number of black streaks on the background of a digital camera, see the review in Ref. [5] of Post 84. This establishes that antimatter light does indeed pass through the lens of a matter telescope, and vice-versa, we have to expect that our matter light can pass through the lens of an antimatter telescope. In http://www.workshops-hadronic-mechanics.org/workshop_aim.html Santilli refers to the different issue as to whether our light (positive energy) can be reflected or it is absorbed by the surface of an antimatter asteroid (negative energy). This question remains unanswered to this day to my knowledge, confirming the need to study antimatter for our own safety only a few scientist (such as that of Post 97) care about. Kdf38up

Post 91.
I do not understand why in Eq. (3) the invariant must be multiplied by the isodual unit. . Asd46yo

Post 92.
Conventional physical theories are defined on a space over a field of numbers. For a number to be an "experimental result," it must be an element of the basic numeric field. Isodual theories are equally defined on an isodual space over an isodual numeric field, the last condition being crucial for causality (Post85.. Hence, for a "number" to have experimental sense, in the antimatter world, it must be an element of a Santilli the isodual field, namely, it must have the structure (for real and complex numbers only) nd = n 1d = - n. This is also the case for the numeric value of invariant (3). I hope this comments illustrates the extreme consistency of Santilli's isodual mathematics 2[2] of Post 85) in which no mathematician has identified any flaw since its conception at Harvard in the early 1980s. The consistency of the related physical theory for antimatter follows from the consistency of its mathematics as well as the verification of all known classical and particle experimental evidense. Zweu57hp

Post 93.
On the wikipedia page of Santilli, David Eppstein has recently removed the paragraph on Kadeisvili. Maybe Santilli is wrong in seeing a conspiracy against him on Wikipedia.

Post 94
Dear David Epstein, even though insufficient, your corrections of my Article at Wikipedia have been appreciated.In response, I have interrupted the filing of lawsuits in Europe that have been indicated in this exchange. Additionally, I believe that the Committee on Scientific Ethics may disconnect their website www.scientificethics.org in the event my Article is properly edited along the lines of Post 78 with evident repeated statements that my views are not accepted by the scientific community at large. I would also like to find a way to disconnect this blog. In the meantime, I strongly recommend an intervention to remove the reason that forced me to sue under pressures from our investors, that is, I suggest the termination the anchor allowing insulting websites to appear for years immediately following my Wikipedia Article, and let the sequence of websites follow Google's rules on the number of visitors. In case of interest for these friendly resolutions, please feel free to contact me in this blog, or at my email research(at)i-b-r(dot)or or at my iphone 727 688 3992. Best regards, Ruggero Maria Santilli

Post 95.
Yes, Prof. Santilli, we will cooperate fully under additional corrections of your Wikipedia article as well as following the halting of all personal, scientific and corporate attacks against you so well identified and documented by Post 78. Our duty is to make sure that you can continue your research without the slanderous interferences originating at Wikipedia's Article that have occurred for years. It is also our duty to promote and actually invite technical debates in due "scientific language on fundamental issues because necessary for the achievement if new clean energies and the resolution if other pressing needs. While waiting for a report on possible rresponse I remain Yours, Truly www.scientificethics.com

Post 96.
David Epstein, you should know that, following the initiation of the ongoing lawsuit, and particularly after the release of Post 78, I feel mind of embarrassed to walk around ion my campus as a Jewish scientist. The look and smile of non-Jewish colleagues are different, it's difficult to say. I definitely should cooperate with Prof. Santilli very decent and friendly proposals (Post 94. They should not be denied without our people paying a price because they are so decent! Vsd38yi

Post 97.
I would like to thank the author of Post 78 for his analysis of Prof. Santilli's Article at Wikipedia that equally applies to a number of other articles. Particular thanks are due for listing in his Section 3 Life threats to Prof. Santilli by phonetic Jews because that is the only way to protect his life from real criminals. Acs3-0io

Post 98
Negative index of refraction
Concerning a negative index of refraction. Dr. Santilli has been vociferous that the wave nature of light needs to be restored to its place of importance. A negative index of refraction (from geometric considerations) necessarily implies that antimatter light in a material moves faster than c (speed of either kind of light in a vacuum). The use of the Lorentz transform would then imply time travel, with an attendant reversal of causality, leading to possible paradoxes. Any comment would be appreciated. Xsd45dh

Post 99
Hello Xsd45dh/Post 98, I appreciate the respectful tone of the question. To my knowledge, the claim that negative indexes of refraction imply speeds of antimatter light bigger than c, with ensuing violation of causality, is generally moved either by people illiterate in the field, or by dishonest physicists. Santilli's isodual theory of antimatter requires the abandoning of Einstein's theories for antimatter (only) in favor of more adequate theories. This is the ultimate reason for all the attacks against Santilli. Here is what I know in the issue:

1. Recall that matter is represented on a spaces over a numeric field and, in full democracy between matter and antimatter, Santilli;'s antimatter is represented on an isodual space over an isodual field, where isoduality means anti-hermiticity. Therefore, the representation of the speed of antimatter light with "c" has no mathematical or physical meaning. In the same way as the energy of antimatter has to be negative (Dirac), the speed of antimatter light in vacuum can only be represented with "-c" (Santilli)

2. The speed of antimatter light according to Santilli isodual mathematics and physics for a given transparent medium with isodual index of refraction "-n" is given by

(1) Cd = - C = cd /d nd = - c/n

It is easy to prove that the above isodual speed cannot exceed -c [careful here not to jump from one math top its isodual. Once you are in the isodual world, all relative values must be referred to "negative" units.]

3. The application of the Lorentz transformations to antimatter is mathematical and physical insanity (or dishonesty) because said transformations solely applies to "matter." Post or antimatter one must use the Lorentz-Santilli isodual transformations (Ref. [5] of Post 85). The total democracy between matter and antimatter then assures that the lack of violation of causality for matter exists identically, although conjugated, for antimatter.

CONCLUSION: The claim that negative indexes of refraction imply superluminal speeds with consequential violation of causality is either due to ignorance, or to political schemes because deprived of any serious mathematical or physical content. To clarify a historical point, allow me to recall that, by no means, Santilli is the sole supporter of the wave structure of light . He has been vociferous in recalling the wave conception by Lorentz, Poincare', Schrodinger and many other famous physicists. Zds66df

Post 100
I believe that Santilli's isodual theory of antimatter is the most fascinating theory at the dawn of the third millennium with no comparison. I found most stimulating the geometric arguments on the impossibility for our eyes to see images caused by antimatter light. I believe that opponents will be classified in history as the descendants of the phlogiston gas.....Bsd38gh

Post 101
I agree with Post 99. I also agree with Post 100 that Dr. Santilli's theory of antimatter is fascinating. However, I am a physicist and am interested to know the behavior of the speed of antimatter light measured in our world, thus having necessarily a positive value C > 0. Can perhaps Zds66df/Post 99 elaborate on this point?> Thanks Cwr56pp

Post 102
Post 101, thanks Post 101 for the sound questions. To my knowledge and understanding, the measurement of the speed C of antimatter light propagating within a transparent matter-medium with index of refraction n >> 1 is indeed positive, because measured with respect to our positive units, but can only be smaller than c. Mathematically we have the projection of the Minkowski-0Santilli isodual space Md(xd, nd id), see R. M. Santilli, J. Modern Phys. D Vol. 7, 351 (1998), into our spacetime M(x, m, I) for which said speed is given by

(1) C = c /d nd = + c/n ≤ c.

