September 25, 2020
Prof. Santilli is the author of about 300 post Ph. D. papers in mathematics, physics, chemistry, biology and astrophysics published in refereed journals around the world
Share this

Prof. Santilli

Q. Prof. Santilli, tell us what you want to indicate during this interview.

A. Following the beautiful TV series of Start Trek that influenced me greatly, the NASA planetary missions, millions of UFO sightings that can only be explained as being due to extraterrestrial visitors, the universe is perhaps the greatest interest of mankind today.

In this interview, I would like to indicate to listeners that cosmology is currently afflicted by one of the biggest scientific obscurantism in history imposed by organized interests on Einstein, an obscurantism fully comparable to that imposed by the Vatican during Galileo’s time, because the current obscurantism also implies a necessary return to the Middle Ages with Earth at the center of the universe.

By using a language as understandable to listeners as possible, I would like to present a brief historical account; identify the intrinsic inconsistencies of the chain of current cosmological conjectures; review the conceptual and experimental evidence dismissing the expansion of the universe and all related conjectures; show the far reaching technological implications permitted by the new vistas in cosmology; and provide documented evidence on the ongoing organized obscurantism in cosmology by bringing in particular to the attention of the taxpayers the abuse of billions of dollars we are currently suffering on hyperbolic cosmological conjectures despite their inconsistencies and their experimental disproof.

Doppler’s law

2) Q. What is the political reason for suppressing Zwicky’s Tired Light?
A. Due scientific process on Zwicky’s hypothesis was suppressed because it constitutes a brutal violation of Einstein’s special relativity. Light is the central invariant of special relativity and, therefore, any change of any characteristics of light implies that it is no longer the universal invariant of nature. The denunciation of the manipulation of scientific knowledge by organized interests on Einstein is the primary reason I have accepted this interview. What taxpayers are told is that the expansion of the universe is due the Doppler law, but what they are not told is that the Doppler law is a central pillar of Einstein special relativity and, therefore, any deviation from the Doppler’s law implies the violation of Einstein’s special relativity. I have no words for suggesting to listeners and fellow taxpayers to keep in mind the fact that the entire current chain of far reaching cosmological conjectures is aimed at imposing the validity of Einstein’s special relativity throughout the universe and, in the event the imposition is denied, that is the most important consequence. I have accepted this invitation also to denounce the orchestrated misinformation by Wikipedia which is notoriously under a totalitarian control by organized interests on Einstein. As everybody can see, Zwicky’s hypothesis of Tired light is intentionally disqualified with dubbing such as “fringe” science and the like for the unspoken objective of supporting Einstein’s theories, while carefully avoiding the presentation of serious scientific issues, such as the alternatives under which the hypothesis can be experimentally verified or dismissed.

3) Q. Prof. Santilli, what is the main inconsistency of the expansion of the universe?
A. Let us identify first the established experimental evidence, and then analyze the inconsistencies of the conjecture intended for its representation. The established experimental evidence is that of the Hubble laws according to which the cosmological redshift of galactic light is proportional to the distance from Earth as stated by all, plus an additional carefully suppressed property, that the proportionality of the redshift on the distance occurs in all possible “radial” directions from Earth.

The interpretation of this experimental evidence via the c the Doppler’s motion of galaxies away from us necessary implies the second cosmological conjecture, namely, that the acceleration of the expansion of the universe because the speed of the expansion increases with the increase of the distance.

Such an expansion of the universe and related necessary acceleration are inconsistent because two galaxies that are at double distance from Earth must have double speed with respect to Earth, thus having a relative speed, but the same galaxies can be at the same distance from another observer in the universe, in which case the speed of the two galaxies must be the same, thus resulting in a clear inconsistency because the relative speed of the two galaxies with respect to earth cannot be eliminated for another observer.

Note that, while the Doppler interpretation is inconsistent, Hubble’s law remains fully consistent because dependent on the trajectory of light. Hence, for Hubble’s law, two galaxies at double distance from us will have double cosmological redshift, while the same two galaxies can indeed be at the same distance from another observer in which case they have the same cosmological redshift. Hence, the inconsistencies rest in the Doppler interpretation and not in the cosmological redshift.

The reason Hubble, Zwicky, de Broglie, Fermi and other famous scientists died without believing in the expansion of the universe is related to the carefully undisclosed part of the Hubble law, namely, that the cosmological redshift is the same for all galaxies having the same distance from Earth in all radial directions from Earth, thus implying a necessary return to the Middle Ages with Earth at the center of the Universe.

4) Q. What are the inconsistencies of the big bang?
A. The big bang conjecture “does not” represent the astrophysical evidence for which it was proposed, and it is actually violated by said evidence. To begin, the big bang conjecture necessarily implies Earth at the center of the universe. The ensuing inconsistencies are well known to experts in the field, but studiously suppressed in scientific conduits and can be summarized as follows:

The big bang conjecture was proffered to attempt an “explanation” of the expansion of the universe and its acceleration. Hence, its basic consistency condition is that of being compatible with Hubble’s law. The first consequence of the big bang is then the return to the Middle Ages with Earth at the center of the universe since, by definition of explosion according to the Webster Dictionary, an explosion must originate from a point. Which point? Earth of course since the expansion and its acceleration are radial from Earth.

Also by definition, the debris of the explosion (the galaxies in this case) are thrown far away in all directions. A second necessary condition for consistency of the big bang is then that Earth’s galactic environment should be empty of any galaxy for the presumed time of the big bang, namely, for 13,7 “billion” light years from Earth. This necessary consequence of the big bang is disproved by the evidence that galaxies are uniformly distributed in the universe without such a large empty space.

