Anger is rising
Fatigue and perplexity
October 26, 2017
the Frankfurt conference the Paris conference
The internet is full of warnings about what are called " ".
How does it happen? Well, one day you receive a flattering email (see below), mentioning your work, your recent presentations. You're invited to participate in a seemingly respectable conference. And to make things worse, the "organizers" immediately offer you an oral presentation, not just a poster.
Here is the conference page, and:
An event labeled "academically certified." Never seen such a mention before. A quick look at academic websites listing various scientific events—this one isn't mentioned.
A glance at the scientific program.
Meaning of the adjective "tentative": provisional, for information only. What do we see when exploring this page? An endless list of names and presentation titles.
Amidst this chaos of names, I spot the name of a colleague, a senior research director at CNRS, founder-director of a CNRS laboratory dedicated to cosmological theories. I email him to ask whether he confirms having been approached to participate in this conference. His reply arrives a few days later: he had no knowledge of it....
Still, I respond to the email sent by one Preity Sae. The name suggests she is Indian.
The message:
- You are the person with significant experience in this field who is likely to deliver a remarkable presentation, capable of inspiring young minds while overcoming obstacles in the domain—something proven by your work. We believe your contribution would greatly enhance the importance of this conference.
In reply, I ask the sole contact whether it's possible to access the proceedings of the previous year’s conference, held in December 2016 in Dallas.
No response.
I ask whether it is confirmed that my French colleague (I mention his name) will attend this event.
No response, but his name disappears from the list....
The conference fee: minimum $1000. The venue: apparently a shopping mall. No academic framework.
I discover the name of Weinberg among the scientific committee members.
.
To get to the bottom of this, I write to Preity Sae that potential sponsors might fund my trip there, but these people would like to see a copy of the letter or message sent by Steven Weinberg, confirming his acceptance to join the conference's advisory committee.
And then—surprise—I receive a reply containing a copy of an email from Steven Weinberg:
At this point, I no longer know what to think....
However, regarding this conference, even though I would have had the means to attend using funds sent by internet users, the matter is no longer relevant today. My wife discovered a serious health issue two weeks ago, which must now be managed, and I will be confined at home for the coming months.
I've just completed installing , who requested a full month of work. She is accompanied by detailed calculations accessible to readers with advanced mathematical knowledge.
What does this approach signify?
For forty years, my work has centered on the feasibility of interstellar travel and its inevitable corollary: the UFO phenomenon. Yet within the scientific community (internationally), this subject is instantly dismissed as taboo. The question isn't even raised. I recall a recent video where Etienne Klein interviews a man at CNES who considers the possibility of extraterrestrial life—but only from a theological impact perspective. And Etienne Klein immediately states it's purely a philosophical question, since we all know such travel is impossible (...).
For me, this position is distinctly ideological and unscientific.
Conventionally, one might argue that such travel is impossible due to constraints imposed by relativity theory, making journey durations incompatible with human life. But the Janus model drastically changes the situation. It proposes a "bimetric" universe, meaning "the spacetime hypersurface has a front and a back, and on these two sides, space, time, and velocities are measured differently." On this reverse side—where negative masses and negative-energy particles travel—the speed of light is ten times greater, and distances are a hundred times shorter. Time gain: a factor of one thousand. Thus, interstellar travel becomes possible—if only we can figure out how to invert the mass of a vehicle and its occupants.
That’s what blocks everything, causes this deafness within the scientific community, explains why for years every attempt to present talks at seminars or meet with scientists has ended in silence—despite my work having been published in high-level journals.
It's unacceptable, shocking—but that’s how it is. What then, has this long series of videos represented? A way to address an audience of... non-specialists, even non-scientists, since the scientific community stubbornly refuses to acknowledge or debate this question.
The task was delicate, as the ideas involved—mostly geometric in nature—were numerous and sophisticated. It turns out, confirmed now, that scientists themselves, as well as cosmology specialists, are no better equipped than the average person in terms of spatial intuition to grasp concepts involving space connected by a "throat" structure. Paradoxically, among the general public, people without scientific training are often more comfortable with these geometric visions. Using my drawing skills and pedagogical talents, I did my best to present these ideas as accessibly as possible to the broadest audience. Apparently, it has worked fairly well.