Consider the case of water. Its index of refraction is n ≈ 3/2, C ≈ 2c/3 < c. When it becomes negative, we still have the impossibility for the absolute value of c/n to become bigger than c because n ≥ 1. regards Xsdf46yy

Post 103
I am a member of prof. Santilli's group. the issue of the speed of isodual (antimatter0 light was discussed at length during our antimatter meetings of 2011, 2012 and 2013 help as part of Prof. Simos International Conference on Numeric Analysis and Applied Mathematics (ICNAAM)>. This is the main history.

recall that the slowing down of light within a medium is due to its interaction with peripheral atomic electrons, which interaction is generally positive, resulting in the known deflection. The issue on the value of the speed of isodual light was raised by the fact that matter and antimatter repel each. Therefore, it was possible that the repulsion caused interaction between the isodual light and atomic electron could accelerate isodual light6 beyond c.

the answer to this question was an absolute NO, as nicely reviewed in the above Posts. the repulsive interaction between the isodual light and atomic electrons caused the index of refraction to become negative, but the absolute value of of the speed of the isodual light remains necessarily smaller than c because, as clearly indicated in Post 102, the index of refraction in water is bigger than one. The only way to get superluminal speed was to invert the value of t6he index of refraction from n to 1/n because evidently necessary to go from C < c to C > c. As far as I am concerned these studies settled the issue forever: the absolute value of the speed of antimatter light passing through Santilli's lenses, or within any other transparent matter-medium, cannot possibly be bigger than c. Period.Jsd28rt

Post 104
Post 98, the use of the Lorentz transformations for the propagation of light within transparent physical media is pure insanity because the speed is not c but 2c.3. Then you have violation of causality in matter.The sole seriously applicable transformations are those of the Lorentz-Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry which has been constructed specifically for physical media and has been vastly verified experimentally. See the two volumes for detailed mathematical and theoretical treatment
R. M. Santilli, Elements of Hadronic Mechanics Ukraine Academy of Sciences, Volumes I and 11 (1995)
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-300.pdf
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-301.pdf
and, for an outline of the experimental verification in various fields, see the Section 2 of the 15r0 page summary
R. M. Santilli, "An introduction to the new sciences for a new era," Invited paper, SIPS 2016, Hainan Island, China, Clifford Analysis, Clifford Algebras and their Applications Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-119, 2017
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/new-sciences-new-era.pdf
With his fifty years of mathematical, theoretical, experimental and industrial studies, Sir Prof. R. M. Santilli has accumulated incontrovertible evidence according to which Einstein's special relativity is inapplicable within physical media in favor of his isorelativity based on the Lorentz-Poincare;-Santilli isosymmetry achieving the invariance of the locally varying speed of light C = c/n. Lwe67wo

Post 105
Superluminal speeds
There is a big fuss in this blog on superluminal speeds by portraying them like a kind of a scientific Satan evidently by Einstein's fanatics. The scientific reality is way different than these dishonest schemes. In fact, Prof. Santilli has established that the local speed of light is subluminal within physical media of low density such as water, and superliuminal within physical media of relatively high density, such as the hyperdense medium inside hadrons, both subluminal and superluminal speeds being an incontrovertible consequence of the Lorentz-Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry of C = c/n since such a symmetry cannot possibly freeze n to be bigger than 1 in order to please Einstein's fanatics.

The way Prof. Santilli established the above evidence is as solid as a rock. Einstein special relativity in general, and relativistic quantum mechanics in particular, are inapplicable for the synthesis of the neutron from the hydrogen in the core of stars for many reasons, such as: 1) you needed the representation of the proton as an extended particle because otherwise you cannot compress a point inside another point as Einstein's fanatics have done for one century; 2) The medium inside the proton is hyperdense (see the data of the Bose-Einstein correlation for instance) in which case the use of SR is pure hysteria; 3) The rest energy of the neutron is BIGGER than the sum of the rest energy of the proton and of the electron in which case Dirac's equations goes top the Bahamas for a vacation; etc./

After working out his isorelativity, its basic Lorentz-Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry, and proving their experimental verifications in various interior media, prof. Santilli has applied his knowledge for the first representation of ""ALL"" characteristics of the neutron in its synthesis from the hydrogen, including: rest energy, spin, mean life, charge radius, anomalous magnetic moments, parity and spontaneous decay.

Recall that particle physics treats the problem via a "mass spectrum" which gives ONLY the rest energy of the neutron when part of a classification family. A necessary condition for the representation of of """ALL""" characteristics of the neutron in its synthesis from the hydrogen is that the quantity "n" providing a geometrization of the medium inside the proton must have values SMALLER than 1. Consequently, the tangential speed of the electron following Rutherford's compression inside the proton must necessarily be bigger than c. Superluminal speeds within hadrons or, equivalently, values n < 1, have been independently confirmed by the fit of numerous experimental data (Bose-Einstein correlation, behavior of the mean-life of unstable hadrons with speed, etc.), of course, without the usual tacit assumption of RQM, the introduction of the usual form factors with free parameter, the use of this and that, and than adjust the whole thing to verify the untold primary belief, the validity of Einstein special relativity inside hadrons, see the achievement of all characteristics of the neutron via the sole use of the Lorentz-Poincare'-Santilli isosymmetry and the value of n derived from the Boise-Einstein correlation in the paper and prior literature quoted therein
R. M. Santilli, "Recent theoretical and experimental evidence on the synthesis of the neutron," Communication of the JINR, Dubna, Russia, No. E4-93-252 (1993), published in the Chinese J. System Eng. and Electr. Vol. 6, 177 (1995),
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Santilli-18.pdf
I hope that the above evidence may cause a good indigestion to the enemy of democracy and society, the Einstein fanatics. Vwe509yp

Post 106
What is the numeric value of n for the neutron synthesis? Xsd29gh

Post 107
If I remember correctly, it is n = 0.654. Please check the correct value in the quoted paper. Vwe509yp

Post 108
Besides being clear "enemies of science and mankind," Einstein;s fanatics are stupid because Santilli has proved that both subluminal and superluminal speeds are compatible with the abstract axioms of special relativity, To avoid evident self-inflicted damage, they should, check things out of their ghetto before abusing the academic authority granted to them by their brothers, before calling Santilli antisemitic for the evident unethical intent of discouraging the propagation of his studies, and before spitting out scientific poison, see http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/pdf9.pdf . Bsd29to

Post 109
In regard to Post 103, to avoid a s farce, it should be noted for serious visitors that, per their own written admission, defendants Frank Israel, Pepijin van Erp and their friends convinced Robert Brown, at that time AIP president, to terminate our participation to Prof. Simos ICNAAM. The scheme was easily achieved by Brown threatening Prof. Simos not to publish his proceedings in the AIP unless he prohibited the participation at his meeting by Prof. Santilli and his group (including me). Prof. Simos had no other choice than accept. What is very shameful for the mercenary Frank Israel, Pepijin van Erp and their emissaries at Wikipedia, Arthur Rubin, David Epstein, Mark Bernstein and their group is that the termination of our series of meetings at the ICNAAM was mandated by the great success of Prof. Santilli's discoveries, as one can see from the Program of 2013 ICNAAM. How dishonest for Frank Israel, Pepijin van Erp, Arthur Rubin, David Epstein, Mark Bernstein, Robert Brown, and their ring! and then, accuse Prof. Santilli of being antisemitic when their schemes against human knowledge has caused the biggest damage to the Jewish community in recent record, thus consisting of true antisemitic conduct by Jews. Wdf23pw

Post 110
I agree with Post 108 and believe that Einstein's fanatics are: "mad professors, cunning artists, crank, fringe, pyramid schemers, fraud, pseudo scientist, liars, etc." (Section 6 of Post 78). Msd10ty

Post 111
I have recommended Sir Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli for the 2019 Nobel Prize in Physics for his theory of antimatter. Xwe78op

Post 112
THE FAKE SCIENCES OF THE 20TH CENTURY, I:
The reduction of all electromagnetic waves to photons to maintain Einstein's special relativity within physical media against vast contrary evidence, with the misuse of billions of dollars taxpayer money.

During his fifty years of research, Sir Prof. Ruggero M. Santilli has confirmed the validity of Einstein's special relativity for point particles in vacuum (exterior dynamical problems such as atomic structures, particles in accelerators, etc.). Additionally he has established at the mathematical, theoretical experimental and industrial levels the "inapplicability" (and not the "violation") of Einstein's special relativity within physical media (interior dynamical problems) in favor of covering theories admitting SR uniquely and unambiguously when motion returns to be in vacuum . With the passing of time, the continued oblivion by the orthodox physics community of these results has been called a "fake sciences" since "experts" are expected to know these widely communicated results published in refereed journals and their oblivion causes the misuse of billions of dollars of public funds. In this first post, I provide below a conceptual summary of Prof. Santilli's highly technical arguments for the case of the reduction of electromagnetic waves to photons when propagating within a transparent medium (for the collapse of ethics in contemporary sciences, see Refs. [1-5], for scientific works see Prof. Santilli's representative works [6,7,8] and the independent general review [9]).

publications Albert Einstein established that certain frequencies of electromagnetic waves (and not all) can be "absorbed" by atoms in a discrete form he called photons and he justly obtained a Nobel Prize.

In a way dishonoring the memory of Albert Einstein, his followers have reduced to photons all electromagnetic waves in all possible physical conditions for the silent but evident scheme of maintaining special relativity for throughout the universe. As an example, the reduction of light to photons is intended to maintain special relativity in water on grounds that photons scatter between the water molecule while traveling in vacuum, in which conditions special relativity holds.

