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

...with a comment: "The sum of all derived ("de-coupled")
energies, E_i, is always equals to UNITY=1, not 0, zero." Well,
it is exactly the same nonsense as above, except that now we learn
that there are some "energies" around that add to E_u, where the
letter "u" stands for "Unified Field".

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

...we learn that 1 not only is less than zero
but also is greater than zero, because it is infinity. Formula
(8) is more nonsense:

E_U = m c^2 c^2

...with a comment "Unified Field Energy is equal
to the Non Unified Energy of Gross Matter, E_M = m c^2, accelerated
tensorially by c^2 or xc^2. This reverses the vibration of Gross
Matter back to ANTE-MATTER which is vibrating at |c^4|, speed
of light to 4th power."

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?

Back
to Thoughts 1...