International Committee on
Scientific Ethics and Accountability

TO OPPOSE
SCIENTIFIC FRAUDS, PLAGIARISMS, AND DECEPTIONS



DOCUMENTATION OF ORGANIZED SCIENTIFIC CRIMES IN THE U.S.A., ENGLAND, ITALY AND OTHER COUNTRIES.


I provide below verbatim duplicates of some of the footnotes of
Foundations of Hadronic Mathematics, Mechanics and Chemistry,
Volumes I, II, III
Prof. Ruggero Maria Santilli
available in a preliminary pdf format at the web site
http://www.i-b-r.org/Hadronic-Mechanics.htm
providing simply astonishing documentation of true organized scientific crimes in the U.S.A., England, Italy and other countries.

Rendered practically speechless by the reading, I can only express shame that seemingly reputable institutions and government continue to provide financial, academic and other support to individuals who should instead be prosecuted under a jury trial, preferably of an appropriate criminal court.

William Pound
Chairman
International Committee on Scientific Ethics and Accountability
with distress for being unable to disclose his true name at this writing to prevent the same academic and family disruptions suffered by Prof. Santilli and, in this way, being incapacitated from containing actions.

***********************************************

Some of the references quoted in the footnotes:

[12] R. M. Santilli, Contributed paper in the Proceedings of the VIII Marcel Grossmann Meeting in Gravitation, T. Piran, and R. Ruffini, Editors, World Scientific, pp. 473-475 (1999).

[13] R. M. Santilli, Galilean Electrodynamics Vol. 17, Special issue {\bf 3}, 42 (2006).

[14] R. M. Santilli, "On a possible Lie-admissible covering of the Galilei Relativity for nonconservative and Galilei form-noninvariant systems," Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge MA, under DOE contract DE-ACO2-80ER-10651.A001, published in the Hadronic J. {\bf 1}, 223-423 (l978), with addendum published in the Hadronic Journal {\bf 1}, 1279-1342 (l978) [this memoir set the mathematical foundations of hadronic mechanics presented in the adjoining memoir [50] of the same year] [14a]; R. M. Santilli, "Need for subjecting to an experimental verification the validity within a hadron of Einstein's Special Relativity and Pauli's Exclusion Principle," Lyman Laboratory of Physics, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA, under DOE contract DE-ACO2-80ER-10651.A001, published in the Hadronic J. Vol. {\bf 1}, 574-902 (l978) [this memoir originated the proposal and construction of hadronic mechanics following the p[receding memoir [14a] on its Lie-admissible formulations] [14b].

[33] R. M. Santilli, I Nuovo Cimento Vol. 51, 570-576 (l967).

[89] R. M. Santilli, Ethical Probe of Einstein's Followers in the U.S.A.: An Insider's View, Alpha Publishing, Newtonville, MA (1984), ISBN \# 0-931753-00-7, available as free download in pdf format in the web site http://www.scientificethics.org/IlGrandeGrido.htm

[90] R. M. Santilli, Documentation of the Ethical Probe, Volumes I, II and III, Alpha Publishing, Newtonville, MA (1986), available as free download in pdf format from the web site http://www.scientificethics.org/IlGrandeGrido.htm

[95] R. M. Santilli, Hadronic J. {\bf 13}, 513 (1990).

[96] R. M. Santilli, Chinese J. Syst. Eng. and Electr. {\bf \&} Electr. {\bf 6,} 177 (1996)

[97] R. M. Santilli, Found. Phys. {\bf 37}, 670 (2007).

***********************************************

Footnote 1, Section 6.1, Volume II:

ORGANIZED SCIENTIFIC CRIME BY SIDNEY COLEMAN, STEVEN WEINBERG, SHELDON GLASHOW ET AL. AT HARVARD AND OTHER UNIVERSITIES. The author has repeatedly stated that {\it no basic advances are possible in the contemporary physics community without a joint consideration of scientific ethics and accountability.} To further illustrate the gravity of the condition, the author has expressed the view that {\it our contemporary society is at a stage similar to that of the Roman empire prior to the setting up of the Roman Law.} This is due to the lack of a Code of Scientific Laws, to such an extent that scientific lawsuits cannot be even understood by judges and attorneys alike, let alone properly acted upon (see the web site www.scientificethics.org).

Due to the absence of any serious addressing of scientific issues by the current codes of laws, we shall herein define as "scientific crime" any manipulation of scientific research for personal gains causing damage to society. We shall then define "organized scientific crime" any scientific crime perpetrated by a given scientist thanks to the complicity of one or more additional scientists.

It must be stressed that "scientific crimes" as denounced in footnotes throughout these volumes constitute the personal opinion by the author, made without any participation and/or approval by any other person and/or company, and expressed as an individual U. S. Citizen under the protection of the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitutions, that is in particular effect when used, as in these footnotes, for the protection of America against its exploitation by a minoritarian group for their personal gains. In particular, "scientific crimes" do not necessarily constitute violations of existing laws.

The deplorable condition of the law pertaining to scientific issues can be illustrated by the fact that an old lady shoplifting out of need is immediately sent to jail, while physics professors can perpetrate under complete impunity huge organized scientific crimes for personal gains. The problem for our contemporary society is that the crime (as above defined) committed by the latter is much bigger than that of the former.

In view of the above unreassuring condition of our contemporary science, the presentation of these volumes would constitute {\it per se} a scientific crime in the event released without a denounciations of rather incredible acts of organized academic oppositions against the surpassing of Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics, in documented awareness of its need for new clean energies and fuels, since it is known by experts (to qualify as such) that the latter can be solely developed via new disciplines. Hence, in the footnotes of this second volume too we shall continue to outline and document episodes of organized obstruction suffered by all scientists who dared to surpass Einsteinian doctrines.

The hope is that politicians, educators, and taxpayers, as well as responsible administrators of U. S. and other universities fostering said organized scientific crime, will eventually understand the gravity of the condition of our physics research and the consequential, perhaps already irreparable damaged caused by uncontrolled academic manipulations of science, because, in the final analysis, it is written in history that people have the system that either want or deserve.

Above all, it is hoped that politicians, educators and taxpayers, as well as responsible academic administrators, will understand the dimension of the now inevitable condemnation by posterity, because the lack of solution of the increasingly cataclysmic climactic events is due precisely to their complicity, whether by inaction or intent, with organize academic corruption on pre-established doctrines for personal gains, in complete oblivion of the need by society of ethical conduct.

The first occurrence requiring a denounciations is the organized scientific crime initiated in 1978 by Sydney Coleman, Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow at the Lyman Laboratory of Physics of Harvard University, opposition, then increased in time and now causing the filing of various lawsuits as the only possible response to the total impunity assured by active members of the organization in academic administrations, physical societies and governmental agencies (see scientificethics.org and other website around the world).

Since the dimension of the organization of this scientific crime is simply beyond belief, Santilli felt an ethical duty to review it in detail in book [89] of 1984 and document it in the 1,132 pages of the three volumes [90]. The gravity of the condition can be understood from the fact that, following public denounciations [89.90], organized scientific crimes against the surpassing of Einsteinian doctrines {\it increased} due to, again, complete impunity assured by organization members in academia, societies and government. The gravity of the condition in the U.S. is also illustrated that denounciations [89.90] of 1984 have remained virtually unknown in the U.S.A. due to complicity in the U. S. newsmedia, as well; as the fact that academicians sided, for evident favor, with the physicists denounced therein with their actual name.

For the record, Santilli shared an office with David Peaslee at MIT for the academic year 1976-1977, during which time Santilli indicated to Peaslee the desire to construct hadronic mechanics because of serious possibilities of permitting basically new clean energies, particularly following the achievement of a representation of the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron due to the possibility of stimulating the decay of the neutron and other advances.

Subsequently, David Peaslee became an officer of the High Energy Physics Division of the Department of Energy (DOE)\index{DOE}, and Santilli joined the Lyman Laboratory of Physics at Harvard University. As documented in volumes [90], the very day of his arrival at Harvard University, on September 1, 1977, the Lyman Laboratory received an {\it invitation} for Santilli to apply for the research grant number ER-78-S-02-47420.A000, AS02-78ER04742, evidently under Harvard's Administration [89.90].

Due to the fact that DOE invitations were (and remain) rather unfrequent, the Lyman faculty requested Santilli to provide a disclosure of the intended research, allegedly, as part of the process for the internal approval of the grant. Being rather naive at that time, Santilli plunged himself into very intense work to prepare paper [14a], that he submitted to the Lyman faculty as well as to outside colleagues for comments.

Sydney Coleman was the only physicist at the Lyman Laboratory with the mathematical knowledge needed to understand in 1978 the {\it Lie-admissible lifting of Galilei and Einstein relativities for the characterization of the time-rate-of-variations of physical quantities of irreversible systems} (see the title of paper [14a]), where irreversibility is mandatory for any credible study of energy-releasing processes (see Chapters 1 and 4, and the new energies of this volume).