While the reduction to photons of electromagnetic weaves with sufficiently big frequency (e.g. gammas) is out of questions, the reduction to photon of "all" electromagnetic waves when "propagating" within physical media has been called a "fake sciences" because done under the awareness that such a reduction is in gross violation of experimental data with the consequential misuse ofd billions of dollars of tax[payer money. Without advance consulktation of Prof. Santilli, I provide below a few examples of fake sciences technically studied kin details in Refs. i [6,7,8]:

FAKE SCIENCE # I-1: The reduction of elm waves to photons cannot possibly represent the angle of refraction of light in water for the event reason that photons will scatter in all directions at the point of impact with the water surface;

FAKE SCIENCE # I-2: The reduction of the elm waves to photons cannot represent the reduction of the speed of light in water by about 1/3 because the scattering of photons between the water molecules can at best represent a reduction of 5%;

FAKE SCIENCE # I-3: The reduction of elm to photons represent the propagation of a beam of light in water as a beam (see the picture) for the evident reason that the photons will scatter in all directions and cannot possible propagate along a beam;

FAKE SCIENCE # I-4: The reduction of elm waves to photons has no sense for infrared and radio waves that exhibit the same phenomenology as that of the frequencies of visible light;

FAKE SCIENCE # I-5: The reduction of elm waves to photons cannot represent the Cherenkov light because photons travel at the speed of light in vacuum and not at a speed smaller than that of the electrons as necessary to trigger the Cherenkov light;

FAKE SCIENCE # I-6: The reduction of elm waves to photons cannot resolve the violation of the relativistic sum of speeds since the sum of two light speeds in water does not yield the light speed;

FAKE SCIENCE # I-7: The reduction of elm waves to photons cannot explain the loss of energy by light to the medium with consequential decrease of its frequency and collapse of the basic axioms of special relativity within physical media (see the experimentally confirmed Santilli IsoRedShift, Ref. p4[ and Section II.3 of the website Lack of Expansion of the Universe).

It is instructive for the serious scholar to see how Santilli IsoRelativity (SIR) resomjves all the above inconsistencies of Einstein Special Relativity (ESR) in water, including the first and only known quantitative representation of additional experimental evidence, such as the difference in length perceived from the outside and the actual lengths inside depicted in the figure

To achieve these results, Prof. Santilli first constricted the new isomathematics for the representation of generally inhomogeneous and anisotropic media (Volumes I of Refs. [6,7]); he then constructed the axiom-0preserving isotopies of the Galileo and Einstein special relativity [6,7,8]' and subjected them to a comprehensive experimental verifications in various fields (see the 150 page summary [8] and the independent general review [9]).

I have contacted Prof. Santilli and this is the statement he released for this post: Physical theories are "established" by "academic consensus," which is generally intended as the acceptance by a majority of academic physicists. This means that "established theories" are generally embraced without any critical scrutiny of their validity or consistency. . When, in particular, "established theories" are compatible with Einstein's theories, as it is the case for the reduction of electromagnetic waves to photons, no critical scrutiny is conceivable as a necessary condition to preserve academic jobs. In my view, these conditions have created a scientific obscurantism on Einstein theories of historical proportions because, while said theories are unquestionably valid for the conditions stated by Einstein, they are not necessarily valid for much broader conditions stated by Einstein followers, thus requesting due scrutiny to avoid misuse of public funds.

Representative references
For historical denunciation of the above fake sciences, see:

[1] Sir Karl R. Popper, Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, University Press, Cambridge UK, 1982. See in particular the quotation of Santilli's studies at Harvard as "bringing sanity to physics" and several additional comments. See, in particular, the citation of Santilli's research by Karl Popper

p2] John Ross, The Politics of Science. Editorial of The Harvard Crimson. March 20, 1985
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/HarvardCrimson.pdf

[3] Sir Ruggero M. Santilli, Il Grande Grido: Ethical Probe of Einstein's Followers in the USA: An Insider's View. Alpha Publishing (1984) and three volumes of documentations
http://www.scientificethics.org/IlGrandeGrido.htm
2008 update of "Il Grende Grido"

|4] J. Dunning-Davies, Exploding a Myth, Horwood Publishing, England (2007).

[5] J. Hoprgan, The end of science. Nasic Books, NY (2006)

For the technical treatment of the above fake sciences and their resolution via the covering isomathematics and isorelativity, see the below summary and the original publications quoted therein:

[6] R. M. Santilli, Isotopic Generalizations of Galilei and Einstein Relativities,, International Academic Press (1991)
Volume I and Volume II

[7] R. M. Santilli, Elements of Hadronic Mechanics, Academy of Sciences, Kiev (1995)
Volume I and Volume II

[8] R. M. Santilli, "An introduction to the new sciences for a new era," Invited paper, SIPS 2016, Hainan Island, China, Clifford Analysis, Clifford Algebras and their Applications Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-119, 2017
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/new-sciences-new-era.pdf

[9] I. Gandzha and J. Kadeisvili, New Sciences for a New Era: Mathematical, Physical and Chemical Discoveries of Ruggero Maria Santilli,Sankata Printing Press,\\ Nepal (2011),
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/RMS.pdf

Thanks for your consideration,. I remain available for any requested technical elaborations. Aer33up>

Post 113
What are the implications of Dr. Santilli's discoveries for Wikipedia? Mer38ui

Post 114
ALL their scientific pages must be revised to prevent a historical denunciation of the century old "fake sciences" (Post 112) responsible for the misuse of billions of dollars of public funds.This occurrence is ample evidence to explain the reason for Wikipedia editors to organize the conspiracy against Santilli so clearly identified and documented in Post 78. Awe57uo

Post 115
From Graham Ennis, (applied scientist and engineer). Brighton England. I would like to add my own personal encounter with Santilli to this site. in 2001 I was becoming "Dangerous", having established significant aerospace credibility in the area of electrogravitics field propulsion. I had secured the support of the UK BNSC (British National Space Center) government agency, and was researching advanced field propulsion. I had received government funding for organizing an international conference, at Sussex University, where I had been received to do a research PHD on the subject, that was UK government funded. I was also collaborating with a major UK aerospace company on the subject. I say all this as everything that you say in support of Santilli, is true, I know, as I had it happen to me. I was ejected from the PHD, illegally, the conference was canceled by the University, (and only reinstated after threats of legal action and protests by other academics there), and a ruthless campaign was started against me by Psycops, the skeptic organization. This was headed by Sir Harry Kroto, the nobel laureate in chemistry, who was head of chemistry at the university. The Psycop/skeptic gangsters really do exist. Santilli, who I had been in correspondence with, wrote me an extremely kind letter of support, when things seemed particularly dark. he is that sort of man. The "organized scientific crime" succeeded in suppressing the physics of electrogravitics, which actually cross connect with Santilli's physics. It is all true. It nearly destroyed me as a human being.

Post 116
What a sad story in Post 115. It is only one sample of too many similar actions by the "organized scientific crime" that continue to this day due to one century of impunity. When will true Americans join Sir R. M. Santilli to restore democracy in the U.S.A? Bdf35up

Post 117
Graham Ennis (Post 115) congrats for your courage, dignity and commitment to scientific democracy. I cannot tell my story at the MIT Physics Department and release my name because I fear for my life. Also, I cannot tell details because nobody would believe me. Relentless propaganda has managed to hail members of the "organized scientific crime" as the best people in the world. So when you report what they actually do and are, nobody believes it. My story is related to the virulent attacks of scientific corruption moved by the former MIT physicist Eugene Mallove against MIT physicists because the incredible manipulation by the MIT "organized scientific crime" of the experiment by Pons and Fleishmann for the protection of orthodox ethnic-academic interest. My story is related to the subsequent mysterious assassination of Eugene Mallove (see the internet for details and dates). A person was arrested, prosecuted, convicted, and jailed for that murder, but he claims to be innocent. I am told that the judge and the prosecutor of the trail were member of this "organized scientific crime" ...... My view was that, for real justice, the virulent exchanges between Mallove and MIT physicists should have been part of the trial. I cannot enter into details to protect myself and family. I can only say that I am alive, yet cut out of academia anywhere in the world. All the incredible crimes perpetrated against Dr. R. M. Santilli are true.In particular, the life threats he received are true.(Section 9.3 of Post 78). Unless you became a vile servant of very unethical acts, your life is in danger. The obstructions Dr. Santilli suffered by the MIT Physics Department in the 1980s to prevent Rauch's experiment on the deformability of nucleons (see the chapter on MIT of Dr. Santilli's "Ol Grande Grido") are true. Ade57al

Post 118
Cherenlov light
I don't understand a lot of the claims in post 112. For example 'FAKE SCIENCE' #5: I understand Cherenkov radiation being caused by a particle that is traveling faster than the phase velocity of light in water. But the blue light we see as its effect (in nuclear reactors) is itself not going faster than the speed of light in water. It's like the sonic boom of a supersonic aircraft: the aircraft goes faster than the speed of sound, the sound waves do not. Swe56uo

Post 119
Hi Swe56uo (Post 118). Thanks for your important questions. The Cherenkov light can only occur when electrons travel in water at a speed bigger than the local speed of light C = 2c/3. The issue raised in Post 112 is that, in the event light propagating in water were indeed composed by a beam of photons, the Cherenkov light should not exist because photons would travel in the intermolecular vacuum, thus traveling at the speed of light c, namely, at a speed bigger than that of the electrons. Hence, the abandonment of the view by Maxwell and others that light is a wave in favor of bullets violates the experimental evidence on the existence of the Cherenkov light. Since this evidence is known for many decades, published in refereed journals and widely propagated, the continuous reduction to photons of light propagating in water is a "fake sciences."

