Alpha Institute for Advanced Studies (AIAS)


-quick links-

ECE Principles
ECE Principles II

-external links-


AIAS Coat of Arms

Home » General statements » Discussion with Stephen Crothers and Ruggero Santilli

Discussion with Stephen Crothers and Ruggero Santilli

This is an excellent point by Stephen Crothers. Louis de Broglie arrived at an equation
                                        En = h bar omega =  m c squared
where m is the photon mass.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Stephen Crothers" <>
To: ibr <>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 10:06:29 +1000
Subject: Re: Fwd: Some Background on the Einstein Field Equation

It is also of note that it was Newton who first suggested that gravitation acts upon light (see his book 'Optics' - the 'Queries' section therein). He maintained, as you know, that light is corpuscular.

Steve Crothers.

On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 6:53 PM, ibr <> wrote: wrote:

        My view is that relativity is an objective theory of nature based on geometry. Some, but not all, of the assumptions made in the Einstein theory are false. However there is at the same time no doubt of the fact that a simple line element:
                                                          g00 = 1 / g11 = 1 + mu / r
                                                           mu = 2MG / c squared
         is able to reproduce several types of satellite data very precisely, and also that ECE theory produces all the equations of physics as well defined limits. Theerfore it is futile to criticise ECE theory unless one proves "incorrectness" in well established Cartan geometry. To me, that type of thing is just a negative attitude, not a scientific procedure.
         ECE allows gravitation to be quantized straightforwardly, via
                                                          (d'alembertian + kT) q = 0
         and allows a unification of the electroweak field, strong field and gravitation. I find no problem with ECE theory, and no problem with refuting criticisms. My own method is to positively develop an idea when an older theory is obsolete, I sometimes criticise other work but not very often. I fully support Crothers' views on a Ricci flat vacuum. It is easy to see that ECE is a unified field theory because it can produce the classical equations of electrodynamics, the classical equations of dynamics, and their quantized equivalents, and also give information due to interaction of electromagnetism and gravitation (e.g. change of polarization in light grazing a white dwarf). So at the least, ECE is a powerful empirical theory. Conservation of energy / momentum has also been demonstrated in ECE theory in several ways, notably paper 103. These all involve matter, represented by T in the wave equation. As far as I can judge, hadronic physics is also well thought out and also produces new technology. So that is the acid test of a theory, it can be used for engineering.   I agree that the behaviour of people in the stadanrd view of physics is very regrettable, vey disappointing, very negative and inetellectually very dishonest, but at the same time I am more optimistic than ever about science, and over the foreseeable future will apply ECE to as much of physics and chemistry as possible.
           Civil List Scientist

    Dear Myron,

    Thank you for your beautiful message. It illustrates how complex physics really is, how difficult is to reach final statements (a point applying beginning with me) and that at time the difficulties rest in communications due to lack of mutual knowledge of respective works

    The best way to illustrate these occurrences is by saying that I agree with ALL your views with the sole exception of curvature, because all your statements can be identically reformulated without curvature. In the process you maintain everything you said, but add much much more. In particular, you preserve the entirety of the beautiful and important results by your group while cutting out criticisms and controversies at their foundations. Allow me to indicate how this seemingly inconsistent view is possible.

    Your formulation is on a conventional Riemannian space R(x,g,F) with the usual spacetime x, the metric g you wrote and related line element over a field F with unit I = diag. (1, 1) - in two dimensions for simplicity,

    R(x, g, F): g = Diag. (g00, - g11), I = diag. (1, 1)

    In this case you do have indeed curvature and all that, trivially, because the metric elements gkk are measured with respect to the unit 1 of the kk component and the result is different than 1.

    In our approach, we preserve identically all that, and merely formulate the theory in (what is today called by mathematicians the Santilli-Riemann isospace R*(x, g, F*) in which exactly your metric g is formulated over an isofield with isounit I* whose elements are is the INVERSE of the metric components,

    R*(x, g, F*): g = Diag (g00, -g11), I* = Diag. (g00^-1, g11^-1).

    The consequence is that THE S-R ISOSPACE IS FLAT because the metric components gkk are now computed with respect to the new component of the unit gkk^-1, yielding the numerical value 1 without curvature.

