During the past few days of thinking, of reading, of surfing the net, I realized that I have to comment on more than just Richard Hoagland or Tom Bearden. Here I will make several comments on what I have found in Val Valerian's "Matrix III."

Without beating around the bush, let me just say that what I have found is so ridiculous that I ask myself again and again: "Who is really behind the propagation of all this nonsense?" "Whose interest does it serve?"

In the end, it seems to me that the source must be the same as that which is behind Richard Hoagland.

Who is it?

I don't know.

The reader who is taken in by this kind of thing can legitimately ask: How do I know it is nonsense? How can I say that it is really that bad? How do I know it is not my inability to understand such "lofty concepts?" Or, that it is not my "Lack of imagination" or lack of good will?

For a long time, (over three years), I was open enough to think that the books by Val Valerian contained some genuine information from genuine and well-informed sources. I could even see, here and there, some things that corresponded to what I knew was true. But recently, upon a more detailed examination, this has changed because I have now come face to face with evident and elementary signs of disinformation.

Here are some striking examples: on page 344 we find a couple of mathematical formulas that make no sense at all. In fact, they look like a very bad joke.

(3) sum_i \mu_i == 1

...with a comment "The sum of all created ANTE-MATTER and Matter is always equal to UNITY=1, not 0, zero." This is nonsense since number one, 1, is a pure number. It has no physical dimension.

Saying that the sum of matter is equal to 1 is as silly as saying: The sum of all my money is 1. 1 WHAT? One dollar? One hundred dollars? Or 1 cent? Or 1 million? Or one Visa Card? Or one hope to have more money?

Then we have the next formula:

(4) sum_i E_i = E_u ==1

Then we have

(5) sum_i=E_u<< 0

...with a comment: "The sum of the Parts is always less than the whole." As we know from the above that the sum is 1, it follows now that 1 is less than zero.

Nonsense!

While from the next formula:

E_u==1==infinity

E_U = m c^2 c^2

Well, it is evident to me that the author has never really taken any serious physics courses, otherwise he would not make such nonsensical statements. The speed of light is a dimensional quantity. It is not just a number, like 1 or 20 or 20 000 or whatever.

We must also say in which UNITS it is expressed: miles per hour? miles per second? inches per year?

For any choice of units we have a different value. One mile and one inch - they are both ONES, but they have a different content.

Therefore, because speed (of light, in our case) is a dimensional quantity, you canot simply replace c to the 2nd power by c to 4th power in formula, because these two have different physical dimensions!

I believe that elements of "dimensional analysis" are taught in high schools - that was at least the case with me....

What can we conclude from this?

1. The Author of these formulas has not learned the rudiments of dimensional analysis, thus he cannot really understand how to write sensible physics formulas. If he took high school physics, he wasn't paying attention.

2. The source of the information presented on these pages of the Matrix III book is certainly not a "well informed insider" or "very well informed alien" either! The source of these pages is either the pure grandiose imagination of the author, or the pure imagination of someone else, or deliberate disinformation.

Now that we have a basis on which to make some deductions about the source, we can proceed to more "advanced" parts of the material. You see, when errors are as easy as those above - they are easily detectable by even a bright high-school graduate, because they are not using sophisticated terminology. But on some of Matrix III pages we do find such sophisticated concepts. So let me comment on some of them, and then let me try to draw some conclusions.

But before doing that let me point out that this is the very same kind of disinformation I have found in Bruce Cathie's writings. In "Anti-Gravity and the World Grid", Edited by David Hatcher Childress, we have a contribution "Mathematics of the World Grid" by Bruce L. Cathie, and on p. 97 of this paper we find an "improved Einstein formula", called "Harmonic equation 1":

E=(c + sqrt(1/c))*c^2

Here, as in the case of "Matrix III" discussed above, the author does not know, or has forgotten, that velocity is not just a number, that it has a physical dimension of LENGTH/TIME and, therefore, you cannot simply add c to sqrt(1/c), and you can not replace c^2 by c^3 in the Einstein formula!

The formula is nonsense!

Worse than this, it is not even a "wrong" formula. You see, with a wrong formula, you could still discuss how it is wrong, where it is wrong, or in which circumstanmces it can possibly be partly true. But you can't do that with a nonsensical formula. This formula must have been typed by one of those thousand monkeys in their 4 billion year task of composing the Encyclopedia Brittanica!

Back to "Matrix III" and the more "advanced" terms that appear there:

It is somewhat strange that on p. 332 the author (VV?) also has "Earth's Power Grid Vortex" - but he is using more advanced terms than Bruce Cathie... Backing up to p. 313 of Matrix III, we find "Definition of Terms in Relativistic Physics." It starts with tensors; let me quote: "Tensors (literal) Multi-dimensional, multicomponent force having magnitude and direction, representing a complex state of Forces, Fields, Mass, Energy, Flow, Stress, etc. The states of rest, motion and the vibrations inherent in a system can be completely described by Tensors."

Is there any sense in the above definition? Does the author understand what he is talking about?

I don't think so, because it is not true that tensors have magnitude and direction!

That is true about vectors, which are very particular kinds of tensors (and there is a separate entry for them few lines below), but that is not true about tensors in general. Tensors do not have a direction, and also the concept of a "magnitude" of a tensor is undefined.

By the way, even for a vector the concept of a "magnitude" is well defined only when these are vectors in a space equipped with a positive defined scalar product - but not in a general vector (or affine space). Therefore we conclude that the author does not understand what a tensor is.

So, if he does not understand it, why is he using it?

I do not know! One possibility that comes to my mind is that he has read it somewhere and he is repeating it without understanding. Another possibility is that somebody has given him this material for the purpose of deliberate disinformation.

But who could it be and why would they do it?

Your guess is as good as mine!

Now, let us skip "vector" and go to "spinor." We find here: "Spinor: a mathematical entity mostly used in quantum mechanics describing a spin having only two values, such as (+ - or up/down) for electrons, protons, neutrons. A spinor is present in discussions of relativistic light cones."

Is that correct?

First of all, when physicists talk about spinors, they do not necessarily mean objects that have only two values. Spinors are objects carrying half-integer spin. They may have two values (for spin 1/2), but they may have more (2s+1) values for spin s. So the author of this definition has a rather narrow perspective and/or incomplete knowledge. But we then we find that spinors are present in discussions of relativistic light cones.

Is THAT true?

Well, first of all spinors do not have to be present in discussions of these cones. Relativistic light cones were discussed by Minkowski and Einstein long before spinors entered into physics. It was Roger Penrose who pioneered the use of spinors in discussions of light cones.

Thus we conclude that the author either has talked to Penrose or has read a paper or a book by Penrose, but clearly without understanding, because you cannot really understand spinors if you are not able to understand vectors and tensors.

Let us go to "twistor." Here is what we find: "Twistor: A generalized spinor, and a mathematical entity used to represent curved space geometrically. Twistors are coordinates of spinor-space...."

Here again we see a touch of Roger Penrose. But are twistors "geometrical quantities used to represent curved space geometrically?"

The answer is: sometimes, perhaps, but only in signature (+++,-), certainly not for general curved spaces, and not in arbitrary dimensions.

Thus again we see that the author is using terms that he does not understand.

Why would he do it? To impress the reader? Or to disinform?

Go to: Critical Note on Tom Bearden and Richard Hoagland - NOTES on AIAS

Go to: Val Valerian, O.H. KRLL, and the Matrix Material

Back to Thoughts 1...