If I have a respectful suggestion for whatever its value, I would use caution before accepting postures expressed by orthodox physicists, such as the hypothetical belief that the Cherenkov light occurs when electrons travels faster than "the phase velocity of light." This is politics. Whether you cook the pizza upside or upside-down, the experimental evidence that electrons can travel in water faster than the local speed of light is brutal evidence on the inapplicability of Einstein's special relativity in water. Said inapplicability becomes crushing when one adds the violation of the relativistic sum of speeds, the decrease of the speed of light in water by one third, the varying value of the speed of light for different water solutions, the lack of existence of an inertial reference frame due to resistance, the impossibility of conceiving, let alone testing the constancy of the speed of light within media,etc. Orthodox physicists try to manipulate your mind by mollifying this evidence with the phase velocity. It is easy to prove that phase velocities cannot trigger the generation of a physical light. Best wishes. Vsd45yo

Post 120
One citation by Sir Karl R. Popper in the Preface of Quantum Theory and the Schism in Physics, University Press, Cambridge UK, 1982:

"On Realistic and Commonsense Interpretation of Quantum Theory" by Sir Karl Popper I have mentioned Santilli, and I should like to say that he is one who belongs to a new generation - seems to me to move on a different path. Far be it from me to belittle the giants who founded quantum mechanics under the leadership of Planck, Einstein, Bohr, Born, Heisenberg, de Broglie, Schrodinger, and Dirac. Santilli too makes it very clear how greatly he appreciates the work of these men. But in his approach he distinguishes the region of the "arena of incontrovertible applicability" of quantum mechanics (he calls it "atomic mechanics") from nuclear mechanics and hadronic, and his most fascinating arguments in support of the view that quantum mechanics should not, without new tests, be regarded as valid in nuclear and Hadronic mechanics, seem to me to augur a return to sanity: to that realism and objectivism for which Einstein stood, and which had been abandoned by those two very great physicists, Heisenberg and Bohr." -

By comparison, Arthur Rubin, David Epstein, Mark Bernstein and their associates have dubbed "fringe" for decades the studies by Sir Ruggero M. Santilli in his Article at Wikipedia. What a shame damaging all their people they do not see because blinded by control and impunity. Asd45io

Post 121
I believe that the arguments of Post 112 may be interesting, but the use of words such as "fake sciences" turn me off because anti-semitic. Wfe56so

Post 122
Post 121, it appears you never got our of your group.You demonstrate your inability to discuss at technical level because, clearly, you do not have the knowledge. The arguments of Post 112 were presented in due scientific language decades ago and then repeated countless time to no avail, thus becoming true fake sciences as explained in Post 112. Your statement also implies the apparent conception of your group as a superior group because you can throw all sort of "unprovoked" insults, slander and defamation against Sir Prof. R. M. Santilli , including repeated claims of "fake science" (see the pleadings of this lawsuit, Section 6 of Post 78, and many others), and we cannot respond in the same language because we are inferior? This is a Nazi-type conception of life that does not belong in America. Her29yu

Post 123
Relatoivistic sum of speeds.
Can anybody explain the violation in water of the relativistic sum of speed, Point # 6, Post 112? Thanks Nsd\478uo

Post 124
Hello Nsd\478uo/Post 123, thanks for posing an important question in decent language. This is what I know. Consider the relativistic sum of speed in water. Under the assumption of E of light is "c/n". Therefore. in the numerator of said sum you have 2c/n while in the denominator you have 1+1/n^2. Consequently, the sum of two local speeds c/n does not yield the local speed c/n, but yields (2c/n)/(1+1/n^2), This is expected by the fact that c/n is not invariant for ESR.

By contrast, the basic invariant of Santilli Iso-Relativity (SIR) is the local speed of light "c/n" (established by the Lorentz-Pojncare'-Santilli isosymmetry). In this case, you have in the numerator 2c/n while in the denominator you have 2. Then Santilli's iso-relativistic sums of two local speeds of light c/n yields the local speed of light c/n. see IsoAxiom III, Eq. (2,35) of R. M. Santilli, An introduction to the new sciences for a new era.

Note that the quantity "n" in SIR is a geometrization of the density of the medium normalized to the value n = 1 for the vacuum. For media of low density (air, water, etc.) you have n < 1, namely, subluminal speeds, while for media of high density (hadrons, nuclei, stars ands black holes) you have n > 1, namely, superluminal speeds (see also Post 105). Note finally that at the abstract level, the axioms of SIR are identical to those of ESR to such an extent that both relativities could be formulated with the same symbols subjected to different realizations. For this reason, I believe that the correct name for SIR should be Einstein-Santilli IsoRelativity (ESIS), see also Post 108. Xwr67op

Post 125
Dear Prof. R. M. Santilli, following your generous offer to Wikipedia editors in Post 94, I have been watching every day your Article at Wikipedia to see whether the editors have corrected any of the horrendous misrepresentations identified in Post 78, but I see none. I am afraid, you generous opening to restore dignity and democracy in American science is like giving gold to donkeys. These editors represent the interests of a world wide organization that has acquired control, of science, has exploited science for one century (Post 112) for their interests, and intends to keep doing that for the foreseeable future. "May God save American democracy" (Post 78).Sdr56ew[

Post 126
A question for clarification in response to post 124: doesn't it follow from IsoRelativity that local speed in water can never be higher than c/n ? This seem to contrsdict that the electron that causes Cherenkov light does go faster. Hd46yo

Post 127
Hdf46yo/Post 126, your sound and important question is a bit over my head. Hence, I contacted Prof. Santilli and this is his answer: "Hello R..., your inquiry has been appreciated. Per my knowledge, high energy electrons moving in water can be well approximated as moving in vacuum, thus verifying special relativity (SR) with maximal causal speed c. By contrast, elm waves propagating in water verify the covering isorelativity (IR) with maximal causal speed c/n. Consequently, I am aware of no conflict, particularly in view of the fact that the axioms of the two relativities are the same, IR admitting SR identically for n = 1. However,. in the event I am shown to be wrong, I will say thanks. A very interesting open problem is the mechanism generating the Cherenkov light which appears to be due precisely to the interplay of the two relativities under the indicated conditions (it hsould be possible to prove that the Cherenkov light cannot exist in case only one r relativity holds, whether SR or IR). In the event such a mechanism is understood in a way deeper than the current use of "phase velocities," said mechanism will allow the prediction of similar light in comparable conditions that are hitherto unknown. Best wishes," Ruggero Maria Santilli (research(at)i-b-r.org(dot)org)

Post 128
In response to post 127. Santilli states that we should apply the standard rules on the electron causing Cherenkov radiation (or we could say IsoRelativity with n=1) and IsoRelativity (with n>1) on the elm waves it causes. How would hypothetical observers, one traveling alongside the electron and another traveling at the wavefront of the elm wave, calculate their relative speed? Which n should be used? Hd46yo

Post 129
Propf. Santilli's comments on his isorelativity
Dear Hd46yo/Post 128. Thanks for yet another deep and intriguing question brought to my attention by the Editors. With the understanding we are dealing with 'terra incognita' and that, consequently, I could be wrong, here are my views. For the case of a tank of water, we have two observers, the external and the internal one with intriguing differences and inter-relations that perhaps are at the origin of the Cherenkov light.

External observer
I suggest to consider first the case when the "observer" (as traditionally understood) is outside the considered tank of water so as to use the conventional 'inertial reference frame.' In this case, the spacetime of such an observer is the conventional Minkowski spacetime with coordinates x = (r, t) and the applicable relativity is SR in its fullness.Such an external observer sees what we see, namely, the conventional and Cherenkov lights traveling at c/n, and electrons traveling faster but always at speeds less than c..