    You can see the result in many other ways, e.g., by noting that R*(x, g, F*) is locally isomorphic to the Minkowski space and NOT to Riemann. Consider the Minkowski space

    M(x, m, F): m = Diag. (1, -1), I = Diag. (1, 1).

    The transition from the Minkowskian to the Riemannian metric can be written

    g = Tm, T = Diag. (g00, g11),

    where T is necessarily positive definite 2x2 matrix.

    Now lift the above space to the isotopic form and you get exactly the SR isospace

    M*(x, m*, F*) =  R*(x, g, F*), m* =- Tm = g

    It is easy to prove that M*(x, m*, F*) is FLAT because in the line elements ds*, on one side, you lift the metric m => m* = Tm, while, on the other side, you lift the unit by an amount that is the  INVERSE of the lifting of the metric, I => I* = T^-1. Hence, at the abstract topological level the distance is L* = (TL)T^-1 = L, where L is purely straight and Minkowskian.

    The above very elementary reformation of Riemann has huge implications. I can provide you only an indication hoping to initiate mutually beneficial scientific communications among our groups.

    As a necessary condition to be "universal", Newton's gravitation must attract light, otherwise gravitation would attract mass only that would be nonscientific nonsense. BUT, this mandates the representation of the bending of light WITHOUT CURVATURE. This is is direct and immediate in R* = M* but impossible in Riemann.

    The representation of free fall along a straight radial line is also elementary on R*, because Minkowskian.

    I could never accept curvature for the representation of the WEIGHT of my body when at rest because curvature was conceived for TRAJECTORIES, such as the illusory curvature following light during bending, and NOT FOR A STANDING WEIGHT. This additional uneasiness of Einstein gravitation is also eliminated on R* because gravitation IS NOT represented with curvature.

    Note that IN ALL THE ABOVE YTOU DO PRESERVE THE METRIC g = Tm. You only eliminate curvature. This is due to the fact that the lifting of the METRIC m => Tm = g is indeed a fundamental geometrical and physical feature we cannot eliminate, as beautifully expressed by your message, while, by comparison, CURVATURE IS NOT GEOMETRICALLY ESSENTIAL, since it can be eliminated via the simple lifting I => I* = T^-1.

    Careful that these seemingly innocuous words have huge technical and historical implications. For instance, I never accepted the formulation of gravitation by Newton dating back to 1687

    F = G m1 m2/r2

    even though it has been accepted by everybody in the past centuries. The reason is that NEWTON FORMULATION OF GRAVITY IS NOT UNIVERSAL SINCE IT ONLY HOLDS FOR MASSES THUS EXCLUDING LIGHT.

    I do believe that Newton's gravitation is indeed universal but not as formulated by Newton, but via the elementary reformation I introduced a few years ago

    F = G m1 m2 / r2 = S E1 E1 /r2, S = G / c^4

    that trivially holds for all masses m =  E/c^2 but also holds for light with energy E = hv.

    Hence, I BELIEVE THAT THE ORIGIN OF GRAVITATION IS ENERGY AND NOT MASS. If that is false, then Newton gravitation cannot be universal.

    See for detail Hadronic Mathematics, Mechanics and Chemistry (HMMC), e.g., Volume IV, Chapter 6, in particular, the elimination first of the distinction between "dark matter" and "dark energy" and then the complete elimination of the need for dark energy to represent the dynamics of galaxy. This is done by the value of C inside stars much bigger than that in vacuum.  The "price to pay" is to reformulate both Einstein AND Newton gravitation.

    One of the most catastrophic feature of Einstein gravitation is that it admits only a COVARIANCE that has been proved beyond credible doubt to produce different numerical predictions at different times under the same conditions. You can check it out very simply by applying covariance to any "experimental verification".

    Special relativity has no such catastrophic inconsistency because it admits a SYMMETRY, the Poincare' symmetry P(3.1). Hence, I cannot accept any gravitation unless it has a SYMMETRY too because that will assure the preservation of the numerical predictions over time, thus providing the foundations for credible physics.

    Lorentz worked at this problem (essentially the symmetry of the locally varying speed of light C = c/n, where  the index of refraction n is a complex local fun ction), but failed and was forced to study the particular case of c = cost. Numerous other physicists tried the same and failed.

    After studying the issue for decades, the ONLY solution I could find was  ELIMINATE CURVATURE AS A CONDITION TO HAVE A UNIVERSAL SYMMETRY FOR GRAVITATION.