Paper [14a] was then submitted to Sidney Coleman as well as to Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow, not only for the departmental review, but also to act as referees for its publication. Following the reading of paper [14a], Coleman, Weinberg and Glashow decided against the acceptance of DOE grant ER-78-S-02-47420.A000, AS02-78ER04742, on grounds that "Santilli's research has no physical value."

Unfortunately for the credibility of Harvard University now questioned the world over, following the request to review a highly technical paper, Coleman, Weinberg and Glashow never released a written referee's report. Also, their rejection was dramatically dissonant with very positive {\it written} reviews by qualified outside scholars, such as the very strong written support by S. Okubo and various other reproduced in volumes [90]. Lacking written technical objections, paper [14a] was published on the basis of the very positive, written referee's reports by S. Okubo, I. Prigogine, K. Popper, and others.

Coleman, Weinberg and Glashow kept Santilli without any salary for the entire academic year 1977-1978 while the DOE was waiting for their acceptance of the grant, in full awareness that Santilli had, at that time, two children in tender age and a wife to feed and shelter. Ascientific and asocial behavior of these dimensions are done for a purpose, in this case, the evident intent, or de facto expected consequence in any case, of dissuading Santilli from the continuation of his studies on the generalization of Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics.

At the end if the academic year 1977-1978, Santilli delivered to the Lyman Laboratory of Physics his academic year report reproduced in Refs. [89,90], and including the following scientific activities all done without any income at all from Harvard University or other institutions:

1) The reception of the invited DOE grant number ER-78-S-02-47420.A000, AS02-78ER04742;

2) The publication of various papers in Phys. Rev. D, Annals of Physics and other journals, besides papers [14] on the birth of hadronic mechanics also of 1978, as one can inspect in Santilli's CV at www.i-b-r.org/Ruggero-Maria-Santilli.htm;

3) The publication (also in 1978) in the prestigious Springer-Verlag series "Texts and Monographs in Physics" of the first volume of {\it Foundations of Theoretical Mechanics,} as well as two additional monographs one can see in the CV;

4) The delivery at Harvard of an informal, post Ph. D. Seminar Course on {\it The Integrability conditions for the existence of a Lagrangian or a Hamiltonian;}

5) The founding and structural organization of the {\it Hadronic Journal}

6) The delivery of a list of seminars at various universities; and

7) The review following the request by the American Physical Society, the DOE and the NSF of various papers and projects not identified in Refs. [89,90] because of their confidential character.

The lack of proper scientific conduct at Lyman Laboratory fueled initial international denounciations of organized scientific crime that have increased in time due to lack of corrective measures and have seriously damaged the credibility of American science throughout the world, let alone that of Harvard University. The denunciation is that Coleman, Weinberg and Glashow opposed the formal will of the Government of the United States of America to maintain their allegiance to organized interests on Einsteinian doctrines, in disrespect of the well known need to surpass them as a necessary condition to achieve much needed new clean energies.

At the edge of appropriate legal actions and the ensuing scandal, including petitions for an investigation of the case by the U. S. Senate, Shlomo Sternberg, a senior mathematician at the Department of Mathematics of Harvard University, intervened in support of Santilli, who was transferred to the Department of Mathematics at Harvard University. In this way, two additional grants by the DOE were activated, grant numbers ER-78-S-02-47420.A000, AS02-78ER04742, DE-ACO2-80ER10651, with Sternberg as principal investigator and Santilli as a co-investigator.

Even thou the research conducted by Santilli at that time was purely mathematical (as an evident premise to surpass Einsteinian doctrines), Coleman, Weinberg and Glashow continued to exercise documented pressures at Harvard's Department of Mathematics to terminate Santilli's position there on repeated grounds that "Santilli research has no physical value," thus preventing the Department of Mathematics from accepting additional grants for Santilli.

Predictably, there were extreme reservations (to use an euphemism) at the DOE that physicists at Harvard University could oppose the will of the United State Government, to the fanatic extreme of reaching the edge of an international scandal including possible lawsuits and senate hearings, the latter still lingering on the case because apparently initiated in 1985 by a U. SA. Senator and then suppressed via apparent manipulations coordinated by Derek Bock, Harvard's president of the time, documentedly [90] fully aware and fully supportive of the ongoing organized scientific crime at his college.

In view of all that, DOE officers supported the creation in 1983 of the {\it Institute for Basic Research} (IBR)\index{IBR} with Santilli as President and the participation of a considerable number of mathematicians, theoreticians and experimentalists that had initiated active research in Lie-admissible algebras and the construction of hadronic mechanics, as reported in Refs. [89,90], as well as in the General Bibliography of these volumes. The DOE, then still independent from organized interests on preferred theories, kept its commitment and the IBR received the additional contracts DE-ACO2-80ER-10651.A001, and DE-ACO2-80ER10651.A002.

A Victorian located at 96 Prescott Street in Cambridge, within Harvard's compound, was purchased to house the IBR, and a feverish scientific activity began.

Unfortunately for the credibility of Harvard University and the American science, the opposition by Coleman, Weinberg and Glashow against the generalization of Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics found extremely receptive backing from, MIT,. Princeton , as well as other "leading" universities around the world, and the organization grew to such dimension to perpetrate hardly credible, yet documented [90] acts, such as: the inability by Santilli to locate any academic job anywhere in the USA despite the availability at that time of DOE support; the rejections without any credible review of all papers by Santilli and dozens of other researchers by the journals of the American, British, French, Italian, Swedish and other physical societies, rejections that mysteriously emerged all at the same time beginning from 1983.

To disqualify the sceptic and qualify him/her as a member of the organization, that the simultaneous suppression the world over of publications by Santilli's group originated from Coleman, Weinberg, Glashow and their accomplices around the world, Santilli's CV shows routine publications in the journals of all the American, British, Italian and other physical societies up to 1983, and then no publications for decades. At any rate, Renato Angelo Ricci then president of the Italian Physical Society, openly stated in writing that his systematic rejections without any technical content originated from the opposition at Harvard University (see Footnote 32 of Chapter 3).

To prevent expected damage, {\it the organized scientific crime should be aware that Santilli's office and house in Florida contain no documentation whatsoever. All physical and electronic documentation is stored in a safe place abroad, jointly with mirror web sites in various countries, including mirror sites for these volumes.}

By the mid 1980s, the pressure on the DOE for halting financial support to Santilli became so numerous and vociferous, due to the acquired dimension of the organization, that indeed the DOE was forced to terminate support.

By the late 1980s, the local opposition in Cambridge and the Boston area to the mathematical and physical research conducted at the IBR for the surpassing of Einsteinian doctrines reached rather vulgar overtones, such as: all initial originators of hadronic mechanics (see names and pictures in the proceedings of the initial workshops) we threatened by the organization with the loss of their academic job in the event of continued association to Santilli, and others received offers of important promotions for the same scope; the seven universities of the Boston area collegially refused to list in the Boston Area Physics Calendar extremely advanced seminars by distinguished, senior, IBR visitors from abroad with an incredible blindness of self-destruction typical of power achieved via abuse and vast complicity; Santilli received threats by local physicists while working late at night at the IBR office at 96 Prescott Street in Cambridge, under a clear hysteria of fanatical fervor in the protection of Einsteinian doctrines reminiscent of the Arian problems of WWII eventually paid by all; and other acts of ascientific, asocial and amoral misconduct.

As IBR president, Santilli had no other choice than moving the IBR away from Cambridge and the Boston area for the dramatically more democratic and pleasant Florida environment. In this way, Santilli left the Boston area in June 1989 with the firm determination never to return to Cambridge and the Boston area for the rest of his life.

It should be disclosed here that, following thirty years of vexations suffered by Santilli and his associates around the world, things are now different. In fact, {\it the success of the new industrial applications of hadronic mechanics have provided more than sufficient money to hire a leading investigative agency in Washington, D. C. for the collection of the necessary documentation of any additional scientific crime, as well as provide sufficient funds to have primary national lawfirms on a stand-by for bringing the organization to justice. For Santilli's physical safety (see his last will in Footnote 15 of Eqs. (1.5.49) of Volume I), all these actions are now in the hands of other True Americans, while the organized scientific crime is still under the illusion that Santilli is acting via pseudonyms. In open language, since Santilli knows well Harvard's parlance but its use is repugnant to him, the covert scientific crime is nowadays opposed by an equally covert organization, the different being that the latter is acting in the interest of America and human knowledge.} }

In closing, Santilli would like to express his unbounded appreciation and gratitude to David Peaslee of the U. S. Department of Energy and Shlomo Sternberg of the Departments of Mathematics of Harvard University and Tel-Aviv University, because, without their serious commitment to scientific knowledge reinforced by such a massive opposition, hadronic mechanics could not possible have seen the light.