Internal observer
Your question raises the more complex case when the observer is inside the water thank. In this case, we expect the application of IR since the maximal causal speed of he observer would be c/n. In this case, the internal spacetime is that of the the isominkowskian geometry, see the paper R. M. Santilli, Intern. J. Modern Phys. D Vol7, 351 (1998 which we can express as follows

(1)       2. M*(x*,m*,I*): m* = T*m, m = Diag. (1, 1, 1, -1), I* = 1/T* = Diag. (n12, n22, n32, n42),
n4 = n, x* = xI*, x = (x1, x2, x3, x4), x4 = ct

with isoinvariant

(2)       2. x*2* = (x12/n12 + x22/n22 + x32/n32 - x42/n42) I*

whose isosymmetry I first derived in the paper Lettere Nuovo Cimento {\bf 37}, 545 (1983) and then studied in numerous works, see 1995 general review 'Elements of Hadronic Mechanics' Volume 1 and Volume 2 [[note that isoinvariant (2) includes as particular case all Riemannian line elements and that's the reason we have hidden gravitational aspects I cannot touch here]].

It then follows that the electrons travel at superluminal speeds for the interior observer since, as we said earlier, said electrons can be well approximated as traveling in vacuum thus verifying SR. So, the external observer sees no superluminal speeds, while the interior observer does.

Absolute reference frames
IR implies rather serious departures from conventional thinking in relativity. The first departure is the admission for IE of a fully acceptable absolute reference frame, evidently given by the frame at rest with water. In fact, resistance suggests that the best position for the internal observer is that at rest with respect to water. 'Mutatis mutandae', in case an observer starts at a given speed within water, resistance will bring him to rest with respect to water. You should know that the admission of absolute reference frames seems to be unavoidable whenever considering interior problems. The issue becomes mandatory when considering media of high density in which IR applies fully, but no internal motion is possible.

Isolengths
The next issue is how the external and internal observers measure lengths. In interior conditions, space coordinates are lifted into isocoordinates r* = rI*r (because they must be elements of the base isofield to avoid catastrophic inconsistencies). Among various motivations, the most visible one is a quantitative representation of the difference in length between those perceived from the outside and the actual lengths in the interior observers via the iso-rules where r is the length measured by the external observer and r* is that measured by the internal observer

(3)      2. r* = r I*, for I* > 1, r < r*

See the picture below and section 2.15 of R. M. Santilli, An introduction to the new sciences for a new era. hence, the lengths we may detect from the outside do not necessarily means that they are the actual lengths inside.

Isotime
The next point I would like to make is that we have a similar situation for time which is lifted into the isotime t* - tI*t, and here is the point: even the exterior and interior observers look at each other, this does not means that they have the same time (they age in the same way).

IsoInertial reference frames
Another point worth touching is that, even though interior reference frames are highly nonlinear, thus strictly non-inertial, their formulation in isospace M* over isofield is "isoinertial", namely, verifies the same conditions for an external Einsteinian inertial reference frame.

Maximal Causal isospeed
It is easy to prove that the maximal isospeed (that defined on isominkowskian space over isofields is "c", as it must be due to the validity of Einstein's axioms under isotopies. The understanding of this occurrence requires the awareness that all expressions dealing with c/n are the projection of isovalues in our spacetime since at the abstract level of the isominkowskian geometry the index of refraction (the gravitational content, and other features) are absorbed by the isocoordinates. Note also the lack of curvature in the isominkowskian geometry since the axioms remain Minkowskian. Curvature will emerge in the projection of the isospace into a conventional Riemannian space.

Hoping that the above comments do not create too many new problems, I hank you again for the intriguing question and express my best wishes. Ruggero Maria Santilli (research(at)i-b-r(dot)org).

Post 130
How can a relativity admit an absolute reference frame be compatible with SR that has none? Vsdf38to

Post 131
Because SR is solely applicable in absolute vacuum where there is no medium at all. Consequently no conflict is possible. Csd36ru

Post 132
I am intrigued by Eq. (3) of Prof. Santilli's Post 129. I found the geometric representation of the picture quite stimulating with endless applications to physical media at large, including the structure of particles. Can anybody elaborate a bit Eq. (3) of Post 129. V sd33ip

Post 133
Yes. The speed of light in water is about 2c/3. Hence n = T*n = 3/2. Eq. (3) then becomes r* = rI* = r(3/2)/ But numerical values are preserved under Santilli isotopies. Therefore r is about 2/3 of r*, namely actual internal lengths r are increased by about 1/3 when seen from the outside, which is exactly what happens in the physical reality. In short, the picture of Post 129 is one (of many) experimental verifications of Santilli IsoRelativity. Bsd37yi

Post 134
On what basis the index of refraction is assumed to be equal to Santilli isounit? Csd23yo

Post 135
Prof. Santilli conceived his isotopies to reconstruct the exact validity of SR on isospaces over isofields when SR is inapplicable in interior physical media represented with our physical spaces over conventional fields. For this aim, Prof. Santilli assumes two numeric fields. First, the field of conventional real numbers in which the local speed ofd light is measured, with multiplicative unit 1. The second is given by the field of isoreal numbers with mmultipliucative isounit I*. In the first case numbers are written p1, while in the second case isonumbers are written qI*. In the first case, since the unit is 1, the numeric value is given by p. In the second case, since the unit is I* the numeric value is given by q. To be "c", the maximal causal speed on isominkowskian space over the isoreals must be written c* = cI*. But Santilli isotopies preserve numeric values (this has been proved at all levels). Therefore, to be isotopically lifted, the local speed of light c' = (c/n)1 must be numerically equal to the isospeed, c'1 = cI* which is readily achieved by the isounit I* = 1/n which allows the exact reconstruction of SR on isospaces over isofields. Careful that there are alternative use of the two isofields with similar results. ASsd46vb

Post 136
Wikipedia reinstates van Erp trash in Santilli's article
As one can see Wikipedia's Article on Prof. R. M. Santilli https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruggero_Santilli has reinstated the statement by Pepijin van Erp provided to be lies by Post 78 by therefore disproving the statement by Wikipedia editor David Epstein in Post 93. On the wikipedia page of Santilli, David Eppstein has recently removed the paragraph on Kadeisvili. Maybe Santilli is wrong in seeing a conspiracy against him on Wikipedia. in oblivion of Prof. Santilli generous opening in Post 94 Dear David Epstein, even though insufficient, your corrections of my Article at Wikipedia have been appreciated.In response, I have interrupted the filing of lawsuits in Europe that have been indicated in this exchange. Additionally, I believe that the Committee on Scientific Ethics may disconnect their website www.scientificethics.org in the event my Article is properly edited along the lines of Post 78 with evident repeated statements that my views are not accepted by the scientific community at large. I would also like to find a way to disconnect this blog. In the meantime, I strongly recommend an intervention to remove the reason that forced me to sue under pressures from our investors, that is, I suggest the termination the anchor allowing insulting websites to appear for years immediately following my Wikipedia Article, and let the sequence of websites follow Google's rules on the number of visitors. In case of interest for these friendly resolutions, please feel free to contact me in this blog, or at my email research(at)i-b-r(dot)or or at my iphone 727 688 3992. Best regards, Ruggero Maria Santilli. The originator of the Wikipedia return to abuse of authority is the guy Netherlands Leeuw from the Netherlands who appears now to control the U. S. pages in EWikipedia, as one can see from the History section https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Ruggero_Santilli&action=history. resulting again in fully supported foreign slander of advanced U. S. research. Can America democracy be salvaged under such a decay?The number of people who doubt it increases in time.....
Vsd56ui

Post 137
For post 136 Yes indeed, Pepijn van Erp is a blogger, without degrees in physics or mathematical physics who has been rewarded for his slander to the Santilli's with his own article in Wikipedia where even his voice is recorded ( LOL). There is a movement to have his page removed because it does not meet the notoriety rule of Wikipedia. In fact all citation in the article are from Pepijn van Erp websites and the page was created by Netherlands Leeuw all by himself, the same who put back on Santilli's article the citation to Pepin van Erp blog! How conspiratorial is this??? Do we need more proofs of the Wikipedia abuse? No wonder Wikipedia is losing readership and funding! Brt29yp

Post 138
Antimatter galaxies

This court case started tow years ago and is about an article on the Santilli Telescope, but where are the new results with this instrument? Csd38yuPost 139
Csd38yu, thanks for your inquiry. Sir Prof. Santilli first discovered the existence of antimatter galaxies via the use of his revolutionary telescope in the Vega region of the night sky