    In fact, the moment you assume the Santilli-Riemann or, equivalently, the Santilli-Minkowski isospace R*(x, g, F*) = M*(x, m*, F*) it was easy for me to construct the UNIVERSAL SYMMETRY P*(3.1) FOR ALL POSSIBLE LINE ELEMENTS AND THAT SYMMETRY TURNED OUT TO BE ISOMORPHIC TO POINCARE'.

    It is known today as the Santilli-Poincare' symmetry P*(3.1) does indeed assures the preservation over time of the numerical predictioon, while keep using the same metric g. See HMMC Vol. III for details.

    To begin indicating the advantages offered by the above studies to your own studies you should be aware that the latter are afflicted by the century old controversy on the very formulation of conservation laws, and then proof that they are compatible with Minkowskian conservation laws.

    This controversy has remained raging for about one century and it is known NOt to have a solution via conventional Riemannian formulations.

    The Isogravity truncates this controversy ab initio. In fact, exactly as it is the case for special relativity, the total conserved quantities of gravitation are uniquely and unambiguously given by the generators of Santilli-Poincare' symmetry P*(3,1). The proof of their compatibility with Minkowskian conservation laws is elementary and due to the fact that the generator of P(3.1) remain unchanged under lifting to P(3.1), since only the basic unit changes.

    In summary, your studies can be IDENTICALLY reformulated on R*(x,g,F*) by gaining a universal symmetry that truncates criticisms at its roots, I can show that, under the above simple reformation, ALL criticisms you have suffered CANNOT BE EVEN FORMULATED. They become nonsense. You give me one, and I will prove it.

    As indicated in my proceeding message on Rodrigues, any attempt at reaching a quantum formulation of gravity has no sensed, physically and mathematically, for countless reasons, e.g., the nonunitary of the gravitational theory on a Hilbert space that is irreconcilable with the unitarity of quantum mechanics.

    The origin of this century old impasse is one and only one CURVATURE. Once you eliminate it, a fully consistent operator formulation of gravity becomes elementary.

    This is the very essence of RELATIVISTIC HADRONIC MECHANICS which is the conventional relativistic quantum mechanics only formulated for a positive definite but arbitrary isounit I*.


    At this moment you have huge problems in achieving an operator formulation of your studies. The moment you reformulate them on R*(x, g, F*) without curvature you immediately have an operator formulation, but you have to accept hadronic mechanics.

    I believe that, by far, the most fundamental gravitational problem is the INTERIOR one because the exterior problem is a trivial and elementary limit of the interior one.

    Again, Einstein gravitation has failed for about one century to achieve any meaningful formulation of the interior problem, again and again, for one reason and one reason only: CURVATURE. In fact, thinking of curvature in the interior of the sun or of Earth has no physical or mathematical sense for me.

    The interior problem is now serious because it deals with the ORIGIN OF GRAVITATION, while the exterior problem deals only with the DESCRIPTION  of long range behavior.

    I cannot review here our studies (see HMMC). I only want to indicate that the isounit is solely restricted by being positive definite but is otherwise arbitrary. hence, the Santilli-Riemann isospace for the INTERIOR dynamics can be obtained via the lifting

    g = Diag. (g00, -g11) => G = Dig. (F00 g00, - F11 g11),

    I* = Diag. (g00^-1, g11^-1) = I*' = Diag (F11^-1 g00^-1, F11^-1 g11^-1)

    You preserve everything said before, including the universal Santilli-Poincare' symmetry, etc. and gain the locally varying speed of light for the particular case

    c => C = c/n(x, f, T, etc.),F11 = n^2

    but then you gain a lot more.


    I am sorry, but I cannot accept Hack wins studies on black holes because they are manifestation of the INTERIOR problem while he studies them via the EXTERIOR ONE. The divergences are gouge.

    In our gravitation black holes are the ZEROS OF THE ISOUNIT. In fact, for r => 0, T11 => oo and, therefore singularities are the solution of

    I*11 =  F11^1 g11^-1 = 0

    Now, in conventional studies colleagues study the simpler case of I*11 = g11^-1 = 0. The differences in the two cases are huge.

    I am sorry but I cannot indicate them here. Yet, keep in mind that, once reformulated on the SR isospace your studies can indeed be extended to interior problems and you see a huge new vista in the process, from a much taller scientific mountain.