Following the identification and denunciation of facts mandated by even a minimal commitment to dignity, democracy and knowledge, Santilli has expressed several times his {\it scientific} appreciation to Coleman, Weinberg and Glashow because their opposition multiplied, rather than weakened, his resolve to build hadronic mechanics, as,well as because they literally made to Santilli the very precious gift of scientific priorities since any lack of participation, let alone obstruction, in basic advances is a gift of scientific priorities to others (Palm Harbor, Florida, December 24, 2007.

***************************************

Footnote 8, Section 6.1.4, Volume II:

ORGANIZED SCIENTIFIC CRIME AT THE AMERICAN, BRITISH AND OTHER PHYSICAL SOCIETIES. As one can verify by inspecting his CV, Santilli routinely published his papers up to 1983 at the journals o the American, British, Italian, Russia, and other physical societies (the British one being known as "Institute of Physics", IOP).

However, all papers submitted from 1984 on to these societies by the author and his associates (for hundreds of submissions for over two decades) were rejected on purely political arguments because without visible scientific content. Renato Angelo Ricci, then president of the Italian Physical Society, stated in writing that the rejections originated from Harvard University, thus providing evidence of the obvious, namely, that, after the acts of organized scientific crime denounced in Footnote 1, Sidney Coleman, Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow and other members of their organization increased their evil action by "requesting" (in view of the unfortunate academic power ranted to them by accomplices for personal favors) the American, British, Italian and other physical societies to reject all papers by Santilli and his associates. Additional evidence the single origination of this global occurrence is due to the incredible simultaneity in the initiation of rejections by "all" physical societies.

The damage caused to society by this world wide organized scientific crime has been serious, because it has delayed the search and developments of basically new forms of energies and fuels for three decades so far, hence demanding specific documented denounciations in future footnotes. At this moment, to give the flavor of the lack of any credible scientific conduct at said societies, we mention that a routine "argument" for rejection was that "the characteristic quantities are arbitrary parameters with no physical value." Hence, the representations of the spheroidal shape of a hadron via the semiaxes $1/n_1^2, 1/n_2^2, 1/n_3^2$ and its density with the value $1/n_4^2$ (given by the rest energy divided by the volume) were rejected because dubbed arbitrary. Yet, the same societies routinely accepted as physical the true parameter $q$ in thousands of ;publications in the $q$-deformations $AB - qBA$; or said societies accepted, as physical, different values of neutrino and quark masses. The problem for said societies is that the shape and density of hadrons are indeed physical because experimentally measured, while neutrino and quark masses are purely hypothetical since they cannot be directly measured.

******************************************

Footnote 6, Section 6.1.4, Volume II:

ORGANIZED SCIENTIFIC CRIME AT CORNELL AND OTEHR UNIVERSITIES. As recalled in Section 1.5, Santilli has been dubbed "the most plagiarized physicist of the 20-th century," because of systematic copying ad litteram of his (copyrights) originations without a proper quotation of the original works in their proper chronological order. The clear aim by authors and friendly editors alike at the journals of various physical and mathematics societies is, not only depriving Santilli of his origination., but also suppressing the {\it italian} character of the paternity in favor of other ethnic connotations, because the ethnic character of the problems afflicting current physical research is dismissed only by the naive or the accomplice. These are actions of serious scientific crimes (see the definition in the footnote of Section 6.1.1) that must be denounced as a necessary condition for their containment, because supine acceptance would be the best way to serve said crime with a silver plate.

The plagiarisms, occurred in thousands of papers, of Santilli's origination of the deformation of Lie algebras in his paper [33] of 1967, has been denounced in various footnotes of these volumes, jointly with the blatant complicity of the editors of the American, British, Italian, French and other physical as well as mathematical societies, due to their documented awareness of said origination. In any case, Santilli is the best known and most active author in Lie-admissible structures. Even in the absence of Santilli's communications to various editors, their lack of knowledge of the Lie-admissible character of the deformation and of the largest literature in the field identified instantly the organized character of the plagiarisms, since editors of primary scientific societies are neither stupid nor ignorant. Numerous other plagiarisms of Santilli's originations are denounced in other footnotes.

In this footnote we feel obliged to denounce one of the moist insidious and organized plagiarisms, those on Santilli's paternity [4] of the symmetry transformations (6.1.9) of the universal invariant (6.1.8). Among numerous plagiarisms of such a paternity scheduled for due prosecution in court, a documented case is that perpetrated by the physicists Fabio Cardone (Consiglio Nazionale Ricerche, Rome, Italy), Roberto Mignani (Terza Universita'. Roma, Italy) and Alessio Marrani (Universita' dell'Aquila, Rome, Italy) under the documented financial and other support by the Istituto Nazionale Fisica Nucleare, Rome, Italy (see thelawsuit at scientificethics.org).

said physicists clearly identified Santilli's paternity [4] of symmetry transformations (6.1.9) and related background in their works up to 1992, to ignore it altogether in all subsequent works, thanks to the assured complicity by various "editors". Santilli attacks without provocation. However, Santilli always "responds" to organized scientific crime. hence, a lawsuit was filed in the U. S. Federal Court, the district in Tampa, Florida, as per public records available at that court with mirror site available at www.scientificethics.org. These legal actions are only at their initiation at this writing (December 22, 2007).

The organized scientific crimes in Italy, as well as in England and othrr countries, are denounced elsewhere. In this footnote we want to have a record of the complicity by Cornell University arXiv. As one can see in said arXiv under "Fabio Cardone", said physicists were allowed by the arXiv the uploading in the section hep-th (theoretical high energy physics) of a series of papers plagiarizing identically (even in the symbols) paper [4a], including the Minkowski-Santilli isospace and the Lorentz-Santilli isosymmetry, {\it without any quotation at all of the originating paper published decades earlier!} Jointly, the anonymous editors of Cornell's arXiv rejected any uploading of Santilli's papers in the same hep-th, as necessary for comparison by serious scholars, even though the rejected papers had been accepted for publication in refereed journals and had been authorized for uploading in hep-th by physicists routinely uploading in that section, as per self-created "rules" of the archive. Under such documented evidence, anybody who does not admit the existence of an organized scientific crime attempting to control scientific knowledge for sinister personal gains, is either naive or an accomplice.\index{Cornell University}\index{Arxiv}

Evidently, Cornell University is a defendant in the above quoted law suit against the trio Cardone-Mignani-Marrani (see scientificethics.org) because Santilli always "responds" to acts of organized scientific crime. What is distressing is the damage caused by the arXiv to the credibility of American Science the world over, since Cornell's arXiv are presented as fully democratic archives merely intended for scientific exchanges, while in reality they are used for the manipulation of scientific knowledge, as it is the case of Wikipedia,\index{Wikipedia} the self-appointed "free" encyclopedia equally used for sinister personal gains (see the footnote at the end of this section).

More distressing is the power that has been permitted to be achieved by the organized scientific crime due to widespread alligiance to the organization, with ensuing absence of controls or intervention by government. Cornell's arXiv operate under partial financial support by the U. S. National Science Foundation. As such, they are obliged to operate in strict verification of U. S. federal Laws. yet, the anonymity of the "editors" of Cornell's arXiv is in flagrant violation of aid federal Laws requiring full transparency of any action under public U. S. support. Most distressing is the fact that the anonymity of the editors of the arXiv is supported by such powerful organization that the president and the librarian of Cornell University have been forced to acquire personal liabilities in their place! Even though the real names of the real "editors" are well known to anybody who is minimally informed of said organized scientific crime, it has been impossible until now to obtain their formal disclosure in the arXiv, in flagrant violation of U. S. Laws demanding transparency, an occurrence fueling rumors that said organized scientific crime includes members of U. S. Federal Agencies. Santilli hopes that the latter rumors are dismissed in the only credible way: by U. S. Federal;l Agencies mandating the disclosure of the names of the editors of the arXiv. In any case, the pertinent question is: "Why are the arXiv is operated under anonymity?", the obvious answer being: "To protect evil schemes".

Additionally, the public origin of partial funding demands that Cornell's arXiv operate under strict rules of scientific democracy, the arXiv being mere archives for scientists the world over to exchange ideas and research. To clarify this crucial legal point, the archives do not constitute "publications" as understood in science and, as such, they do not require editorial review of their content, except routine evident restrictions in the use of appropriate scientific language. This blatant additional violation of U. S. Federal Laws by Cornell's arXiv under protected anonymity of its perpetrator duels additional rumors on the apparent existence at U. S. Federal Agencies of members of said organized scientific crimes, rumors that, again, can only be dismissed in the only credible way: by U. S. Federal Agencies imposing the implementation by Cornell University of U. S. Laws.

Educators, publishers and colleagues alike should be warned not to be added as defendants in the ongoing legal proceedings at the U. S. Federal Court (scientificethics.org) in the event of plagiarizing Santilli's originations without a full identification of paternity with the quotation of the originating works in proper chronological order. Santilli always "responds" to scientific misconducts and, after his death, special funds have been put aside to continue the "response" (see the Legal Notice at the beginning of the volume) - December 24, 2007.