[1] R. M. Santilli, "Apparent detection of antimatter galaxies via a telescope with convex lenses," Clifford Analysis, Clifford Algebras and their Applications vol. 3, 2014, pages 1-26 (Cambridge, U.K.,
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/Antimatter-telescope-2013-final.pdf

For a confirmation of this original discovery, Prof. Santilli discovered a second antimatter galaxy, this time, in the Capella region of the night sky

[2] R. M. Santilli, ``Apparent Detection of a New Antimatter Galaxy in the Capella Region of the Night Sky," Clifford Analysis, Clifford Algebras and their Applications, in press (2016)
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/capella-antimatter-galaxy.pdf

A recent general review by Prof. Santilli is available in Section 4 of the memoir

[3] R. M. Santilli"An introduction to the new sciences for a new era," Invited paper, SIPS 2016, Hainan Island, China Clifford Analysis, Clifford Algebras and their Applications ol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-119, 2017
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/new-sciences-new-era.pdf

Among a large number of refereed publications by independent astrophysicists, we quote the following representative papers 9see Ref. [3] for their complete list)

[4] P. Bhujbal, J. V. Kadeisvili, A. Nas, S Randall, and T. R. Shelke. ``Preliminary confirmation of antimatter detection via Santilli telescope with concave lenses," Clifford Analysis, Clifford Algebras and their Applications Vol. 3, pages 27-39, 2014 (Cambridge, UK)
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/antimatter-detect-2014.pdf

[6] P. M. Bhujbal, ``Santilli's Detection of Antimatter Galaxies: An Introduction and Experimental Confirmation", AIP Conference Proceedings Vol. 1648 (2015) pp. 510005-1-510005-5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1063/1.4912710
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/1.4912710(PM Bhujbal).pdf

Thunder Energies Corporation has made available to qualified scholars (on consignment at no cost) a pair of Galileo and Santilli telescopes for any desired independent verification anywhere in the world. Asxer

Post 140
Post 139, I looked through these articles, but it seems that development stopped after 2016. No new discoveries, I guess!? Which observatories have bougth the telescope? Csd38yu

Post 141
Csd38yu/Post 140, I contacted Thunder Energies Corporation for information on ongoing search for additional antimatter galaxies, but they told me that the info is extremely confidential. Yet, your post makes be suspicious. WHY you do not do the additional tests since the telescopes are available from Thunder Energies Corporation in consignment at no cost? why you want other do the discovery of a third antimatter galaxy that could carry your nbame until the end of time??? Something does not square. Zwe57io

Post 142
EDITORIAL NOTE: Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington granted on 8-17-18 motion to dismiss Frank Israel for lack of personal jurisdiction and without prejudice to allow the Plaintiffs to pursue the lawsuit in the appropriate forum, see the ruling http://www.galileoprincipia.org/Lawsuit-against-Frank-Israel-and-Pepijn-van-Erp/Doc-094-Order-F-Israe;.pdf

Post 143
Dear Editors/Post 142, the quoted judge ruling is a clear invitation for Prof. and Mrs. Santilli to file lawsuits in the appropriate jurisdiction, which is Europe, under which laws Frank Israel perpetrated clear violations of criminal laws for organizing as head of the Dutch Skeptic Society such an unprovoked, thus commissioned campaign of slander against advanced U. S. research for National Security. CXwe57op

Post 144
HEAR THIS ! HEAR THIS ! There is indication that the Wikipedia-Google mercenaries in The Netherlands knew in advance, on July 20, 2018, that Judge Virginia M. Hernandez Covington would dismiss Frank Israel on August 17, 2018, see the following screen shots marked "dutch-control-i, ii, iii" : the first is a screen shot of the website in Dutch https://www.villamedia.nl/artikel/skepsis-bijna-blut-door-rechtszaak-over-artikel; the second shows the page in Dutch marked in blue; and the third shows its translation also marked in blue:

In fact, the marked statement reads in English:
"Our attorneys have repeatedly tried their best to dismiss the case. There is already an interim verdict in favor of Frank concerning Santilli but the case is not over yet." This Villamedia piece, widely cited in Wikipedia, is a smoking gun, in my opinion. It is left to the readers to interpret this statement by the secretary of Sticking Skepsis and needs to be linked to the of the "organized academic, financial and ethnic interests on Einstein" Il Grande Grido - Ethical Problem of Einstein followers in the U.S.A: An Insider's View, , a . Zwe67e[

Post 145
As stated on his own signed message for Post 78, Section 8, and repealed in his filmed depositions http://www.world-lecture-series.org/level-x the primary reason for Sir Prof. Santilli's the filing of the lawsuit against Frank Israel and Pepijin van Erp has been the anchor provided by Wikipedia and Google to attach the slanderous website to his Article under the Google search, as documented by the following screen shot whose content remaiend the same for years:

Unexpectedly, on August 19, 2018, immediately following the release of Frank Israel by the judge (Post 142) (or perhaps as part of that process?), the Wikipedia-Google complex terminated this infamous anchor for and the slanderous website returned to have a position in the search in accordance with Google's rules, that is, in a way dependent on the number of visitors, see screen shot:

The main issue is now: for how long will the Wikipedia-Google complex terminate this anchor? We expect that it will be reinstated immediately following a settlement or a judicial closing of the case, with ensuing resurgence of lawsuits, this time, where they belong: against Wikipedia's Trustees and Google Management. Zwre57ye

Post 146
The evidence is incontrovertible on the existence of an organized conspiracy against Dr. Santilli';s research by "academic, financial and ethnic interests on Einstein" at Wikipedia and Google. It is a shameful episode in American science that will stay forever. Perhaps more shameful is the lack of shame by said interests as well as the servility by fellow Americans. Vwr67do

Post 147
THE FAKE SCIENCES OF THE 20TH CENTURY, II:
The denial of time irreversibility in particle physics to maintain the time reversible Einstein special relativity against incontrovertible opposing evidence with ensuing lack of proper teratment of energy releasing processes and the misuse of billions of dollars of taxpayer money.

During his fifty years of research, Sir Prof. Ruggero M. Santilli has confirmed the validity of the time reversal invariant Einstein special relativity and quantum mechanics for systems of time reversal invariant point-particles in vacuum, such as atomic structures, particles in accelerators, and other systems. Additionally, Santilli has established that said ttheories are "inapplicable" (and not "violated") for time irreversible processes, such as combustion, nuclear fusions, inelastic particle scattering, and others (for brevity, see Section 3 of the 150 page review [1]).

Santilli dedicated to irrebversibility his Ph. D., studies done in the mid 19060s at the University oifd Turin, Italy, where he had the opportunity of studying Lagrange's papers noistly clearly representing irreversibility via the external terms in the celebrtated analytic equations, as done independently by Hamilton. Contrary to these historical teaching, various scientists claimed at that time (and continue to claim nowadays) that the irreversibility of nature is "illusory" (sic!) because (so they say) it "disappears" when classical irreversible systems (such as the spaceship during re-entry of the picture below) are reduced to their quantum mechanical elementary constituents. To show that such a view is not technically sound, Santilli proved as part of his Ph. D. Thesis the following:

THEORE,M II.1 (Santilli No Reduction Theorem [1]): A macroscopic time irreversible system cannot be consistently reduced to a finite number of elementary particles all in reversible quantum mechanical conditions and, vice versa, a finite number of elementary particles all in reversible quantum mechanical conditions cannot consistently yield a macroscopic irreversible system under the correspondence or other principles..

Santilli No reduction Theorem establishes that, rather than "disappearing," irreversibility originates at the most elementary level of nature, thus establishing that quantum mechanics is "incomplete" according to the historical argument by Einstein, Podolsky and Rosen.

Starting from these solid historical and technical foundations, Santilli initiated his fifty year old studies on irreversibility beginning with the discovery of a new mathematucs, today known as forward and backward Lie-admissible omathematics, which embeds irreversibility in the most fundamental notions, the product and related unit. Santilli then applied his new mathematics to the "completion" of quantum mechanics into a non-unitary covering known as hadronic mechanics, and provided rather vast experimental verifications, including industrial realizations of new clean energies and fuels (see again Ref. [1] for brevity). In this Post, I would like to stimulate serious scientists to continue Prof. Santilli's research in irreversibility the identification of the following "fake sciences" (see Ref. [1] for their technical treatment):FAKE SCIENCE # II.1: Quantum mechanics can be consistently used for the representation of all infinitely possible conditions existing in the universe. On serious scientific grounds, quantum mechanics is exactly valid solely for point-particles in vacuum,, while being approximately valid for nuclear physics and astrophysics, and completely inapplicable for the synthesis of the neutron from the hydrogen and other processes in favor of a suitable ":completion".of quantum mechanics.