The key elements of my work are accessible to anyone who understands exponentials, logarithms, sine and cosine, and derivatives. The crucial piece is this attached PDF. In passing, through commented excerpts from the excellent 1967 book Introduction to General Relativity by Adler, Schiffer, and Bazin (McGraw Hill), a classic whose quality cannot be disputed, one discovers how cosmologists have gone astray by adopting an incorrect interpretation of the solution found in 1916 by German physicist Karl Schwarzschild.
In contrast, my approach is solidly grounded. Competent readers now have everything they need to form their own opinion. What do specialists think? We await their response. For now, there remains a deafening silence.
How might this situation evolve? I don’t know. I will complete the final video in the series—the 23rd—which will be devoted, de facto, to the feasibility of interstellar travel. I suspect that specialists, and even scientists in general, will continue to respond with silence. Don’t even mention science popularization outlets or conferences like "Les Mardis de la Science," where an emcee will keep singing, "We are delighted today to welcome... etc." All my proposals to journals, TV programs, etc., remain unanswered to date—and I believe they will stay so.
In the meantime, thanks to funds sent by internet users, I pay (€400 per 25-minute segment) for people to translate phrases into English and insert subtitles into the videos. There are still 17 segments to be processed this way. This may help generate better reception in countries beyond France. I even consider creating versions with me doing the dubbing myself—reading aloud the English subtitles.
Will this have an impact? I’m not sure. The blockage remains international, for the same reasons.
Still, at 80 years old, I’ve just spent ten months creating these videos, working seven days a week, 13 hours a day, producing 1800 illustrations, starting work each morning at 6 a.m., sometimes earlier. And all this done alone. To work with me, one must be an innovator, not just a follower.
But as de Gaulle said: researchers are found, but innovators are sought. When I say:
- We need to find an algorithm that allows constructing a numerical solution from these two nonlinear differential equations, so we can finalize this first galaxy model—a self-gravitating system of point masses governed by the Vlasov-Poisson equation pair. And...
And nothing comes. It’s not about applying something already existing, but creating something entirely new and unprecedented.
I will do it. I will find it. In the meantime, these other research efforts have been stalled for two years, even though the breakthrough is within reach, as I am convinced. All that remains is to solve this final problem.
Since internet users have sent me money, I will continue pursuing opportunities to present oral talks at international conferences. The two conferences this summer were truly painful. See my two reports for and . Again, the question arises: lack of familiarity among participants with what is being presented. Even in the best case, what can one expect after a 20-minute talk in a conference hall?
These videos also address such people. Perhaps one day, after such a talk, I’ll hear someone say, "I watched your videos and read your articles, and I have a question to ask you..." But it will take time for this message to spread.
We must also remember what a young Italian researcher noted at the Frankfurt conference in July 2017:
- How can you expect researchers not to turn their backs on you? Your work completely undermines theirs, without exception.
Yes. Farewell to dark matter, dark energy, the concordance model, inflation, central singularities, black holes, scalar fields, quintessence, superstrings, modified gravity, etc.—a vast undertaking!
So I am tired and perplexed. Especially since this situation has persisted for nearly four decades. In the 1970s and 1980s, I opened a fantastic new field of research by creating a third fluid mechanics—after subsonic and supersonic, and the domain of MHD-controlled supersonic flows. There was also, perfectly demonstrated by experiment, the domain where turbulence is completely eliminated by electromagnetic forces.
What happened?
Nothing—absolutely nothing. No one (among major decision-makers in education and research) recognized the importance of this breakthrough. After 15 years of arduous struggle, I finally gave up. The subject vanished into quicksand. Yet it's something essential that will prove extremely important someday, when MHD can be applied to supersonic and even hypersonic travel.
Along the way, this research path was immediately linked to the UFO phenomenon, where witnesses report seeing vehicles moving at supersonic speeds without sound. And there’s the taboo again!
This makes me doubtful. Could this same scenario repeat in cosmology?
The history of science is full of missed opportunities—where visionaries were unheard, and their ideas only resurfaced long after their passing.
There are also phrases that carry weight, appearing in my interviews from the 1990s, which became the starting point for a rational, structured work that ultimately led to:
- When a neutron star becomes destabilized, it sends excess matter into the twin universe