*****************************************

Footnote 9, Section 6.1.4, Volume II:

LACK OF TECHNICAL CRITICISM BY THE ORGANIZED SCIENTIFIC CRIME. The aspect most self-damaging for the initiators of the organized scientific crime against the research herein reported, Sidney Coleman, Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow , and their accomplices throughout the world is {\it the complete absence of technical criticisms of Santilli's research published, as for the latter, in refereed journals, all obstructions being perpetrated via manipulatory evil actions.} Following such a high example, the behavior became widespread, although showing a skin deep mind blinded by uncontrollable academic and other greed in a totally self-damaging posture for the perpetrators and their otherwise innocent people, since opposing highly technical presentations such as those of these volumes via completely nontechnical “arguments” is self-damaging academic trash with no scientific value whatsoever.

For instance, when exposed to possible deviations from Einsteinian doctrines, a (decreasing) number of academicians usually retort to criticisms on tangential issues of no scientific meaning of value, again, due to the lack of technical arguments. As one among many illustrations, a "criticism " moved against Santilli's studies is that "the public records in Tallahassee, Florida, shows the Institute for Basic Research has having Santilli and his wife as the sole officers." This type of "criticism" is ventured by amoral and asocial academicians abusing their temporary academic credibility from a naive audience, who are solely interested in exploiting and dishonoring the name of Albert Einstein for personal gains in money, prestige and power.

For a similar misconduct, the reader may inspect the denounciations of scientific crime at Wikipedia in the footnote at the end of this subsection, as well as numerous other later on.

*****************************************

Footnote 10, Section 6.1.4, Volume II:

ORGANIZED SCIENTIFIC CRIME AT WIKIPEDIA. In the footnote of Eqs. (6.1.9), we have denounced the organized scientific crime (as defined in Footnote 1 of this volume) perpetrated by the anonymous editors of Cornell University arXiv in violation of various U. S. Federal Laws that mandated ongoing legal prosecutions (see scientificethics.org).

In this footnote we must denounce the corresponding organized scientific crime perpetrated by the equally anonymous editors of Wikipedia (see wikipedia.org). Readers should be aware that the anonymous "editors" of arXiv and those of Wikipedia are ether the same or belong to the same scientific organization.\index{Wikipedia}\index{ArXiv} Also, any denial that the Arxiv, Wikipedia and other conduits operate independently from Harvard University, MIT, Princeton University and other "leading" colleges, would be the ultima collapse of credibility and human dignity.

Wikipedia is a web advertised as a {\it "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit,"} or advertised as {\it "an encyclopedia collaboratively written by many of its readers."} As documented below, this advertisement is false, thus very damaging to the image of America through the world, as it is the case for the arXiv. It appears that the anonymous editors of both the arXiv and Wikipedia could not care less for such a damage, since they appear as being solely intent in exploiting America for personal gains. In any case, nothing can be more offensive and demeaning than the false proffering of democracy and freedom, particularly when perpetrated under anonymity, since such a misbehavior offends the very roof of human, let alone scientific values.

To begin our documentation, in the Wikipedia web site one can read at the top of the page under "Ruggero Santilli" the statement as of today, December 22, 2007:

{\it Ruggero Maria Santilli (born 1935) is an Italian-American physicist and a proponent of fringe scientific theories.}

and then, in the "categories" at the bottom of the same page, the classification of Santilli's research as belonging to {\it "fringe science".} Santilli feels proud of this dubbing because it denotes novelty, and it is appreciative toward Wikipedia anonymous editors.

What must be denounced in the strongest possible terms is the {\it organized discriminations by Wikipedia anonymous editors in dubbing Santilli and others as fringe science physicist while praising instead members of their organized scientific crime, as done in th pages for Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, Edward Witten and others without denouncing their scientific misconducts.} A posturing of this type denotes, again, a skin deep mind because, rather than achieving the desired intent of demolish the academic credibility of some and building up that of others, in reality it is very damaging to Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow, Edward Witten and other member of the organization, trivially, because said posturing mandates the identification of their scientific misconduct, not per Santilli personal; opinions, but under the Laws of the United States of America.

As an incidental note, Sidney Coleman managed to have no page at Wiklipedia, an occurrence typical of his covert operations, thus fueling rumors that he is one of Wikipedia's anonimous editors, and perhaps one of his heads, an issue expected to be resolved thanks to the values of the constitution of the United States of America.

To obliterate its credibility, the removal of "fringe science" in Santilli's page has been rejected by Wikipedia anonymous editors, while the addition of "fringe science" to the pages for Weinberg. Glashow, Witten and others has been rejected too thus establishing the organized character of the discrimination and the need to peek into the occurrence, because Santilli never attacks unprovoked, but always "responds" to scientific misconducts.

To begin, Wikipedia's anonymous editors consider "fringe science" research conducted at Harvard University under DOE research grants numbers ER-78-S-02-47420.A000, AS02-78ER04742, DE-ACO2-80ER10651; DE-ACO2-80ER-10651.A001, and DE-ACO2-80ER10651.A002, which contracts were specifically granted and used to initiate research on a structural generalization of Einsteinian doctrines and quantum mechanics as necessary for new clean energies and fuels. Hence, the only credible explanation for dubbing "fringe science" official research by the Government of the United States of America is open opposition to its conduction for personal gains, in full alignment with the physicists at Harvard University who openly opposed said research contracts to hardly credible, yet documented levels now internationally condemned [89,90]. If this is not an organized scientific crime as per the definition in Footnote 1 of this volume, what else could it credibly be?

Santilli has established in various refereed publications (see, e.g., paper [86] of 2002 (see also Section 6.1.6), that string theories are afflicted by catastrophic mathematical and physical inconsistencies because their time evolutions are noncanonical at the classical level and nonunitary at the operator level, namely, a structure indicated in undergraduate studies that does not preserve the basic unit. On mathematical grounds, the lack of preservation of the unit of the field causes the collapse of the entire mathematical structure under the time evolution. On physical grounds, string theories as conventional advertised do not predict the same numbers under the same conditions at different times,. do not have time invariant Hermiticity - observability, violate causality )as proved by a graduate student), and have other horrendous inconsistencies that are dubbed "fringe science" by Wikipedia anonymous editors. Fine.

Let us now peek into the research conducted by Edward Witten at the Institute for Advanced Studies in Princeton, who has used large public funds in research on string theologies without a mention, let alone a disproof of the catastrophic inconsistencies of his studies published in refereed journals, with the understanding that Santilli has secured documentations and eyewitnesses so as to prevent witten denying knowledge.. This behavior is in violation of U. S. federal Laws in the use of public funds, let alone in violation of minimal rules of scientific ethics and accountability. To clarify whether the latter claim is true or false, U. S. citizens who care about dignity and democracy in our country should file legal action against the Institute for Advanced Studies and against Witten, so as to ascertain, in the only credible way, that in court, whether their use of public funds has been legal or illegal, the condemnation by posterity being already set.

Secondly, Santilli has proved since 1981[88,106] that quarks cannot have gravity (because gravity can solely be defined in our spacetime while quarks cannot, which studies are defined as "fringe science" by Wikipedia's anonymous editors. Fine. But this dubbinbg demands the comparative appraisal of research conducted under large public funds over decades by Weinberg, Glashow, and other quark theologists without the disprove of Santilli's objections necessarily published in a refereed journals as those of the original papers [88,109]. This behavior by Weinerg, Ghashow and other quark theollogists is also in flagrant violation of U. S. Federal Laws, let alone minimal rules of scientific ethics and accountability. To establish whether this claim is true or false, citizens who care for dignity and democracy in America should file a lawsuit against the responsible conduits who received federal money (Harvard University initially and now the University of Texas at Austin for Weinberg, and Harvard University initially and now Boston University for Glashow) as well as against Weinberg and Glashow as individuals (see the footnote following Eqs. (6.2.9) for documentary evidence of knowledge of quark inconsistencies by Weinberg and Glashow).

Similarly, Santilli has reached an exact and invariant representation of the neutron as a hadronic bound state of a proton and an electron according to its synthesis in the core of stars (see Section 6.2). By comparison, according to quark theologies, the proton and the electron "disappear" at the time of the neutron synthesis as being replaced by the hypothetical quarks and, then, at the time of the neutron decay, the proton and the electron simply "reappear" in our world. According to Wikipedia, Santilli's research belongs to "fringe science", while that by notorious quark theollogists, such as Steven Weinberg, Sheldon Glashow and other members of their organization belongs to "fundamental physics concepts."

The ultimate obliteration of Wikipedia's credibility and its patent of allegiance to the organized scientific crime on Einsteinian doctrines, is the praising of Weinberg, Glashow, Witten and so many others for their research on Einstein gravitation conducted under public financial support without any consideration whatsoever, let alone the dismissal required by ethics and the law, of the litany of catastrophic inconsistencies suffered by that theory (Section 1.4).