FAKE SCIECE # II.2: Nuclear fusions can be consistently treated with quantum mechanics., In reality, quantum mechanics provided a good approximation of nuclear fissions because they can be well reduced to showers of point-particles in vacuum,. By contrast, the fusions of two nuclei into a third implies the presence of nonlinear, nonlocal and nonpotential contributions that are beyond any possible treatment by quantum mechanics in favor, again, of its suitable "completion." .

FAKE SCIENC E # II.3: Experimental data on high energy inelastic scatterings of particles can be consistently elaborated via the relativistic scattering theory. Santilli calls the numerical results of these elaborations as being "experimental beliefs" because the "completion" of the scattering theory to include irreversibility yield different numerical results for inelastic scattering events, such as that of the picture below.

Reference

[1] R. M. Santilli, "An introduction to the new sciences for a new era," Invited paper, SIPS 2016, Hainan Island, China, Clifford Analysis, Clifford Algebras and their Applications Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 1-119, 2017
http://www.santilli-foundation.org/docs/new-sciences-new-era.pdf

Thanks for your consideration,. I remain available for any requested technical elaborations. Aer33up

Fromn the same author:
Post 112
THE FAKE SCIENCES OF THE 20TH CENTURY, I:
The reduction of all electromagnetic waves to photons to maintain Einstein's special relativity within physical media against vast contrary evidence, with the misuse of billions of dollars taxpayer money.

Post 148
Aer33up/Post 147, how can you credibly claim that the use of QM in nuclear [physics is fake science when nuclear power plants work so well? Dwe49ui

Post 149
Dwe49ui/Post 148, your statement is not Kosher. Prof. Santilli states (and I agree with him) that QM provides an "excellent approximation" of nuclear structures but it is not exactly valid since QM has been unable in over one century and a river of public funds to provide ANY numerically exact rep[representation of ANY nuclear data, thus requiring covering thepories. The lack of admission of this reality then fully justifies the name of "fake science.:. Aer33up

Post 150
Aer33up/Post 147, I am very interested in irreversible processes, particularly inelastic particle scatterings, but Prof. Santilli;s irreversible math is over my head. Can you please summarize it in a way understandable by the general physics audience? Thanks. Xwe56ip

Post 151
I'm surprised you have not announced the latest. On 4 September Santilli and van Erp settled, and the suit has been terminated. Xsd35ti

Post 152
DITORIAL NOTE: We only announce recorded public pleadings. There is none at the moment on what you claim and, therefore, there is nothing we announce. Also, the lawsuit is not Santilli vs van Erp but R and C Santilli vs F. Israel and P. van Erp

Post 153
I suggest you visit the same site you got your (badly out of date) documents, and examine #100 (Notice of Settlement) and #102 (Stipulation of Termination). The website pcl.uscourts.gov IS the public listing of pleadings. That neither party has released a press release or made other announcement in no way establishes that no "public pleading" has occurred. As with Santilli's objection to the transcript, the court documents are the official, public record. Xsd35ti

Post 154
EDITORIAL NOTE: Thanks. We assume what you state is true and get the documentation later on.

Post 155
A fundamental question: what is the evidence provided by Dr. Santilli (or anybody else) that Frank Israel is, in fact, Jewish? "Israel", while being the name of the Jewish state, is not an ethnically Jewish name. That is the real "evidence" Vsd46go

Post 156
Hello Post 155 ! Explain why this is fundamental?!?!? The wording of your question shows clear anxiety. Is perhaps Frank Israel afraid to admit he is a Jew or deny it? and if so why? If that's the case, what's wrong for Frank Israel to be a Jew? So why is your question fundamental? To answer your question, in the Filmed Sworn Deposition Sir R. M. Santilli answered "I do not know" to the attorney's question if he knew whether Frank Israel is a Jew. That is the serious "evidence" The word "Jew" exists nowhere in the lawsuit pleadings. So, it appears that you question originates from P. van Erp blog where many other other bother things are documented to be wrong. Awr59jk

Post 157
The wikipedia article about Santilli has been altered considerably the last few days https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruggero_Santilli It now mentions the telescope and this lawsuit. Swe56uo

Post 158
Yes Post 157, a new editor wiped out the collaborative work of at least 7 editors that, I am sure are not very happy!. Not sure why, as the new content is not related to the biography of Sir Ruggero Santilli, but it focuses narrowly on the attempt to depict him as an antisemitic, paranoid litigant. I would advise the Santilli's to ignore it as it is a confirmation that Wikipedia is in real trouble: it has now lost credibility as editors hang on their clique and use it to advance their agenda.The internet is filled with complaints about Wikipedia https://www.quora.com/ (following access search for "Why Wikipedia is Unreliable") Wikipedia itself is upfront about all its problems. "For a list of criticisms of Wikipedia, see Wikipedia:Criticisms. See also Wikipedia:Replies to common objections. Criticism of Wikipedia has been directed at its content, its procedures, the character and practices of the Wikipedia community, and its nature as an open-source encyclopedia that anyone can edit. The principal concerns of its critics are the factual reliability of the content; the readability of the prose; the organization of the articles; and the existence of systemic, gender, and racial biases among the editorial community. Wikipedia also has been criticized for uneven handling, acceptance, and retention of articles on controversial topics. Further concerns include the editorial vandalism allowed by anonymous editing, the possible formation of editing cliques, and over-complicated rules requiring frequent discussion and sometimes leading to wikilawyering. All of which sometimes gives rise to predictions of Wikipedia's end. Wikipedia is also sometimes characterized as having a hostile editing environment. In his book Common Knowledge?: An Ethnography of Wikipedia (2014), Dariusz Jemielniak, a steward for Wikimedia Foundation projects, stated that the complexity of the rules and laws governing editorial content and editors' behavior is a license for the "office politics" of disrupt the editors and drives away new, potentially constructive editors.[1] In a follow-up article, "The Unbearable Bureaucracy of Wikipedia" (2014), Jemielniak said that abridging and rewriting the editorial rules and laws of Wikipedia for clarity of purpose and simplicity of application would resolve the bureaucratic bottleneck of too many rules" So now NOBODY believes to Wikipedia anymore and the Santilli's should ignore it and move on with their productive lives.Vdf20yy

Post 159
I continue through the years to be shocked by the inability of fanatic Jews to see the serious damage they inflict to the Jewish community at large (as it occurred through ignored history) by dubbing Prof. R. M. Santilli as as an "antisemitic" because everybody in good faith can see that the dubbing has been and continues to be orchestrated to oppose his broadening of Einstein's theories. In any case, Prof. Santilli has a great record of financial support for numerous Jewish scientists for their participation at international conference, the granting of the Santilli Awards to various Jewish scientists, the record of his family during WWII to hide, at their peril, Jews escaping t he Nazis, Prof. Santilli's son in law is a few (since he is the son of a nice Jewish lady from NY), etc. Despite all you do, whenever you refuse to serve unethical Jewish deeds you become antisemitic, by therefore suggesting an "antisemitic behavior by KJews."Xwe78po

Post 160
I request the stockholder of Magnegas Corporation to sue Wikipedia for depicting Dr. Santilli in their Article as being responsible for two deaths caused by pressure bootless. Magnegas Corporation is a publicly traded company. Everybody can see in the SEC records that Dr. Santilli resigned as Chairman of the Board and in all other functions in June 2012, thus years before the first explosion. Wikipedia is the also suppresses the evidence that the deaths were not caused by pressure bottles delivered by the company but by pressure bottles re-delivered by distributors, thus with unknown content since distributors are known to fill up partially used bottles with whatever gas they have thus rendering magnegas unstable. In fact, Magnegas Corporation has been cleared by all federal and state agencies for any responsibility in both cases.This so dishonest conduct by Wikipedia must be fixed in the best possible way: in court. Asd29yu

Post 161
Need to honor in cosmology the rejection of the universe expansion by Einstein, Hubble, Hoyle, Zwicky, Fermi, de Broglie, and other famous scientists.

EDITORIAL NOTE: This is an open letter by Sir Ruggero M. Santilli to Dr. Jan Willem Nienhuys, Secretary of the Dutch Society Stiching Skepsis with comments on the blog https:/www.skepsis.nl/blog/2018/07/the-writings-of-ruggero-santilli sent on August 30, 2018, to the email of said blog: info(at)skepsis(dot)nl>. Dr. .Nienhuys has posted [posted interesting comments in his blog. Comments by interested colleagues are encouraged.