    Another reason for the impossibility by Riemann to study interior problems is that the metric g is symmetric thus solely characterizing REVERSIBLE processes. To state it bluntly, the study of the age of a star on a Riemannian geometry is nonscientific nonsense because the star must be eternal from the invariance of the theory under time reversal.

    Again, again and again, the oNLY way I could achieve an IRREVERSIBLE GEOMETRY, that is, a geometry with a time arrow is by first eliminating CURVATURE, and, only when that is achieved, introduce a ANTISYMMETRIC METRICS, one for forward motion in time and the other for backward motion

    g^> = T^> m = Matrix ( g00, g01 // g10, g11),     g01 \= g10
    ^<g = ^<Tm = (g^>)Transposed

    I^> - (T^>)^-1,^<I = (I^>)transposed

    This is called by mathematicians the Santilli isogeometry. It has been shown to be universal in the sense of including as particular cases the Minkowskian, Riemannian, Finslerian, non-desarguesian and other geometries, and extend all of them into a nonsymmetric form that is essential for INTERIOR gravitational problems due to their irreversibility.

    As indicated in my preceding message, Einstein gravitation has no possibility whatsoever of representing antimatter for numerous reasons, such as the basic lack of any differentiations of gravity for NEUTRAL matter and antimatter.

    Even for charged stars, the gravitational contribution of the charge is extremely small, 10^-40 or so in magnitude, thus ignorable.  Hence, the theory predicts that the gravitation of matter and antimatter stars are identical, something for me nonscientific nonsense.

    I worked for years at constructing a more credible gravitation for antimatter. Again, again and again, the obstacle was CURVATURE. Once eliminated, everything became easy.

    Given a matter gravitation on R*(x, g, F), the gravitation of the corresponding antimatter can be characterized by the so-called isodual map, namely the nonHermitean conjugate

    I^> => - (I^>)^+

    in simplest possible cases by the CHANGE OF THE SIGN OF THE BASIC UNIT, FROM THE USUAL POSITIVE TO NEGATIVE VALUES. This processes reverses the sign not only of the charge but also of everything else, thus holding also for neutral stars.

    Above all, isoduality has been proved to be equivalent to charge conjugation at the operator level. Hence, in this way we have a CLASSICAL theory of antimatter that is compatible with all conventional operator studies in antimatter.

    The consequences are, however, big: matter antimatter must experience gravitational repulsion; antimatter stars must emit a new light different than that of matter (e.g., because repelled, rather than attracted, by matter), etc.

    The complexity of physics is that no theory is totally wrong or totally correct. Any theory contains one or more grains of truth and this app-lies beginning with my own theories. Hence, all grand unification do contain some grain of physics.

    As far as I am concerned, I cannot accept a grand unification unless:

    1) Gravitation has the same topology of electroweak theories, that is, gravitation must have no curvature,

    2) Gravitation has a spacetime symmetry isomorphic to that of the electroweak interactions and'

    3) Gravitation is formulated for both matter and antimatter.

    The latter condition is crucial. In fact, it is known today that if gravitation does not include antimatter, the grand unification is inconsistent because electroweak interactions do treat both matter and antimatter.

    The isaograndunification you can see in HMMC Volume IV, Chapter 7, appears to verify the above requirements,.

    I hope I did not abuse of your time with this long report, I only wanted to indicated that there are no basic disagreements between your PHYSICAL view and mine, the differences being in mathematical formulations, and that I am at your disposal to SUPPORT your studies and DEFEND them against attacks with TECHNICAL arguments. The only requirement is to be open to advances because the human adventure in science will never end.

    Most sincedrely yours

    Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli
    CV at
    President and Editor in Chief
    Algebras, Groups and Geometries
    Hadronic Journal
    Hadronic J. Supplement
    35246 US 19 North, # 215
    Palm Harbor, FL 34684, U.S.A.
    Office tel. +1-727-934 9593
    Lab tel. +1-727-934 3448
    Fax +1-727-934 9275
    E-address <>
    Web sites
    Fox News Video on the Magnegas Technology
    Video by Dunedin Water Treatment Plant
    United Nations Presentation
    Corporate video


� Copyright 2000 - 2020 AIAS
|Contact Us|AIAS License|About us|