{\it Since the members of the organized scientific crime are blinded by their uncontrolled greed, fervor and posture of power, they should be warned that the misconducts perpetrated at Wikipedia, the arXiv, the American Physical Society, and other scientific conduits under their control, may well mandate legal actions for improper use of public funds and other violation of U. S. laws filed against the colleges harboring said scientific crime and abusing federal funds, including but not limiting to Harvard University, Boston University, MIT, The University of Texas at Austin, Princeton University, the Institute for Advanced studies, Cornell Universities and other "leading" institutions. These lawsuits have not been filed to date, not because of lack of money, but to prevent a scandal with immense damage to America's science. }

Let us pass to the additional documentation of control of of Wikipedia's scientific contents under the offensive image of false freedom and democracy. Wikipedia page on "Ruggero Maria Santilli" contains numerous inaccuracies that Santilli as well as various other concerned scientists, corrected to see their corrections instantly rejected.

For instance, Wikipedia's anonymous editors state under Santilli's "Biography" that {\it "in 1978 he [Santilli] was briefly involved in research at Harvard University,"} Santilli corrected the error in the word "briefly" with the words {\it "three academic years (1977 to 1982)"} since the latter are documented in the three DOE grants ER-78-S-02-47420.A000, AS02-78ER04742, DE-ACO2-80ER1065, the first for Santilli as member of the Lyman Laboratory of Physics and the remaining two for Santilli as member of the Department of Mathematics at Harvard University (see the details in book [89] and the documentation in the 1,132 pages of volumes [90]). Since the error of the word "briefly" is beyond credible doubt, and so is its documentation, the pertinent questions is: "Why Wikipedia's are anonymous editors so stubborn in minimizing Santilli stay at Harvard University to the extreme fervor of losing their credibility?" The only credible answer is that they oppose Santilli research for personal evil gain, thus perpetrating an organized scientific crime.

In the event readers are interested in defending the dignity of the United States of America, we reproduce below the motivation for the rejection of the above correction, including its threat: {\it "Your edits to this page were improperly sourced and reflected a strong personal point of view. If you continue to edit WP without using recognized and verifiable sources and expressing a non-neutral point of view, you could find yourself blocked from editing. Mathsci (talk) 21:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)"}

Next, the Wikipedia page on Santilli indicates his work on "hadronic mechanics" but without any definition of the same, thus de facto associating it to "Fringe Science." To help readers unaware of the manipulations, Santilli attempted to add at least some indication of what hadronic mechanics is, with the following sentence:

{\it A primary objective of hadronic mechanics is to attempt a quantitative representation of the neutron as synthesized in stars from protons and electrons, so as to avoid the "disappearance" of the latter particles at the time of the synthesis (due to their replacement with quarks) and then their "reappearance" at the time of the neutron decay. The generalization (called lifting) of quantum into hadronic mechanics (realized via a simple nonunitary transform applied to the totality of the quantum formalism) is necessary in view of the known inapplicability of quantum mechanics for the representation of the neutron as a bound state of a proton and an electron (the latter would require a "positive" binding energy under which Schroedinger's equations no longer admits physical solutions). The declared hope of the studies, if successful, is that a number of potential applications of hadron physics (such as a conceivable stimulated decay of the neutron, with the release of 0.78 MeV energy; a conceivable opening for new energies; a conceivable recycling of nuclear waste via its stimulated decay; and others) are crucially dependent on the electron being a physical constituent of the neutron. Progress in the field are reported in www.i-b-r.org/Hadronic-Mechanics.htm.}

The above editing was rejected, again, with a threat as for the preceding one.

So, the pertinent question is: "Why are Wikipedia's anonymous editors so interested in suppressing even a short definition of hadronic mechanics, while presenting very long reviews of catastrophically inconsistent theories (such as: quark deceptions, string theories, dark matter schemes and co, see Chapter 1), to the extreme fervor of completely losing credibility?" The only credible answer is: because they oppose structural generalizations of Einsteinian doctrines for personal sinister gains in disrespect of mankind's need for advances.

Another rather universal attack by the organized scientific crime against Santilli's research is something to the effect that {\it "Santilli publishes his papers in his own journal of which his wife is the publisher." } It is truce that Santilli is the organizer and editor in chief of the Hadronic Journal. It is true that his wife Carla Santilli is in charge of the hard administrative work allowing the implementation of true scientific democracy.\index{Carla Santilli} It is true that Santilli has published papers in his journal. The studious intellectual dishonesty emerges in all its light when the biggest number of publications on hadronic mechanics in otehr refereed journals the world over is intentionally suppressed.

What is astonishing is that the fervor of the organized scientific crime is pushed to such extreme as being clearly self-damaging. In fact, any serious scholars will inspect Santilli's curriculum and see that the above proffered perception is false and dishonest. Equally astonishing is the fact that the religious fervor by the anonymous editors of Wikipedia is such that they do not even see their own blatant contradictions because, on one side they attempt to project the dishonest perception that Santilli solely publishes in his journal while Santilli's work listed by them was published by very distinguished houses. The climax of blinding fanatic fervor is reached when corrections made for their own benefit are rejected!

Yet another misrepresentation Santilli unsuccessfully tried to correct in Wikipedia is the statement (still there as of today December 22, 2007): {\it "In 1999, Santilli established the International Committee for Scientific Ethics and Accountability to "oppose scientific frauds, plagiarisms, and deceptions," which stated that it would sue anyone who performed various acts, such as anyone who plagiarized "either in part or in full, the following parametric deformation of Lie theory, and of Heisenberg equation in their infinitesimal and finite versions".[14]."}

Santilli attempted to edit the latter statement with the new sentence: {\it "The ''International Committee for Scientific Ethics and Accountability'' is an international committee (including Santilli's participation), intended to "oppose scientific frauds, plagiarisms, and deceptions," which states that it would sue, and in fact does sue, anyone who plagiarize "either in part or in full," works by Santilli and other scientists without the proper quotation of their origination in their proper chronological order."} This editing was rejected like the preceding ones.

The latter suppression belongs to another posturing by the organized scientific crime to the effect that "Santilli is alone, he has no followers and all actions in his favor are conducted by him under pseudonyms." Such a posturing is evidently necessary to complete the organized scheme of "Fringe science." As a consequence, the organized scientific crime claims that Dott. Carlo Marafioti, president of the Santilli-Galilei Foundation in London, England (see www.santilli-galilei.com) is a pseudonym used by Santilli, while in reality Marafioti is a real name for a real resident of London who acts independently from Santilli to the point that he has never met Santilli to date.

Similarly, the organized scientific crime claims that William Pound, the chairman of the International Committee on Scientific Ethics and Accountability, is a pseudonym Santilli uses for his action. In this case, the organized scientific crime is indeed correct in stating that "William Pound" is a pseudonym. However, he is a real person, a scientist belonging to the Cantabridgean community. By remembering the physical threats, let alone loss of academic positions, suffered against Santilli by the cantabridgean organized scientific crime (see Footnote 1 of this volume), William Pound cannot disclose his real name because of the certain termination of his academic position, disruption of his family life and other acts of asocial misconduct perpetrated by the organized scientific crime due to its total impunity caused by total control.

At any rate, the dishonest perception that Santilli is alone in his studies on hadronic mechanics is fully qualified as a scientific crime by the 90 pages long General Bibliography of hadronic mechanics (see the listing in www.i-b-r.org) including over one thousand papers published in journals the world over, some thirty post Ph. D. level monographs, and about sixty volumes of conferences proceedings, for an estimated total of over twenty thousands pages of published research.

The most distressing aspect of this human and scientific decay is that, in the fanatic fervor of their cause, the perpetrators do not realize the huge damage they inflict to themselves and to their innocent people, an occurrence unreassuringly reminiscent of the origin of the problems in WWII paid by all societies, because scientific truth always emerges, and opposing the surpassing of Einsteinian doctrines is indeed a crime against mankind(December 24, 2007).

******************************************

Footnote 11, Section 6.1.5, Volume II:

ORGANIZED SCIENTIFIC CRIME AT THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN IOWA IN CEDAR FALLS AND OTEHR UNIVERSITIES. In Footnote 1 of this volume, we have denounced the opposition against Santilli's research reported in these volumes initiated in 1978 by Sidney Coleman, Steven Weinberg and Sheldon Glashow at Harvard University, opposition that lead to: Santilli leaving Harvard in with the continuation of his DOE grants under a different conduit; the inability by Santilli to secure any academic job anywhere in the USA despite the availability at that time of DOE support; the systematic rejections from 1983 on of all papers on hadronic mechanics by the journals of the American, British, Italian and other physical societies (with Renato Angelo Ricci, then in control of the Italian physical society, openly admitting in the written rejection their origination from Harvard University); physical threats to Santilli while president of the Institute for basic Research then located within the compound of Harvard University; and other asocial and ascientific acts reported in detail in book [89] with detailed documentation in the three volumes [90]. In this footnote, we denounce an additional illustration of the truly incredible litany of obstructions suffered by Santilli following the publication of Refs. [89.90].

In 1990 the Physics and Mathematics Departments of the University of Northern Iowa in Cedar Falls organized the {\it Fifth International Workshop on Hadronic Mechanics and Nonpotential Interactions,} whose proceedings were subsequently published by Nova Science. The organization of the meeting was done by a Scientific Committee including the following scientists from the U.S.A.: A. O. Barut (University of Colorado); W. Kim (John Hopkins University); M. McCrimmon (University of Virginia); H. C. Myung, Conference Chairman (University of Northern Iowa); M. Osborn (University of Wisconsin at Madison); A. A. Sagle (University of Hawaii); J. A. Wolf (University of California at Berkeley); and various other foreign scientists. Among some of the leading U.. S. participants were: G. M. Benkart (University of Wisconsin in Madison); C. P. Jacobs ( (Clemson University); M. Kynion (University of Utah); M. Lee (University of Northern Iowa); M. A. Lohe (Duke University); F. Mansouri ( University of Cincinnati); P. Moylan (Pennsylvania State University); S. Okubo (Syracuse University); E. J. Taft (Rutgers University); M. L. Tomber (Michigan State University); C. Wolf (North Adams State College); and numerous other foreign participants.

When Santilli received copy of the conference poster (still existing in his office), he could not contain his joy at that his efforts on the construction of hadronic mechanics were continued by colleagues, but his joy was short lived. In fact, Santilli contacted H. C. Myung with the proposal for his talk at which Myung called Santilli indicating that {\it "The conference has been organized under the condition you should not participate.} Santilli was so astonished that he requested to repeat the statement, at which point Santilli initiated pressures to identify the origin of the prohibition. Being a pure mathematician, Myung insisted that {\it The prohibition originates from the Department oh Physics of our university and not from the Mathematics Department.} At that point, under serious pressures, Myung had to disclose that the local department of physics was acting under order by {\it physicists from Harvard University.} Santilli mounted his pressures by stating {\it How can they possibly do something like that against me when I did nothing against them and do not even know their names?} Under additional severe pressures Myung disclosed that {\it They would manage to have their grants terminated.}

Santilli then contacted S. Okubo with a letter of complaint, and subsequently called him to heat Okuko saying that {\it if you participate to that meeting it will be the end of hadronic mechanics in the USA.} Santilli then mounted his pressure on the other organizers, for instance, by called A. Sagle and asking whether the decision to prohibit the founder of hadronic mechanics from participating at a meeting specifically in his field was ethically sound, at which Sagle responded {\it I have no comments.} Numerous other pressures by Santilli turned out as being fruitless. When faced with the possibility that Santilli would show up at the conference, a preventing threat arrived: {\it In the event you appear, the meeting will be cancelled.}

Santilli did not appear at the meeting, but Santilli always "responds" to scientific misconduct. To understand the gravity of the case, the reader should know that the most important mathematicians of the meeting (Benkart, Myung, Osborn, Sagle, Tomber and others) and the most important physicists (Okubo and others) had been Santilli's personal guests at the preceding five {\it Workshop on Lie-admissible Formulations} and at the preceding four {\it Workshops on Hadronic Mechanics,} (see Santilli's CV for the proceedings including their names), some of the costs originating from Santilli DOE grants and others from his personal funds. Moreover, three years prior to the meeting, Santilli had organized the mathematics journal {\it Algebras, Groups and Geometries,} given the position of editor in chief to H. C. Myung and appointed as editors Benkart, McCrimmon, Osborn, Sagle and Tomber). Additionally, Santilli had appointed S. Okubo as editor of the Hadronic Journal. Santilli's "response" was a written termination of of all these editorial posts because of "ethical misconduct." This written termination was delivered in copy to all participants during a session of the meeting by two foreign participants (E. Recami from Italy and A. Jannussis from Greece) who exposed themselves and did distribnute the document because simply shocked for how low the ethics had collapsed in the U. S. science under a so high an origination.

Subsequent investigations revealed that {\it the prohibition for Santilli not to participate at the Cedar Fall meeting of 1990 was part of an ongoing organized intent to void his origination of hadronic mechanics, have preferred members of the organized scientific crime write new papers in the field instantly published by accomplices in the editorial board of the American Physical Society, and thereafter grant the paternity to the latter. This is very easily achieved by simply avoiding, with the editorial complicity, the quotation of Santilli's originating papers, and then have all subsequent papers in the field only quite the orchestrated publication (something documentedly akready attempted, see the lawsuits atscientificethics.org).}

Additionally, Santilli filed a formal compliant with the Ethics Committee of the University of Northern Iowa requesting an investigation of the origin of such a deplorable act, with copies to the Federal Agencies that had partially supported the meeting. The gravity of the condition of the U. S. physics, and the dimension of its implied threat to society, can be really understood only with the admission that the power of such an evil scientific organization in the U.S.A. is so strong at the highest political and academic levels of the country, to prevent investigations on its own misconducts and the continuation of ascientific and asocial actions in complete impunity to this day (December 24, 2007).

******************************************

Footnote 38, Section 6.2.1, Volume II:

DOCUMENTATION OF ILLEGAL OPERATION BY QUARK RESEARCH. In 1979, when at the Lyman Laboratory of Physics of Harvard University, the author made 200 copies of the preprint of paper [88] indicating various impossibilities for quarks in being physical particles in our spacetime, and deposited them in person, one by one, in the mailboxes of all members of the physics departments of Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston University, Brandeis University, Tufts University and Northeaster University. In so doing, the author (then still naive) was hoping for some technical exchanges with colleagues. However, by that time, public money was already granted by the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation on the belief that quarks are physical particles in our spacetime.

None of the 200 or so colleagues who received the paper had any interest in discussing the issue. The research on quark conjectures as physical particles continued in a totally unperturbed way, of course, without any quotation of dissident view [88]. It is here claimed that this conduct is in violation of U. S. Laws since it refer to a blatant improper use of public funds that should be investigated by senators who pay their allegiance to America, rather than to minoritarian groups intent in its exploitation.

This is another reason the author believes that contemporary societies are in a condition similar to that of the Roman empire prior to the setting of the Roman Code of Laws, because of the current lack of any meaningful Scientific Code of Law. It is unfortunate for mankind that responsible authorities do not (or appear not to) understand that manipulations of scientific knowledge for personal gains in money, prestige and power causes damage to society much bigger than ordinary crimes.

*********************************************

Footnote 39, Section 6.2.1, Volume II:

ORGANIZED SCIENTIFIC CRIME IN ENGLAND. Papers [95,96] on the neutron as a hadronic bound state of a proton and an electron were submitted to the journals of the American, British, Italian, Swedish and other physical societies, to receive the most violent and offensive, yet scientifically vacuous rejections in the author's fifty years of research experience.

The case of the "review" by the (British) Royal Society deserves a special mention, in the event British colleagues are interested in containing the rapidly decay of scientific ethics in their country. It is traditional in science that advances following a historical publication are submitted to the journal of origin.

The {\it Proceedings of the Royal Society} published in 1920 Lord Rutherford's conjecture of the neutron as a "compressed hydrogen atom," a conjecture that, at that time, was very farfetched, yet it was published because, in 1920, England enjoyed a real scientific democracy.

Immediately following the achievement of the spin isotopies, the author submitted paper [95] to the {\it Proceedings of the Royal Society} with a special dedication to the memory of Lord Rutherford and a cover letter essentially explaining, in respectful academic parlance, the societal implications for new clean energies.

The repetitiously repeated rejections by the Proc. Roy. Soc. were so un-British, because using scientifically offensive language with total lack of technical content, to exclude any hope of serious science at the British Royal Society in the field at that time.

This occurrence should be complemented with rather vast documentation (currently deposited in Europe for the safety of the author's office and house) that the British Physical Society, known as the Institute of Physics (IOP), following routine publications by the author and his associates up to 1983, rejected (and continues to reject to this day) the totality of papers on hadronic mechanics by the author and all his associates.

The rejections have been so systematic to crease serious legal issues pertaining to the Statutes of Plagiarisms, Tort, Fraud and other charges that should perhaps be addressed by British subjects who care about the dignity of their country.

As an example, following about one thousand publications by the IOP on q-deformations without any quotation of their origination in Ref. [97] of 1967, the author contacted the editor in chief with a respectful letter and a copy of paper [97] requesting its quotation in subsequent papers in the field.

The editor rejected the request on grounds that, in the 1967 paper, "the equation $\lambda ab - \mu ba$ is written for nonassociative algebras with product $ab$ while the q-deformations are formulated in terms of an associative product $ab$." The author then respectfully brought o the attention of the IOP editor that: 1) associative algebras are a trivial particular case of non associative ones as kown by all educated physicists; 2) the particular associative case was indicated in paper [97]; and 3) The use of nonassociative algebras such as $ab = m\times a\times b - n\times b\times a$ implies their trivial reformulations in terms of an associative product $\times$

$$
(m\times a\times b - n\times b\times a) - (m\times b\times a - n\times a\times b) = p\times a\times b - q\times b\times a,
$$
$$
p = m - n, \; \; q = n + m.
$$

The IOP editor continued in the denial of paternity, hence creating clear legal problems that were brought to the attention of the highest levels of the IOP to no avail, and the paternity fraud of q-deformation continues to this day in a completely unperturbed way, thus offering in a silver plate beautiful grounds for legal prosecutions (in which the secretaries, usually writing letters in lieu of IOP editors believing to remain anonymous, should be spared action because innocent victims).

Needless to say, among the hundreds of rejections for over two decades, the IOP equally rejected with scientifically offensive, yet technically vacuous "motivations" all papers on the structure of the neutron as a bound state of one proton and one electron, despite petitions by various colleagues for the implications pertaining to "new" clean energies and the duty by the British physics community to participate in their search.

To understand the gravity of the condition of physical research existing nowadays in England, British colleagues should know that a main scientist (we cannot identify here to prevent his personal and scientific life from being disrupted) appealed to the head of the IOP and other British authorities for participation in the search for "new" clean energies on grounds that the Gulf Stream is down by about $30\; \%$ according to a report by the Pentagon published in the Economist, and that, when the Gulf Stream stops, England will become like Iceland in winter and like Sahara in summer.

The IOP head dismissed the appeal under the illusion that his parlance was credible, and all publications on hadronic mechanics by the IOP continued in being suppressed, particularly those dealing with new clean energies so much needed by mankind. The current situation is that the author considers offensive the very idea of additional submission to the British Institute of Physics and, in any case, publications in its journal are basically un-necessary. In the final analysis, the author has written several times in his works that {\it lack of participation in basic advances is a gift of scientific priorities to others.}

Needless to say, as it was the case for Italy (see Footnote 32 of Chapter 3), the above harsh judgment is {\it a priori} wrong if extended to the entire British physics community. Among the numerous British scientists openly opposing the current decay of scientific ethics in England I mention here Jeremy Dunning Davies of the University of Hull, who is the author of the courageous denounciation [110] as well as of truly pioneering research beyond organized financial interests in physics for which he received a Gold Medal for Scientific Merits.

The relativistic representation of model (6.2.1), Ref. [96], was eventually published in an {\it electronic} journal in China. The author then made a pilgrimage to Beijing in 1995 to personally express his appreciation to the Editor Kexi Liu, an appreciation that is recorded here as a sense of scientific duty. In this way, the new emerging China published a basic paper for possible new energies that the entire, decaying Western "civilization" suppressed.

**********************************************

Footnote 32, Appendix 3D, Volume I:

ORGANIZED SCIENTIFIC CRIME IN ITALY. The author would like to have a record of the following fully documented events.

The author initiated his Ph. D. research in the late 1960s at the Department of Physics of the University of Turin, Italy, with the Lie-admissible generalization of Lie's theory, A topic wastly unknown at thaty time in mathematics, let alone physics. Followeing the publication of his first paper in the field at il Nuovo Cimento of 1967, ref. [1] below, Tullio Regge, then head of that Physics Department and a self-qualified expert of Lie algebras, told in the author's face "you will never get an academic position in Italy." The author was subsequenrtly nominated by the Estonia Academy of Sciences for that paper amonmg the most illusttious applied mathematicians of all times (the only name of Italian origin in that list), but Regge's threat turned out to be true, and the author was forced to leave Italy after the publication of paper [1] for an academic job in the USA.

Being of Italian origin, the author filed his candidacy for the last session of the Italian "Libera Docenza" (Professorship in Physics) issued by the Italian Government, and did indeed participate in late 1974 jointly with a few other colleagues at this final session held at the University of "La Sapienza", Rome, Italy, and headed by V. De Alfaro of the University of Turin, Italy, P. Budini (now Budinovich) of the ICTP, Trieste, Italy, R. Gatto, of CERN and the University of Geneva, Switzerland (see other actions by Gatto quoted in Volume II), and others.

Even though the author constituted no threat for an academic job to their pupils in Italy (since at that time the author was Associate Professor of Physics at Boston University), and even though the author attempted to qualify himself as a scientists, thus requiring presentation of research jointly with a severe self-criticism for its limitations, the hostility by De Alfaro. Budini/Budinovich and Gatto against the research presented by the author, beginning with the relativistic extension of the Galilei group developed under the leadership of Paul Roman and with the collaboration of Jack J. Aghassi, was so furious that it turned into a rage rather inappropriate for heads of a governmental session.

In fact, De Alfaro, Budini/Budinovich and Gatto granted the "Libera Docenza" to all other participants except to the author, even though the author was the only one to held at that time an Associate Professorship in Physics at a major University in the U.S.A. and had a large record of publications, with no comparison by the other candidates, that are visible in the CV http://www.i-b-r.org/Ruggero-Maria-Santilli.htm and partly reproduced below. Additionally, by 1974 the author had received invitations for lectures at primary meetings in physics and mathematics; was teaching not only to a Graduate School in Physics in the U.S.A., but was also conducting post Ph. D. seminar courses for the colleagues in the Boston area in very advanced topics; was supervising Ph. D. students in the U.S.A. and had activity none of the other candidates could partially share. Among the publications available by 1974, we quote in chronological order:

1) The first formulation in 1967 of deformations of Lie algebras and first presentation in physics of Lie-admissible structures that subsequently lead to the construction of hadronic mechanics, Refs. [1,5,6,710] (note the publication by the Italian Physics Society and other major physics journals);

2) The relativistic extension of the Galilei group, with Paul Roman and Jack J. Aghassi, Refs. [14,-19] (note papers published by the American and Italian Physical Societies, among others);

3) The extension of the PCT Theorem to all discrete spacetime symmetries in quantum field theories, with Christos Ktorides, Refs. [22,23,25,27] (see the publication by the American Physical Society).

4) A severe, but gently written criticism of Einstein's gravitation showing in particular its incompatibility with quantum electrodynamics [24]

5) Various publications in in various fields with colleagues.

The author used to go (and continues to go) to Turin once or twice a year because of family ties. However, following the reception of (the equivalent at that time of today's) Ph. D. in physics in early 1967, the author never went back to the Department of Physics of the University of Turin, Italy, and he will never visit that department again for the rest of his life.

Another episode worth reporting is the following. The author had the privilege of frequent contacts with Nobel Laureate Abdus Salam, both personally and in his capacity as Director of the International Center for Theoretical Physics (ICTP)\index{ICTP} in Trieste, Italy. The author wants to honor his memory here with the view that Abdus Salam was one of the few "true scientists" of the 20-th century because of the dimension of his scientific vision combined with a serious commitment to scientific democracy for qualified inquiries.

In 1967, when the author had completed his Ph. D. studies and was about to leave Italy for the U.S.A., Abdus Salam invited him for a talk at the ICTP on paper [1] below dealing with the first presentation in physics of Lie-admissible covering (or deformations) of Lie algebras. At the end of the talk, Abdus Salam suggested the author to use the Lie-admissible algebras for possible advances in the hadronic structure, a suggestion that turned out to be prophetic.

The author kept periodically in contact with Abdus Salam and visited him at the ICTP through the years. In 1992 Abdus Salam was in the final stage of his unfortunate illness. Yet, he still managed the strength to invite the author for a series of joint mathematical and physical seminars entitled {\it Isotopic lifting of Galilei's relativity,} invitation that followed the appearance in 1991 of the two volumes by the author in the field. At the time of the first and and of the following seminars, the usually crowded lecture room at the ICTP was deserted, except for Abdus Salam, a scientist just arrived from Russia and two of the author friends (of the time). Subsequent investigations revealed that P. Budini/Budinovitch had requested the members of the ICTP and of the local university not to attend the author's seminars. The human and scientific difference in stature between Abdus Salam and the local crowd is set by the fact that the former, then unable to speak and at the edge of death, still had the scientific fire to listen to the last seminar of his life, while the local crowd abstained for fear of being muddied by new mathematics and physics.

Additional episodes have confirmed the existence in the Italian physics community of an unprecedented decay of scientific ethics that the author, being of Italian origin and education, feels obliged to denounce because occurring: without any visible denunciation by the Italian press; without the awareness of most Italian people; and without any visible containment whatsoever by responsible academic and political authorities, thanks to the complicity by the Italian press.

As indicated in Footnote 14 of Chapter 1, the author's works have been plagiarized so many times to generate the dubbing of the author as the "most plagiarized physicist of the 20-th century." Whether the occurrences were intentional or not, plagiarizing colleagues have been cooperative for corrections, essentially consisting in adding missed references of direct relevance in chronological order, {\it with the exception of Italian physicists} who have rejected the author's requests for simple quotation of prior works even when plagiarized identically including the symbols.

The lack of cooperation for corrections following plagiarisms, copyright infringements and paternity frauds was so incredible to force the author to file lawsuits in both the U. S. A. and Italy (see http://www.scientificethics.org). At any rate, evidence established that, among all scientists the world over, the author was forced to file lawsuits ONLY against Italian physicists and their backers.

The legal problems are escalating at this writing (November 7, 2007) because presidents and/or directors of the academic and governmental institutions involved in the lawsuits have refused any intervention in support of scientific ethics and accountability under public financial support, thus activating the Statute of {\it Respondeat Superior} for both, individual as well as institutions.

Additional serious shadows in the Italian physics community were caused by the take over in the early 1980s of the Italian Physical Society by Renato Angelo Ricci who systematically rejected hundreds of papers by the author and several independent colleagues in the various aspects presented herein. These systematic rejections lasted for over two decades, namely, from 1983 until the replacement of Renato Angelo Ricci as president at the turn of the century. The problems for the Italian physics community were not caused by the rejections {\it per se,} but by their motivation carrying Ricci's signature, such as "Your paper is rejected because the research is not accepted by Harvard University as your former affiliation." This established that Ricci was obeying orders from Harvard University and, in turn provided additional documentation, this time from Italy, of the scientific misconduct by Harvard University denounced and documented in Refs. [93,94].

As a result of all these extremely unpleasant experiences, the author is now reluctant to have any scientific exchange with Italian colleagues for fear that, following additional release of technical information, suggestions and material, there are additional plagiarisms, copyright infringements and paternity frauds forcing the filing of additional lawsuit, since the reported behavior appears to be normal in the current Italian physics community and, in any case, it is not denounced by the Italian press or opposed by Italian authorities, as documented in court beyond credible doubt.

Despite all the above, negative judgments are {\it a priori} wrong unless expressed with due exceptions, and this is particularly true for Italy due to the complexity and diversification of its culture. In fact, the author is sincerely pleased to report that his most important physics papers were published by the Italian Physical Society up to 1983 and then, again, new basic publications after the removal of Renato Angelo Ricci as president in the early 2000s. Similarly, the author is sincerely pleased to report that his most important mathematical papers were published by the Rendiconti Circolo Matematico di Palermo. If scientific ethics is implemented with the quotation of the original contributions in chronological order, other physical and mathematical societies have to follow the above identified leadership of the Italian societies.

Other occurrences, including the cancellation by Jaca Books of Milan, Italy of a signed and funded contract for the publication in Italian of "Il Grande Grido"; three lawsuits for plagiarisms and paternity fraud files against Italian physicists; the very unreassuring episode of the invited creation in 1995 of the Istituto di Ricerche di Base, at the Castle Prince Pignatelli in Monteroduni, Molise, Ita, and its organized suppression in 1996 following the appointment of 145 leading members in some 30 countries; and other documentation of ethical decay in the Italian physics community; are outlined and documenetd elsewhere.

PUBLICATIONS BY R. M. SANTILLI AS OF 11974:

\noindent [1] R. M. Santilli, Embedding of Lie algebras in nonassociative structures, Nuovo Cimento 51, 570-576 (l967) Seminar given at the ICTP, Trieste, Italy. Paper nominated by the Estonian Academy of Sciences (l989) as signaling the birth of Lie-admissible algebras in physics.

\noindent [2] R. M. Santilli, Causality groups of the S-matrix, Nuovo Cimento 55B, 578-586 (l968) Seminar delivered at the University of S. Carolina, Columbia

\noindent [3] R. M. Santilli, Phase space symmetries of a relativistic plasma, Nuovo Cimento Vol. 56B, 323-326 (l968)

\noindent [4] R. M. Santilli, Causality and relativistic plasma, contributed paper to a Coral Gable Conference, printed in Relativistic Plasma, O. Buneman and W. B. Pardo, Editors, Benjamin, New York pp. 33-40 (l968)

\noindent [4] R. M. Santilli, Some remarks on causality, Contributed paper to Coral Gables Conference on Relativistic Plasma, Benjamin, New York (l968)

\noindent [5] R. M. Santilli, An Introduction to Lie-admissible Algebras, Supplemento al Nuovo Cimento Vol. 6, 1225-1249 (l968)

\noindent [6] R. M. Santilli, Dissipativity and Lie-admissible algebras, Meccanica Vol. 1, 3-11 (l969)

\noindent [7] R. M. Santilli, A Lie-admissible model for dissipative plasma, with P. Roman, Lettere Nuovo Cimento Vol. 2, 449-455 (l969)

\noindent [8] R. M. Santilli, Causality restrictions on relativistic extensions of particle symmetries, with P. Roman Int. J. Theor. Phys. Vol. 2, 201-211 (l969)

\noindent [9] R. M. Santilli, Causality restrictions and O'Rafeartaigh theorem, with P. Roman, Bull. Amer. Phys. Soc. Vol. 14, 502 (1969)

\noindent [10] R. M. Santilli, ] Haag theorem and Lie-admissible algebras, Contributed paper to the l969 Conference at Indiana Univ., Bloomington, published in Analytic Methods in Mathematical Physics R.P. Gilbert and R.G.Newton, Editors, Gordon & Breach, New York, 511-529 (l970)

\noindent [11] R. M. Santilli, Derivation of the Poincar\' covariance from causality requirements in field theory, with P. Roman, Int. J. Theor. Phys. Vol. 3, 233-241 (l970)

\noindent [12] R. M. Santilli, Relativistic quantum mechanical Galilei group, with J.J. .Aghassi and P. Roman, Bull. Amer. Phys. Soc. Vol. 15, 49 (l970)

\noindent [13] R. M. Santilli, IU(3.1)-invariant N-point functions, with P. Roman, Bull. Amer. Phys. Soc. Vol. 15, 92 (l970)

\noindent [14] R. M. Santilli, New dynamical group for the relativistic quantum mechanics of elementary particles, with J.J. Aghassi and P. Roman Phys. Rev. D Vol. 1, 2753-2765 (l970)

\noindent [15] R. M. Santilli, Relation of the inhomogeneous de Sitter group to the quantum mechanics of elementary particles, with J.J. Aghassi and P. Roman, J. Math. Phys. Vol. 11, 2297-2301 (l970)

\noindent [16] R. M. Santilli, A new relativistic dynamical group for elementary particles, Particles and Nuclei Vol. 1, 81-99 (l970)

\noindent [17] R. M. Santilli, Dynamical extensions of the PoincareŚę group: A critical analysis, Contributed paper to the Fourth Topical Conference on Resonant Particles, Univ. of Athens, Ohio (l970)

\noindent [18] R. M. Santilli, Representation theory of a new relativistic dynamical group, with J.J. Aghassi and P. Roman, Nuovo Cimento A Vol. 5, 551-590 (l971)

\noindent [19] R. M. Santilli, Inhomogeneous U(3.1)-invariant extension of vacuum expectation values, with P. Roman, Nuovo Cimento A Vol. 2, 965-1015 (l971)

\noindent [20] R. M. Santilli, Remarks on the Hermitean extension of the scattering amplitude, with P. Roman, Bull. Amer. Phys. Soc. Vol. 15, 1409 (l971)

\noindent [21] R. M. Santilli, Nonrelativistic composite elementary particles and the conformal Galilei group, with J.J. Aghassi, P. Roman and P.L. Huddleston, Nuovo Cimento A Vol. 12, 185-204 (l972)

\noindent [22] R. M. Santilli, Some examples of IU(3.1)-invariant analytic extension of N-point functions, with P. Roman and C.N. Ktorides, Particles and Nuclei Vol./ 3, 332-350 (l972)

\noindent [23] R. M. Santilli, Can the generalized Haag theorem be further generalized? with C.N. Ktorides, Phys. Rev. D Vol. 7, 2447-2456 (l973)

\noindent [24] R. M. Santilli, Partons and Gravitations, some puzzling questions, Annals of Physics Vol. 83, 108-157 (l974)

\noindent [25] R. M. Santilli, Generalization of the PCT theorem to all discrete space-time symmetries in quantum field theories, with C.N. Ktorides, Phys. Rev. D Vol. 10, 3396-3406 (l974)

\noindent [27] R. M. Santilli, Analytic approach to discrete symmetries, invited paper for the l975 Coral Gables Conference Orbis Scientiae II (1974) )

\noindent [28] R. M. Santilli, Necessary and sufficient conditions for the existence of a Lagrangian in field theory, Center for Theoretical Physics, MIT, Cambridge, MA, subsequently published in a monograph by Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany.


 
Copyright © December 24, 2007, by Committee for Scientific Ethics.
Email: science2@gte.net