Dear Dr. Jan Willem Nienhuys,

I would like to express my appreciation for preparing a list of my papers more accurate than mine. The studies in cosmology discussed in your blog have been treated in great details in the blog and in its scientific references http://www.galileoprincipia.org/no-universe-expansion.php (hereon referred to as "the cosmology debate"). It appears that the following comments are an appropriate inclusion in your blog on historical as well as scientific grounds.

1. In my cosmological research I have not studied my personal views. No. I have studied the view by Einstein, Hubble, Hoyle, Zwicky, Fermi and other distinguished scientists who, after trying various theories and admitting their failure, died without accepting the expansion of the universe. You have the right to disagree with Einstein and the other scientists, as you do, but to avoid lack of honoring their memory, you should report their views, as I do.

2. The historical reason moving Einstein and other scientists to reject the expansion of the universe is that that Hubble's law "z = Kd.c" (Ref. [3] of the cosmology debate) establishes experimentally that the cosmological redshift "z" is the same for the same distance "d" in all possible "radial" direction from Earth, thus implying a return to the Middle Ages with Earth at the center of the universe. When I was in High School in Italy, I remember vividly Italian newspapers reporting this view by Enrico Fermi along the above lines. Again, you have the right to disagree, but the quotation in your blog of this historical fact is recommendable.

Figure 1: A geometric representation of the radial character of Hubble's law with Earth necessarily at the center of the universe from Section I.2 of the cosmological debate.

3. With the understanding that I could be wrong, you portray the view that the speed of galaxies is measured. Allow me to indicate that this is not the case. The "sole" quantity which is actually "measured" in contemporary cosmology is the cosmological redshift "z". The conjecture that billions of trillions of galaxies move away from Earth (at times with superluminal speeds) is a "purely theoretical assumption" stemming from the "interpretation" of Hubble's law with the Doppler axiom of special relativity, "z = v/c." I recommend that you clarify this additional basic point in your blog to prevent predictable political nonscientific interpretations.

4. I introduced the diagram at the top of your blog, again, to honor the memory of Einstein and the other distinguished scientist. as you can see in Section I.4 of the cosmological debate. You and other bloggers complain that, in the analysis of this diagram, I pass from the universe without acceleration of the expansion to that with said acceleration, resulting in confusion. You and your contributors are correct because I wanted first study the diagram with the cosmological view of the early 1900, and then with more recent views. I admit that the distinction here considered did not turn out to be that happy. In any case, allow me to comment on that distinction here. So, let us analyze the diagram with the Doppler interpretation of Hubble's law, z = v/c, which is evidently "linear in the velocity," thus implying galaxies at the double distance from Earth must have double velocity, thus resulting in a relative velocity between said galaxies. This diagram can be equivalently represented by the version

Figure 2: A diagram on the geometric inconsistency of the expansion of the universe due to the lack of invariant for all observers of relative velocities between galaxies.

In this alternative, Earth is on the left, the galaxies G1 and G2 at double distance from Earth are aligned along the horizontal axis, thus having a relative velocity which is completely absent for the infinitely possible observers O1, O2, etc. along the perpendicular to the horizontal axis at mid distance from G1 and G2. This is the case because galaxies G1 and G2 are at the same distance for the indicated infinity of observers, thus confirming the geometric inconsistency of the expansion of the universe and its historical rejection by Einstein and other distinguished scientists. The comment in your blog: In the 'proof' Santilli forgets that G moves as well. Actually Euclid, 2300 years ago, could have explained to him why he is wrong. is correct in saying that galaxy G moves, thus correctly implying that the diagram should be considered at one given time. However, the motion is linear in the velocity for all galaxies, thus implying that, at a later time, the diagram remains exactly the same, the sole difference being the increased distances, thus establishing the inconsistency of the expansion of the universe at any desired time.

5. Your blog occasionally mentions the big bang. I suggest you should indicate what is known by expert (but rarely spoken...) that, the big bang must have occurred in the galactic vicinity of Earth as a necessary condition to verify Hubble's law, thus implying again Earth at the center of the universe.

6. In connection with the "claimed" acceleration of the expansion of the universe (remember: we cannot measure speeds of galaxies, we only measure redshift of galactic light), your blog is certainly welcome to support the balloon model. However, you should equally report the fact that such a model is no longer accepted by experts in the field (see, for instance the recent advanced cosmology by Roger Penrose) because the acceleration of the inflation of balloons cannot represent the "radial" character from Earth of the claimed acceleration, thus establishing that the inconsistencies identified by the diagram of Figure 2 persists under the assumption of the acceleration of the expansion. In fact, the best geometry that can consistently represent the conjecture of the acceleration of the expansion is the funnel geometry of Figure 3, in which Earth must be at the tip of the funnel, thus again, resulting with Earth at the center of the universe.

Figure 3: The sole known geometry representing the claimed acceleration of the expansion of the universe in a way compatible with Hubble's law is the funnel geometry with Earth at the tip of the funnel.

7. Finally, you should mention for fairness that always for the intent of honoring the memory of Einstein and the other scientists, I have dedicated decades of mathematical, theoretical and experimental research confirming with measurements on Earth the validity of Zwicky hypothesis of tired light, namely, that the cosmological redshift is due to galactic light losing energy E = h\nu to the intergalactic medium mostly composed of very cold hydrogen with ensuing decrease of its frequency \nu with the distance. Consequently Zwicky hypothesis provides a quantitative interpretation of Hubble's laws [3] without the e expansion of the universe and consequential dismissal of the litany of unverifiable 20th century cosmological conjectures. I proved experimentally that the redshift of sunlight at sunset is a redshift of the blue light since red light is quickly absorbed by our atmosphere as well known. To achieve these experimental results, I had to work out first a mathematics for the representation identified at the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University for light within the inhomogeneous and anisotropic atmosphere which did not exist before, Refs. [18-21], then work out the generalization of the Lorentz symmetry within physical media [22-29}, then work out the prediction of these studies essentially given by Eq. (4) of Section II.3 of the cosmological debate. I finally conducted systematic spectroscopic measurements red light the USA as well as in Europe, Refs. [34-40]. For details, please see Section II./2 of the cosmological debate.

Figure 4: Experimental measurements [34-40] of the cosmological debate have established that the redness of the sun at sunset is visual evidence of the lack of expansion of the universe because said redness is a visual verification of Zwicky hypothesis according to which light loses energy to the medium, with ensuing decrease of its frequency.

Figure 5: One of the numerous spectroscopic analyses of Refs. [34-40] establishing with accurate measurements done in the USA and in Europe that the redness of the sun at sunset is a redshift of "blue" light into red, since red light is readily absorbed by our atmosphere. The redshift is called "isoredshift" because solely treatable via the new isomathematics.

In closing, allow me to indicate that the above aspects are specifically intended to illustrate the plausibility of the rejection of the expansion of the universe by Einstein and other famous scientists. Contrary to biased claims circulating these days, by no means, I claim to have achieved the resolution of the current open cosmological problems because the complexity of the universe is simply beyond our comprehension.

Critical views of the above comments would be greatly appreciated. You and any other recipients of this message are are authorized to publish it in a blog or to disclose it to others.

Best Regards

Ruggero Maria Santilli
Email research(at)i-b-r(dot)o

Post 162
It seems that Nienhyus did read the letter after all. He treats several points in the comments on his blog. More homework for Santilli. Dir35ru

Post 163
EDITORIAL NOTE: Yes, Post 162, we stated so in the heading of Post 161. There is no doubt that the topic is intriguing and important.

Post 143
EDITORIAL NOTICE: We have uploaded the Attorneys motion to dismiss the lawsuit and the Judge's dismissal of the lawsuit.

Post 165
I watched parts of the deposition of Ruggero Santilli. Interesting stuff. There is something bothering me: if Santilli only communicated with Kadeisvili via e-mail or fax, never met him or even spoke to him on the phone. And there is nobody else who seems to have been in contact with Kadeisvili only than through e-mail. Who then told Santilli that Kadeisvili had passed away? Zsd46eo

Post 166
EDITORIAL NOTE: Post 165, Sir R. M. Santilli received the news of Prof. J. V.Kadeisvili's death from the JINR, Dubna, Russia, as well as from the organizers of the 2014 AAAS meeting in Madrid who had invited him for a lecture on the Lie-Santilli isotheory. That lecture was then delivered by SirSantilli, see Prof. J. V. Kadeisvili's Eulogy by Sir R. M. Santilli It seems you did not read Section 5 of Post 78. Also, it appears you want to derail attention from the important scientific issues underlying the lawsuit with irrelevant tangential issues. We inform visitors that, while remaining available for serious matters,but we shall no longer publish posts such as 165.

==============