Also according to the definition of explosion, the debris of the explosion (again galaxies in this case) slow down with the increase of the distance due to evident friction with intergalactic gases. But the big bang conjecture was proffered to represent the expansion of the universe and its acceleration. Hence, the big bang conjecture violates yet another consistency condition, namely, it was proffered to represent the expansion of the universe and its acceleration, while it may consistently represent a slow down of the expansion.

An “experimental evidence” of the big bang conjecture is the existence of a very week radiation existing in the universe, called Cosmic Background Radiation. When I was at Harvard University, a graduate student of mine proved in the early 1980s that, in view of its weakness, the Cosmic Background Radiation should have been completely absorbed by galaxies and intergalactic gases five billions years ago. Rather than an “experimental confirmation,” the use of the Cosmic background Radiation as a backup of the big bang was yet an additional conjecture in top of several preceding conjectures all aimed at preserving Einstein’s theories throughout the universe. In reality, a serious scientific study of the Cosmic Background Radiation requires the identification of a “continuous source of energy,” rather than a burst of energy 13.7 billion years ago.

Rather than solving the problem of the origin of the universe, the big bang conjecture prevents its study because it is based on a ‘singularity,” namely a point with infinite energy, thus preventing any quantitative study of its origination the triggering of its explosion in brutal violation of black holes law because such an immensely concentration of energy could never explode, and other evident inconsistencies

When at Harvard University, I had irreconcilable disagreements with my physics colleagues there, Steve Weinberg, Shelly Glashow and the late Sidney Coleman on the big bang, but also on other topics not addressed in this interview, because notorious fanatics on Einstein who became some of the biggest supporters of the big bang conjecture. My irreconcilable disagreement was on ethical issues, since the inconsistencies of the big bang conjecture are evident to graduate students, while my Harvard colleagues completely ignored them and have continued to abuse their academic authority as well as taxpayers money for their own personal gains. Most unreassuring is their Aryan conception of science that has increased during the past three decades due to complicity via silence by the physics community at large and ensuing guaranteed impunity.

5)Q. Are there other sciences afflicted by an ongoing obscurantism?
A. My God! all of them due to the lack of the shadow of scientific democracy in the United States of America today. I mentioned earlier the situation in gravitation which is so as to be qualified as shameful, rather than obscurantistic. Another obscurantism I should mention is that afflicting the structure of particles such as protons and neutrons, because such an obscurantism has dismal implications for for our need of new clean energies.

Quantum mechanics can only represents particles as dimensionless points due to limitations of its very mathematical structure. That was fine for organized interest on Einstein up to the second half of the 20th century when evidence started to appear on the fact that particles generally are composite. The problem that emerged was how to impose Einstein’s special relativity for the extremely small and extremely dense regions in the interior of particles. Since organized interests on Einstein had seen such a success in cosmology via unverifiable cosmological conjectures, they used the same scheme, that is, they organized a work wide support for the conjecture that the hypothetical quarks are the constituents of protons and neutrons, and, here is the scheme again, under the basic assumption that quarks cannot be directly detected, so that they be imposed via the abuse of academic credibility. Such an a conjecture then requested the additional conjecture that quarks are permanently confided inside particles, and requested yet additional conjectures in support of preceding unverifiable and inconsistent conjecture, in exactly the same way as it was orchestrated, implemented and maintained in cosmology for about one century.

Yet you do not need a Ph. D. in physics to uncover the scheme. The neutron is synthesized in the core of stars from a proton and an electron and it is claimed as being composed of three hypothetical quarks under their hypothetical confinement, etc. But the neutron is naturally unstable and decays by reproducing the original proton and the electron plus the hypothetical neutrino. Hence, organized interests on Einstein claim that at the time of the synthesis of the neutron inside a star the permanently stable proton and electron “disappear”, sic!, to be replaced by the hypothetical quarks and, when the neutron decays, the quarks “disappear” and the proton and electron “reappear” because needed to maintain Einstein’s theories. The dismal imp0locations for society is that the quark conjecture is now dominant and, as such, it prevents via disqualifications the study of new clean energies that would be otherwise possible. For instance, the assumption via a covering theory that the neutron is a generalization bound state of a proton and electron would allow the study of the possible stimulated decay odd the neutron that releases about lone millions electron volts of energy via the easily trapped electron, thus having a clean energy without harmful radiations. You can identify the scheme also from the presentation by the very members of organized interests on Einstein, such as Leon Lederman. When he was the director of FERMILAB, Lederman announced in the early 1990s the “discovery” of the “point-like” top quark. In so doing, Lederman perpetrated two scientific manipulations in one single statement. First of all, quarks are not detectable by their very assumption and, therefore, they cannot be discovered by definition. What Lederman should have announced was the detection of events that “might” be due to the hypothetical assumption of the top quark, and additionally say that the same events are also predicted by completely different models. The second scientific manipulation is very insidious because it appears innocuous while being lethal for science. Lederman’s claimed that the top quark is point-like. This is crucial for the entertainment of special relativity inside particles. However, the scheme is easily unmasked because, as Lederman knows very well, even assuming that quarks have a point-like charge, “there exists no point-like wavepackets in nature.” The moment you admit a wavepackets for quarks, protons and neutrons are no longer made up of ideal isolated nice points, but they are a hyperdense media generated by the total mutual immersion of the wavepackets of the constituents, within which even the definition of Einstein’s theories is impossible.

These questions are taking from a much longer interview which can be found at: